Towards a home-grown approach to strategic environmental assessment: adapting practice and participation in Kenya

Abstract

Kenya is among the first countries in sub-Saharan Africa to formally require the assessment of public policies, plans and programs. National strategic environmental assessment (SEA) guidelines were finalized in 2012 to adapt and enhance SEA practice in the Kenyan context. The purpose of this research was to examine recent Kenyan SEA, with a particular emphasis on public participation, by developing and applying an analysis framework that both incorporates commonly accepted SEA principles and approaches and is cognizant of the national context in shaping SEA practice. Results reveal that a number of SEA practices are consistent with the framework in the nine cases considered, such as containing standard SEA components and developing monitoring plans. A requirement that each SEA must include educating the public about SEA is an innovative local adaptation. Results also show a number of practices that are still emerging, such as initiating SEA early and disseminating results to the participants. We conclude that SEA is still developing in Kenya, but processes for conducting it are slowly adapting to the Kenyan context.

Keywords:

• Strategic environmental assessment
• public participation
• Kenya
• SEA analysis framework

Introduction

As strategic environmental assessment (SEA) emerges across the globe, its national or regional context is increasingly viewed as an important factor in shaping and adapting it to a particular place to help ensure successful implementation (Dalal-Clayton & Sadler 2005; Fischer & Gazzola 2006; Retief et al. 2008; Marara et al. 2011; Tetlow & Hanusch 2012; Rachid & El Fadel 2013). Contextualizing SEA generally, and its public engagement in particular, is one way of adapting SEA and enhancing its practice in countries such as Kenya where SEA is still emerging.

Kenya is among the first countries in sub-Saharan Africa to formally provide for an assessment of its public policies, plans and programs (PPPs). A regulatory requirement committing the government and lead agencies to conduct SEA came in 2003 through the subsidiary environmental impact assessment/audit Regulations. While legal requirements for public participation in project-level environmental impact assessment (EIA) (e.g. notification methods and public meetings) are outlined in these regulations, no specific obligations for participation in SEA are explicitly cited, except for a requirement that the environmental analysis must include a summary of the views of key stakeholders consulted. National guidelines for SEA were prepared by the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) and formalized in 2012 (NEMA 2012). The main legislative framework established through the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999 (EMCA) was amended in 2015 to explicitly mandate SEA of all policies, programs and plans for implementation (GoK 2015).

Some 39 SEA reports are listed in NEMA’s registry to date (NEMA 2015). Despite this record of practice and its precedent-setting potential in the region, very few studies have examined SEA in Kenya. Onyango and Namango (2005) were among the first to argue for a SEA process that is cognizant of the socio-economic needs and environmental context of Kenya. Onyango and Schmidt (2007) generally commend the early Kenyan SEA framework but also critique its lack of enforceable provisions, unclear triggers, and late entry in the policy, program or plan-making process. Mutui et al. (2013) also affirm existing institutional frameworks and procedural requirements for SEA. However, their support is tempered by a future expectation that the SEA system will be ‘… re-shaped by empirical and evaluatory lessons from Kenyan’s own SEA experience and context’ (Mutui et al. 2013, p. 181). This parallels a previous call by Onyango and Schmidt (2007, p. 325): ‘Instead of merely adopting what others have done, the Kenyan framework should build on its own experiences, learn by doing, and be inspired by local needs and evidence-based information to evolve into a value-added SEA tool that meets Kenya’s sustainable societal needs’.

This ‘made in Kenya’ approach provides the focus for our paper, particularly as it relates to public participation in SEA. Broadly, this approach includes provisions for environmental assessment, auditing and monitoring that are embedded in the country’s new constitution, which also includes a right to participate in the management, development and conservation of the environment – a rare constitutional right in many countries (Constitution of Kenya 2010). Participation is also central to commonly accepted principles and best practices for SEA (IAIA 2002; Dalal-Clayton & Sadler 2005; Schmidt et al. 2005; Fischer 2007; Therivel 2010; Tetlow & Hanusch 2012), and these have found their way into the Kenyan context through its national guidelines for SEA (NEMA 2012). However, provisions for participation in SEA, even when backed by a constitutional right to participate, are very challenging to implement in a context of low rural literacy, poor access to documents, and limited capacity for meaningful public engagement.

Recent conceptual discussions advocate for movement away from technocratic, information-processing approaches to new models of environmental assessment that effectively integrate various types of knowledge, including local and traditional knowledge, for the achievement of sustainability outcomes at the landscape level (Parkins 2011; Morgan 2012; Weber et al. 2012; Gibson et al. 2016). Rega and Baldizzone (2015) demonstrate that frequent, effective and active public participation has potential to result in more effective and environmentally sustainable SEAs and PPPs. SEA also holds promise for fostering meaningful participation by including people’s voices early in the decision cycle and providing important learning opportunities, including learning for sustainability (Webler et al. 1995; Spaling et al. 2011; Diduck et al. 2012). Reviews of SEA in European and North American contexts, however, show that barriers such as lack of public involvement early in the process (Noble 2009; Illsley et al. 2014 Sinclair et al. 2015), expert-driven processes lacking broad public involvement (Rega & Bonifazi 2014), little evidence of how public input is used or addressed (Fischer 2010), and rare opportunities for open discussion of options and alternatives (Lamorgese & Geneletti 2013) may detract from the achievement of these positive outcomes. Moreover, generally weak cumulative effects assessment within SEA (Noble 2009; Weiland 2010) and ineffective use of sustainability principles to guide SEA processes (Noble 2009; Lamorgese & Geneletti 2013; Gibson et al. 2016) may mean that the broader public may be missing important opportunities to influence strategic decision-making processes.

