Carbon Credits Crisis: Maasai Herders Win Landmark Case Against Corporate Giants

In a significant blow to major tech corporations’ environmental initiatives, a Kenyan court has ruled in favor of local Maasai herders in a dispute over carbon credits that could potentially cost companies like Netflix and Meta billions in invalid offsets.

The Northern Kenya Rangelands Carbon Project, touted as the world’s largest soil-carbon plan covering 4.7 million acres of grasslands, has been suspended by Verra, the international nonprofit that certifies carbon credits.

This suspension follows the court ruling that found project developers had not properly secured consent from the indigenous communities whose lands were being used.

“The project completely destroyed the traditional system and brought another one, which is like a displacement,” said Hassan Bidhu, one of the plaintiffs who challenged the project in court.

The 33-year-old herder claimed that grazing restrictions imposed by the carbon project prevented him from accessing traditional dry-season pastures during Kenya’s devastating 2022 drought, resulting in cattle losses.

The ruling potentially invalidates approximately 20% of the project’s credits, with rights groups suggesting that credits in around half of the project’s 14 wildlife conservancies could be vulnerable to similar legal challenges.

This creates a precarious situation for corporations like Netflix and Meta, which have spent between $42 million and $90 million on over six million carbon credits to offset their substantial carbon footprints from energy-intensive operations.

Both companies have used these credits to claim carbon neutrality – Meta in 2020 and Netflix in 2022. Representatives from both corporations defended their purchases, stating the credits had been “rigorously verified,” including by Verra.

The dispute centers on allegations that the Northern Rangelands Trust, which runs the project, created conservancies through “pressure and intimidation rather than informed consent” from the pastoralist communities.

While the trust has appealed the decision, the controversy highlights growing tensions in the rapidly expanding carbon offset market, which Morgan Stanley projects will grow from $1.4 billion today to between $7 billion and $35 billion by 2030.

“This raises big questions about what the carbon industry will do about this,” said Simon Counsell, who co-authored a report on the issue with indigenous-rights group Survival International, noting companies might be forced to surrender invalid credits.

The conflict reflects a broader clash between corporate environmental goals and indigenous rights.

While some pastoralists support the project, citing benefits like new hospitals, scholarships, and wells, opponents argue that project restrictions disrupt centuries-old migration patterns based on seasonal rainfall and pasture availability.

Similar disputes are emerging elsewhere, with violent protests recently erupting over a carbon project in southern Kenya.

Maasai activists in neighboring Tanzania have called for a five-year suspension of carbon projects, with rights organizations warning that these initiatives could eventually lock nearly all ancestral Maasai lands into offset projects or protected areas.

For 23-year-old Gedion Kanchori, who is leading opposition efforts in southern Kenya, the issue is existential: “This land is our inheritance. We will do anything to protect it.”

As corporations face increasing pressure to meet climate commitments, this ruling serves as a stark reminder that environmental solutions must include meaningful consultation with and consent from indigenous communities to be truly sustainable.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​