Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Wind, hydro and other renewables · Kenya · 2013–2017

Olkaria geothermal projects (Kenya)

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
People
  • About 1,000 people were displaced or listed for relocation.
    Counter Balance (2020); another summary in the sources reviewed give more than 2,000.
What the record lacks: 5 none on record · 2 insufficient · 1 not measured · 1 disputed · 2 unclear See the gaps

Four Maasai villages were moved in 2014 to make way for the Olkaria IV geothermal plant in Kenya. In 2015 the World Bank Inspection Panel found the Bank had not applied its indigenous-peoples policy.

1,700 of 4,200 acresResettlement land received vs land reported lost (Counter Balance, 2020)
As reported by Counter Balance; the sources reviewed give the same figures in hectares elsewhere, so the unit is unresolved.

Status As of the latest sources reviewed entries (December 2025 summary): Panel report of 2015 and action plan of 2017 on record; implementation after 2020 not found.

What?
Relocation of four Maasai villages for the Olkaria IV geothermal plant and the Inspection Panel's finding on the World Bank's handling of it. World Bank Inspection Panel
Where?
Olkaria, Rift Valley, Kenya; Narasha nearby. Cultural Survival
When?
Evictions threatened in June 2013; villages moved in 2014; Panel report 2 July 2015; action plan 16 February 2017. World Bank Inspection Panel
Who?
Gained
  • KenGen (plant developer); the financiers named by Counter Balance — The Olkaria IV plant was built; the sources reviewed does not state the financiers' returns.
Lost
  • About 1,000 Maasai moved from four villages — Received 1,700 acres in place of 4,200 acres (Counter Balance).
Harmed
Why?
To make way for the Olkaria IV geothermal plant (project justification beyond this is not on record).
How?
Resettlement to the RAPland area under a Resettlement Action Plan; the Panel found policy and process failures. World Bank Inspection Panel
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

Olkaria IV is a geothermal power plant built by the Kenya Electricity Generating Company (KenGen) in Kenya's Rift Valley. According to the sources reviewed's sources it was financed by the World Bank, the European Investment Bank, the French Development Agency, the German development bank KfW and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA).

In 2014 four Maasai villages were moved to a resettlement area known as RAPland (from the project's Resettlement Action Plan). Counter Balance reported in 2020 that about 1,000 people were moved and that they received 1,700 acres of land in place of 4,200 acres.

In June 2013, at nearby Narasha, Maasai families went to court to stop evictions linked to the same World Bank-supported geothermal programme. Cultural Survival reported that more than 3,500 families, including more than 1,000 children, were under threat of eviction.

The World Bank Inspection Panel, the Bank's independent complaints body, issued its report on the Olkaria IV resettlement on 2 July 2015. It found that the Bank had not applied its policy on indigenous peoples, that village elders were left out of early planning, that land titles were delayed and that livelihoods had not been adequately re-established. It viewed the practice of giving land for land favourably. A management action plan followed on 16 February 2017.

  1. 2013June: Narasha Maasai go to court against evictions linked to the geothermal project (Cultural Survival)
  2. 2014Four Maasai villages moved to the RAPland resettlement area for Olkaria IV
  3. 20152 July: World Bank Inspection Panel report finds the indigenous-peoples policy was not applied
  4. 201716 February: management action plan responding to the Panel

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Was the Olkaria IV resettlement carried out in line with the World Bank's indigenous-peoples policy?
International bodies
World Bank Inspection Panel

Found in 2015 that the Bank did not apply its indigenous-peoples policy, that elders were excluded from planning, that titles were delayed and that livelihoods were not adequately re-established; it viewed land-for-land compensation favourably.

World Bank Inspection Panel
Communities and civil society
Counter Balance

Reported in 2020 that about 1,000 people moved and received 1,700 acres in place of 4,200 acres.

Company or project
World Bank / KenGen

No public response found in the sources reviewed.