Our preliminary findings from two SEA case studies – the Kenya Coastal Development Project (KCDP) and the Tatu City Plan – suggest that Kenya has made some positive strides towards implementing effective public participation in SEA (Walker et al. 2014). Strengths common to both cases were the inclusion of marginalized populations and integration of socio-economic concerns. Additional benefits in the KCDP case included active participation that encouraged dialogue and critical reflection, freedom to express one’s views, and compensation for participant travel and accommodation. Weaknesses in each case encompassed inadequate notice, inaccessible documents, lack of feedback and communication, and late analysis of alternatives. Although challenges to SEA participation remain, adaptation and progress are being made in the Kenyan context.

The purpose of this paper is to expand our investigation beyond these two SEA cases, by further examining how SEA is being adapted to the Kenyan context, with a particular emphasis on public participation in more recent practice. We achieve our purpose by first developing an analysis framework that both incorporates commonly accepted SEA principles and approaches, and is cognizant of the national Kenyan context in shaping SEA practice, especially in a country facing urgent sustainability challenges. We established the framework through literature and document review, and our experience with the SEA research noted above. We then selected nine SEA cases and applied the framework criteria listed below through a review of their SEA reports, and discussions and follow-up with NEMA officials and other lead agencies. Our research approach is described in more detail below.

This paper contributes to the relatively small body of literature on SEA practice in Kenya and in East Africa more broadly, especially as it relates to public participation. The cases reviewed can help identify contextualized best practices for improving SEA in Kenya and the region. For example, this paper examines cumulative effects assessment in Kenyan SEA, which is among the first such studies of its practice in sub-Saharan Africa. It also provides valuable insight into unique aspects of Kenyan SEA of interest in international SEA practice, particularly in other developing countries seeking to adapt SEA and public participation to their contexts.

We begin with an overview and rationale for the analysis framework followed by its application to nine SEA cases. Patterns and trends in SEA practice are then analysed, best participatory practices are identified, and lessons and prospects for Kenya and are discussed.

Analysis framework

Reviews of SEA practice have generally focused on the key steps or ideal conditions for SEA (Jha Thakur et al. 2009; Axelsson et al. 2012), on outcomes such as the influence on a proposed policy, program or plan (e.g. Retief 2007; Cashmore et al. 2010), or occasionally a mix of these (Noble 2009; Rachid & El Fadel 2013). Our analysis primarily employs ideal conditions for participatory SEA and explores how these have been adapted in Kenya.

In a review of SEA effectiveness criteria from 45 international documents, Fischer and Gazzola (2006) found general agreement that SEA should be integrated, sustainability-led, stakeholder-driven, iterative, flexible and adaptive, and accountable and transparent. Our analysis framework borrows from these commonly accepted ideals and specifies sub-criteria in the form of questions for each (Table 1). These questions are asked in the analysis of each SEA case. An important aspect of our analysis is that, in addition to an ideal SEA being participative (Table 1), there also may be links between participation and other ideals since participation should be integrated throughout a SEA process. For this reason, we have included participation in some questions for the other SEA ideals. Further, rationale for these ideals and criteria are situated within a Kenyan context in the following discussion.

Table 1. Analysis framework for participatory SEA practice in Kenya (adapted from IAIA 2002; Fischer & Gazzola 2006; and Tetlow & Hanusch 2012).

SEA ideal	Analysis criteria
1. Integrated	(a) Is SEA initiated early enough to adequately inform the planning process and meaningfully involve the public?
	(b) Is the SEA fully integrated into the planning process, throughout the entire process?
	(c) Does the SEA address biophysical, social and economic aspects?
2. Sustainability-led	(a) Is sustainability an integral concept in the SEA?
	(b) Does the SEA identify alternatives to the PPP that are more sustainable?
	(c) Does the SEA allow for the enhancement of positive impacts as well as the mitigation of negative impacts?
3. Inclusive	(a) Does the process contain all the standard SEA components within which the public could engage (i.e. scoping, baseline, evaluation of impacts/mitigations, etc.)?
	(b) Does the SEA systematically assess cumulative effects?
	(c) Does the SEA report contain sufficient information for planners to make cognizant decisions?
4. Transparent, Accountable, Improved Governance	(a) Is there evidence of learning for improved governance or institutional decision-making?
	(b) Were SEA recommendations used to amend the PPP?
	(c) Are there comprehensive monitoring/evaluation plans in place to encourage iterative learning?
5. Participative	(a) Do the chosen methods for public participation allow for active involvement and discussion?
	(b) Are there opportunities for participation throughout the entire process?
	(c) Are SEA results disseminated to participants?
	(d) Are marginalized populations invited to participate?
	(e) Do reports explicitly show how input/comments/concerns were addressed?

Integrated

Integration in SEA refers to the incorporation of environmental, social and economic considerations and to the linking of SEA at critical points in the decision process, most notably at the beginning of the policy-making, programming or planning process and prior to final decisions (Table 1) (IAIA 2002; OECD 2006; Fischer 2007; Eales & Sheate 2011; Tetlow & Hanusch 2012). Involving people after this point makes participatory process less meaningful (e.g. Sinclair & Diduck 2016). Kenya’s SEA guidelines confirm these aspects of integration (NEMA 2012). Our earlier analysis of the SEA reports for KCDP and the Tatu City Plan found consistent consideration of socio-economic factors, alongside environmental ones, suggesting a balanced contribution to Kenya’s sustainability objectives (Walker et al. 2014). In contrast, Mutui et al. (2013) expressed a concern that Kenyan SEA is biased towards economic and social development at the expense of environmental sustainability. Furthermore, SEAs seemed to enter the decision-making process late, thus risking its, and the public’s, ability to adequately influence sustainability outcomes. This review investigates the degree of integration in SEA practice with these concerns in mind.

