Tanzanian Pastoralists Struggle for their Rights

Recently over fifty civil society organisations in the FemAct network and the Tanzania Land Alliance met in Arusha, Tanzania, to discuss the ongoing struggles over land rights in Loliondo. Like many areas of Tanzania, Loliondo has a history of such conflicts. Since independence, Maasai and other pastoralists have been systematically evicted by the state from vast tracts of ancestral lands to make way for wildlife reserves. Squeezed into ever smaller areas, pastoralists’ whole way of life are threatened when they are unable to graze and water their cattle.

In Loliondo, communities are desperately defending their rights on two separate fronts. The first case involves Tanzania Conservation Ltd, a company whose 12,000-acre territory is used by American tour operator Thomson Safaris. The origins of the problem lie back in the 1980s when a portion of nationalized land was granted to Tanzania Breweries. Locals maintain the transaction was illegal since the representatives who permitted the deal falsified documents appearing to show popular support. Tanzania Breweries soon abandoned operations there, leaving the Maasai to repossess the land. But since Thomson moved in, armed security staff have guarded the perimeters, and organisations have documented harassment, eviction, imprisonment and fining of pastoralists found using the land or water.

In 2008 a Maasai man was shot and hospitalised for several months. The following year a photojournalist, Trent Keegan, went to investigate and was found murdered shortly afterwards, after he had fled over the border to Kenya. Authorities in both countries state his murder was unrelated to the land conflict story he was working on. Thomson deny all allegations and claim that the Maasai are being manipulated by NGOs seeking to raise their profile. Communities have attempted to file a lawsuit against Thomson Conservation Ltd but this was recently rejected. They now plan – if funds can be found – to take the case to the next level of appeal, though the independence and transparency of Tanzania’s judicial system apparently leave much to be desired.

Loliondo is also up against Ortello Business Corporation (OBC), a group from the United Arab Emirates which was granted a hunting concession in 1993 by the then Tanzanian President. It has been alleged that OBC illegally hunts out of season and breaches its permit conditions. In 2009, mass evictions of Maasai were carried out by riot police, allegedly entailing physical assaults, rape, loss of children, burning of homes and foodstores, and loss of thousands of cattle. In his 2010 Report, the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples documented widespread allegations of abuses and criticised the Tanzanian Government for its failure to protect vulnerable indigenous populations.

Local communities, ignored and even threatened by their authorities, are trying to raise awareness, including through online documentaries. In 2009 there was some success when a broad coalition achieved the preservation of village land rights in the new Wildlife Conservation Act. Last year thousands of Maasai women organised demonstrations, but these were quickly shut down, with many women harassed or interrogated by police. Despite the efforts of Tanzanian and international NGOs these issues remain out of the public eye and are low priorities on official agendas.

The government’s recent draft plan, reportedly funded by foreign investors, allots only 17% of land to pastoralism and farming, even though 90% of the affected population are pastoralist. Activists are calling for a fresh land use planning process, with full participation of village leaders, and no interference from politicians or investors. One major stumbling block has been the co-existence of contradictory legislation. The Village Land Act 1999 provides for villagers to enjoy the freedom of traditional pasture lands, and to make their own land use plans. But as a Game Controlled Area bordering the Serengeti, Loliondo’s decisions can be overruled by central ministries. One possibility is that Loliondo will become a ‘wildlife corridor’ in which OBC would likely have its hunting concession and de facto occupation renewed.

This is not a zero-sum game of ‘animals versus people’. Studies show that pastoralism supplemented by a small amount of cultivation sustains the ecological balance and does not harm wild animals.¹ Neither is it a struggle of ‘traditional versus modern’. The image of ‘primitive’ Maasai clinging to an obsolete culture might make a useful strawman argument, but it is concrete livelihoods and community development that are at stake. The environment, tourism and pastoralism can flourish together as demonstrated by the ecotourism venture Dorobo, which has negotiated contracts directly with villages and worked out land-share arrangements with pastoralists. In Ololosokwan, the village council reaps substantial revenues by leasing out territory to Klein’s Camp. Payments per camp visitor from tour companies provide a stream of income for social services such as schools and dispensaries.²

Spurious deals granted over communities’ heads or the charitable hand-outs loudly proffered by companies such as Thomson are no substitute for fair, contractual partnerships. If we seek to move beyond colonialist development towards genuine empowerment and social justice, we had better start listening to the unheard victims of land grabbing.

Posted on July 9, 2011

comments