pp land based conflicts situational analysis case study...land based conflicts:one of the key...

LAND BASED CONFLICT SITUATIONAL AND TRENDS ANALYSIS IN TANZANIA

May 2016 IDC Ltd

Situational & Trends Analysis: Land Based Conflict in Tanzania

PASTORALIST

CARE International in Tanzania


May 2016 IDC Ltd

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

IDC would like to thank members of CARE International for all their help and cooperation, with a

special mention to Madubi Marcely who coordinated this research. On the ground, the Tanzanian

Natural Resource Forum (TNRF), provided invaluable input on the myriad of issues and

complexities that surround land based conflicts in Tanzania. I would especially like to thank

Zacharia Faustin who set up the two workshops in Arusha and led the lively discussions with some

of the Pastoralists Programme CSOs leaders.

Authors:

Ally Bedford and the IDC Team Tanzania Executive Summary Report Sections

Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Land Conflict Trends Section 3 Drivers of Land Conflicts Section 4 Case Studies Section 5 Recommendations Section 6 Conclusions Annex 1 Acronyms Annex 2 Government Conflicts Records Annex 3 Case Studies Annex 4 Evictions Annex 5 Policy Brief Annex 6 Facts and Stats Annex 7 Land Use Planning Review Annex 8 TOR and Methodology Annex 9 Bibliography Annex 10 Appendices Available Appendices List Video Viewings at: https://youtu.be/QcM‐0uXoZzY


May 2016 IDC Ltd

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The background of the Land Conflict Situational and Trends Analysis in Tanzania is based on the

need to understand the growing incidences of violent conflicts arising in recent times. Despite a

range of interventions through the Pastoralist Programme (PP) managed by Care Int., and TNRF

(supported by IrishAid), land based conflicts seem to have been increasing.

The aimsof this report are to inform and ‘improve the effectiveness in resolving land resource

conflicts, conflict resolution strategies and document lessons for shared learning’, providing a set

of clear recommendations to address the findings.

The work scopesought to determine the trends in land resource conflicts, understand the drivers

behind the structural, proximate and immediate causes of conflict, map conflict dynamics

between the different actors in the arena and consult with them on the ground. It also explored

the historical background, economic facts and statsand related policies.

The Research for this was undertaken during a three‐week period in March 2016. The research

team trawled through the small print of a myriad of laws and policies in Tanzania to understand

the legislative framework and provide the context within which the conflicts exist.

A host of hard copy stats and facts were collected from the Ministries and Districts. Itwas

subsequently re‐typed, collated and analysed to find relevant data for this paper and to ascertain

the economic importance of livestock rearing today and the potential for tomorrow.

Data on the impacts of climate change, exponential increase in populations, deteriorating health

and education services, water resources and infrastructure were also appraised to understand

the big picture. Areview of a multitude of academic papers on land conflict in Tanzania was

undertaken to build a preliminary Conflict Chronology and ascertain current trends.

Fieldwork included interviews with the various stakeholders in Kiteto, Mvomero and Loliondowith

District Officers, CSOs,farmers and pastoralists to understand their perspectives on the conflicts.

Video messages were captured from some of the informants to suggest how conflicts could be

reduced or resolved.

Constraints: The TOR was overly ambitious and underfundedwithin the time allocated as stated in

the inception meeting, inception report and workshops.

Findings

Trends inLand based conflicthave increased exponentially since 2006.Unless action is taken to

address the proximate and structural causes of conflict, land based conflicts on the ground will

continue unabated.

The immediate causes of conflict were based on varied disputes over land resource use, resulting

in clashes between pastoralists and commercial enterprises, conservationists, farmers, other

pastoralists and local security forces.


May 2016 IDC Ltd

Impacts from these violent conflicts have been destruction of property, loss of lives and cattle

and devastating impacts on the most vulnerable, pastoralists and smallholders.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYcont.

Solutionsto address the immediate causes of conflictinclude expanding the current Pastoralists

Programme on the ground to reach more communities and work closer with the district

authorities, especially with regards to the knowledge of the current laws and implement the

policies that are aimed to protect all its citizens.

The Proximate Causes of land‐based conflict are complex and caused by a myriad of reasons

including the failure of the local authorities to follow the due process in law or implement policies

effectively; political interference in land matters, law and justice; lack of security of tenure and

central government’s backing of corporate investors. Additionally the exponential population

growth, climate change, lack of provision of public services and infrastructure has all played a part

to exacerbate the level of conflicts.