Sustainability-led

Sustainability SEA, as defined by IAIA (2002), means that adequate consideration is given to alternative policy, program or plan options in order to enhance sustainability objectives (Table 1). Kenya has incorporated this principle into its guidelines specifying that a SEA should ‘[a]nalyze the potential effects and risks of the proposed policy, program, plan, and its alternatives against a framework of sustainability objectives, principles, and criteria’ (NEMA 2012, p. 13). However, sustainability is interpreted somewhat narrowly as ‘… ensuring the proper management and rational utilization of environmental resources on a sustainable yield basis for the improvement of the quality of human life in Kenya’ (GoK 1999, section 9.2.a). An understanding based on sustainable use may be more conducive to baseline-led SEA, resulting in EIA-type SEA, rather than sustainability-led SEA that is more focused on normative objectives and outcomes (Mutui et al. 2013). We test this claim and identify the extent to which SEA practice is sustainability-led. Important criteria here are the timely discussion of alternatives among participants and whether sustainability is in integral concept in the SEAs.

Inclusive

Inclusive SEA refers to compliance with commonly accepted SEA components and procedures, and completeness of information for decision-making, including consideration of cumulative effects (Table 1) (Fischer 2007; Therivel 2010; Gunn & Noble 2011). NEMA has outlined the basic stages and steps expected for SEA in Kenya (NEMA 2012). These include: (1) establishing the context including screening; (2) implementing the SEA: scoping, detailed SEA study, and draft SEA report; (3) informing and influencing decision-making which includes administrative review, stakeholder review, public review, and possibly expert committee review, followed by final SEA report submission and then distinct decision-making procedures for policy-level SEA and program and plan-level SEA; and (4) monitoring and evaluation during policy, program or plan implementation. Our review examines how cognizant and inclusive of public participants SEA practice is with regard to these components. Consideration of cumulative effects, required in the guidelines, is a challenging aspect of SEA (Gunn & Noble 2011; Duinker et al. 2013; White & Noble 2013). We look for cumulative effects assessment in Kenyan SEA, which is among the first such studies of its practice in sub-Saharan Africa.

Transparent, accountable and good governance

Effective SEA requires transparency, accountability and good governance (Table 1) (IAIA 2002; Ahmed & Sánchez-Triana 2008; Jha Thakur et al. 2009; Cashmore et al. 2010; Axelsson et al. 2012; de Jong et al. 2012). Intangible, hard to measure, and often elusive, these attributes are nevertheless critical for an integral SEA process, meaningful outcomes, and influential links to decision-making. They are also important conditions for learning best practices and improving SEA. In reality, these attributes are challenging in Kenya’s politicized, centrally controlled decision-making culture that historically gave low priority to the integration of environmental considerations into development policy, programs, or plans (Onyango & Namango 2005; Mutui et al. 2013). However, this may change with the new constitution that came into effect in 2013 and new SEA amendments under EMCA, 2015 (GoK 2015).

Environmental aspects are now embedded in the highest law of the land, including a right to a clean, healthy environment, devolution of resource development to local levels of government, and mandatory environmental assessment, auditing and monitoring (Mwenda et al. 2012). These constitutional changes are too new for evaluating SEA practice yet, but a decade of legislative and institutional reforms in the water, forest and wildlife sectors may provide a context for considering transparency, accountability and governance in SEA practice, especially if these contribute to more sustainable resource management in these sectors (Slunge & Loayza 2012). More specifically, we examine these three attributes in terms of learning for improved governance (White & Noble 2013), evidence of SEA having altered a proposed policy, program or plan (Eales & Sheate 2011; Axelsson et al. 2012), and whether monitoring and evaluation plans are in place (Gachechiladze-Bozhesku 2012).

Participative

The final criterion, and emphasis in our review, relates to how participative the overall SEA process is (Table 1). The right to participate in the management, development and conservation of the environment is enshrined in Kenya’s constitution (Constitution of Kenya 2010). The EMCA makes explicit reference to the principle of public participation in the development of policies, plans and processes and then, interestingly, concedes to the cultural and social principles traditionally applied by any community in Kenya for the management of the environment or natural resources (GoK 1999: Part II, 5a,b). This is the context for our focus on local or community engagement including participation of often marginalized groups such as female-headed households, youth, the disabled and minority groups in SEA processes. We examine community participation throughout the SEA process in each case from several perspectives (Table 1). As noted above, our appraisal of the SEA for KCDP found inclusion of marginalized populations and active participation that encouraged dialogue and critical reflection, but also communication weaknesses such as inadequate notice, inaccessible documents, lack of feedback, among others. We look for these and other trends and patterns in community participation in the additional SEA cases to better document progress made and challenges remaining for meaningful community engagement.

Finally, a unique feature of Kenya’s SEA guidelines is an education component tied to the public engagement process. It recognizes a tendency among SEA participants to represent the PPP lead agency, public sector, or civil society, often to the exclusion or marginalization of community or other local representation. The national guidelines note that ‘if the public is not used to being engaged, particularly at the strategic level, and if there are no precedents, it is critical to include an education component in the public engagement process’ (NEMA 2012, p. 14). We examine SEA cases for an education component directed at the latter.

