AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO MULTINATIONAL INVESTMENTS AMONG INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES.

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO MULTINATIONAL INVESTMENTS AMONG INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES.

Background.

The geothermal potential of the Kenya Rift Valley was recognized in the mid-1950s. In 1956, two wells were drilled at Olkaria about 10 km west of Longonot. With promising results the UNDP and the Kenya Power and Lighting Company carried out an extensive exploration program in the Rift Valley in 1970. This survey identified Olkaria as the best candidate for exploratory drilling.[1] By 1976, six deep wells had been drilled and the first 15 MW generating unit was commissioned at Olkaria in 1981.

Fumes from the geothermal plants/ Jackson Shaa

According to the Kenya Power Generating Company (KenGen), exploration for geothermal energy in Kenya started in the 1960’s with surface exploration that culminated in two geothermal wells being drilled at Olkaria. In early 1970’s more geological and geophysical work was carried out between Lake Bogoria and Olkaria. This survey identified several areas suitable for geothermal prospecting and by 1973, drilling of deep exploratory wells at Olkaria commenced and was funded by UNDP. Additional wells were thereafter, drilled to prove enough steam for the generation of electricity and in June 1981, the first 15 MW generating unit was commissioned. The second 15 MW unit was commissioned in November 1982 and the third unit in March 1985 which increased the total generation to 45 MW. This was the first geothermal power station in Africa and is owned and operated by KenGen. In 2003, KenGen commissioned a 2 x 35 MW Olkaria II power plant in the Northeast field. An IPP is generating 12 MW from a pilot plant at Olkaria West (Olkaria III) and has plans to increase the capacity to 36 MW by 2009. British Geological Survey, Geotermica Italiana Srl, KenGen and the Government of Kenya (MoE) have continued to carry out detailed studies for geothermal energy in the Kenya rift and the potential has been estimated at over 4,000 MW.[2]

Since 2009, infrastructure financing to Africa has seen unprecedented growth. Chinese financing, official development financing (ODF), and private participation in infrastructure (PPI) investments have been key sources in this rapid growth—as have national African governments and their domestic resources. Kenya in particular has seen such growth on the development of renewable energy in form of geothermal development.

The Government of Kenya has placed considerable importance on the Technical and Economic Study for Development of Small Scale Grid Connected Renewable Energy in Kenya. Since 2008, feed-in tariffs (FiTs) have been on offer to encourage investment in renewable energy (RE) generation projects, but there has to date been a rather limited response as measured by numbers of projects implemented under the FiT mechanism. The Government seeks now, with the assistance of the World Bank, to create a framework which will encourage greater RE investment, thereby relieving the capacity constraint and allowing more Kenyans to connect to the grid, but at the same time avoiding high tariff increases being imposed on existing electricity consumers.

While this has been the case, most of the projects that have been implemented have raised major concerns of lack of proper protocols for community involvement, irregular and skewed compensation for communities and more so forceful evictions of local communities that live within project sites. These anomalies were further given credence by an initial investigative report by the World Bank Inspection Panel which visited the general area to validate complains that were lodged by the Maasai community[3]. Among the key issues that the initial report identified were; land titling, identification of Project Affected People (PAPs), livelihood restoration, benefit sharing, redress and implementation support, and the issue about indigenous people.

Inadequate Environmental and Social Impact Assessments

Furthermore, geothermal resources in Olkaria have been exploited with no regard for the health or environment of the local communities. Despite being touted as a green energy, KenGen’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessment shows that geothermal power plants release certain pollutants into the environment including noise pollution, hydrogen sulphide gas, and trace metals like boron, arsenic, and mercury. Toxic wastes from the power station in Naivasha have been emitted into the air and disposed in local waterways in violation of applicable international environmental standards (Marine Power, 2012).

It is an expected norm that before any project is undertaken, an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) has to be done. An ESIA is a process or set of activities designed to contribute to pertinent environmental and social information in a project decision making process. During an ESIA process, attempts are made to identify, predict, and assess the likely consequences of the proposed project or program. It is therefore a planning tool whose objective is to identify, predict and asses any impacts that the proposed project may have in order to inform policy.

