Kenya's rapid transition to geothermal energy has positioned the country as a continental leader in clean power, though it has also sparked resistance from local and indigenous communities. Residents near Mt. Suswa and Menengai report that these large-scale green energy projects threaten their livelihoods, water security, and basic rights, revealing a significant gap between national development promises and lived realities. The phased development of the 750 MW Suswa geothermal project aims to generate an initial 300 MW to reduce fossil fuel dependence, but it threatens vital natural steam vents relied upon by local communities for water. Local civil society organizations and communities are resisting geothermal developments in Suswa and Menengai Crater due to inadequate community engagement and the absence of Free, Prior and Informed Consent. In Suswa, exploratory drilling has begun without local input, while the Menengai Crater Phase II expansion threatens private land home to more than 163,000 households already impacted by Phase I. You can read the full text for more details.

They also accuse project proponents of failing to fully implement mitigation measures, despite interventions and oversight from regulatory bodies such as NEMA, the National Environment Complaints Committee (NECC), and the National Environmental Tribunal. The Menengai project is backed by a $198.4 million investment from international partners, including the African Development Bank Group, which provided $120 million through its concessional financing window. Additional funding has been mobilized from partners such as the Strategic Climate Fund, the Trade and Development Bank, and the Finnfund. Despite being framed as a cornerstone of Kenya’s clean energy transition, the project has sparked complaints about noise, air pollution and environmental degradation. For many residents, the promise of “green” energy rings hollow when weighed against immediate disruptions to their daily lives. Frustrated by what they see as a lack of response at the local level, CSOs have increasingly turned to project financiers hoping that those funding the projects would intervene or enforce accountability. But here too, they encounter another barrier. “When we take our complaints to financiers despite being in their internal recourse mechanism policy, their response is not timely, unsatisfactory or at times clearly ignores the concerns of the locals and would say their hands are tied,” says one CSO representative

Finnfund denied the allegations, pointing to its direct engagement with communities, project developers, and public authorities to address the environmental, social, and human rights concerns raised by locals. Read the Finnfund’s full response below.

Kenya Electricity Transmission Company, Geothermal Development Company, Globeleq, OrPower 22, Kaishan Group, Sosian Energy Limited, Kenya Power and Lighting Company, African Development Bank and The Independent Recourse Mechanism (IRM) did not respond