Case studies

A total of 26 SEAs, 16 of those complete, were listed in NEMA’s registry at the time of our research. Of these, nine SEAs were selected to be applied to the above framework based on the following criteria: (1) SEA is complete or very near complete (at least a draft SEA completed); (2) availability of the SEA report for review and (3) conducted relatively recently (2010 or later) so as to speak to the current practice of SEA in Kenya. Brief descriptions of each case selected are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Features of nine SEAs selected for analysis (NEMA 2015).

SEA	PPP level	PPP lead agency	Sector	Year
Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology Infrastructure Development (MMUST)	Plan	Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology	Infrastructure	2010
Kenya Coastal Development Project (KCDP)	Plan	Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute	Commerce/Industry	2010
Reforestation & Sustainable Development Project in Kenyan Degraded Forests	Program	Ministry of Finance and Treasury	Infrastructure	2010
Tatu City Structure Plan	Plan	Tatu City Ltd.	Human settlements	2011
Konza Technology City	Plan	Ministry of Information and Technology	Communication	2011
Act! Natural Resources Facility	Program	Pact Kenya	Infrastructure	2012
Upper Tana Natural Resources Management Project (UTaNRMP)	Program	International Fund for Agricultural Development	Infrastructure	2012
Implementation of the National Sugar Adaptation Strategy	Program	Kenya Sugar Board	Industry	2012
Amboseli Ecosystem Management Plan	Plan	Amboseli Ecosystem Trust	Tourism	2014

SEA reports for the nine cases were accessed online or at the NEMA office in Nairobi. The analysis was carried out in two phases. Phase one consisted of a high-level document review that resulted in two detailed SEA case studies (KCDP, Tatu City) of participation by communities and other stakeholders at the local and regional levels (see Walker et al. 2014). In the second phase, analysis criteria (Table 1) were systematically applied to all of the nine cases. Its results are reported here. Follow-up semi-structured interviews were conducted with the SEA lead experts and/or individuals representing the agency responsible for the associated plan or programme and who were involved throughout the SEA process. The interview questions focused on filling gaps in the analysis criteria, listed above, that could not be ascertained through document reviews. Particular emphasis was put on the public participation component, with interviewees being asked about who was involved, the specific techniques used to engage the public, how input was utilized, etc. It should be noted that three of the interviewed SEA lead experts were also representatives of the PPP lead agency. In addition, one interview with a NEMA staff member involved in SEA review was completed. A total of 13 in-depth interviews, each lasting an average of 60 min, were conducted (Table 3). Interviews were transcribed and coded into themes based on the analysis framework using the qualitative data analysis software package NVivo 8 (QSR 2008).

Table 3. Type and number of interviewees.

Interviewee type	Number interviewed
NEMA staff	1
SEA lead experts	10
SEA lead agency representatives	2
Total	13

Views on the current state of SEA in Kenya

Many of the interviewees are in agreement that Kenyan SEA is still in its infancy as the legal basis of the EMCA and its regulations are relatively recent, the SEA guidelines new, and few SEAs have actually been completed and approved.

Nonetheless, there is some indication that the existence of the national guidelines have begun to improve the consistency in, and ease of, conducting and reviewing SEAs. Interviewees commented on the challenges associated with the preparation of SEA reports prior to the existence of the guidelines and on how the guidelines have not only simplified procedures for conducting SEA in the Kenyan context, but also streamlined the review process at NEMA.

When the first [SEA] was done, there were no specific guidelines that were local in nature and so we had to learn from other outside practices or tools. We spent so much time and resources to come up with the SEA report that would be acceptable by NEMA. The tools and guidelines that have now been set up by NEMA are very clear and straight forward. It also brings in aspects of cultural diversity, indigenous people, and local institutional arrangements that were not there before. (Interview 1)

The process is a little bit faster now because NEMA follows criteria that guides it to objectively assess the processes that they have set up. Before, it was not easy even for them to assess. They had to rely on third parties and borrow knowledge from somewhere else to determine whether this qualifies or does not qualify. (Interview 6)

Moreover, one interviewee suggested that the existence of the guidelines has begun to improve the quality of SEAs that pass though the NEMA office. When asked whether there has been a noticeable change in report quality, he replied:

Yes, actually quite big. Some of the earlier reports we were receiving were even like project reports. Sometimes they do just a planning framework and they call it SEA. There was quite a big attempt in the latest [SEA] to follow the process from scoping to draft submission to the final draft submission to the stakeholder engagement processes. It has shown a lot of things. With time and if we disseminate the guidelines well, it will reach the standard that is required. (Interview 2)

Despite the noted improvements attributed to the guidelines, participants remarked that these are still a work in progress, open to modification and fine tuning as experience increases and capacity improves.

The capacity needed for conducting and reviewing SEA is also frequently cited as needing continuous improvement in Kenya. In 2011, around the time the first draft of the SEA guidelines was released, a technical assistance workshop led by a consultant with the Danish International Development Agency, trained NEMA headquarters staff, provincial directors of the environment, district environmental officers and environmental experts from lead agencies on conducting and reviewing SEAs. According to NEMA, ten members of the agency’s staff were also involved in a five-day intensive training session for the purpose of becoming ‘Master Trainers’ who can act as an in-country resource for further training of SEA reviewers and practitioners over time and as they gain experience. Currently, the Swedish International Development Agency is offering intensive SEA training for individuals from sub-Saharan Africa, including Kenya (Slunge & Olsson 2015). However, none of the interviewees in this research had been involved in these training workshops and a number noted that there is still significant need for SEA capacity building for both practitioners and NEMA staff.