Apparently, the ESIA report that was used by KenGen to seek funding lacks empirical data and insensitive to the real needs and interests of the community to support the project and has a myriad of gaping holes that any professional who is averse with that area will see on a first glance. First, the report about the Maasai people shows a high level of ignorance and disregard to the Maasai culture and their livelihood. The following areas are of great concern both to the Maasai, wildlife, and the general environment:

             

Disregarding the Maasai people and their culture

The ESIA report negated the relevance of indigenous peoples’ ways of lives and their livelihood and did not take into consideration the Maasai belief and value systems. According to the report the following areas raise a lot of concern on the people’s culture and belief: 

a) under Part 1.3.3 of the ESIA, paragraph (c) on Social change states that “with anticipation of coming of new people from varied cultures, cultural exchange will lead to adoption of new ways of life, system of beliefs and shedding off of traditional way of living that have stagnated development in the local area[4]”. This paragraph is highly discriminatory and stereotyped and to extend prejudicial to the Maasai. By stating that the Maasai adopt new life styles is demeaning and a proposition that other cultures are superior to the Maasai culture. It is an indication of a clear bias by the consultant and to a greater degree the ignorance of the authors of the Maasai way of life hence lacks objectivity;

b) under 7.3.2: positive impacts during construction; the report says that during construction, the local community particularly women will get an opportunity to start small income generating activities e.g. sale of food, this will diversify income streams and improve socio-economic status. The reports negates the basic principle that Maasai that live in the general area are pastoralists who also practice small scale agriculture and transhumance. The report lacks in-depth knowledge of how indigenous livelihood diversification has contributed to the sustenance of the people over long periods of time.  The report ignored the fact that beadwork, crafts and the Maasai culture in itself provided alternative incomes other than pastoralism’s to the community, and that over time they had developed a secure source of income closer to the museum where young men work as scouts and guides to earn income.  There is no mention of Ilkarian village and museum and how the linkages that the local Maasai had developed over time with partners in Europe was hence not considered as an alternative income source for the Maasai; and;

  c) It is appalling how the report ignored the Maasai cultural, spiritual, and life patterns. There is a very rich history of the Maasai dating back 1800 for such sites like Enkaibartani, Olare: (orbene lolchani – “bag of medicine”), Enkapune orpeles, Enchoro Oloontualan, Enchoro Olormampuli, and graves. By ignoring the grazing patterns the Maasai from Suswa who rely on the gorge as a dry weather grazing area, and that most of the Maasai who live in Olkaria and Narasha have extended families far and beyond the project area and there is interdependence on the way of life is another great weakness of the report.

             

Lack of strategies to address people’s livelihoods

Livestock grazing with geothermal plants on the background.  Photo courtesy of Jason Patinkin

The ESIA reports has contradictions on employment creation. While in its states that 900 jobs will be created, it further goes to say that the work force will be externally sourced by contractors who will be contracted to undertake all the available jobs on the site. This meant that since most of the available jobs will require skilled workers, the local communities will be excluded from any job opportunities that will be available. The report does not indicate measures that will address the mechanisms that will be used to create jobs for the local communities. The absence of strategies to research, evaluate and support life skills development for local communities to cope up with the changes that the project has brought is a recipe for disaster for the local communities as already being experienced by PAPs.  It should be noted that the general area is a dry season grazing area for more than 20,000 people whose livelihoods are under threat arising from the geothermal activities in the area. There is confusion about people’s eligibility for certain livelihood restoration activities and evidence that some people feel excluded.

Disregard of environmental hazards

   Lack of knowledge of biodiversity species in the project sites

According Nature Kenya[5] experts in biodiversity clearly outlined the discrepancies of the ESIA report which included wrong names for species that are found in the habitat. The letter also gave detailed facts that almost all of the species are endangered and that any further exploitation of geothermal in the project site will lead to extinction of such species.

Environmental destruction and other hazards

  KenGen has dug several disposal pits close to the schools and the villages which not only pause a threat in the future but have already claimed the life of one child and several livestock which fell to the pits. The clearing of vast areas and piling of soils in areas that were mainly used for pasture have not only reduced grazing areas for the local communities buy have contributed to massive erosion that have created deep gullies around the villages which are equally a threat to both human and livestock. On the face of it, the clearing of the vegetation on the already delicate fragile land topography has facilitated enormous erosion that will take very many years to rehabilitate and as per the report there seems to be no such mechanisms provided.

Health related impacts

According to the report, there are high chances that new infection rates of HIV/AIDS and STIs will increase due to the money available to traders, workers and business people coming into the area.  There is factual evidence from the community that unaccompanied men have brought STIs into the villages, breaking up families and causing divorces. Worse still of workers impregnating school children have been reported and the company protects its workers by compromising the gatekeepers through bribery to stop legal action against perpetrators of such vices. The deliberate spillage of the brine and other waste materials without due diligence has continued to pollute the very few water sources that are available.

