Here is the progress report of 1 December 2016 on the YoungProfsNet project to review and evaluate 40 impact assesment reports on petrol station projects in Kenya.

1. Environmental and Social
YoungProfsNet
Development Practitioners
Progress report on the Kenya project to review and evaluate
Environmental Impact Assessment reports on filling station projects in Kenya
1 December 2016
Introduction
I thought that it would be useful to write a progress report on our Kenya project, as it is now six
weeks since we started our effort to complete this project. Last March we relaunched the
project with 29 members, since that time ten people joined as additional members. For the
completion of the project 50 more people offered to help with the project.
The following points will be discussed in this progress report:
• The number of team members who joined YoungProfsNet.slack.com to work on the project
• The number of team members who filled in and returned their score sheets
• A review of the combined score sheets.
First, I would like to thank the team members, who reviewed and evaluated the impact
assessment reports assigned to them and sent the score sheets to me. Hopefully, you have
learned about impact assessment by doing that. Please tell me what your experience has been.
However, as you will see below, we still have some way to go. There are two reasons for that:
1. The number of team members who have actually returned score sheets to me is relatively
small, namely only 19 and not all have returned the score sheets on all the reports assigned
to them
2. The score sheets returned are not always completely filled in, or there may be questions
about the ratings given for all the criteria on the checklist. This second point is in itself not a
problem, as it shows that the checklist and the instructions are perhaps not fully clear to the
team members. In addition, it indicates that a number of team members may have to learn a
little more to benefit from taking part in the project. Therefore, I hope that you will take my
review of your score sheets in the spirit of our learning project.
YoungProfsNet.slack.com
At this moment there are 70 people on the project-kenya channel, which means that more than
20 of you still have not joined Slack, following my invitation and reminders.
Returned score sheets
Only 19 team members have filled in and returned their score sheets to me. That means that I
still would like to receive score sheets from 70 team members, minus about five team members,
who told me that they cannot make time for the project after all.
I have combined the score sheets for all the impact assessment reports (if possible) and shall
upload these to the project-kenya channel.
Review of combined score sheets
Below I have reviewed all combined score sheets and made remarks where appropriate.
progressreportkenyaproject20161201public-161202223441.docprogressreportkenyaproject2
0161201public-161202223441.doc

2. Action:
I would like to ask you all to review your own score sheets in the light of my remarks and also
by comparing your ratings with those of other reviewers of the same report(s). You may also
discuss your ratings with them, e.g. on the project-kenya channel on Slack. You do not have to
come to the same ratings as the other reviewers, but you should discuss if the ratings for a
single criterion differ more than one point from each other. For example: if you have rated an
item 3 and another reviewer has rated the same item as 1 or 0.
My review has not been exhaustive, and by reading my remarks for different combined
scoresheets you may discover that I have overlooked one or more points in your scoresheets.
Please resubmit your scoresheets if you decide to change your ratings. Make sure that you do
not change the format of the scoresheets. I combine scoresheets using copy and paste and I
cannot do that easily if you take out columns or rows. Again, save your revised scoresheets by
adding your name to the file name and by adding V2 after your name.
Important:
Check list items will be rated as follows:
Rating Description
3 Satisfactory or good
2 Needs to be improved
1 Unsatisfactory
0 Not applicable; not available for review; not relevant
In my remarks below, I have often indicated that a rating of 1 would be appropriate if a criterion
is not met. That has included ratings, where the reviewer had rated a 0 because of the absence
of information or of e.g. appropriate maps. In retrospect, I find that a rating of 0 would then be
correct. However, I have not gone back to the different combined scoresheets to undo my
remarks. Sorry for that.
EIA_1005
No. of reviews: 1 (Ibrahim Game)
Reviews still outstanding: Dipporah Bwari, Valentine Masika, Najia Jafrin, Waqar Saleem,
Phoebe Manyonge, Patie Mponda
No remarks.
EIA_1006
No. of reviews: 1 (Lavinia Warnars)
Reviews still outstanding: Dipporah Bwari, Ana Castellanos, Ashock Rathoure, Dennis Wachira,
Ignatius, Fernanda Rivas Chavez, Nicholas Karani
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
EIA_1007
No. of reviews: 1 (Sarah Francis)
2