The capacity in NEMA for SEA is not there. They don’t have a section that is mandated and appointed to deal with SEA. Usually it is the EIA team which also comes in and works on the SEAs. (Interview 7)

The challenge is that SEA consultants are still relying on NEMA for guidance. Capacity for conducting SEA amongst consultants is still quite low. (Interview 2)

Characteristics of Kenyan SEA in relation to review criteria

Analysis of the selected SEA reports, supplemented with interview data, suggests general trends in the cases’ consistency with the framework criteria (Figure 1). Overall, the SEAs are not completely consistent or inconsistent with any of the five ideal criteria. Instead, there is a mix of consistency among the sub-criteria. Below we comment on the SEA components that show the highest and lowest degree of consistency with our framework criteria and use these to identify best practices and areas of improvement within a Kenyan context, recognizing that our extrapolation is based on only nine cases.

Figure 1. Results of analysis framework applied to nine SEAs in Kenya (see Table 1 for number and letter codes).

Practices largely consistent with the framework criteria

Figure 1 shows that the criteria that are largely consistent across the selected SEAs include: addressing biophysical, social and economic aspects (1c); containing all of the standard SEA components within which the public can engage (3a); comprehensive monitoring/evaluation plans (4c); and, to a lesser degree, the inclusion of marginalized populations (5d).

Addressing biophysical, social and economic aspects (Figure 1, 1c)

SEA may be a tool that fosters in policy-makers a more complete understanding of the linkages between environmental concerns, economic growth and social issues, including poverty alleviation in developing countries (Ahmed & Sanchez-Triana 2008). All reviewed reports addressed socio-economic in addition to environmental concerns and identified potential socio-economic impacts and mitigation/enhancement measures. For example, the SEA for the Amboseli Ecosystem Management Plan even concluded that the Plan may not have fully captured the socio-economic considerations and highlighted a number of recommendations, including the promotion of economic and social incentives, which could, in turn, work to enrich the sustainability goals of the plan. This multi-dimensional approach is reflective of a normative view of sustainability that integrates the three aspects, and may involve trade-offs among them. Pragmatically, such an approach to SEA would seem more helpful to decision-makers with mandates for policies, programs and plans that advance sustainability in Kenya. However, it is not without controversy as environmental protection and conservation goals may be too easily compromised in the face of urgent human need (Onyango & Namango 2005; Mutui et al. 2013).

Contain all of the standard SEA components (Figure 1, 3a)

SEA literature differentiates between institution-centred and impact-based SEA and advocates their use at policy and plan/program level, respectively ([OECD] Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development 2006; Ahmed and Sanchez-Triana, 2008). All case studies in this research took the impact-based SEA approach. The Kenyan national SEA guidelines, consistent with recognized SEA literature such as Therivel (2010), identify scoping, baseline data collection, evaluation of alternative PPPs, identification and evaluation of positive and negative impacts, determination of enhancement and mitigation strategies, and monitoring and evaluation as the key components of the SEA process and reporting. All but one of the SEA reports addressed each of these components, although there was variability in thoroughness and approaches taken. Regarding public engagement, the SEA guidelines state that ‘Active public engagement and stakeholder involvement should take place from the scoping stage onwards, including during the review of the draft SEA report and even during PPP monitoring’ (NEMA 2012, p. 27). Public participation was a component of each of the reviewed SEA cases. Our data show, however, that only three of the nine SEAs engaged participants consistently throughout the entire process (Figure 1, 5b). Most often, the public was involved at the baseline data collection (six of nine SEAs), impact identification (seven SEAs), mitigation strategy development (six SEAs) and draft report review (nine SEAs) phases. Only four of the nine SEAs involved public stakeholders during scoping and the evaluation of PPP alternatives, which are critical points for ensuring the early integration of public input.

Comprehensive monitoring/evaluation plans (Figure 1, 4c)

The national guidelines indicate that the monitoring and evaluation plan should include a summary of impacts, description of mitigation measures and monitoring requirements (e.g. indicators, methods, sampling locations), implementation schedule, institutional arrangements and capacity building requirements (NEMA 2012). While the SEA case studies displayed some diversity in terms of level of detail and information included, all but one included a comprehensive framework for monitoring and evaluation with the potential to encourage iterative learning and influence future decisions.

Inclusion of marginalized populations (Figure 1, 5d)

The most vulnerable populations tend to be highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods and are therefore often disproportionally affected by decisions that impact those resources (Kende-Robb & Van Wicklen 2008). Engaging marginalized segments of the public in decision-making can increase general awareness of environmental issues (Okello et al. 2009), empower individuals to influence final decisions, and even promote more equitable distribution of political power (O’Faircheallaigh 2010; Walker et al. 2014; Sinclair & Diduck 2016). Kenya’s SEA guidelines explicitly indicate that ‘consultation processes will have to identify the best way to ensure that the socially marginalized can participate effectively and can have their viewpoints given proper consideration’ (NEMA 2012, p. 28). Four of the case studies (Figure 1, 5d) included groups of women, youth, indigenous people and slum dwellers specifically selected by SEA experts as those that would often not be involved in providing input on substantial development plans. For example, women’s groups, people with disabilities and youth groups were engaged in the UTaNRMP SEA and the Watha, an indigenous peoples group, were involved in the KCDP SEA. The other five cases (Figure 1, 5d) included members from rural communities in close proximity to the proposed PPP who are often not included in high-level decision-making, but were not specifically identified as marginalized populations. In some cases there is evidence that the provisions in Kenya’s EMCA (1999) supporting cultural and social principles traditionally applied by any community in Kenya for the management of the environment or natural resources are upheld through the SEA process. For example, those conducting the KCDP SEA considered the implications of the plan on the cultural practices of Watha participants:

