TO THE ATTENTION OF:

The Director General

National Environment Management Authority
P.O. Box 67839 0020
Nairobi, KENYA
e-mail: dgnema@nema.go.ke
cc: Mr Z.O. OUMA

re: EIA Study Report for the Proposed Re-Alignment of the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR)
within Nairobi National Park (NNP); NEMA/EIA/512/1215

Dear sir:
Members of the NEMA examining committee:
PREFACE
We would like to inform you, that the analysis of the Environmental Impact Study (EIA) submitted to
you, has been carried by INTARCO pro-bono, at the request of various Kenyan organizations
concerned with wildlife conservation, grassroots Kenyans, for individuals and groups that are involved
with sustainable tourism in Kenya, for both public and private stakeholders concerned with the fate
and use of Nairobi National Park. It was prepared, and will seem similar to other submitted briefs to
your committee, as it does incorporate the valid opinions of all concerned in this matter. Incorporated
you will also find comments and comparisons to other such studies carried out and submitted to
NEMA, but rest assured that all observations are not politically motivated, even when political
motivations seem apparent. For these reasons you will find that the comments are presented in the
plural we. To keep the process democratic, this will also be publically posted
It is also submitted to make sure, that if the opinions sent to your committee on this matter, get
sidetracked ... even the voices absent are with this brief represented. You will find attached at the end
of the brief a Executive Summary (C.V.) of the professional that compiled and submitted this
document. We can be contacted at our e-mail address: intarco@gmail.com
EXAMINATION OF STUDY NEMA/EIA/512/1215
This is our examination of the draft EIA Study Report for the proposed Realignment of the Standard
Gauge Railway within the Nairobi National Park. The preparation of this document,
NEMA/EIA/512/1251, was undertaken by Mr Eston Murithi (and we apologise for not knowing is official
title), an EIA Consultant recognised by NEMA registration N. 0633. Said report was prepared for The
Kenyan Railway Corporation (KRC), the proponent.
It is important to note that this EIA was produced specifically to address the possible realignment of
the SGR route, from the previously identified right of way proposed in the previous Study and
proposal traversing the NNP.

While the first proposal did not significantly affect the NNP, although still breaching it's boundaries, this
is not the case. Significant breaches and acreage are compromised in the park by this new Study. It
has glaring inconsistencies, and contradictions. It fails to adhere to the procedures required, when
undertaking as EIA, as prescribed by NEMA 1999 directives.
If only for this reason, and like for the breach of the Southern Bypass into NNP, that justified the
construction, by ignoring, for political reasons, the illegal occupation of land surrounding NNP. Land
identified as a buffer to the park, to be used as road/transportation allowance ... there are valid causes
and reasons to OBJECT to the proposals in this new Study. The excuse proposed of savings in
expropriation costs (even for high profile squatters), and legal owners (in this case not so adjacent)
holds little truth in reality. The long term economic loss and of PR for both Kenya and Nairobi has no
price, and will affect national income from tourism, and all it spreads around.
If development is needed, and infrastructures are necessary ... these have to be subservient to the
reality on the ground, in full concert wit territorial Land Planning and Use based on it's use and
vocation. What might seem as a political victory for progress will become an expensive loss
nationally. Losses that will go from political and financial, to national Reputation and even international
funding for the protection of the Natural Treasures of Kenya.
WHAT THIS STUDY FAILS TO ADDRESS OR IGNORES, OTHER NEGSTIVE IMPACTS (just the
obvious items)
1. On project location for the realignment, this report does not pin-point the exact location of the
propose realignment. No GPS coordinates are given as required for every project for NEMA. No GPS
location raises questions for position of route, for calls of demolition, like African heritage House, or
concerns for industrial areas that are quite distant from the park. No reason is given for the lack of
GPS coordinates. Today with modern aerial photogrammetry and satellite positioning it is an
unforgivable error. The realignment could could be anywhere!
2. The EIA study report submitted, at Chapter 4, page 34, lists controlling factors, and developments,
that are impacting on the SGR, hence the need for the realignment. The list given is erroneous, and is
not even related to NNP. (sic!) ... as if we wouldn't check!
3. EIA submitted, page 9, paragraph 2: While the realignment is purported necessary, to avoid
demolishing culturally significant buildings, the report does not show proof of the existence of any
Kenyan Culturally Significant buildings. Yet on the basis of this report some are calling for the
demolition of African Heritage House , a future museum location that houses an African Art collection,
gazetted as significant, and donated by the Kenyan owner (at his death) with a Trust for it's up keep to
the National Museum of Kenya.
4. EIA page 9, paragraph 2: a loss of 215 acres of protected wildlife habitat in NNP is in the proposed
project. This has to be added to the acreage lost by the Southern Bypass breach. This EIA report
should not set precedents for using political decisions instead of proper transparent tools of Urban
and Territorial Planning and land use. It will create a precedent for "let us use free government land".
The question is how convenient, but where is this free land, when you deny it's present use and
vocation? This methodology will continue to exercise pressure on NNP, a unique Urban Wildlife
biosphere in the world, and will lead to to further habitat destruction, and isolation. Even some interest
within KWS are contributing to this with dreams of expanding the Orphanage into a specialized Safari
Walk. Without project approval areas have been expanded and fenced. This project will also bring
new fences and hence more restrictions to the movement of wildlife, and their habitat.