Impacts include mass evictions of pastoralists from traditional rangelands without providing

equally productive alternatives. This results in a domino effect, aspastoralists encroach on

farmlands to ensure sustenance for their cattle. The affected smallholders, also operating in a

disabling environment sometimesrespond disproportionately and eventually, after tit for tat

reprisals, it breaks into violence.

The evictions also cause environmental degradation by overgrazing as reduced lands can no

longer support sustainable rangelands management. Some district authorities and political

appointees make their own disproportionate responses, creating a further hostile environment.

Attempts to seek justice from the law either fails or is delayed, resulting in more evictions,

insecurity and further violence. The media fail to undertake due diligence of the background

stories and present unbalanced news items that reaffirm the popular belief that pastoralists are

the cause of the problem.The part that the government plays in backing corporations and

powerful land grabbers are not cited.

Solutions to address the proximate causes of conflict include extending the Pastoralist

Programme (PP), to work with district officials on governance, maintain the law and support the

development of land use plans.

The Structural Causes of land‐based conflicts are believed to be the mind‐sets of the government

towards the place of pastoralism in the 21st century. This has empowered government agencies

to carry out forced evictions and have allowed investments in large‐scale agriculture and tourism

to take priority over the socio‐economic development of the rural populations, homegrown

resources and the environment. The ensuing evictions to promote these current economic

priorities are the structural causes of conflict.

Impacts, other than the loss of life and property, include the failure to optimise the economic

potential of livestock in the country, ensure equitable development and increase youth

employment.


May 2016 IDC Ltd

Solutionsfor the Pastoralist Programme includes the ability to tap in and mainstream pastoralists

issues with a range of other governance and accountabilitydonor programmes;The PP can also

support land use plan initiatives, investigative journalism courses and Master Classes for political

appointees. Long‐term solutions require changesin the law.

LAND BASED CONFLICT SITUATION AND TRENDS ANALYSIS IN TANZANIA

6

1 Introduction: Research Background

Irish Aid has funded the Pastoralist Programme operating in 3 regions of Tanzania: Arusha, Manyara

and Morogoro. Care International (CI), manages the programme in conjunction with its partner,

Tanzanian Natural Resources Forum (TNRF). In turn, they have worked with smaller Civil Society

Organisations (CSOs) on the ground in a diverse range of interventions.

The Pastoralist Programmes have been about empowerment: to encourage and enable pastoralists to

participate in local governance issuesthrough increased awareness of laws, policies and mediation

processes;gain access to quality delivery of veterinary services and demand more from Ministries,

Departments and Agencies (MDAs); explore practical measures to address climate change. All had a

specific emphasis on empowering pastoral women in the decision‐making process, control of land and

conflict resolution matters.

Land Based Conflicts:One of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of the programme is reduced land

based conflict between pastoralists and other user groups. Avaried range of initiatives was developed,

but despite notable progress, incidences of land conflict appeared to be increasing in number and

intensity. This situational and trends analysis1 is aimed to ascertain if this is the case and if so, what

are the causes and what can be done about it. In response to the above, the specific terms of

reference were aimed to:

Identify the nature and key driving factors of specific land conflicts, including the historical,

political, economic, cultural, policy and regulatory frameworks, causes and key actors/parties

involved, and remedial actions taken to redress the conflicts;

Develop a snapshot overview of the current (and potential future?) consequences of the land

conflicts on communities, specific groups within the communities (e.g. women and children), the

economy of the area, poverty and vulnerability and pastoralism sustainability;

Develop a set of clear recommendations that can be used for shared learning and by the

programme team in planning, design and implementation of the programme.

The methodology 2 employed included desk research reviewed extracts from the Tanzania

Nationalconstitution, laws, policies and implementation plans. It reviewed a range of literature

including public documents and statistics, academic research papers as well as CSOs and media

reports. Field study targeted Loliondo, Mvomero and Kiteto Districts, which have experienced various

high‐profile conflicts in recent times.Over 200 key informants from the district, CSOs, farmers and

pastoralists3 were interviewed or participated in Focus Group Discussions were held. A validation

workshop was held at Equator Hotel in Arusha on16thof May, 2016and drew 3 government

representatives from Kiteto, Loliondo and Arusha councils and 17 NGOs representatives.

