The global clamor for carbon offsetting has positioned “nature-based solutions” as a beacon of hope for both climate action and community development, particularly in developing nations. Organizations like the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) have championed this model, presenting it as a win-win: sequestering carbon while empowering local communities. However, a landmark court ruling in Kenya, in the case of Osman & 164 others v Northern Rangelands Trust & 8 others, starkly exposes a troubling reality: without genuine engagement and respect for indigenous rights, carbon projects can inflict profound socioeconomic disruption and perpetuate historical injustices. This case powerfully reinforces the intellectual hypothesis that carbon projects, despite their lofty promises, do not necessarily translate into tangible socioeconomic benefits for local communities when established without their free, prior, and informed consent, ultimately impacting intergenerational equity and user rights.
The Northern Rangelands Trust, a prominent conservation organization in Kenya, has been at the forefront of establishing community conservancies, including those involved in its ambitious Northern Kenya Rangelands Carbon Project (NKRCP). This project, described as the world’s largest soil carbon removal initiative, aims to sequester millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide by improving grazing practices across vast swathes of land. NRT reports that its carbon projects generated approximately $3.9 million (Ksh 529.8 million) in 2023. Earlier reports indicated that in February 2022, each of the 14 participating conservancies received $324,000 as their first payment from carbon credit sales, with a total of $14.6 million generated for local conservancies to date.
To understand what these figures truly mean on the ground, let’s attempt to contextualize them. The NKRCP benefits over 205,000 people across its 14 participating conservancies. If we were to take the $2.5 million disbursed to 22 communities in 2024 (as reported by Mongabay for the carbon community fund) and distribute it evenly among 205,000 people, it would amount to approximately $12.20 per person per year, or a meager $1.02 per person per month. Even if we consider the reported $3.9 million generated in 2023, this translates to roughly $19 per person per year, or $1.58 per month.
These figures raise a critical question: is this a commercially viable project for the communities themselves, especially when weighed against the significant cultural disruption it can entail? I further ask, isn’t this a new form of colonialism against local communities by these foreign firms?
The court’s judgment meticulously details how the establishment and operation of conservancies in Isiolo County by NRT and associated parties lacked crucial public participation and infringed upon the constitutional rights of the local communities. The case reveals a systemic disregard for the communities’ land and cultural rights, exposing the dark underbelly of a model often lauded as progressive.
The Illusion of Engagement: A Breach of Constitutional Imperatives
The court’s findings were damning, highlighting a profound failure in community engagement. Petitioners, representing residents of Merti Sub-County, Chari, and Cherab Wards, unequivocally stated that conservancies were established on unregistered community land without their express consent. The County Government of Isiolo, constitutionally mandated as trustee of such land, was found to have abrogated its duty, permitting NRT to operate without meaningful community involvement.
Crucially, the court found no evidence of public participation or forums conducted prior to the establishment of these conservancies. Documents presented by NRT to prove engagement, such as registration certificates and NEMA licenses, were all prepared after the petition was filed in October 2021, rendering them moot. The court unequivocally concluded that NRT and its partners “breached the principles of public participation, which is a constitutional imperative under Articles 10 and 69(1),(d), (e) and (f) of the Constitution.” This finding underscores that the legally required “free, open, consultative process” for investments on community land was brazenly ignored.
Beyond Financial Figures: The Erosion of Livelihoods and Culture
The consequences for the communities extend far beyond the negligible financial returns. The judgment illuminates several detrimental impacts that directly support the hypothesis about negative socio-economic effects:
- Alienation of Land and Loss of Livelihood: The communities, primarily pastoralists, faced the “hiving off” of vast tracts of unregistered community land, traditionally used for grazing, burial, and cultural sites. This directly interfered with their right to property and their social and economic lives.
- Human Rights Violations and Security Concerns: The deployment of armed rangers by NRT, without proper legal authorization, led to “tension; that there have been several instances of violence, loss of life, and forceful disappearances.” This escalation of insecurity and intimidation directly undermined the well-being of the local population.
- Illegal Operation of Armed Rangers: The court’s declaration that the “existence and operation of armed rangers in the conservancies… under the management of the 1st Respondent are illegal and unconstitutional” reveals a shocking overreach of power and a disregard for national security frameworks.
- Abdication of Statutory Duties by Government Agencies: The County Government and the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning were found to have breached their mandates by failing to facilitate the registration of community land, further disempowering the communities and preventing them from formalizing their land ownership and management.
- Threat to Intergenerational Equity: The traditional understanding of community land as an “intergenerational trust for future generations” was undermined. The court noted that natural resources should be “used and managed sustainably and productively for the benefit of the whole community, including future generations,” a principle clearly violated by the actions of the respondents.
The NRT Model: A Question of Legality and Ethical Practice
The court’s analysis stripped away any pretense of NRT’s “model” being a legally sanctioned framework. The “Guide to Establish Community Conservancies-the NRT Model” was explicitly stated to be “not a government policy. It has no legal force… It cannot override the Constitution and statutes.” The court criticized NRT for attempting to “be both a team player and a regulator… in total breach, ignorance, and overlooking of the Constitution and sectoral laws.” This judgment exposes a troubling pattern where a non-profit organization’s actions, despite purported good intentions, infringed upon fundamental property rights by operating outside the established constitutional and legal framework.
Conclusion: A Call for Genuine Partnership and Legal Reform
The Osman & 164 others v Northern Rangelands Trust & 8 others judgment serves as a powerful and undeniable validation of the hypothesis that carbon projects often fail to deliver true socioeconomic benefits when community engagement is superficial or absent. It exposes the inherent flaws when conservation initiatives, however well-intentioned, disregard fundamental human rights, cultural practices, and legal due process. The paltry per-person financial benefits, when juxtaposed with the profound cultural disruption and human rights violations, paint a clear picture of a project that, at its core, is not commercially viable for the affected communities themselves, and is certainly not culturally sensitive.
To prevent such injustices in the future, it is imperative that legal frameworks mandate and rigorously enforce comprehensive public participation for any project impacting community land. This must include:
- Mandatory, prolonged, and accessible engagement: Allowing ample time and providing information in local languages, with transparent documentation.
- Inclusivity: Ensuring the participation of all community segments, including women, youth, and marginalized groups, through culturally appropriate forums.
- Independent Facilitation: Introducing neutral third parties to oversee public participation, guarding against coercion.
- Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC): Moving beyond mere participation to grant communities the right to accept or reject projects on their land.
- Robust Enforcement and Accountability: Establishing clear penalties for non-compliance and strengthening regulatory bodies to ensure genuine adherence to these mandates.
- Full Operationalization of the Community Land Act: Expediting the registration of community lands to empower communities with formal ownership and management structures.
Only through such fundamental reforms can carbon projects and similar land-use initiatives genuinely benefit communities, respect their rights, and align with principles of intergenerational equity, rather than perpetuating historical injustices and undermining local livelihoods. The Osman case is a stark reminder that true environmental stewardship must begin with justice for the people who call these lands home.
This decision comes at a critical time when I am conducting my LLM thesis on the social and economic impact of carbon projects on local communities in Kenya. While I am open to be disappointed with my assumptions, the above remains my firm conviction that these projects are actually not commercially viable even in the short term.