We met with those who fall in the category of indigenous people. We first took them through the entire project so that they could appreciate its objectives. We sought their input on how the project relates to them, whether they felt it would be useful to them, or whether they felt it would interfere with some of their cultural practices. And as a result, we ended up collecting a lot of views from them that we were able to incorporate into the SEA. (Interview 5)

Associated with this is the unique aspect of Kenyan SEA related to the education component embedded within the national guidelines. Six interviewed SEA lead experts indicated that an education component was included in their respective SEA cases; however, it was also frequently cited as a significant challenge as there is very little awareness of SEA among the general populace. In addition, one of the researchers attended two public engagement sessions for the Nairobi City Master Plan SEA and observed that little time was dedicated to the education component and only a very brief explanation of SEA was provided to participants. This aligns with our previous research, in which it was found that participants were generally unable to articulate the central purpose of SEA following involvement in engagement sessions (Walker et al. 2014). Though the document reviews revealed very little about the education component, SEA lead experts noted some of the challenges it presents.

A challenge is that you need to take time to explain the process to the stakeholders, since it is something that not many people are familiar with. I think we lost quite a few people. There are things that need to be explained very carefully. It would be best to take 3–4 h to get people to understand the process. This is something that we could do better in the future. (Interview 10)

Again being that SEA here is very new, you find that most of the time people think this is another problem the government is giving to them. They might think it will take a long time to see the fruits from these instruments. So we have to take a long time explaining what SEA is and what the benefits are, why they should not feel like it is another bother. (Interview 7)

Practices least consistent with the framework criteria

The criteria that were least often met by the SEA processes studied include (Figure 1): initiating SEA early enough to adequately inform the planning process (1a); sustainability as an integral concept (2a); systematically assessing cumulative effects (3b); and, disseminating SEA results to the participants (5c).

Initiating SEA early (Figure 1, 1a)

Eight of the nine SEA cases studied entered the decision-making process late, thus limiting the ability to identify and assess viable plan and program alternatives, and diminishing the role of public participation in this process. For example, the Tatu City SEA report states:

[The consultant] was contracted to undertake the SEA for the Tatu City Structure Plan after the decision to put up the city had already been made. Therefore, the client did not provide alternative land uses apart from the city, neither were alternative structure plans for the city provided for the purpose of comparison. The only alternatives available for review are the designs for the various infrastructures to be put up for the city. (GIBB Africa Ltd 2011, p. 6–1)

SEAs such as the Act! Facility and the Amboseli Plan were also initiated well after the compilation of the original Master Plans; however, consultants indicated that the SEAs still have some ability to at least influence the implementation phases of the PPPs. For example, the mid-term SEA of the ten-year (2008–18) Amboseli Plan included recommendations for community forest agreements and local participation in wildlife security (game scouts).

Sustainability as an integral concept (Figure 1, 2a)

While there is still significant debate about what sustainability means in the SEA context (White & Noble 2013), the literature indicates that the tool is gradually shifting from being primarily impact-based and reactive to more proactively integrating strategic and sustainability thinking into the planning process (Tetlow & Hanusch 2012; Gibson et al. 2016). An impact-based approach focuses on identifying and minimizing negative impacts of a PPP, which Gibson (2013) argues is insufficient for addressing the complex interactions between social, economic and environmental effects and does not contribute to overall enhanced sustainability. An ‘objectives-led’ SEA defines sustainability principles from the outset and assesses the ability of the PPP, or alternatives to the PPP, to achieve these objectives (Pope et al. 2005; Bond et al. 2012; White & Noble 2013). Moreover, the national guidelines note that a successful SEA should ‘analyze the potential effects and risks of the proposed PPP, and its alternatives, against a framework of sustainability objectives, principles, and criteria’ (NEMA 2012, p. 13). Three of the nine case studies took an objectives-led approach (Figure 1, 2a). For example, the SEA for the Implementation of the National Sugar Adaptation Strategy identified key environmental, socio-economic and institutional capacity indicators, which each plan component and objective was assessed against. These were reviewed at regional and national stakeholder workshops attended by the National Sugar Board, ministries of agriculture and water, millers and growers, all with an interest in a sustainable sugar industry. The remainder of the cases identified lists of positive and, most frequently, negative potential impacts without assessing them against proactively identified sustainability objectives.

Systematically assessing cumulative effects (Figure 1, 3b)

Therivel (2010) suggests that a key purpose of SEA is to better analyse the cumulative effects of development. The Kenya national guidelines also indicate that the environmental analysis component of SEA must include ‘the prediction and evaluation of impacts, including cumulative effects’ (NEMA 2012, p. 59), but give no direction on how this assessment can or should be made. Only four of the nine reviewed SEA reports mentioned cumulative impacts. The UTaNRMP and KCDP SEAs list potential cumulative effects, but address them only by suggesting that screening requirements be implemented for individual associated projects. The Tatu City SEA lists potential cumulative effects, but does not explicitly state how they were determined or how they should be addressed. The most systematic cumulative effects assessment was done in the Sugar Adaptation Strategy SEA. It used matrices of activities against environmental indicators and identified potential negative impacts of plan activities that when implemented together may result in overall cumulative impacts. Mutui et al. (2013) regard the national guidelines as an ideal list of SEA deliverables, often lacking specific procedures by which these deliverables can be met. The cumulative impact assessment component of the Kenyan SEA process provides an example that supports this notion.