Conflict trends were identified from several sources. Data wascollected from the Ministry of Livestock

(MLVS), which only revealed 14 entries from 1945–2016. Three of the conflicts took place between

1945 and 2005 and the remaining 11 took place post 2005. The latest record listed was in Mvomero

1 See Annex 8 2 See Annex 8.1 – 8.3 3 See Annex 8.4Key Informants Annex 6.18Formal Meeting Register and Appendix 1.2


7

in February 2016. Further research was undertaken as described above to determine the full range of

conflicts4.

4 See Annex 6.1


8

Conflict Trends Continued

Due to time constraints, the analysis was limited to 100 incidences of conflict, although indications are that

this is only a snapshot of the true extent of conflict incidents to date. In this regard, a resulting summative

Chronology Graphswas developed to be indicative of the ‘trend’ only and does not represent an exhaustive

list.

The report structure continues with an analysis on trends, causes and consequences of conflict. Section 3

coversDrivers of Conflict. Section 4 covers the evaluation questions followed byrecommendations for the

pastoralist programme in Section 5. This is followed by some design for implementation. The accompanying

annexes provide the case studies, the Conflict Chronology, facts and figures and the bibliography.

Additionally, there are a series of appendices that can further verify the findings of this situational analysis

or can be used for further research and programme development.

Finally, as part of the fieldwork,respondents were asked to capture on camera or voice recordings key

messages offering suggestions on the way forward to resolve conflict. This can be accessed at:

https://youtu.be/oQ‐D2sg6IbE

Study Constraints:Time and budgetary constraints restricted the sampling of the case studies, analysis of the

findings, the chronology and the resulting recommendations.

Overall, a three‐week timeframe for completion of the terms of reference, including field studies and

analysis on issues so complex and intertwined wasvery unrealistic.

As a “Snap Shot’ however, the findings and solutions proffered remain relevant.


9

2: Land Conflict Trends

Land Conflict Trends

Current: Land based conflicts have risen exponentially over the last ten years. This has caused death, injury

and distress amongst Tanzania’s most vulnerable populations: dispossessed pastoralists, subsistence

farmers and women5.

The Future: Land based conflict will continue to rise until the proximate and structural causes of land based

conflicts pointed out earlier are addressed.

Historical Evictions and Conflicts

Historically evictions and conflict with Pastoralists include:

The Maasai Agreement of 19586 1,000 Maasai and 50,000 livestock were alienated from their traditional

lands in the Serengeti by the British and resettled in Ngorongoro;

Nyerere’s ‘Operation Vijiji’ or the Villagisation Programme in the 1970’s

The 1969 evictions of the Barbaig from Hanang7, perpetrated by the Government to make way for the

National Food and Agricultural Corporation (NAFCO).

Livestock Conflicts Records: The Min. Livestock and Fisheries (MLVS) records 14 conflicts over the last sixty

years. 11 of them were in the last ten years and the latest entry was from February 20168.As their list of

conflicts seemed incomplete research was carried out from different sources listed in the bibliography and

the Chronology. In reviewing a wider selection of literature9, conflicts exist not only between farmers and

pastoralists, but also between pastoralists and pastoralists, village, local and national governments, national

developers, opportunists, and local land grabbers,TANAPA, conservationists and international investors.

Justice:Some pastoralists have tried to seek justice from the courts to prevent eviction or land grabs, but

with alleged political interference in the delivery of justice, it has left many feeling further disenfranchised.

Impacts of Conflicts10: The myriad of conflicts and evictions causes:

Loss of life, cattle and crops

Incarceration and cattle theft

Environmental degradation

Suffering of women and children

Future Predictions: The prevailing mind‐set of recent years have portrayed pastoralists as violent trouble‐

makers causing environmental degradation. If evictions are halted, lands taken returned, secure land tenure

provided and support given, the domestic livestock industry would become fit for the 21st Century.

The Conflict Chronology: The conflict chronology was developed11 to ascertain the prevalence of past and

present incidences. What is produced below is an indication of the trends of conflicts and their structural

5 See Annex 6.1 Initial Conflict Chronology 6 LISSU Tundu: Policy and Legal Issues 7 See Appendix 1.01 IDC Field Surveys 2016 8 See Annex 2 and Appendix 2.01 9 See The Bibliography 10 See Annex 6.1 Initial Conflict Chronology 11 See Annex 6.1 Initial Conflict Chronology


10

causes. It illustrates that there was a huge increase in conflict during Kikwete’s administration.