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

    Recorded

    • Inspection Panel (2015): the World Bank did not apply its indigenous-peoples policy; village elders were excluded from early planning; titles were delayed; livelihoods were not adequately re-established; land-for-land compensation was viewed favourably.
      World Bank Inspection Panel
    • Counter Balance (2020): about 1,000 people moved; 1,700 acres received in place of 4,200 acres.
    • Cultural Survival (June 2013): more than 3,500 families and more than 1,000 children at Narasha were under threat of eviction; the community went to court.
      Cultural Survival

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    1. 2013-06–Outcome not on record
      Narasha Maasai application against evictions
      Court (not named in the sources reviewed) · Civil · Narasha Maasai community → not on record

      Cultural Survival reported on 13 June 2013 that Maasai at Narasha went to court to stop evictions linked to a World Bank-supported geothermal project; more than 3,500 families and more than 1,000 children were under threat of eviction. No outcome was found. Cultural Survival

    2. 2015-07-02Outcome not on record
      World Bank Inspection Panel review of the Olkaria IV resettlement
      World Bank Inspection Panel · International court · Affected Maasai villagers → World Bank

      The Panel found the Bank had not applied its indigenous-peoples policy. A management action plan was dated 16 February 2017. This is a complaints process, not a court. World Bank Inspection Panel

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What nature saw

    Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

    Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

    Independent ecological evaluation
    None found
    the sources reviewed give social findings only; no environmental assessment of the geothermal reservoir or habitat was found.

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
    No independent ecological evaluationDisplacement reportedUnder standard-setter review

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: No independent ecological evaluation is on record.

    Court

    • Unclear Narasha Maasai application against evictions: outcome not on record.
    • Unclear World Bank Inspection Panel review of the Olkaria IV resettlement: outcome not on record.

    Figures

    • Insufficient Project cost: Reported total project cost (World Bank share USD 330 million); mixed verification in the sources reviewed.

    Accounts

    • Disputed Was the Olkaria IV resettlement carried out in line with the World Bank's indigenous-peoples policy?
    • None on record World Bank / KenGen: No public response found in the sources reviewed.

    Record

    • None on record Resettlement land: the sources reviewed give 4,200 to 1,700 in acres (Counter Balance) in one place and in hectares in another; the unit has not been resolved.
    • None on record Number of people displaced: about 1,000 (Counter Balance) in one account and more than 2,000 in another summary; the two figures have not been reconciled.
    • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: total cost of USD 1.39 billion (World Bank USD 330 million), capacity of 280 MW, additional World Bank financing of USD 68 million approved in 2016 without triggering the indigenous-peoples policy, and shares of 12% (European Investment Bank) and 7% (KfW).
    • None on record How the Olkaria action plan was carried out after 2020: not found.
    • None on record Outcome of the 2013 Narasha court application: not found.

    Did the harm stop?

    the sources reviewed does not record that the resettlement was reversed; it records an action plan in February 2017 following the Panel report.

    Who paid?

    the sources reviewed give that about 1,000 Maasai were moved and received less land than the figure Counter Balance reported they gave up; a teacher living nearby said the plant's electricity was not available in their homes.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project✓ Government and regulators— Courts— Press and investigations✓ Communities and civil society— Researchers

    Government and regulators

    Communities and civil society

    1. Bank implicated in Kenya Maasai eviction
      Bretton Woods Project · 2015-03-31

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
    Terms used on this page

    Places and local terms

    Maasai
    A pastoralist people of southern Kenya and northern Tanzania, including the Ngorongoro and Loliondo areas.

    Science and environment

    Hectare (ha)
    A unit of area equal to 10,000 square metres, about 2.5 acres. 100 hectares make one square kilometre.

    Law and courts

    Land titling
    Formal legal recognition of ownership of land.

    Bonds and banking

    Arranger
    The bank that structures and sells a bond or loan deal, usually for a fee.
    Similar cases
    Wind, hydro and other renewables · Water use · Indonesia · 2017
    Golfrid Siregar death and Batang Toru hydro
    Same type: Wind, hydro and other renewables, Water useHarm to nature not measured
    Wind, hydro and other renewables · Water use · European Union / United States · 2002–2021
    EU taxonomy hydropower exemption and California large hydro exclusion
    Same type: Wind, hydro and other renewables, Water useHarm to nature not measured
    Wind, hydro and other renewables · Water use · Colombia · 2016–2022
    Hidroituango dam and the Ríos Vivos defenders (Colombia)
    Same type: Wind, hydro and other renewables, Water useHarm to nature not measured
    Wind, hydro and other renewables · Water use · Brazil · 2015–2025
    Belo Monte hydrograph and Volta Grande flow reduction
    Same type: Wind, hydro and other renewables, Water use
    Wind, hydro and other renewables · Water use · China · 2018–2020
    China small hydropower closures, Yangtze Economic Belt
    Same type: Wind, hydro and other renewables, Water use
    Wind, hydro and other renewables · Water use · Cambodia · 1962–2026
    Mekong upstream dams and the decline of Tonle Sap flow reversal
    Same type: Wind, hydro and other renewables, Water use