3. Reviews still outstanding: Okode Clifftone, Ignatius, Phathutshedzo Mugagadeli, Solomon
Mwampikita, George Lartey-Young, Gözde Aydin, Sylvia Kawera, Sarah Njenga
Remarks: Ratings for all criteria are 2 and mostly 3, which are doubtful to be correct. Even for
ISO14000 conformity the ratings given are 3. No serious review has been undertaken.
EIA_1010
No. of reviews: 1 (Sarah Francis)
Reviews still outstanding: Sylvia Kawera, Victor Mponzi, Lukas Mkwizu, Tendai Kasinganeti,
Wendo Hausner, Kevin Amunga, Santtu Palokangas, Alexjender Laudwig
Remarks: Ratings for all criteria are 2 and mostly 3, which are doubtful to be correct. Even for
ISO14000 conformity the ratings given are 3. No serious review has been undertaken.
EIA_1026
No. of reviews: 2 (Nicholas Karana, Ivana Dubravec)
Reviews still outstanding: Wendo Hausner, Kevin Amunga, Sarah Kasande, Cheyenne Mandass,
Dennis Wachira, John Oirere, Ana Castellanos
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
EIA_1027
No. of reviews: 3 (Nicholas Karani, Sidra Butt, Zander Liebenberg
Reviews still outstanding: John Oirere, Phillip Kihumuro, Mojtaba Parsaei, Ahmad Masood Khan,
May Kitiyo, Julia Pauls, Ibrahim Game (?)
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.3.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
3

4. The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#10: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
Additional review criteria
#1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1030
No. of reviews: 4 (Ibrahim Game, Lorna Nyaga, Sidra Butt, Zander Liebenberg)
Reviews still outstanding: May Kitiyo, Evelyne Mong’are, Nicholas Kiiza, Julia Pauls, Santtu
Palokangas, Lee Jukes, Fernanda Rivas Chavez, Tendai Kasinganeti,
Remarks:
General criteria
#4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.1.7: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.2.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The scores of the different reviews for the criteria 2.1.2, 2.1.2, 2.13, 2.1.4, 2.1.5 are not very
consistent
#2.3.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.1.: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
#3.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#4.3.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#4.3.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#4.4.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#14: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#15: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
Additional review criteria
#1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
4

5. #1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#6: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
If these criteria are not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
EIA_1031
No. of reviews: 1 (Lorna Nyaga)
Reviews still outstanding: Evelyne Mong’are, Mercy Mungai, Ruwa Matsika, Marcela Duque,
Dinah Nabaweesi, Cheryl Waga, Judi Krzyzanowski, Natalia Montoya
Remarks:
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#2.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#14: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#15: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
Additional review criteria
#1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#6: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
ISO14000 conformity
If there are no Regulatory, Aspects and Impact registers (as compared to a description of
regulations, aspects and impacts) the rating should be 1, not 0.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1033
No. of reviews: 1 (Sharon Nelima)
Reviews still outstanding: Mercy Munga, Anne Mogoi Birundu, Cheryl Waga, Betty Hope
Katayiki, Kwame Ashun, Koketso Buti, Seopedi Baitsile, Gaffar Ali
Remarks:
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
5

6. and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1037
No. of reviews: 5 (Sharon Nelima, Robert Ngala, Sofía Mata, Annalisa Gionni, Pauline Kiamba)
Reviews still outstanding: Koketso Buti, Angela Wagner, Joshua Kolondo, Ingrid Erazo Campo
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.7: If the number of workers has not been estimated in the report, the rating should be 1.
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
If these criteria are not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1038
No. of reviews: 1 (Robert Ngala)
Reviews still outstanding: Sarah Njenga, Joshua Kolondo, Najia Jafrin, Waqar Saleem, Florence
Nyuki, Patie Mponda
Remarks:
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1039
No. of reviews: 2 (Sarah Njenga, Lavinia Warnars)
Reviews still outstanding: Brenda Nyogo, Florence Nyuki, Ana Castellanos, Ashock Rathoure,
Gladys Nyaga, Fernanda Rivas Chavez
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
6

7. The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
EIA_1045
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Brenda Njogo, Emadick Otiego, Phathutshedzo Mugagadeli, Gladys
Nyaga, Solomon Mwampikita, George Lartey-Young, Gözde Aydin, Aineah Poulman, Alexjender
Laudwig
EIA_1047
No. of reviews: 1 (Tabitha Ouso)
Reviews still outstanding: Emadick Otiego, Victor Mponzi, Aineah Poulman, Lukas Mkwisu,
Tendai Kasinganeti, Fernanda Rivas Chavez, Gloria Boafo, Santtu Palokangas, Alexjender
Laudwig
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.1.7: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#14: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#16: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1053
No. of reviews: 1 (Tabitha Ouso)
Reviews still outstanding: Edwin Owino, Sarah Kasande, Gloria Boafo, Ivana Dubravec,
Cheyenne Mandass, Joram Thabai, Ana Castellanos
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#14: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
Additional review criteria
7