Inappropriate involuntary resettlement procedures and forceful evictions

Temporary structures after displacements/ Stephen Parkire

Involuntary resettlement is a deeply complex and disruptive process, with potential to place vulnerable populations at great risk. These are the risks that the Maasai communities that live in Narasha, Kedong, and Longonot have continued to face since the inception of geothermal extraction. According to the World Bank Inspection Panel, there was clear evidence that the right procedures were not followed and there are wide disparities in the manner at which PAPs were identified, compensated, and settled. The Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was  did not put into consideration the role the affected community would have played in identification of  most appropriate site for resettlement. The process was riddled with corruption and intimidation from government and KenGen officials and lack of consultation on alternative settlement area. There is clear evidence that people’s social networks and livelihood patterns have been significantly disrupted by involuntary displacement. As things are now there is a general feeling of being unsettled and isolated, with people having lost a sense of place and spirituality. The community has also been made to incur cost that the companies did not include or did not cater for during the resettlement process. By failing to account for the full cost of resettlement, the companies concerned have effectively externalized the cost of impact mitigation and recovery, in the process putting resettled communities at greater risk of impoverishment. Evidence in the resettlement process indicates that positioning resettlement as a development opportunity rather than an impoverishment risk in corporate policy frameworks distracts from issues of recovery and livelihood reconstruction[6]. In a recent report the World Bank failings on resettlement, action plan which should identify displaced and provide redress[7] 

The local community have variously faced forced evictions accompanied by mass destruction of property due to contestation of land ownership by the Maasai and another group which claims to legally own the land which is historically the home for thousands of Maasai family. Case in

Community response to forceful evictions

point is the invasion of Narasha village on Friday the 26^th October 2014 when over 200 youths believed to be members of the proscribed sect Mungiki (a Kikuyu proscribed sect) under the escort of heavily armed police men descended on the Maasai community in Narasha with all manner of crude weapons burning and destroying 240 houses. The arsonists who were protected by the armed police rendered 2,300 people homeless, killed over 20 calves and over 600 lambs. During the raid 2 elderly Maasai men sustained bullet wounds as well as cuts from machetes[8].

Further to the forced evictions, the involuntary relocation of the Project Affected People (PAPs) was not implemented in accordance to RAP. There were also very clear discrepancies on land titling, identification of PAPs, restoration of livelihoods and the absence of a transparent, democratic grievance redress system. The grievance redress system which the government has used is extremely intimidative and manipulation in that courts are now being used to dismiss Maasai cases in order to allow for forced evictions[9]. Some members of the community are currently living under threats of retaliation for raising complaints against the processes. 

  Recommendations

These recommendations are mainly directed to the Government of Kenya which include the counties where the communities reside, KenGen, the World Bank, European Investment Bank, International Finance Corporation and the community.

General recommendations

1.      Despite the fact that the World Bank and the European Investment bank have carried out an investigation whose report is yet to be made, there is an urgent need to institute a study on the processes and impacts of the existing projects on the general wellbeing of the affected communities. This will help in informing policy and future decision making. 

2.      There is an urgent need to initiate a stakeholder mediation process to identify key areas that need to be addressed, this will facilitate trust building. Currently there is an overwhelming lack of trust in the companies involved, lack of trust in government to resolve issues and monitor resettlement impacts, lack of trust within the community leadership structures which was brought up by the companies divide and rule approach, and conflicts between the community and gate keepers that the companies have used as community mouth pieces. 

3.      A review and where possible a new Environmental and Social Impact Assessment which is indigenous people led be done with experts from various relevant fields involved.

Recommendations for the Kenya government

·       There is need to establish strategies that work with the County and national governments to establish and support community-based livelihood restoration activities in in the affected area including sustainable income generation. Consideration must be given to income-generating strategies that are suitable for women and youth.

·       Need for the adherence and strengthening of the legal frameworks consistent with the resolution of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights to “ensure participation, including the free, prior and informed consent of communities in decision-making on natural resource governance[10].

·       The government need to develop a National Action Plan to implement the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights with specific reference to identifying, mitigating and preventing the potential human rights impacts of resettlement.

·       The government should enforce the requirement that all companies seeking approval for extractive projects ensure that essential resettlement infrastructure is established prior to physical relocation.

Recommendations to the WB, IFC, EIB, KenGen and IPP

·       Creation of an emergency fund to finance an urgent mediation process between KenGen, the community and other stakeholders. Activities to be funded will include community organization, knowledge and skills transfer, research on alternative livelihoods, strengthening of indigenous leadership and governance structures; and institutions, facilitate processes for an enabling environment for benefit sharing as opposed to the current approach where local communities are given one time compensation. This process should be led by indigenous peoples’ experts. This fund should also be used to support local communities to hire experts to undertake monitoring of all processes.