The Chronology Graphs: Following the desk review of over 100 documents, a chronology of recorded

conflicts developed. This is not an exhaustive list, but it can serve as an indicator of the trends. Graphs below

capture 1) Regions of the conflicts, 2) Types of conflicts 3) Chronology of conflicts and 4) Causes of conflicts.


11

CHRONOLOGY OF LAND BASED CONFLICTS IN TANZANIA

OTHERS 1: Pwani, Lindi, MtwaraOTHERS 2: Rape, Extortion, Corruption OTHERS 4: Abduction, Extortion, Bribery,

Corruption,Land Surveys Stopped & Rape.

SUMMARY: TRENDS IN LAND BASED CONFLICTS IN TANZANIA

TRENDS IN LAND‐BASED CONFLICTS

Land based conflicts over use of natural resources has risen exponentially over the last ten years, causing death, injury and distress amongst Tanzania’s most vulnerable populations: the dispossessed pastoralists, subsistence farmers and women.

Land based conflict will continue to rise until the proximate and structural drivers are addressed.

Section 3: Drivers of Land Conflicts

Background: Tanzania is the largest country in East Africa with a total land area of 94,509,000 ha and

an over population of 51 million people (Source: URT census). 80% of all Tanzanians live in the rural

areas –predominantly farming, fishing or livestock keeping.

There are an estimated 25 million cattle and 22 million smallstocks, mostly reared by pastoralists12

who seasonally migrate to enable sustainable feeding and watering13.

Agriculture and Livestock: The Livestock sector contributes significantly in achieving development

goals of the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP)14.

12 Dr. Yakobo Msanga et al, 2011: Tanzania Dairy Industry: Livestock Sector Development Strategy 13 Community Economic Development & Social Transformation CEDESOTA 2012 14 See Annex6 Facts & Stats


12

It provides livelihood support to 1,745,776 (37%) households and contributes about 13% to the

Agricultural Gross Domestic Product.

Populations: Records show that:

In 1919 there were 7 million (m) cattle requiring 14m Haof land and approximately the same

amount of humans.

In 1991 there were 15m cattle recorded, just over half the human population.

In 2016 there are approximately 25m cattle requiring 50m Ha of land, and 51m people in a finite

landmass of 947,303km2 or 94,509,300Ha15.

This exponential growth in both human and livestock populations is unsustainable

IMMEDIATE DRIVERS OF CONFLICTS:

Farmers v. Pastoralists: In the three districts visited, incidences of farmer versus pastoralist conflicts

were reported:

From the farmers perspective they say the conflicts are due to ‘pastoralists’ arrogance and jealousy;

bribing officials, corruption of district officers and political interference’. In a few cases, farmers admit

that they had planted on known pastoralist land or stock routes.

From the pastoralists’ perspective,‘those crops should not have been there in the first place, as it was

their land, their pasture or their stock route to water’or,‘the farmer chased the cattle into the field to

extort compensation’. Some admit they were careless with the cattle and they had trampled crops

mistakenly.

Pastoralist v. Pastoralist: Traditional rivalries between pastoralists have increased as land competition

becomes more intensified.

Maasai versus Sonjo: There is insecurity and fears of well being on both the Sonjo and Maasai due

to the reducing access to land and resources and increasing access to firearms. These insecurities

have given rise to conflicts, which have become increasingly violent over the last ten years.

Maasai Tanzania versus Maasai Kenya: Traditionally the Maasai have no boundaries and do not

recognise colonial constructs of country borders and thus the issue of cross border rights have no

acknowledgeable space in the dialogue of mediation.

Maasai Kenya versus Maasai Tanzania: Thompson Safari’s forced cattle to detour into Kenya to

access their dry season water resources. Meanwhile the District are forcing Maasai from Kenya out

of Tanzania. This has caused some friction between the two clans, which the district, in a ‘divide

and rule’ tactic hasplayed for their own ends.

PROXIMATE DRIVERS OF CONFLICT

15 See Annex 6 Facts and Stats


13

EVICTIONS

Whereas the 1959 Maasai Agreement of removing pastoralists from the Serengeti has been tainted

with allegations of ‘extreme coercion’, there was some attempt to ‘consult’ before eviction and

replacement land was offered in Ngorongoro, to use in perpetuity16.

Over the last ten years there has been a plethora of evictions of pastoralists from lands to make way

for large‐scale agricultural projects, the extractive industries, conservation, or tourism, but there are

very few instances where alternative landhas been provided to meet pastoralists needs17.