5. EIA page 17, paragraph 2: The Construction Phase and Utilities need permanently or temporarily to
realise the re-alignment. As for the construction of a Bypass, utilities are necessary for the realisation
of a railway line. Especially inside a protected habitat like NNP. Service roads, services for power and
materials temporary and permanent fencing, work camps. Even the temporary utilities needed will lead
to to further degradation, isolation, and habitat destruction. No remedial work seems to be identified
or contemplated for repairing, rebuilding, and restoring the habitat! It needs to be identified even if the
breach into NNP, or any natural park is even minimal and in a much smaller scale.
6. EIA page 18, table 2.1 : A figure of 265 persons is given as present on the work site. Are there any
others that will come and go for reasons of utilities, services and delivery of materials? The realities of
ongoing constructions site can be different for the presence of workers and equipment at any given
time. The presence of all these people, as well as their security, and that of the wildlife, will displace
wildlife from it's territory, and interfere with the grazing, and predator habits and trails animal use
habitually. While it affect may species, a case in point can be made for the Rhinos that in that habitat
area. The serious ecological imbalance of this breach of habitat will occur. It is a know fact, but who
talked to the experts? Once displaced the Rhinos will not return. Territorial conflicts between species
will occur, and Human Wildlife Conflicts will increase. Wildlife deprived of habitat will move on trying to
find alternatives, and will wander out of NNP. Then we wonder why some morans swear to eliminate
wildlife, as species will forage from agriculture or find that the only thing to hunt and eat is livestock.
loss of habitat is loss of territory and the food it supplies. How much will be needed for the
compensation schemes? There is more than enough possibilities for conflicts as it is, and as
elephants are amply illustrating for blocked habitat and migration corridors ... and don't even think of
fencing! 215 acres less on completion, more during construction, and the presence of a declared 265
workers and utilities for them, within NNP, is a serious interference with an ecological balance that has
been successfully stabilized in recent history. Tourism in the park will also be significantly affected,
especially for Nairobi visitors, that are limited only to the NNP Urban park safari experience.
7. EIA page 20: Destruction of botanical life by construction has to be addressed! Construction
landscaping and grading, for railway bed building, ditches etc. will bulldoze and remove both fertile soil
and important vegetation. Pollution from building material, discarded and buried/dumped will also
contribute to this, and to the removal of important vegetation, and it's reproduction. This will affect
grazing for some species, but even worse. Because of the steep slopes in this area, having this
orography, and given the soil conditions, once the area is disturbed, this will lead to a loss of soil
fertility. What will follow the disturbance of the natural ground cover and soil layers in these areas,
beside it's fertility. will be increased and serious erosion. This will render these areas unsuitable for
wildlife, and hence reduce directly acres denied to the NNP for it's wildlife purpose. This area, as we
mentioned previously, and will continue to do so, is an important habitat for Rhinos. Let us remember
that these Rhinos are an endangered specie, more than other keystone species. Relocating is out of
the question. We have just seen, even here in Kenya, that stress can kill a relocated Rhino. If you
are thinking relocation, you are thinking of taking the first steps for the demise of the World's only
Urban Natural Wildlife Park.
8. EIA page 29, paragraph 1 : It is obvious that the designers of the re-alignment know little about
designing wildlife friendly structures when it comes to providing culverts and a bridge and facilities for
"crossing" the tracks. No surprise because even design for access to buildings for human invalids has
problems. In this case there is a lack of knowledge about Rhinos, and we wonder if even their heights
allow for the safe passage of giraffes. While economies are always welcome in normal construction,
this is not a normal habitat. Only 5 metres wide passages are given as passage way. This is too
narrow for the requirements of moving wildlife. They are even to narrow for the endangered Rhinos,
and are know to have poor eyesight. They are a security problem as well, as the design proposed
seems to foster perfect ambush sites for any wandering poacher. Poachers love easy shots at
Rhinos.