Cumulative impacts are very hard to predict. The criteria for screening cumulative effects and guidance for assessing them is not there. I think the guidelines need to be strengthened a bit on that one. (Interview 7)

Disseminating SEA results to the participants (Figure 1, 5c)

Six of the nine studied SEA cases did not fully meet criteria related to the dissemination of the reports and showing how participant input was addressed. The national guidelines indicate that a summary of the draft SEA reports should be published for two consecutive weeks in the Kenya Gazette and a public newspaper with nationwide circulation. All nine cases met this requirement; however, this may not be sufficient to ensure that SEA results are adequately distributed, especially in remote rural communities, as there may be limited access to printed media, as well as illiteracy or language barriers. In some cases such as the Sugar Adaptation Strategy SEA, consultants held a validation meeting following draft report development, but the vast majority of participants were government officers and high-level sugar factory managers and directors, whereas other stakeholders, such as farmers, were underrepresented.

We found there was resistance to include small-scale farmers by the macro-level stakeholders. They insisted that they wanted to focus at the policy level and so thought it wasn’t important to include the farmers. But the farmers are the ones who understand best and will be the ones affected by the policies. There is a serious need to consult those at the bottom. Too few farmers were consulted. (Interview 12)

Only three cases documented the facilitation of follow-up meetings where findings were distributed to participants involved throughout the process (Figure 1, 5c).

Consistency with three framework criteria (Figure 1), namely SEA integration into the planning process (1b), evidence of learning for improved governance (4a) and use of SEA recommendations to amend the PPP (4b), were often difficult to determine. PPP lead agency involvement in the SEA process can be an important way to integrate the SEA and planning processes. There is some evidence of this involvement (Figure 1, 1b), especially during public engagement sessions; however, these cases were initiated late in the planning process, thus diminishing overall opportunity for early integration. The remaining SEA reports were not clear on how or when the SEA and planning processes were linked. As observed by White and Noble (2013), SEA can be a platform for improved institutional governance by facilitating enhanced awareness of sustainability issues in decision-makers. Little data, due to difficulty in arranging interviews with PPP lead agency representatives or lack of comment in regards to learning outcomes by the same, were collected to support this notion (Figure 1, 4a). The extent that SEA recommendations were used to amend PPPs was often unclear because master plans were not publicly available, the PPPs had not yet been finalized or implemented, or the consultants who conducted the SEAs were unaware how conclusions and recommendations had been used by planners (Figure 1, 4b).

Although there was often lack of clarity around how the SEA and planning processes were linked and despite relatively few of the SEA reports explicitly outlining how participant comments and input were addressed (Figure 1, 5e), we identified a few instances where participant input apparently added value to the processes. For example, farmers neighbouring the proposed Tatu City identified that more frequent incidents of flooding attributable to development, deforestation, and increasingly intense rainfall events, may impact the proposed infrastructure plans in a particular section of the planning area. According to an SEA consultant, these flooding concerns resulted in the amendment of the infrastructure plan to ensure the mitigation of flood risks. In another example, partly based on feedback received through initial stakeholder engagement, the Sugar Adaptation Strategy SEA team developed four alternatives for program implantation. The team then facilitated a workshop where participants analysed and compared the alternatives using a multi-criteria analysis framework exercise, through which the participants concluded that the Strategy has potential to foster sustainable sugarcane production, but identified a number of areas where further enhancements are needed, such as climate change adaptation and a monitoring and evaluation framework that supports effective social and environmental management. These examples of participant input were clearly reflected in the final SEA report recommendations. However, evidence of the added value of participation to the SEA process or in demonstrably influencing PPP decisions requires further research.

There were somewhat mixed results in terms of consistency with the remaining criteria (Figure 1). Interestingly, the data suggest that there may be greater consistency with some of these criteria, such as the identification of alternatives to the PPP that are more sustainable (2b), utilization of techniques for active participation (5a) and the provision of opportunities for participation throughout the process (5b) in the most recent SEA cases (Figure 1). In relation to participation techniques (5a), for example, some of the more recent SEA cases (e.g. Act! Facility, UTaNRMP) utilized workshops and focus groups that emphasized active participation through group discussion, brainstorming and presentation as key methods for public engagement. Other cases primarily relied on tools such as household surveys and questionnaires (e.g. MMUST) or information sessions that included limited opportunity for group discussion (e.g. Tatu City engagement with local workers). Additional methods used in the SEA cases for public participation include newspaper announcements, website postings, interviews, public meetings and site visits. Although the criteria of sustainability as an integral concept (2a) was identified as one showing little overall consistency, Figure 1 may also suggest a positive trend in the most recent cases. This trend is likely attributed to greater SEA direction through the release of the national guidelines and increasing in-country know-how and experience.

