Olkaria I & IV Geothermal Extension A, Kenya

The EIB-CM declared the complaint admissible, registered it, and launched a compliance review and problem-solving process in March 2015. A joint fact-finding mission with the World Bank Inspection Panel uncovered failures in the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). 

During this stage, the EIB-CM proposed to enter an extended procedure, and facilitate a dispute resolution process between the parties. The parties agreed to take part. 

The EIB-CM and World Bank Inspection Panel carried out a joint investigation mission to Kenya in March-April 2015. The compliance review concluded that some of the allegations were substantiated, and the project only partially succeeded in implementing the resettlement in line with bank policies. 

The compliance report found that the project failed to recognize the Maasai community as Indigenous, denying them enhanced consultation and protections under EIB policies. Resettlement occurred before critical infrastructure (water, road, electricity) was in place, with insufficient planning to restore livelihoods. The process also neglected vulnerable groups (women, elderly, illiterate), exacerbating inequalities. Additionally, the RAP Implementation Committee (RAPIC) was ineffective due to conflicts of interest. 

The EIB’s oversight was limited, as it relied on other lenders and lacked direct engagement with the affected community, reducing its ability to ensure proper implementation of the resettlement action plan.

To address these issues, the EIB-CM proposed continuing the dispute resolution process and recommended:

• Awarding land titles, completing infrastructure, and restoring livelihoods.
• Strengthening monitoring efforts by deploying a social development expert in Kenya.
• Improving future consultations and planning for better compliance with EIB policies.

In August 2015, the EIB-CM initiated a dispute resolution process in parallel with its compliance review (concurrent dispute resolution and compliance review was permitted under the old policy of the EIB-CM). The EIB-CM appointed two local mediators and an EIB-CM mediation officer. A MoU was signed with the World Bank, enabling its Grievance Redress Service (GRS) to participate as a co-facilitator. The mediation brought together representatives from the resettled community, the project promoter (KenGen), and the lenders. 

This process led to a May 2016 Mediation Agreement, which committed to:

1. Land Titling: Transfer and registration of land titles for the Maasai community.
2. Infrastructure Improvements: Reliable water supply, upgraded roads, and improved housing.
3. Livelihood Restoration: Tailored training, support for pastoralism, and promotion of alternative income sources. 
4. Grievance Mechanisms: Establishing an independent,effective and transparent complaint system. 

Between 2017 and 2021, the EIB-CM and World Bank monitored progress, ultimately declaring all commitments had been implemented by November 2021. However, the community strongly disagreed, citing:

1. Land Ownership Concerns: The land was previously gazetted by the government as geothermal exploration land and titles were not provided to the community, leaving the community fearful of future displacement. 
2. Infrastructure Failures: Some families were not resettled, and many families remained without proper housing, water, or roads. 
3. Livelihood Hardships: Community members, especially women and vulnerable groups, faced increased hardships due to insufficient livelihood restoration and high transportation costs to workplaces further worsening conditions. 
4. Lack of Transparency: The mediation agreement was signed by representatives without prior consultation with the broader community, eroding trust. 

Many community members felt excluded and disillusioned, believing the process reinforced harm, worsening their living conditions, rather than resolving systemic issues.