9. EIA page 30 : Jomo Kenyatta remarked often, despite some conflicts in family over wildlife matters,
on the uniqueness of Kenya's natural treasures, and this national Park at the doors of Nairobi. KWS
has even a plaque quoting him on this. NNP is unique for both it's biodiversity, and its historical
significance. All this is at stake if we begin dismantling it for political, and economic expediency ....
with no proper EIA or search for more viable and profitable long term locations for infrastructures. The
trend of mutilating parks for this purpose is negative and should not be allowed to continue .... and
here we raise as another example of this trend for mutilating Natural Treasure ... the geothermal take
over at Hell's Gate National Park!
10. EIA page 31, last paragraph : Beside the endangered species, the Rhino, for which the park
remains an important sanctuary, and needs all the acreage it has as a minimum requirement, another
endangered species uses NNP. Despite the compromised Kitingela migration corridor, that even
wildebeest and other herbivores try to use, the other endangered species that is house seasonally,
certain months at the time, are African Wild Dogs. Shrinking habitat space in general for this specie
and others, is a sure death knell for their survival.
11. EIA page 34, paragraph 1 : As for the avoidance of demolitions mentioned in the third comment,
the report provides no proof or reason, that most of the companies it lists in this study will/would be
affected by the original SGR right of way proposal, hence the reason for the re-alignment. The
buildings and activities listed are locate already quite far from the railway's right of way. This is used
as a non substantiated excuse to justify a project, and maybe as we shall deduce from examining
acreage used ... maybe for justifying future land severance. Like excuses for the Southern Bypass
related to safety concerns at Wilson Airport. What cannot be validated and is wrongly used to justify
habitat destruction in a NNP, should not be permitted to stand as valid justification of breaches of park
integrity. They announce a dismantling strategy for NNP, to have it become available for Urban
Expansion and land speculation. Tourism will start saying, why go and stay in Nairobi for tourism, to
see what uncared for urban fabric and a park that is no more ....
12. EIA page 34, last paragraph (first comments) : As mentioned before, African Heritage House, as a
Kenyan Heritage Location (house and art contents included) in not highlighted in this EIA Study. One
asks why the discussions on it's possible demolition, and what role would this play for the NNP
Ecological Integrity, and Ecosystem. What is at stake here? Heritage House is not even inside the
park .... and it is a protected cultural property. Keep that in mind. Of all the land that could be taken
by this re-alignment, how would freeing this acreage help the fate of the park or mitigate the total
territorial damage? Beside one can live with a railway line in the front yard, as they already have a
presence of the metre gauge allowances. You all realise that that not even the acreage promised in
compensation, even added to that promised for the Southern Bypass is available in the adjacent
compromised subdivision of Kitengela and it's occupied migration corridor! There must be a political
agenda from some interests manoeuvring this, that reminds one of the situation created ad hoc, by the
owner of that property that blocked for so long the construction of the redesigned Langata Road at
Galleria Mall for so long, before that expensive demolition
13. EIA page 34, last paragraph (second comment) : The comment that this option would go through
highly developed areas is hard to fathom. This, given that the current metre gauge railway has had a
surveyed and possibly well documented reserve available. Unless this has been legally/illegally
compromised with developers! We are thinking of the land registry and the mystery of deeds and
ownerships. If this is the case, the state will have to repossess the land with no compensation .... as it
does from "normal citizens." It remains a surprise to many, that new Standard Gauge Railway, was
not designed to follow the Mombasa-Nairobi vector of the original railway vector or allowances, and
reserves. This would have avoided, and ultimately ignored land issues .... especially as they are now
involving NNP.