·       Need for support to local civil society groups to assist communities to have access to, and understand, project information including details about project owners and developers, operators, subcontractors and relevant financial institutions.

·       Finance an an in-depth study to be carried out on alternative livelihood for the potential PAPs and RAPs, and provide start- up capital for affected communities.

·       World Bank country offices should enhance their relationships with indigenous peoples’ through the support of initiatives that increase funding for capacity building, livelihood support and institutional strengthening.

Conclusion

Since community capacity is the interaction of human, organizational and social capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the well-being of a given community, and may operate through informal social processes and organized efforts by individuals, organizations, and the networks of associations among them and between them and the broader systems of which the community is part, relationships within a community not only serve as the basis for the community to solve its own problems, they also are used to obtain resources and influence public policies and the actions of the private sector that affect the quality of life in the community. It is therefore of paramount importance that deliberate, targeted community capacity building becomes the forerunner of any investments that are undertaken within indigenous peoples lands and territories.

Proposed remedies for the current conflict in Narasha, Kedong, and Suswa where the community is up in arms will be:

a.      a mediation process between the community, the investors, the Independent Power Producers and the government, and the process should be indigenous people expert led to allow for trust building;

b.      since costs have already been incurred, and the rights of the people have been infringed, a study needs to be financed by the investors to identify potential opportunities to remedy the situation which will include an all –inclusive ESIA;

c.       for communities that are yet to be relocated (displaced), there is need for honest and inclusive dialogue to be facilitated by an indigenous professional experts (as opposed to the past where KenGen and other companies were using gate keepers who were compromised) to rubber stamp decisions; and 

d.      an in-depth study to be carried out on alternative livelihood for the potential PAPs.

Given that the government has already given out concessions for further drilling which is expected to begin any time depending on availability of funding, there is an opportunity to forestall the conflicts like what have been experienced with the current project. Such opportunities will include: The revision of the previous ESIA to reflect the reality and to include the indigenous peoples’ perspectives, community councietization, capacity enhancement and establishment of community institutions to partner with prospecting IPPs for purposes of benefit sharing and co-ownership of the investments as opposed to the current situation where the communities only receive one time compensation, deliberate move to facilitate indigenous people to establish business ventures that will partner with potential venture investors, consultations on the locations where PAPs will be resettled, and the types settlements as well as social amenities they will require.

 More important, investments being carried out on indigenous peoples’ lands and territories should recognize the indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, “indigenous peoples have the right to determine priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands and territories”[11]. It is of importance here to stress the fact that the Kenya government not only support and facilitate processes that build the capacity of local communities to be able to initiate entrepreneurial project that harness their local natural resources, but it also has the obligation not only to respect human rights by refraining from conduct that would violate such rights, but also to affirmatively protect, promote and fulfil human rights[12]. Emphasis is hereby made to ensure that the Kenya government support should include providing assistance for acquiring any necessary licenses or permits. Also, in granting any licenses or permits, the government should give preference to indigenous peoples’ initiatives for resource extraction within their territories over any initiatives by third party business interests to pursue resource extraction within those same lands.

Finally for the indigenous peoples’ whose lands and territories have either existing development projects or have been earmarked for investments, the government has to ensure that there is security of tenure through land rights and land management mechanisms, put in place mechanisms that will ensure realistic, feasible and sustainable economic development, strengthen governance and institutional strengthening of local institutions, and develop policies and systems that are supportive of indigenous peoples’ wellbeing.

Koissaba, B. R. Ole. Ph.D.  (ABD)

 Social Development Specialist

Clemson University, SC,

---

[1] Kenneth B. A. & Greg U. (2011).  Geothermal resource assessment for Mt Longonot, central rift valley, Kenya.  Proceedings, Kenya Geothermal Conference.

[2] Silas M. Simiyu, (2008). Status of geothermal exploration in Kenya and future plans for its development

[3] See http://ewebapps.worldbank.org/apps/ip/PanelCases/97-Kenya%20Investigation%20Plan%20-3%20March%202015.pdf

[4] See Final Olkaria V Study

[5]  See letter to KenGen from Nature Kenya

[6] See Oxfam: Mining, resettlement and lost livelihoods

[7] See http://www.worldstagegroup.com/worldstagenew/index.php?active=news&newscid=21834&catid=4 

[8] See Hundreds Left Homeless In Olkaria Eviction: http://youtu.be/la3c95KrMd8 via @youtube

http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000089550

[9] See Koissaba, B.R.Ole (2014). Kenyan Government Manipulates Courts to Dispossess the Maasai of Their Lands.http://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/kenyan-government-manipulates-courts-dispossess-maasai-their-lands

[10] See http://www.achpr.org/sessions/51st/resolutions/224/.

