| Title | Mediation as a Solution to Geothermal Social Safeguard Conflicts in Kenya |
|---|---|
| Authors | Joshua WERE, Karanja NJOROGE |
| Year | 2020 |
| Conference | World Geothermal Congress |
| Keywords | Olkaria, geothermal, proponents, persons, affected, complaints, panel, mediation, community, social safeguards, conflicts, compensations |
| Abstract | In the spectrum of recognized alternative dispute resolutions platforms, mediation has proved to be a flexible device that allows parties to control both the process and the outcome. Traditionally mediation is considered a facilitative process appropriate for resolving disputes between parties wishing to preserve their relationships. Families and communities that live together always opt for conflict resolution processes that protects their inherent relationships. When a project comes to a community both the project promoters and the community may at first view each other with suspicion and often have different or varying expectations of one another. For the community they may view the project as disruptive to their ways of living and their livelihoods or expect various socio-economic benefits to flow from the presence of the project in their neighbourhood. The promoter may take it for granted that the community is ‘grateful’ that they are hosting a prestigious project. They may even believe that their presence and the fact that some members of the community may end up working within the project is a great socio-economic leg-up for them. The truth is that there is a need for a deeper community engagement with the project promoters to draw their socio-economic expectations of one another. That may be the only way you avoid conflicts during the project implementation. It is therefore important that projects do undertake comprehensive social safeguard studies and implement their recommendations in order to ensure that relations between communities and project promoters are harmonious. Even where such efforts have been expended complaints do arise and mediation is one of the best approach at dealing with them. In July 2014, the European Investment Bank’s Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) received complaints via email raising several issues related to the involuntary resettlement of four Maasai villages undertaken in connection with the expansion of activities in the Olkaria geothermal field, in particular the development of Olkaria IV. The complainants made several allegations touching on the actual resettlement of the four villages while others claimed that the community’s socio-economic livelihoods had been irreparably damaged. These complaints were quickly followed by others making similar allegations and some even claiming that the real Project Affected Persons (PAPs) had been left out and those that were being resettled did not belong to either of the four villages. Additional complaints were received stating that the resettled community were suffering from the following negative impacts: Exclusion of some PAPs during the census; Lack of adequate livelihood restoration measures; Quality of the infrastructure in the new settlement areas; and Non-transfer of the resettlement area land titles to the PAPS. The World Bank Inspection Panel (IP) received similar complaints in October 2014. Therefore, both EIB-CM and World Bank IP worked together to assess the allegations. Their findings were that some of the allegations were founded and that the project had made great effort at meeting the requirements of the Bank’s policies, however, they only partially succeeded in doing so. At the appraisal stage the project had failed to identify the Maasai community as indigenous people that, according to EIB’s Environmental and Social Handbook and the other lenders social guidelines, required special attention and protection during the involuntary resettlement process. The EIB-CM and the World Bank Inspection Panel (IP) recommended that a mediation process be proposed to the PAPs and KenGen to resolve the issues raised by the PAPs. Both the PAPs and KenGen agreed to engage in a mediated process to resolve the conflict. Two local mediators were identified for the task and joined by one mediator from EIB-CM. In August 2015 the mediation was launched and each party selected their representatives at the mediation table. While this process was a contentious one it was amicably resolved by identifying representation from the community widely to include all the stakeholders. The next task was to determine the scope of the mediation. It was unanimously agreed that the issue of the determination of the complaints of those seeking to be included as persons affected by the project (PAPs) and therefore resettled was to be addressed through a clinic – where each complainant would present their case to the three mediators. The mediators would then interrogate the evidence, access all census records from the promoter and even interview members of the community in order to make a determination. All the other complaints were to be resolved at the mediation table. The mediation process settled all the complaints. Most complaints were dismissed because they lacked merit and the facts on the ground did not support the complaints. In some cases, the project promoter was found to have neglected certain responsibilities and more resources were committed to support the social safeguards shortfalls and increase community participation in various decision-making processes. Although there were over 200 complainants who claimed to have been among PAPs but were left out of the Resettlement Action Plan, only five were found to have merit for resettlement. Another three were found eligible for some compensation as unaffected persons. |