Evictions, past and present have left pastoralists wandering around in search of somewhere to meet

their livestock’s daily needs, putting them in direct conflict with on‐going users.

Some political appointees such as District Commissioners have not hesitated to evict pastoralists on

the basis that:

‘These pastoralists are not from here and should go back to where they came from18’.

Conservationism: The Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism have been responsible for many

forced evictions in the name of conservation. Whereas the protection of wildlife from poaching is a

high priority, there is no evidence to show that cattle and wildlife cannot coexist, nor proof that

pastoralism causes environmental degradation.

Ironically, the evictions from traditional rangelands withoutalternative grazing land allocations have

caused environmental damage as the carrying capacity is now well beyond its limit.

Power and Influence: There are some who have used their position of power, whether political or

financial to take land from pastoralists and smallholder farmers without prior consultation or any

compensation, thus violating land administration principles. Where pastoralists have tried to appeal

to the District authorities or the law courts, they have failed.This has led to more frustrations, which

build up to more tension and the conflicts increase.

Investors: Contrary to the National Tourism Policy some investors have taken land without embracing

the local host communities. These investors, often backed by the District, have resulted in pastoralists

being forcibly evicted from game reserves and more recently the ‘wildlife corridors’surrounding them.

Climate Change: Climate change has impacted both Pastoralists and smallholder farmers, as

traditional wetlands dry up, driving even more competition for dwindling resources.

Alternatives: In those circumstances where plans have been made for alternative lands, they have not

necessarily been implemented and funds set aside to develop the provisions required for mass

livestock relocations have disappeared.19.

Political Influence: Politicians vying for votes on an agenda of ethnic hatred and tribalism have also

been a proximate cause of conflict. The killings in Kilosa are an example of this.

PROXIMATE DRIVERS OF CONFLICT cont.

District and Regional Decision Making: Political appointees are charged with authority over districts

and regions have the main agenda of implementing party prioritisations.

16 Ngorongoro Conservation Area Act 1959 17 See Annex 4 18 Rufiji, Ihefu, Bagamoyo 19 See Annex 4.1 Usungu Evictions 2007


14

In some cases, efforts to show loyalty to the party have demonstrated poor decision‐making over land

access, which may have been outside the law20.

The former administration was very clear on what its economic priorities were and what they were

not. In some cases political appointees have favoured large‐scale investment or personal gain over

the needs of the people and have enabled conflict to thrive.

When resources are shared, then its’ important, that users should know the boundaries. In Tanzania

the Planning Act of 200721 provides a solution: In coming together to share the resources and define

areas for specific use, peace can ensue. The traditional leaders can then deal with the occasional

errant cow or incoming farmer that breaks the rules.

Land Use Planning: Unfortunately, due to the lack of budgets, willingness to implement the Land Use

Planning Act of 2007 or the human resources to support the Act, the majority of the country still has

not started or fulfilled the requirements of Village Land Use Planning (VLUP) process22 over the last

twelve years.‘ Even with a VLUP, current practice designates ‘grazing land’ as a ‘communal resource’,

which in times of financial constraints (or greed), the occasional leaders or corrupt officials have been

known to sell off the land without due process and there is no recourse to justice for pastoralists

whose village grazing lands have been usurped.

The Land Act has processes in place to ensure that citizens are protected from such evictions,

however, where it does cover compensation for land and unexhausted improvements, it does not

clearly state the rights of the transhumant herders.

Pastoralist infractions on farmland (or vice versa), and most of the ensuing conflicts can be traced to

past evictions. The negative political mind‐set 23 towards pastoralism during the previous

administration has exacerbated the trend in conflict to alarming proportions.

Forceful evictions have become more commonplace in the last ten years due to government policies.

STRUCTURAL DRIVERS OF CONFLICT

Livestock Development from 2005

President Jakaya Kikwete in his inaugural speech at the end of 2005, stated: “We will take actions to

improve our livestock keeping…

‘We are obliged to move away from pastoralism which is turning the whole country into grazing land,

neither pastoralists nor cattle are getting any fatter ... we cannot go on with pastoralism in the 21st

century24.