8. #4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1054
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Edwin Owino, Grace Ronoh, Phillip Kihumuro, Joram Thabai,
Mojataba Parsaei, Ahmad Masood Khan, Dennis Wachira, Ednah Getare, Ibrahim Game, Sarah
Njenga
EIA_1056
No. of reviews: 1 (Ibrahim Game)
Reviews still outstanding: Grace Ronoh, Caroline Thiong’o, Nicholas Kiiza, Alice Kasyoka, Tendai
Kasinganeti, Gaffar Ali, Ednah Getare, Santtu Palokangas, Lee Jukes, Fernanda Rivas Chavez
No remarks.
EIA_1057
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Caroline Thiong’o, Dipporah Bwari, Alice Kasyoka, Ruwa Matsika,
Marcela Duque, Dinah Nawabeesi, Phoebe Manyonge, Judi Krzyzanowski, Natalia Montoya
No remarks.
EIA_1060
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Maureen Wanzala, Anne Mogoi Birundu, Okode Clifftone, Kellen
Mwirigi, Betty Hope Katayiki, Kwame Ashun, Ignatius, Seopedi Baitsile, Nicholas Karani
No remarks.
EIA_1067
No. of reviews: 3 (Sarah Francis, Sofía Mata, Annalisa Gionni)
Reviews still outstanding: Lydia Biri, Valentine Masika, Angela Wagner, Ingrid Erazo Campo,
Sarah Njenga
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.3: (Sarah Francis: your rating here is a 3, while under General criteria #4 your rating is 1;
to me that appears to be inconsistent.)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
EIA_1068
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Dipporah Bwari, Wendo Hausner, Phoebe Manyonge, Najia Jafrin,
Waqar Saleem, Fernanda Rivas Chavez, Kevin Amunga, Patie Mponda
No remarks.
EIA_1087
8

9. No. of reviews: 3 (Nicholas Karani, Lavinia Warnars, Pauline Kiamba)
Reviews still outstanding: Okode Clifftone, Ignatius, Ana Castellanos, Ashock Rathoure, Dennis
Wachira
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.2.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
Additional review criteria
#1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#6: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
ISO14000 conformity
#1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1091
No. of reviews: 2 (Sarah Francis, Sidra Butt)
Reviews still outstanding: May Kitiyo, Phathutshedzo Mugagadeli, Sylvia Kawera, Solomon
Mwampikita, George Lartey-Young, Gözde Aydin, Julia Pauls, Zander Liebenberg
Remarks:
General criteria
#4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0. Scores of 3 and 1 by different reviewers are
inconsistent.
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0. Scores of 3 and 1 by different reviewers are
inconsistent. (See also under General criteria #4)
#1.1.7: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0. Scores of 3 and 1 by different reviewers are
inconsistent.
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0. Scores of 3 and 1 by different reviewers are
inconsistent.
#2.2.4: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
9

10. #4.3.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0. Scores of 3 and 1 by different reviewers are
inconsistent. (Sidra Butt consistently indicates that tables, maps and graphs are not included
(by a rating of 0); Sarah Francis rates these criteria consistently with a 3: this is inconsistent.)
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#14: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0. Scores of 3 and 1 by different reviewers are
inconsistent.
ISO14000 conformity
#2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1091
No. of reviews: 1 (Lorna Nyaga)
Reviews still outstanding: Wendo Hausner, Evelyne Mong’are, Victor Mponzi, Kevin Amunga,
Lukas Mkwizu, Tendai Kasinganeti, Santtu Palokangas, Alexjender Laudwig
Remarks:
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.2.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.2.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.2.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#1.4.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.2.5: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#14: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#15: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
ISO14000 conformity
#1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1103
No. of reviews: 1 (Nicholas Karani)
Reviews still outstanding: Mercy Mungai, Sarah Kasande, John Oirere, Ivana Dubravec,
Cheyenne Mandass, Cheryl Waga, Ana Castellanos
Remarks:
General criteria
10

11. #6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1117
No. of reviews: 1 (Sharon Nelima)
Reviews still outstanding: May Kitiyo, Phillip Kihumuro, Julia Pauls, Mujtaba Parsaei, Ahmaf
Masood Khan, Koketso Buti, Ibrahim Game, Arnold Moyo
Remarks:
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1129
No. of reviews: 2 (Robert Ngala, Lorna Nyaga)
Reviews still outstanding: Evelyne Mong’are, Nicholas Kiiza, Santtu Palokangas, Lee Jukes,
Joshua Kolondo, Tendai Kensinganeti, Arnold Moyo
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1135
No. of reviews: 1 (Sarah Njenga)
Reviews still outstanding: Mercy Mungai, Cheryl Waga, Ruwa Matsika, Marcela Duque, Dinah
Nabaweesi, Florence Nyuki, Judi Krzyzanowski, Natalia Montoya
No remarks.
EIA_1136
No. of reviews: 3 (Sharon Nelima, Ibrahim Game, Sidra Butt)
Reviews still outstanding: Brenda Njogo, Anne Mogoi Birundu, Koketso Buti, Betty Hope
Katayiki, Kwame Ashun, Gladys Nyaga, Seopedi Baitsile, Zander Liebenberg
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#1.4.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.3.1: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
11