14. EIA page 35, paragraph 1 : The report lists only disadvantages of the SGR route passing through
property of the African Heritage House (that will be deed to Kenya national Museum). As we
mentioned earlier, it wouldn't be the first time a future museum had a railway, or a highway in their
front yard. Any advantage of solutions that would respectfully respect the venue, and not demolish it
(?) could be discussed. then again, the Study doesn't even really address wildlife or botany in NNP, or
offer remedials.
15. EIA page 35, paragraph 2 : The ultimate and real threat to NNP, from adopting the
recommendations of this report are: The loss of crucial wildlife habitat. With it, the sabotaging of the
continued conservation efforts that have brought this park from it's inception through to modern time,
priming it for the future. This proposal only enhances local, and national wildlife loss. It will in all
probabilities augment Human Wildlife Conflicts as wildlife looks for a new habitat and hunting
grounds. HWC are on the increase in Kenya due to a wrong land use politic. A planning methodology
for infrastructures, that does not respect or accepts guidelines based on on true EIA Studies, or
refers to valid, honest, and recognized planning methodologies and territorial planning. political
expedience brings long term disasters ... and we are seeing this with land use today in Kenya, let
alone ownership. We are sure that Jomo Kenyatta dream of protecting Kenya's natural treasures is
being betrayed. It shouldn't be!
16. EIA page 36, paragraph 1 : Here lies the real, present, and camouflaged danger to the fate of
NNP, if this proceeds. The new Study proposes odd land fragmentation. It fragments 40.6 ha (100.8
acres) and in the process loses 46.7 ha (115.4 acres). All together. Please add this acreage to that
lost for the Southern Bypass that everyone has forgotten in this land grab, and do you addition for
losses. Such a loss of acreage is unsustainable for a park with wildlife the size of NNP!. No design
solutions are presented, or seem contemplated for an adequate connectivity between the Maim Park
and the 40.6 ha (100.3 acres) isolated by the realignment. How this isolated part of NNP's acreage
will be utilized, that lies in a prime Metropolitan Area of Nairobi will be utilized remains a mystery. Or
Maybe not a mystery as there is appetite for prime land. There is a real danger, that this isolated
portion of the park will become, like the famous buffer zones, prime targets for private, or not so
private, legal or not so legal developers and land speculators. So far it seems that those buffer zones
and road allowances have remained in the hands of the illegal developers. No effort for repossession
have been noted... bad precedents from the Southern Bypass breaches into the Park. There is no
excuse for the isolation of this parcel of acreage from the rest of NNP acreage.
17. EIA page 36, paragraph 2 : Only physical disturbances are addressed here. However, ecological
disturbances, and how they relate to wildlife in general, and the endangered Rhinos in particular are
not taken into consideration. These are enormous! Important to wildlife and the environment and are
more than physical. It is a mortal sin that EIA consultants are not aware of these things when they
prepare these studies. To often as is the case here, their EIA reports do not address wildlife and their
biosphere as a crucial environmental issue.
18. EIA page 37 : By using this comment to justify the realignment of the SGR route through NNP ....
let us chide/criticise those that proposed and submitted this EIA. Unless politically rammed through
approval, a total change of design is needed. A raised platform for the SGR has to be contemplated
in that area where the two culverts and a bridge are contemplated (already mentioned in another
context). A raised platform should be built all the way through. With the submitted design, free wildlife
movement is hindered.

