An international Indigenous people’s rights lobby has welcomed a recent court ruling that halted a flagship Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) project, which has been used by Western multinationals, including Meta, Netflix, and British Airways, to purchase carbon offsets.
Judges Oscar Angote, Charles Yano, and Christopher Nzili of the Environment and Land Court sitting in Isiolo ruled that the establishment of conservancies in Chari and Cherab wards violated the constitutional principle of public participation and infringed on residents’ rights, including property ownership.
The case was brought before the court in October 2021 by 165 residents who challenged the creation of two conservancies on their unregistered land. The petitioners accused NRT of unlawfully alienating large portions of land, leading to the displacement of tens of thousands of residents.
In their ruling, the judges ordered the immediate withdrawal of heavily armed NRT rangers, who have been accused of repeated human rights abuses against the local population. One of the conservancies, Biliqo Bulesa, contributes approximately a fifth of the carbon credits associated with the controversial carbon offset sales to Western corporations.
The court dismissed the respondents’ request to have the case thrown out, stating that the petitioners had raised justifiable constitutional issues. It also found that the county government and the Ministry of Lands had failed in their constitutional duty by neglecting to facilitate the registration of unregistered community land in the affected wards.
Furthermore, the court found that NRT did not obtain explicit consent, approval, or mandate from the public before establishing the conservancies. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that community meetings, barazas, or press conferences were held before residents moved to court in October 2021.
As part of the ruling, the court directed the county government and the Ministry of Lands to expedite the registration of community land in the affected areas. Additionally, Kenya Wildlife Service was ordered to revoke any licenses granted to NRT for establishing and managing conservancies in the two wards.
To ensure compliance, the Isiolo County Commissioner and County Police Commander were tasked with overseeing the implementation of the judgment while maintaining peace and order. However, the respondents secured a temporary stay order for two weeks, arguing that the ruling would disrupt existing projects and significantly impact NRT operations in Kenya. They have also expressed their intention to appeal the judgment at the appellate court.
The ruling has elicited mixed reactions, with some residents celebrating it as a victory for Indigenous land rights, while others have voiced concerns about its implications. Survival International, a prominent Indigenous rights organization, stated that the ruling likely applies to about half of the conservancies involved in NRT’s carbon project, as they face similar legal challenges.
“This means that the entire project, from which NRT has already made millions of dollars—though the exact amount remains undisclosed—is now at risk,” the organization said. The core legal issue in the case was highlighted in Survival International’s “Blood Carbon” report, which disputed NRT’s claim that controlling Indigenous pastoralists’ livestock leads to increased vegetation and greater carbon storage in the soil.
The ruling also deals a fresh blow to the credibility of Verra, the leading body that verifies carbon credit projects. Despite the lack of clear legal standing for some conservancies in the NRT project, Verra validated and approved it, allowing the issuance of carbon credits. A review of the project initiated by Verra in 2023 failed to address these concerns.
Caroline Pearce, Director of Survival International, stated: “The judgment confirms what communities have been saying for years—that they were not properly consulted about the conservancies, which have undermined their land rights. Western donors like the EU, France, and USAID must now halt funding to NRT, as they have been financing an operation now ruled illegal.”
“This ruling raises serious questions for both NRT and Verra, as it shows there is no legal basis for a significant portion of the carbon project. The carbon credits issued should now be considered invalid.”
Pearce further criticized the broader carbon offset industry, stating: “This NRT disaster is not an isolated case. Many carbon offset schemes follow the outdated ‘fortress conservation’ model, claiming to protect land while violating the rights of Indigenous owners and making enormous profits.”
“That NRT has also cut legal corners should not be surprising—Survival pointed this out years ago. It’s time for Verra to conduct a proper review and scrap this project once and for all.”