STRUCTURAL DRIVERS OF CONFLICT

As the ‘trustee of all the land in Tanzania’, the President’s speech set the tone for all the land,

conservation, investment, agricultural and livestock policies over the last ten years. The interpretation

20 See Annex 3 21 See Section 4 and Annex 5. 22 TRNF Mini Workshop says the majority of Land Use Plan get ‘stuck’ at stage 4, verification by the District. 23 Prime Minster Pinda is quoted as saying “The church should be in the forefront in building community's values because

having a big group of people who are not God-fearing is also a problem. We will use Kiteto as a pilot study in peace-making.”

24 KIPOBOTA Clarence: Socio-Economic Contributionof Pastoralismas a Livelihood System In Tanzania:Caseof Selected DistrictsIn Arusha, Manyara And Dares Salaam Regions Oct 2015


15

of the President’s inaugural speech by the various policy makers have focused on, “we cannot go on

with pastoralism in the 21st century” rather than, “we will take actions to improve our livestock

keeping”.

If the aim had been to ‘take actions’ to improve livestock keeping, then there would have been

budgets put aside to support change interventions.

These might have included: The provision of secure lands, development of livestock infrastructure,

extension services and disease control, provision of quality pastoralists’ schools, proper healthcare

and family planning. However, the opposite is true25.Budgets for livestock sector in the last ten years

have been insufficient to support basic needs, let alone ‘actions for improvement’26.

The Livestock Policy 2006, states that the Government will provide livestock officers, the private

sector should provide infrastructure, disease control within its borders27, which precludes

development of the sector and the opportunity to export.

There is no incentive for pastoralists to develop their own infrastructure without security of tenure.

There is complete lack of support for the home‐grown livestock industry and despite having over 25m

cattle in Tanzania, the government has started to import meat.

Corruption: In some cases, greed and personal gain from the village level to the Ministry have

subsumed common sense and good governance principles and the basic rights of people are being

denied.

Conflict thrives in a disabling environment.

Economic Prioritisation: Changes in economic priorities, policies and budget supports have made a

significant impact on current land users. These changes and the haste in which implementation is

imposed, have often denied those most vulnerable the basic rights of consultation.

Where land acquisition could be potentially an enabler of economic change, compensation has been

insufficient or completely lacking, leaving some of the most vulnerable people to fend for themselves.

Desperate people can do most desperate things to ensure their families’ socio‐economic well‐being is

protected.

The Future: There is little understanding as yet whether the new administration will address the

Livestock or Land Policy anomalies.

Various CSOs28 are working to address Land Rights and press for change, but this is a long‐term

agenda while conflicts need to be addressed now.

25See Annex 6 26 See Annex 6.5 27 See Section 5 The Livestock Policy 28 See Appendix 4.3 Benchmarks for Land Governance


16

The Pastoralist Programme:The complex multi‐facetted causes of conflict demands multi‐faceted

solutions and the Pastoralist Programme needs to re‐evaluate other options beyond their current

remit to address the structural cases of conflicts.

SECTION 3: SUMMARY STRUCTURAL DRIVERS OF LAND CONFLICTS

POLITICAL

Presidential Announcement

In 2005 President KIKWETE in his inaugural Speech said that there was no room for pastoralists in the 21st Century.

Mind sets on Pastoralism

Popular and Political mind sets

Political appointees The unelected political appointees that follow political and economic agendas without due regard to the law and policies.

ECONOMIC

Economic Polices Economic policies have prioritized large‐scale investment (at any social cost), over the equitable development of the rural populations.

Investors Investors are not held accountable for their actions and directly contradict the policies. DCs and RCs seem to support the companies over the people.

Local Land Grabs Wealthy nationals with political backing have been land grabbing large tracts of land, disposing pastoralists and smallholders.

Corruption Village Land sales without dues process

Lack of Justice Despite the many court cases taken against unlawful evictions, local land grabs, assaults and arrests by the police, few result in justice for the pastoralists.

Importers In a country of 25 million cattle and 22 million smaller livestock, Tanzania is importing meat

Budgets Lack of livestock infrastructure and disease control

Budgets Lack of opportunity to develop added value markets

EVICTIONS

Environmental Climate change – reduced productive land and water resources;

Secure Land Tenure Lack of Land tenure

TANAPA Environmental damage is a direct result of TANAPA evictions.

TANAPA TANAPA continues to evict pastoralists from reserves and parks.

CO‐EXISTANCE TANAPA could encourage pastoralist to assist in the fight against poaching in National Parks

POLICIES & REGUATORY FRAMEWORKS

Lack of knowledge of rights

Decision Makers lack of knowledge of their roles, responsibilities, polices and law to protect their people.