NOTES ON RELEVANT CONSULTATION

19. Page 39 : Proper procedure in identifying, and selecting, proper stakeholders, for consultation in
preparing this EIA has not been followed. This has become a normal procedure of late in the
preparation of delicate and/or controversial EIA Studies. Especially for those that deal with
environmental issues. This happens not only where environmental issues concerning wildlife, and
National Parks are involved. With the rush for " National infrastructure projects"
real concerns over proper land use and exploitation are causing increased concern. The scramble for
land ownership related to these projects raises concerns. Who should have been the the key
stakeholders that should have been consulted for compiling a credible EIA argument for this project?
For the Nairobi National Park it should have included: KWS park managers; groups directly connect to
the use of the park for what is like; tourism and tour operators/managers, tourists and visitors to NNP
and not visitors to just Safari Walk or the Orphanage; qualified conservation NGO's not necessarily
politically correct in their opinions; and with others, independent EIA Consultants that would give a
neutral opinion, unbiased by the need that a client wants protected, and not politically tied to the
interest of the opposing factions. None of the questionnaires in Appendix 1.1 appear to reflect any
opinion from even a single stakeholder. It is obvious that there were no consultations from even one
single stakeholder, and/or anyone with a stake in NNP. (one thinks of the bad PR for Kenya and
further drops in tourist revenue that this can cause) The people that have been used to validate what
is supposed to be an important EIA, did not respect the importance to the Nation, of examining
unbiased Study. Chosen for this. An irresponsible act to the Nation to bolster a political client. This
has made the spirit of the law as defined in NEMA, a scam, for a contribution that avoided input by
real stakeholders. Comment noted are out-right-biased!
20. EIA page 40, paragraph 2 : Reiterating comments made in comment 19, while the report
recognises that KWS is the major stakeholder in the EIA process, like for the Southern Bypass, no
evidence has been provided that key managers of KWS and/or NPP, and the SCA region. have been
consulted for this EIA Study exercise. These people are directly, and not theoretically charged with the
duty of managing NNP as per existing mandate, legislation, and a New Wildlife Protection Bill.. These
realities of late seem to be ignored by both GOK and Poachers!. The input from these people/staff
from KWS, that work on the ground vs the theoreticians with other agendas, cannot be wished away
or disregarded. Not even now! These people certainly understand the Park, the environment, the
biosphere, and the wildlife that inhabits it better than those that compiled this EIA Study. MEMA has to
step in and better regulate these bad habits in EIA compilation. This abuse of process leads to
serious abuses and to approvals for project not environmentally compliant. This is done on purpose
to gain what? Let us just try to imagine!
21. EIA page 42, paragraph 3 : We suspect that the 88% support quoted, for the new SGR
realignment in NNP, is as biased as the choice of respondents used to justify it, and as such DOES
NOT REPRESENT the truth on the ground today, for what is wanted for the future in NNP. It is as
surprising as some electoral results! A proper unbiased EIA Study, to have credibility, and a logical
analysis of conditions, obstacles, and valid remedial measures, has to interview and listen and use
key stakeholders in the project. People that are experienced, knowledgeable of local environmental,
and biosphere condition, limitations, and fixes that work. This applies not only to this EIA, but to all ...
even if the deal with Coal Powered Power Stations .... like in Lamu, and humans are not wildlife either.
22. EIA Page 43, paragraph 2 : Please note that this realignment proposal violates Article 42 of
the Kenyan Constitution" .... for it seeks to destroy rather than protect the environment. We might
as well remove Jomo Kenyatta's words from the signage that proclaims a commitment to protecting
Kenya's Natural Treasures.
23. EIA Page 53, paragraph 1, point N4 : A partial comment on this has been made previously. Let

