The operations of oil and gas activities pose significant ecological and social impacts related to risks\/incidences of oil spills, land degradation, accidents, fire, and water and air pollution. To this end, countries with significant oil and gas activities set up robust systems for monitoring environmental and social conditions within oil and gas landscapes.<\/p>\n
The state of environmental monitoring report of Kenya\u2019s oil and gas sector by WWF Norway and the Kenya Oil and Gas Working Group presents a review of the environmental monitoring frameworks in the country. The report identifies potential gaps and weaknesses of the respective national monitoring frameworks and their implementation in Kenya. Specifically, the reports cover the following key elements:
\nReview of environmental monitoring reports of petroleum projects: Gap analysis on
\nmonitoring and enforcement in Kenya; and Status of environmental plans in the country.<\/p>\n
The report noted the following gaps in environmental monitoring; Recommendations<\/strong>
\n1. GAPS in Monitoring:<\/strong> The study notes that government agencies are mandated with
\nperiodic monitoring, but the frequency of such is not regular. The remote nature of
\nmost oil and gas fields complicates routine monitoring because, in most cases, the
\nrelevant government agencies are understaffed and under-resourced. Monitoring
\nactivities are triggered by incidences or complaints that may emanate from oil and
\ngas activities. The agencies rely on self-monitoring reports by oil and gas
\ncompanies. Occasionally, multi-agency teams will conduct joint inspections of oil
\nand gas facilities.
\n2. Environmental Monitoring Reports:<\/strong> the bulk of environmental monitoring
\nreports available are in the form of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
\nreports for oil and gas projects and Environmental Audit reports. A review of some
\nof the reports reveals that the quality of reporting varies broadly, with severe
\nshortcomings in terms of adequacy of baseline data for availability. Institutions like
\nNEMA are mandated to undertake periodic monitoring of air quality; however, their
\nactivities are spatially limited and have not covered oil and gas regions.
\n3. Environmental Plans:<\/strong> The study notes that environmental planning has not taken
\noff well since devolution. There has been generally a lag in preparing National
\nEnvironment Action Plans (NEAP) and County Environment Action Plans (CEAPs)
\nfor the past ten years as provided under EMCA. The majority of counties have
\ngenerally failed to allocate resources to prepare CEAPS. The law also provides for
\nthe preparation of County Spatial Plans to be the basis of all planning in the country.
\nTo date, only four counties (Makueni, Lamu, Kericho, and Bomet) have approved
\nCSPs. Within the Oil and Gas counties, only LAMU has an approved CSP. A review
\nof the County Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs) for counties with active oil
\nand gas activities reveals very little attention has been put in the sector, mainly
\nbecause such functions are not devolved.<\/p>\n
\n1. Resources:<\/strong> Government should allocate adequate resources to lead agencies to
\nundertake monitoring as per their respective mandates. In active oil and gas counties, the
\ngovernment should enhance the human resource capacity as well as increase the technical capacity of the institutions to undertake regular monitoring.
\nii. Data:<\/strong> Efficacy of monitoring depends on the availability of good quality baseline data.
\nData is available across various agencies, but data sharing remains a challenge due to
\ninstitutional bureaucracy. To this end, there is a need to invest in a shared database that
\ncompiles data from different sectors and make the database accessible to government
\nregulatory agencies and other users who may need the data.
\niii.Institutional Coordination:<\/strong> The different institutions mandated with monitoring need
\nto strengthen their collaboration, including joint monitoring regimes to maximize resource availability and expertise. The multi-sectoral coordination mechanism needs to be institutionalized to improve cross-collaboration.
\niv. Environmental Planning:<\/strong> Plans remain a crucial instrument in environmental
\nmonitoring, based on their ability to identify critical ecosystems, propose mitigative
\nmeasures, and allocate resources towards monitoring. To this end, there is a need to
\nsensitize counties to allocate resources towards environmental planning and enforcement of plan proposals. Counties should be lobbied to comply with the law and prepare the various plans as prescribed under the different acts. This will make data available for decision-making.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"