[11] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, art. 32, para. 1. 

[12] This obligation is grounded for all Member States in the Charter of the United Nations, articles 1, 2 and 56, among others, and is a general principle of international law; it applies in respect of those human rights found in treaties to which States subscribe and in other sources of international law.  

Exploring the tension between theory and practice in community development

Exploring the tension between theory and practice in community development

Koissaba Ben R. Ole is a PhD candidate and research assistant at Clemson University.

I was employed by World Vision as a community motivator in one of their first Area Development Programs (ADPs) in Kenya in 1987. During these many years of getting exposed to both theoretical and practitioner perspectives of community development, I have, more often than not, found myself wondering about the real drivers for community development. Is community development a product of theoretical frameworks? Or is it a practice that is driven by peoples’ desires to change and adapt to the demands for survival within their specific geographical, social-cultural and political environments?

Showing respect for development as an inborn process

Through my work with communities, one key lesson that kept emerging over time for me is that no one can ever develop another person. The potential and ability to develop already lies within individuals – in their aspirations for their lives. The role that NGOs and global development forces play is to provide information on that will help others make informed choices on how they will achieve development within their context. When global and local players think that their interventions can develop other people, they forget that the people they normally referred to as the “targets” for their development projects are independent individuals who think and believe that they already have the capacity to develop.

This is why the current and past development approaches in the community development arena, where the so-called experts from the “developed” world spend time and other resources to help the underdeveloped world, is in my perspective a displaced and outdated process. There is no need for anyone to be convinced that their way of life is inferior and needs to change.

The description, or the construct, of change in community development is also problematic. In common practice, change is the process of transforming a situation, acting, projected behavior, perception and norms. But who drives the change? Change from what to what? Why and how? If the question of change does not come from within, the need to change is imposed. One element often missing in the community development process is the ability to provide answers as to what change and why the change. Naturally human beings change in response to their environments, and the best change comes from the community when they can collectively make decisions as to what needs to change in their lives and why the change is needed.

Where theory and practice can converge

Three years ago, when I started learning development theories, I discovered how hard it is to theorize about community development. I had worked for over twenty years “doing” community development by responding instantly to the actual needs, desires, and aspirations of both urban and rural communities in Africa. Before I started studying, I didn’t think much about the tension between delivering community development initiatives and the processes and theories behind why deficiencies occur and the relationships between problems on the ground and the interventions that are put in place to either forestall or mitigate their impacts.

As a practitioner I took for granted the importance of theories and empirical research. Instead, I specialized in participatory action research that not only provided hands-on experiential training and practical answers to what community needs were, but ensured a sense of ownership in the whole process. My concerns were about limited funds and what could be better spent on urgently-needed programs, rather than engaging in more academic and theoretical research or project overhead costs which included salaries for personnel who were highly-schooled. (Note the difference between highly-educated.)

While researchers grapple with theories and frameworks for certain behavior patterns and possible causes of community challenges, development practitioners are right at the core of it all. They interact with the communities every day at every level; some even suffer the same predicaments that the communities they serve suffer.

By helping to identify patterns in practitioners’ work, these patterns can be theorized, tested, and used as models for community development with the assistance of researchers. Learning about the strengths, weaknesses, and tensions within community development practice and theoretical models, helps both practitioners and researchers understand better why they each of them have often excluded each other from their work and how to reverse this.

The human element

It is important to note that in the field of community development, it is not the position or title, neither the model and make of the car that the aid workers or researchers drive that matters.

It is a big heart, a good brain, hawk eyes, and good ears that are willing to listen. It is humility and the patience to walk the path of community development at the pace of the community.

This should be the starting point for any theory in community development: people’s emotions, motivations, interactions between themselves and their environments, their interpretation of challenges, and willingness, readiness, and know-how to change what they want to change.

***

Photo: John Vicory http://bit.ly/1gMYwkG

Koissaba Ben R. Ole is the author of Local Advocacy to National Activism: Maa Civil Society Forum, Kenya. He is currently completing his PhD in International Community Development at Clemson and has his MA in Social Entrepreneurship from Northwest University. He is an outspoken advocate for the land rights of the Maasai people.

Since the late 1980s, he has worked as staff and as a consultant with various local and international NGOs, government agencies, and think tanks in Kenya, including World Vision, Premese Africa Development Institute, the Kenya National Poverty Eradication Commission, the Indigenous Concerns Resource Center, and Keekonyokie Oike Suswa Trust.

His expertise in community development includes experience with HIV, microenterprise, workforce development, disaster risk reduction, participatory research, governance and advocacy, and human rights.