us face the facts that arise from a failure of National Territorial Planning, Regulations, and the
continuing greed for land ownership. The sale, and subdivision, legal or illegal because of this creates
a complicated conundrum. A self created monster. Compensation has been proposed for any land
lost in NNP in habitat and for wildlife, by offering to identify, and acquire alternative parcels of land
contiguous to NNP.. Problem is that contiguous land in the Kitengela Plain, or in Nairobi vs Kajado is
prime and occupied. Even the migration corridor is compromised. It is a tall order, tedious and
expensive, and a political minefield to venture into expropriating at a fair price most of this land. Even
more difficult when you have to deal with certain landowners with extensive acreage busily being
subdivided and sold in small lots. It is bad enough explaining to wildlife to move to greener pastures
for a railway alignment, so just imagine telling property owners to look for greener pastures to make
room for wildlife. There is no credible evidence so far of any viable contiguous parcel of land that can
be purchased on the basis of willing seller-willing buyer.. We also the same promise for the use of
land for the Southern Bybass. Two hits in the same Park!. Repossession is even more difficult as
some notables are involved in land ownership. So far there has been no credible activity in engaging
legal and illegal land holders in this process ... in the meantime the damage to the ecosystem,
environmentally, and to endangered species, like the Rhino, will continue and become irreparable.
24. EIA Page 45. Even if this proposed realignment is illegally and forcefully approved for political
force majeur, the process will still have to wait for due process. The full legal,process, even for wrong
decisions, have to be debated in parliament, for the land of NNP to be degazetted ... of course this no
guarantee that GOK will make the right choice after their approval debates. Transparency has to exist
in processes that identify public participation, and not just access to,pro-development groups. The
decisions will also have to be tested in court for Constitutional validity, as that now seems missing.
25. IMPORTANT INFORMATION RELATING TO THE LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY AND CRITICAL
WILDLIFE HABITAT/ RANGE. PARTICULARLY FOR THE ENDANGERED KEYSTONE SPECIE
THE BLACK RHINO (diceros bicornis)
The Black Rhino (diceros bicornis) suffered a serious decline in numbers across Africa in the 70's and
80's. This was also related to the loss of habitat and ranges necessarily for its survival. This was due
amongst other things to land use policies. Stocks already weakened weakened by hunting and
culling, in the name of safety for increasing human density, were genetically weak. Hunting, culling,
poaching .... like for human deaths during the long world wars .... weakened the DNA/ Genetic pool
heritage of many species. Subsequent re-population effort suffered from genetic depletion. The
number of rhinos plummeted. From around 65,000 in 1970 they fell to fewer that 2,500 by 1992. The
decline of the Eastern Black Rhino (diceros bicornis michaeli) in East Africa was particularly severe as
is testified: Western & Sindiyo, 1972; Western, 1982; Gahaku in 1993.) Hence the importance of their
sanctuary in NNP, and the destruction of their habitat. While there are no wild elephants now residing
in NNP, except the Sheldrick orphans, that as rewilded are transferred to their habitats and keeping in
mind that unlike residing rhinos, the last time that elephants tried to re-enter NPP, followi8ng the now
occupied migration corridor .... they were quickly relocated (an event almost forgotten today) ... that
the same relocation fate could fall on the NNP Rhinos, would be the end of their specie unless
relocated or fenced in in enclosed artificial habitats. The conservation principles that maintain and
ensure the survival of the Black Rhino provide resilience, and a defence for preserving this keystone
species. management applications that have evolved over the years in the habitat that will now be
compromised. The proposed SGR realignment as proposed, if approved in this form, will have a
serious impact on the survival of the Black Rhino .... especially during the construction and
preparatory phases, and will eventually isolate a good portion of the range it needs, This will impact
negatively the reproductive activities of the specie. No remedials have been presented for the
safeguard of this Rhino, or remedials to repair and rebuild the damaged habitat, nor any construction
time estimate or PERT charts for completion of construction and remedial work.. What is not even
addressed, and is more than important, that a compromised habitat, will not only affect the rhino, but
the whole ecological chain of the park, from aviary to insects to plant life. A biosphere inhabited by a
Rhino, as multiple links to all these things and all the other species ... This project cannot be accepted

as it is justified for IT WILL affect all of the NNP ecology.

OTHER COMMENTS
The economic logic that drives this EIA study, "compensation savings today" is faulty logic. It implies
false savings at the expense of NNP and it's wildlife, and the protection work that occurs there. The
long range costs and consequences have not bee examined in proposing this solution to the SGR
realignment. It proposes long term environmental destruction and wildlife survival in a seriously
damaged biosphere. There is no guarantee of remedial work, or that further breach and occupation of
acreage will not occur. This Unique Wildlife Urban Oasis will be always subject to the needs for
servicing, maintaining and upgrading a railway line, that will eventually need High Speed
modifications and even electrification.
The EIA Study doesn't even hint at the future tied to such a damaging breach as this realignment..
We think this was done in purpose and like other items we commented on was done purposefully and
in bad faith. There is nos such thing as we didn't know, when dealing with these infrastructures. The
point of the exercise is the eventual take over of NNP and leave just a zoo, and the Headquarters for
KWS. The EIA is biased and not respectful of the tenets contained in the Constitution.
At this point one suspects, on seeing the quality of mapping used in the Study, that other available
maps, from KWS and key stakeholders have not been consulted. Especially the maps recording
movement and presence of species in the park. From Rhinos to lions, etc. The lack of GPS location
points for the realignment reinforces the lack of validity for this EIA Study ... and the danger of
permitting such undefined railway construction to proceed in NNP. We have commented on the
obvious faults in this Study.
This project has not been visualized in the proper wildlife context, driven by political pressure and the
false sense/reason to save money on the short time ... but at what long term cost? It does not come to
grip with the reality of what a biosphere is. It doesn't even come to terms with the role that NNP plays
as a lung of clean air for the territory and polluted Nairobi in particular.
The damage to this habitat will also affect the humans that live the territory, and the health costs for
that are nor measurable.
Let us close this brief with some Provisions from The Wildlife Conservation and management Act
(WCM) 2013:
Section 34 of the WCM 2013 states that: .... on variations of boundaries or revocation of a National
Park or a Marine Protected Area, (it) proposes (maintains) that a variation to a National Park, shall
only be considered by the Cabinet Secretary, where, a proposal is recommended by the Service in
consultation with the National Land Commission, in accordance with subsection (20, and subsequently
approved by a resolution of Parliament. These variations and changes (our note: keep in mind the
Constitution) will be recommended only if proposals for variations or cessation of a status/state of a
Park or Protected Areas, do not breach the following:
i) Shall not endanger any rare or endangered species (we have identified two, Black rhinos and wild
dogs);
ii) Shall not interfere with the migration and the critical habitat of wildlife;
iii) Does not adversely affect its value in provision of environmental goods and services;

