Using Mediation to Resolve Development Projectconflicts: a Case of Olkaria Iv Geothermal Project, Kenya

Abstract

Geothermal power development promotes the availability and reliance on green energy sources across the globe, increasing environmental sustainability through climate change mitigation. Geothermal development in Olkaria field is part of Kenya’s efforts to transition to middle income and newly industrialized State by 2030. However, the projects' installations are an example of developmental undertakings instigating conflicts with the local community over their relocation and compensation concerns. These conflicts escalate without proper management, yet their dynamics remain poorly understood. Numerous studies have confirmed the application of mediation in managing conflicts over natural resources, but the effectiveness of this strategy in Kenya has not been well established. Also, most of these studies are limited to qualitative research, with little review of mediation processes to enhance their use and efficacy. This study sought to assess the role of mediation in resolving conflicts that emanated from the implementation of Olkaria IV geothermal project. Specifically, the study evaluated the dynamics of conflict escalation, documented the process of the Olkaria IV mediation and appraised its role, challenges and lessons in managing the conflicts. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through household survey, focus groups and key informant interviews. The study also utilized archival data. Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, while NVivo software was used to code and analyze qualitative accounts through deductive and inductive approaches. The study results reveal that the Olkaria IV project conflict was manifested through socio-economic (51%), environmental (21%), cultural (14%) and political (14%) dimensions. The PAPs discontent was triggered by the inadequate information and participation in the decision-making process on project design, the PAPs’ relocation and compensation. Conflict

effects on PAPs were ominous and managed through competition, where PAPs were pressured to pacts (31%), and avoidance, where they involuntarily conformed (27%). Subsequent dissatisfaction among the PAPs resulted in unrest that almost disrupted the project, prompting mediation. Mediation neutralized conflicts between KenGen and the PAPs, improved relationships between the parties, and improved PAPs’ livelihoods through opportunities within Olkaria IV project and the RAPland. Use of a consultative process within the larger community in selection of community representatives, as a best practice, could have promoted acceptability of the mediation results. Further, the mediators’ expertise, good listening and probing skills resulted in successful negotiations. However, there is room for improvement including smoother management of procedural issues, building capacity of inadequate PAPs’ and attitude management for easier contribution and practice in the mediation, and shorter mediation period to avoid protraction and distrust. The project planners need to include community participation in design of large development projects to secure community buy-in, remove unrealistic pledges/expectations and oil implementation. There is a need for adequate pre-mediation capacity building among community representatives. A strategy for comprehensive feedback and reporting mechanism with the community; should be created. Continuous documentation and evaluation of the mediation process would help construction of best practices for future application. Finally, there is a need to formulate policies for out-scaling the use of mediation as alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in implementation of developmental projects in the country.