SEA – the Kenya context

While the introduction of the national guidelines has appeared to contribute substantially to the strengthening of the Kenyan SEA framework, our findings in some areas are consistent with the Mutui et al. (2013) assertion that the document is an aspirational catalogue of deliverables, with little guidance on how to achieve them. Two specific examples include the lack of direction on how to assess cumulative effects or to deliver the education component when engaging the public in SEA. In some cases, this has resulted in the complete omission or less than comprehensive implementation of these aspects during SEA studies as our review showed. There is, however, the challenge of maintaining the delicate balance between detail and flexibility. Perhaps the open-ended nature of the guidance will encourage the further development of a ‘home-grown’ approach through future application and ensure the SEA process does not become too narrowly focused. This will especially become evident as more Kenyan-led and developed SEAs are conducted, supplanting the early phases of SEA development when many SEAs were externally driven by donor requirements (e.g. KCDP, UTaNRMP) and led by outside consultants (e.g. National Sugar Adaptation Strategy, Konza City). More consistent application of triggering and screening procedures for in-country PPPs may be a key necessity in escalating local experience and capacity development.

Contextualizing SEA generally, and public engagement in particular, is one way of adapting SEA so that it can better contribute to sustainability decisions. Some components of public participation in Kenyan SEA, such as the inclusion of marginalized and rural populations and encouraging active engagement at more and earlier stages in a few recent SEAs may indicate positive trends towards a more participative process overall.

Although public stakeholders in Kenya are beginning to be involved more regularly throughout the SEA process, we also note that consistent earlier involvement is necessary. Often public engagement is initiated to collect baseline data and identify impacts and mitigation measures, while very few SEAs actually involved the public in priority and objectives setting at the scoping stage. This barrier to meaningful participation is also frequently cited in SEA reviews conducted in other national contexts (e.g. Noble 2009; Illsley et al. 2014). Intentional efforts for early public involvement may also be beneficial for enhancing sustainability objectives of EA processes (Bond et al. 2012; Sinclair et al. 2015). Further implementation of the education component, a unique aspect of the Kenyan SEA system, should enhance capacity for early and effective public involvement going forward. This component may be applicable to practice outside of the Kenyan context as SEA processes are still widely viewed as the education component, of course, may look vastly different depending on where it is being implemented and careful consideration of context is necessary when designing an appropriate and effective education strategy.

Our findings are consistent with other Kenyan SEA literature (Okello et al. 2009; Walker et al. 2014) in that SEA results are often not adequately disseminated to participants as inaccessibility to newsprint is widespread. Other methods, such as local, plain language summaries and follow-up workshops are needed. Closely related to this is our observation that SEA reports do not often explicitly show the concerns and/or recommendations that arose from public engagement or how public input was addressed. As Mutui et al. (2013) note, the Kenyan SEA system has less stringent requirements for disclosing how stakeholder comments are taken into consideration during the approval process than other international systems, such as those based on the EU SEA Directive. This appears to be a frequently cited issue within SEA practice more broadly, with authors observing that SEA reports rarely show what input is gathered through public participation processes and often provide unsatisfactory explanations around whether and how changes are made based on the input (Fischer 2010; Rega & Bonifazi 2014). In Kenya, if SEA reports were to more intentionally demonstrate the specifics of public inputs, NEMA is more likely to consider these when assessing SEAs for adequacy. Both showing how public comments and concerns were addressed and disseminating SEA results to participants could also encourage the public to influence environmental decision-making and generate enthusiasm in future opportunities for involvement. These actions should result in improved transparency, accountability and governance for SEA, the very criteria for which we had the least evidence.

Our findings also demonstrate that visible linkages between SEA and PPP planning are rare. Often, PPP master plans are not publicly accessible and, therefore, knowing how the SEA influenced decision-making is difficult until development is underway, which is of course too late. Moreover, SEAs frequently enter the planning process late and the relationship between the processes is unclear. Mutui et al. (2013) also observed that NEMA approval timelines for SEA reports are substantial and question the implications this has on the final PPPs. Are PPP completions also held up in the process? Greater transparency in demonstrating the linkages between SEA and planning processes could enhance the overall perception of the tool’s value in the eyes of consultants, planners and the public alike.

Conclusion

An enduring challenge for SEA in lower income countries such as Kenya is to re-shape what often began as a Euro-centric view of SEA and to adapt and align it with local realities and opportunities. In Kenya, for example, this may still include a role for EIA-style SEA because of limited SEA training and capacity. Moreover, urgent human need pervades resource development in every sector. For instance, SEAs in the water sector must contend with high rates of the rural population without access to improved water supplies, which is compounded by increasing water scarcity due to climate change. Conversely, Kenya may also have unique opportunities for advancing environmental sustainability because the right to a clean, healthy environment, the right to participate in the management, development and conservation of the environment, the devolution of natural resource development and management, and provisions for environmental assessment, auditing and monitoring, are all embedded in the country’s new constitution and EMCA.

This research demonstrates, in part, that overall Kenyan SEA is still in early development and slowly adapting to the local context. Signs of adaption include consistency in addressing biophysical, social and economic aspects in the context of urgent human and environmental needs; aspects of public participation, including the involvement of marginalized populations in setting development and conservation policies, programs and plans; and a mandatory education component to increase public awareness about SEA and its role in decision-making, thereby enhancing public engagement. Challenges for adapting SEA in Kenya remain: SEA processes and practice are often initiated too late to adequately inform the planning process, implying that the impact of people’s input is also limited; cumulative effects are rarely or poorly-considered; and SEA results are seldom communicated back to participants showing them how input was used. Continued training and capacity development, application of the public education component of the national guidelines, consistent and early application of SEA to domestic PPPs, and enhanced transparency in demonstrating the linkages between SEA and planning processes will all contribute to the further evolution and strengthening of the national framework and practice.

Acknowledgements

We are appreciative of the two anonymous reviewers who provided valuable input into the content of this paper. We would also like to acknowledge the financial support provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Funding

This work was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.