iv) Does not prejudice biodiversity conservation, cultural site protection, or its use for educational,
ecotourism, recreational, health and research purposes.
All proposals for variations/cessation needs are subjected to an environmental assessment in
accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act 1999;
furthermore, public consultation in accordance with the Fourth Schedule therein identified, has to be
properly undertaken in relation to the requests of the proposals.
On the basis of the above quoted excerpts of existing legislation, and on the basis of the comments
here presented the SGR Realignment project identified as EIA Study Report NEMA/EIA/512/1251
.... VERY STRONG OBJECTIONS for the approval of the proposed SGR realignment exist, and have
been listed and voiced.
It fails to meet the Legal, Moral, and Responsible Criteria necessary for it's approval.
With the other submitters, we remain open for consultations to draft a responsible and legal EIA and
to find compatible design solution with no loss of acreage to for the NNP Biosphere, and all that that
implies. A solution that would resolve the dilemma of an infrastructure re-alignment that doesn't come
to grips with the real issues of conservation, the importance to Kenya of this, even as an economic
contribution to the Nation.
The fact remains, that if the powers in power can get away with the approval of such a faulty EIA and
Project proposal abusing system and laws ...there should be no surprise if grassroots Kenyans will
continue to abuse the laws when trying to resolve their problems, whether fighting landgrabs and
similar abuses, Human and Wildlife Conflicts (as they are doing), or personal issues.
Back to square one and involving the real stakeholders please.

Thanking all the persons, and organizations, private, NGO's, and Public, that contributed to redacting
this report, we would also like to thank the NEMA committee for reading and considering the
comments and opinions supplied for their judgement of this EIA Study submitted in behalf of the SGR,
but affecting negatively the Nairobi national Park and both its wildlife and biosphere'
We remain yours truly
Dr Daniel Nicastro M.Arch.
INTARCOToronto/Nairobi/Rome June 28, 2015

CURRICULUM VITAE:
Dr Daniel Nicastro, M. Arch.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Daniel Nicastro, known as Rasthadan, is a Senior Architect trained in Conservation, Heritage and
Environmental Assessments that is active as a Project manager, Design and Implementation Team
Coordinator, and Consultant in Environment and Conservation. He is active in the Tourism and Parks
Infrastructure field, Laboratory Design, sampling and monitoring techniques, Sustainable Forestry,
Environmental Impact Assessment, and in Design and Construction. Has extensive experience in
Emergency Response Design and Infrastructures and on the Field Emergency Strategies.
Professionally active in the above fields since the 70's for international projects in various capacities,
privately or as staff, for private and various Government Agencies, operating globally. Africa, Europe,
Asia, the Middle East and the Americas. Was Head of Period Data and Research, Architectural and
Engineering Division of Parks Canada and was involved in training and research programmes for
Parks Canada Staff and as lecturer for University and Technical courses. Has taught courses for
UNESCO. Very active writing reports and consulting in the conservation field.
He usually carries out his work in-situ, integrating his knowledge and experience with local staff so as
to facilitate the handover of a project to local management and or to design and implementation
teams. Being fluent in four languages and familiar with other national languages, enhances his
communication skills in working with and directing multinational teams This creates an open and
flexible work philosophy adaptable to different work environments.
His North American work experience and professional updating, has given him practicality; the Middle
East and African experience has given him depth and patience; South American and Caribbean
experience has strengthened his response to planning and response to natural disasters. This
combined with his European training, UN and UNESCO Interaction and training, his work with
Governments, has given him the inventive, the resolve, the problem solving imagination, access to
resources, and the experience to design, realize and implement projects in his field of competence ...
ensuring compliance to goals,budgets, and schedules in the interest of the clients he represents.
Toronto, June 28, 2015