Lack of a Voice Current policies do provide citizens protection but few understand land rightsand develop land use plans29

CULTURAL Over population Increasing human populations and need for family planning and education to prepare for a better tomorrow.

PUBLIC SERVICES

Lack of public services Pastoralists lack of access to health and education

29 See Annex 7 Land Use Planning Review


17

GENDER Lack of Representation Women and youth not embraced in decision making

CAPACITY Lack of capacity Skills to prevent or mediate in conflicts

MEDIA Poor media coverage Media coverage on conflicts in inaccurate


18

SECTION 4: CASE STUDIES: SNAPSHOTS OF CONSEQUENCES OF CONFLICT

4.1: SNAPSHOT OF THE DRIVERS AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONFLICT

DISTRICT KITETO

CONFLICT ZONE KIMALA & ILERA

ISSUES CONSEQUENCES RESOLUTIONS

Immediate Cause: Farmers & pastoralist have been fighting over access to resources, especially during dry season.

VIOLENCE & THEFT

Community & Village Government: 1) Provide information and data to district officials on any criminal issues in their area as early as possible. 2) Village executive officers (VEO) should be committed to implement the land use plan. Both pastoralist and farmers should be responsible for any project in their areas with full participation.

Proximate Causes: increasing violence over resources exacerbated by large‐scale farmers, backed by powerful people have come into the District from Chemba, Kongwa and Kondoa.

LAND GRABBING, LOSS OF LANDS

District Government: Plans 1) To establish a budget from own sources to handle and sustain land conflict resolution. 2) To collaborate with local and international CSOs; 3) To facilitate peace keeping forums with village leaders

Structural Causes: Political interference, Migrant farmers, Clashes with investors

KITETO DISTRICT has plans to attract outside investors, inviting developers to bring in a range of industries, some of which are on lands already being used by pastoralists.

Central Government: Fundraising to facilitate a District Land Use plan for 44 villages, To raise funds for the Ministry of Land to enable the Project to succeed. NGOs: 1) Continue to work on reducing conflict; 2) Help raise awareness with the district on land issues; 3) Conducting workshop and seminars to assist the new association called OLENGAPA and help in the formation of other groups


19

4.2: SNAPSHOT OF THEDRIVERS AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONFLICT

DISTRICT MVOMERO

CONFLICT ZONE KAMBALA

ISSUES CONSEQUENCES SUGGESTED RESOLUTIONS

Direct Cause of Conflict: Farmers allegedly backed by high ranking politicians, take over lands inside pastoralist village boundaries, using the ‘Mwano, a youth militia group’.

VIOLENCE, LOSS OF LIFE, LOSS OF PROPERTY, LOSS OF CATTLE, CROPS including: farmers killed 73 goats belonging to a widow.

Smallholder Farmers and Pastoralists suggest Land use planning, not trenches. Reassign defunct national ranch to pastoralists. CSOs suggest Empower them both in knowledge of law and Land rights, especially women who suffer the most during these conflicts

Proximate cause of conflict: 1) The ensuing court case was delayed for over ten years allegedly due to political influence, during which time the powerful farmers continued to take more land, create violent conflicts. 2) Whilst the court has failed to come to any decision, the District has destroyed the original land use plan, redrawn the boundaries and is digging a trench to create division between the original pastoralists and the new farmers.

COURT CASE JUDGEMENTS HAVE BEEN DELAYED FOR YEARS; LAND TAKEN FROM PASTORALIST; TRENCH DUG TO SEPARATE FARMERS & PASTORALISTS; ALLEGED LAND GRABBING BY DISTRICT OFFICIALS, POLITICIANS AND THE JUDGE

The current political appointees and District are hopeful that the development of a dedicated agricultural region will resolve conflicts. Plans for pastoralists in this development plan appear vague and need to be addressed.

Structural Causes of Conflict: The political agendas disenfranchising the pastoralists.

MVOMERO DISTRICT INTENDS TO GIVE DEFUNCT RANCH TO FARMERS & MAKE THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL BASED ‐ PASTORALISTS WILL BE MOVED AWAY TO DRY LANDS


20


DISTRICT LOLIONDO

CONFLICT ZONE Game Controlled Area No 9


Immediate Cause: During hunting season, Ortello Business Corporation guards teamed up with TANAPA and KDU to stop pastoralists grazing and use water sources in their hunting block.

