Carbon Offsetting: A $14.6 Million opportunity or a risk to pastoralist livelihoods? As the earth exhales its last clean breaths, the soil beneath Kenya’s skies tells a story of hope and hardship. In the quest to capture carbon, the voices of the land’s ancient guardians whisper a warning: true sustainability blooms only where justice roots deep. Without it, even the greenest promises risk becoming shadows on the savannah.
By Staff Writer
Kenya’s Northern Kenya Rangelands Carbon Project (NKRCP) has become a flagship initiative in the African carbon offset market, generating approximately $14.6 million in carbon credit revenue over recent years. This money has funded community projects such as schools, boreholes, and wildlife conservation efforts across 450,000 hectares of semi-arid rangelands, home to pastoralist communities like the Borana and Rendille.
On paper, the project represents a win-win: offsetting an estimated 50 million tonnes of CO2 over 30 years, while promoting peace among historically conflicted pastoral groups through controlled grazing practices. But the story beneath this surface is far more complicated.
Many pastoralists enter into binding contracts without full clarity on their long-term rights, surrendering control over land management to carbon credit buyers. These agreements risk commodifying traditional land use, threatening centuries-old pastoral livelihoods that depend on flexible grazing patterns. The economic gains, while substantial, raise questions about who truly benefits and at what social cost.
The Ogiek case exposes a wider crisis
Across Kenya, carbon offsetting has accelerated tensions over land ownership, sparking fears of new “green” land grabs. A recent and troubling example is the forced eviction of the Ogiek community from the Mau Forest, a vital carbon sink.
This eviction followed a controversial carbon deal involving the Kenyan government and UAE-based Blue Carbon, which controls carbon rights to nearly 4 million hectares across East Africa, including Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Rwanda. Blue Carbon’s acquisitions often occur without Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) from indigenous communities, violating international human rights standards.
The displacement of the Ogiek, confirmed by Kenya’s courts to be unlawful, underscores how carbon markets can inadvertently, or deliberately, fuel dispossession.
As Survival International, an indigenous rights group, states: “Carbon offsetting is being used to evict Indigenous Peoples from their lands under the guise of conservation.”
Profit vs. people
Blue Carbon is not alone. Global demand for carbon offsets soared to 1.76 billion metric tonnes of CO2 in 2022, with developing countries supplying over 75% of credits. Yet, transparency and governance remain major concerns. Blue Carbon’s deals, and those like it, raise questions about whether the profits primarily benefit international investors and private companies rather than local communities.
Kenyan President William Ruto embodies this tension. While speaking at the UN General Assembly about the potential of carbon sinks as “economic goldmines,” his government simultaneously faced criticism for crackdowns on indigenous groups. This dual stance highlights the complex interplay between promoting private investment and protecting vulnerable communities.
Meanwhile, local organizations like the Northern Kenya Trust (NRT), which help administer offset projects, have been silent in response to community concerns, suggesting weak accountability mechanisms in governance structures.
Environmental success or greenwashing?
Despite claims of substantial carbon sequestration, the real environmental impact of offset projects like NKRCP remains contested. Critics argue that carbon verification processes can be opaque and unreliable, allowing projects to overstate their climate benefits.
Moreover, while controlled grazing aims to restore degraded lands and promote biodiversity, supporting endangered species such as the Grevy’s zebra, these ecological benefits may be undermined if traditional pastoral practices are restricted or displaced.
A 2024 report found that many offset projects in Africa reduce emissions only marginally while creating social disruption, highlighting the challenge of balancing ecological goals with community well-being.
The bigger picture
Africa contributes just 4% of global emissions, yet faces severe climate impacts and high costs for adaptation and mitigation. Experts like Amos Wemanya argue that climate finance should prioritize grants over debt-based carbon markets to avoid burdening already vulnerable communities.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stressed the urgency of reducing global emissions by 45% by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5°C. Carbon markets can play a role but only if they enforce strict standards:
- Genuine, verifiable emissions reductions;
- Respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights and consent;
- Transparent, enforceable grievance and monitoring systems.
As the next COP meeting approaches, global negotiators face pressure to reform carbon offset frameworks to avoid perpetuating injustice and ensure climate action is both effective and equitable.