12. #3.2.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
Additional review criteria:
#6: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1151
No. of reviews: 4 (Robert Ngala, Sofía Mata, Annalisa Gionni, Pauline Kiamba)
Reviews still outstanding: Emadick Otiego, Joshua Kolondo, Angela Wagner, Aineah Poulman,
Ingrid Erazo Campo
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#2.1.2: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#2.1.3: If not met, the score should be 1, not 0.
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1152
No. of reviews: 2 (Sarah Njenga, Tabitha Ouso)
Reviews still outstanding: Florence Nyuki, Najia Jafrin, Waqar Saleem, Gloria Boafo, Patie
Mponda
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
12

13. and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1155
No. of reviews: 2 (Lavinia Warnars, Pauline Kiamba)
Reviews still outstanding: Brenda Njogo, Edwin Owino, Gladys Nyaga, Ana Castellanos, Ashock
Rathoure
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
EIA_1158
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Emadick Otiego, Grace Ronoh, Phathutshedzo Mugagadeli, Aineah
Poulman, Solomon Mwampikita, George Lartey-Young, GözdeAydin
No remarks.
EIA_1159
No. of reviews: 1 (Tabitha Ouso)
Reviews still outstanding: Caroline Thiong'o, Victor Mponzi, Gloria Boafo, Lukas Mkwizu, Tendai
Kasinganeti, Alice Kasyoka, Santtu Palokangas, Alexjender Laudwig
Remarks:
General criteria
#6: As no other information/communication material for specific (groups of) stakeholders was
available (only the impact assessment report is available), the correct score should be 0.
Review criteria UNEP EIA Training Resource Manual (2002)
#3.1.3: As petrol stations are not public sector projects, the correct rating should be 0 (not
applicable).
The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 (Kenya)
#9: Are alternative technologies available for petrol stations ? A score of 0 would be applicable;
a rating of 2 or 3 would be out of order.
#16: Not applicable: score 0.
#17: Not applicable: score 0.
ISO14000 conformity
Although I have not reviewed this impact assessment report myself, it is unlikely that the report
would contain a Regulatory register (as compared with a description of applicable regulations)
and an Aspects register. A score of 3 for any of the ISO14000 conformity criteria would likely be
overrated.
GDACEL Gauteng guidelines
13

14. While we do not use these criteria for the formal rating of the impact assessment reports, these
guidelines have been drawn up specifically to review impact assessment reports for petrol
stations. Therefore, ratings of 0 (not applicable; not available for review; not relevant) are
unlikely to be correct: if ‘not available for review’ then the ratings here should be 1
(unsatisfactory).
EIA_1161
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Edwin Owino, Maureen Wanzala, Sarah Kasande, Joram Thabai, Ivana
Dubravec, Cheyenne Mandass, Kellen Mwirigi, Ana Castellanos
No remarks.
EIA_1173
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Grace Ronoh, Lydia Biri, Phillip Kihumuro, Valentine Masika, Mojtaba
Parsaei, Ahmad Masood Khan, Ibrahim Game, Arnold Moyo
No remarks.
EIA_1175
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Caroline Thiong’o, Dippora Bwari, Nicholas Kiiza, Alice Kasyoka,
Santtu Palokangas, Lee Jukes, Phoebe Manyonge, Tendai Kasinganeti, Gaffar Ali
No remarks.
EIA_Naivasha
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Lydia Biri, Sarah Francis, Anne Mogoi Birundu, Valentine Masika,
Betty Hope Katayiki, Kwame Ashun, Dinah Nabaweesi, Sylvia Kawera, Seopedi Baitsile, Nicholas
Karani
No remarks.
EIA_Wolfenberg
No. of reviews: 0
Reviews still outstanding: Maureen Wazala, Okodo Clifftone, Kellen Mwirigi, Ruwa Matsika,
Marcela Duque,Dinah Nabaweesi, Ignatius, Judi Krzyzanowski, Natalia Montoya
No remarks.
The Hague, 1 December 2016
Maarten Smies
14