The global push toward renewable energy is accelerating, with sub-Saharan Africa alone attracting nearly $40 billion in annual private investments in solar and wind power. These “green transition” initiatives are marketed as solutions to climate change while promising economic growth and community development. Yet, a growing body of research—including a recent study by Dr. Lars Buur and colleagues—reveals a troubling reality: many of these projects fail to meaningfully benefit the very communities that host them.
As a specialist in natural resource governance, Buur and his team—postdoctoral fellow Jacob Ulrich and research assistant Eivind Bjørås—examined how renewable energy developments in Kenya and South Africa have impacted local populations. Their findings expose a stark divide between investor priorities and community needs, revealing two dominant but flawed approaches: “buying in” and “buying out.”
The Two Approaches: “Buying In” vs. “Buying Out”
- “Buying In” – Partnerships with Communities
This model seeks to integrate local populations as stakeholders through: - Co-ownership of projects
- Long-term land leases
- Benefit-sharing agreements (e.g., dividends, job creation)
On paper, this approach aligns with social justice principles, ensuring communities derive tangible benefits from developments on their land.
- “Buying Out” – Compensation Without Long-Term Inclusion
Here, communities are financially compensated for land loss or displacement but are excluded from ongoing benefits. This often occurs when: - Land is seized for infrastructure (e.g., wind turbines, solar farms)
- Nomadic or indigenous groups lack formal land titles, making them vulnerable to exclusion
- Compensation is delayed or inadequate, leaving communities worse off
Buur’s research found that both models frequently default to “buying out”—not because of poor design, but because investors and governments fail to prioritize community values over financial or developmental metrics.
South Africa’s Renewable Energy Programme: A Model with Flaws
South Africa’s Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP) is often cited as a gold-standard “buying in” initiative. Under this scheme:
– Private companies must offer at least 2.5% ownership to local communities.
– Tenders require commitments to job creation, Black economic empowerment (BEE), and community development.
However, real-world implementation reveals critical gaps:
- Compliance Over Consent: Companies fulfill legal obligations (e.g., ownership stakes) not out of genuine partnership, but because it’s a tender requirement. This creates tokenistic engagement—communities have little say in how benefits are structured.
- Delayed Benefits: Dividends and infrastructure (e.g., schools, clinics) often arrive years after construction begins, leaving communities in temporary poverty while waiting for returns.
- One-Size-Fits-All Compensation: Instead of cash payments or land alternatives, companies frequently provide pre-selected services (e.g., community halls, water projects) that may not align with local needs. For instance, a pastoralist community losing grazing land may not benefit from a school if their children are already in urban schools.
Key Issue: South Africa’s Northern Cape—home to many renewable projects—remains one of the most impoverished regions, suggesting that financial and infrastructural “benefits” are insufficient without addressing land rights, livelihoods, and cultural continuity.
Kenya’s Lake Turkana Wind Power Project: A Case of Systemic Exclusion
Africa’s largest wind farm, the Lake Turkana Wind Power (LTWP) project, was hailed as a model of sustainability, backed by Scandinavian state investment funds committed to global environmental and social standards. Yet, for the Rendille, Samburu, and Turkana El Molo pastoralist communities, the project became a source of conflict and displacement.
Why the Project Failed Communities
- Land and Livelihood Disruption
- The project was built on traditionally used grazing and watering lands, critical for nomadic herding.
- Unlike sedentary communities, pastoralists do not have fixed settlements, making them invisible to formal land tenure systems.
-
As a result, many were denied compensation under resettlement policies, which only recognized “affected persons” with permanent homes.
-
Legal Battles and Broken Promises
-
When communities blocked roads and filed lawsuits, investors established a compensation foundation—but this failed to address core issues:
- No secure alternative land was provided.
- Water rights (essential for livestock) were not protected.
- Cultural practices tied to land use were ignored.
-
Court Rulings That Changed Nothing
- Kenyan courts acknowledged irregular land acquisition but did not halt construction, meaning the wind farm proceeded despite unjust displacement.
- This highlights a fundamental flaw: Legal frameworks prioritize project completion over community rights.
Outcome: While some families were relocated, most pastoralists lost access to vital resources, forcing them to adopt unsustainable grazing patterns or abandon traditional livelihoods.
The Core Problem: Investors Ignore What Communities Value
Both case studies reveal a fundamental mismatch between developer priorities (jobs, dividends, infrastructure) and community priorities (land, water, cultural survival).
- For pastoralists, money cannot replace mobility—their way of life depends on seasonal movement across vast landscapes.
- For rural communities, delayed benefits (e.g., dividends years later) may never materialize, leaving them worse off.
- For indigenous groups, compensation schemes that ignore customary rights are inherently unfair.
The Solution? A Shift in Approach
For green energy projects to truly benefit Africa, investors and governments must:
1. Engage Early and Meaningfully
– Conduct pre-project consultations where communities define their own needs (e.g., cash transfers vs. land alternatives).
– Recognize that different groups value different things—some may prefer direct financial compensation, while others need long-term land leases or co-ownership.
- Prioritize Land and Livelihood Security
- Protect grazing/water rights for pastoralists, even if they lack formal land titles.
-
Avoid displacement unless absolutely necessary, and if so, provide equivalent or better alternatives.
-
Hold Investors Accountable
- International standards (e.g., Equator Principles, IFC Performance Standards) should be enforced rigorously, not just as checklist exercises.
-
Courts must prioritize community rights over project timelines—no development should come at the cost of irreversible harm.
-
Design Projects with Long-Term Community Benefits
- Instead of post-project compensation, integrate community-led development from the start (e.g., local hiring, training, and profit-sharing models).
- Flexible benefit structures should allow communities to choose between cash, infrastructure, or shared ownership.
The Way Forward: A Fair Green Transition
The $40 billion annual investment in African renewable energy is a historic opportunity—but only if it actually uplifts the people who host these projects. Currently, the green transition risks becoming another form of exploitation, where communities are bought out rather than bought in.
The alternative is clear:
– Ask communities what a fair deal looks like—not just what investors think is fair.
– Ensure land, water, and livelihoods are protected, not sacrificed for energy goals.
– Make development inclusive, so that no one is left behind in the rush to renewable power.
Until these changes occur, Africa’s green energy boom will remain a double-edged sword—benefiting the environment and economies, but deepening inequality and displacement** for those who live on the front lines.
Disclaimer: The research referenced in this article was funded by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Danida) and the Independent Research Fund Denmark, ensuring independent and rigorous analysis. The findings underscore the need for policy reforms to align renewable energy development with justice and sustainability.
