Kenyan herders resist Meta climate project
Local communities say a controversial carbon project restricts their traditional grazing routes.
In northern Kenya, indigenous communities are resisting an attempt to revive a major carbon project. The project has sold carbon credits to companies including Meta and Netflix, but local herders say they were not adequately consulted.
The project in question is the Northern Kenya Grassland Carbon Project, managed by the Northern Rangelands Trust. It aims to store additional carbon in grasslands by reorganising grazing. The credits are sold to companies seeking to substantiate their emissions claims with them.
Maasai, Rendille, Borana and Samburu communities claim, according to human rights and environmental organisations, that the project restricts their traditional freedom of movement. They say that agreements on land use and revenues have not always been reached in an understandable or voluntary manner.
Survival International reported in June that communities in the Leparua and Melako conservancies objected to new agreements. According to the organisation, residents were pressured into signing documents. These are allegations made by the communities concerned and advocacy organisations; no independent confirmation has been found.
According to public project descriptions, the project covers approximately 4.7 million acres. Meta and Netflix are among the companies that have bought credits. The scale of the transactions and the precise status of previously sold credits vary by source.
The issue touches on a broader problem in the voluntary carbon market: a credit represents real climate benefit only if the additional storage is measurable and is not offset elsewhere. It must also be clear who has control over the land and who benefits financially.
The available sources do not provide a complete picture of the response from the Northern Rangelands Trust, Meta or Netflix to the recent allegations. It therefore remains impossible to establish whether the project will be resumed, modified or suspended again.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The project generates carbon credits from grassland management.
- Meta and Netflix are among the named buyers of credits.
- Local communities dispute how land use and consent have been arranged.
Left
Arguments This perspective sees the project as an example of climate action in which companies can buy emissions claims while local communities lose control and livelihoods. According to this approach, climate policy should begin with rights, transparency and genuine emissions reductions.
Values Climate justice, indigenous control, fair distribution of revenues and protection against greenwashing.
Consequences Without free and informed consent, credits may lose credibility and the project may cause social harm. Companies face reputational and liability risks.
Centre
Arguments The institutional approach recognises both the importance of carbon storage and the need for verifiable rules. Projects can continue if land rights, measurement methods, revenue distribution and complaints procedures are independently assessed.
Values Measurability, legal certainty, proportionality and cooperation between communities, government and companies.
Consequences An independent review could improve the project, but could also result in fewer credits or higher costs. Clear standards could make the wider carbon market more reliable.
Right
Arguments This perspective emphasises that private climate finance can generate investment and local revenues without complete dependence on government budgets. According to this approach, criticism should focus on specific abuses, not on all carbon markets.
Values Ownership, entrepreneurship, voluntary contracts and room for economic development.
Consequences A blanket halt could reduce investment in nature management and local facilities. At the same time, unclear agreements could lead to legal disputes and a loss of confidence in voluntary climate claims.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved with corrections · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The sources confirm the existence of the project, the companies involved and the objections from local communities. The precise legal status, the voluntariness of the agreements and the responses from the organisations involved remain uncertain.
- confirmed Meta and Netflix have bought carbon credits from the project. — Mentioned in public documentation from Transparency International and the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. source
- confirmed The project covers approximately 4.7 million acres. — Mentioned in the public project descriptions. source
- uncertain Communities were pressured into signing agreements. — This is an allegation by communities and Survival International, and has not been independently established. source
- confirmed A Kenyan court previously suspended the approval procedure. — Reported in the public summary of the case. source
1 correction(s) applied
- Was: The project is being challenged again by the herders and is on hold.Now: Communities are resisting an attempt to revive the project; its current operational status has not been fully confirmed. (Public sources describe objections and earlier suspensions, but not the full current status.)
Editor's note
The allegations, the companies involved and the earlier legal problems have been documented publicly. A full primary ruling on the current status and a substantive response from all the companies involved are lacking.Sources
- Kenya: Indigenous communities accuse Meta and Netflix backed carbon project of land coercion — Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
- Kenya’s soil carbon offset scheme accused of Indigenous Land dispossession — Transparency International
- Kenya: Court suspends Netflix and Meta’s carbon credits project over land dispute — Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
- Sasenyi Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd v Rukinga Ranching Company Ltd — Climate Change Litigation Database