VIOLENCE, LOSS OF LIFE, LOSS OF CATTLE, FINES including: Tsh.10,000 for each cattle found or they are killed.

Land Use planning, More direct engagement between District and Pastoralists, Capacity building on land rights.

Proximate Cause: District support of the OBC, despite failing to comply with policies of tourist investments and support of local people.

FORCEFUL EVICTIONS, WOMEN TERRORISED

CURRENT STATUS: The people of Loliondo are still awaiting the outcome of the Region’s position on the Declaration after three years. Ngorongoro District Council intends to survey all the lands in Loliondo and have set a budget of Tsh280m to carry this out. They are currently awaiting the Ministry Surveyors to commence work. The pastoralists conflicts with OBC and local government have quelled for the time being whilst awaiting resumption of the land use plans to start.

Structural Causes: The District has failed to implement laws and policies in place. Political interference with hindrance of justice and due process.

DISTRICT LOLIONDO

CONFLICT ZONE Engusero‐Sambu village

Immediate Cause: General insecurity amongst pastoralistsdue to no land tenure or support from the District Excess guns in the area.

VIOLENCE, LOSS OF LIFE, LOSS OF CATTLE, LOSS OF CROPS

See Annex 6.1

Community Advice: Traditional Maasai conflict resolution mechanisms have relied on elders’ traditional knowledge and experience. However now some of the youth have an understanding of Tanzanian law and can contribute to the process. Another recent change has been the introduction of women into the meetings and their participation adds a new dimension and provides positive outcomes. CSO Advice: Land Use planning,Build Capacity on land rights and help conflicting parties to mediate peaceful; more direct engagement between District and Pastoralists,. Find commonalities to bring them together and demand support to

Proximate Cause: The District has failed to listen to the people or provide land security.

The Structural Causes of Conflict: Land Use Planning Act of 2007 has not been implemented[1]. Many Villageswith land Use Plans have not been registered.


21

sort out conflicting land status


DISTRICT LOLIONDO cont.

CONFLICT ZONE Soitsambu and Thomson Safaris


Direct Cause: Blockages of livestock routes to nearby water sources?.

Livestock need to do a 180km detour to reach access to water during the dry season due to the no go zone around the reserve.

Community Advice: Traditional Maasai conflict resolution mechanisms have relied on elders’ traditional knowledge and experience. However now some of the youth have an understanding of Tanzanian law and can contribute to the process. Another recent change has been the introduction of women into the meetings and their participation adds a new dimension and provides positive outcomes.

Immediate Cause: The lack of consultation between investor and host communities;

Thompson Safaris appear to have backing from DC who has agreed to the buffer zone regardless of the pastoralists needs.

District Advice: The TIC should insist that investors follow the law and policies to protect pastoralists’ lives and livelihoods.

Structural Cause: Corruption and government support for investors over pastoralists,

Pastoralists have their land rights alienated without recourse to justice.

Enforcement of existing policies, good governance principles/legislations to ensure effective land administration.

SECTION 4: SNAPSHOT OF THE CONSEQUENCES: CONFLICT NOTES

Respondents’ advice has only responded to the immediate impacts of the specific conflicts and does not address the root cause of conflicts.

Whereas most of the advice sounds well, the proximate and structural cause of the conflicts to be addressed.

The PP needs to extend its reach to help a wider range of pastoralists.


22

SECTION 5: PASTORALIST PROGRAMMERECOMMENDATIONS

ON THE GROUND

The Pastoralist Programme has been working with pastoralists and smallholder communities with a range of

initiatives, some of which worked directly or indirectly to resolve conflict. These include:

Providing an understanding of land rights;

Empowering pastoralists women to have a voice;

Training on conflict prevention and mediation;

Encouraging pastoralist representation at the village level.

Recommended:All of these have been useful programmes and need to continue and expand to more

pastoralist communities and the youth. Additionally there are other steps that could be embraced within the

pastoralist programme to address land based conflicts including:

Finding the commonalities between smallholder farmers and pastoralists to over come conflicts on

shared land resources.

Supporting pastoralist representatives on Land Use Committees.

Support of public services to meet pastoralists’ needs in the future.

Impacts on the ground would be better served if there was an ability to mainstream pastoralist issues with

other donor programmes on health, education, land use planning, agriculture and conservation. This could

be achieved by seconding pastoralists CSO representatives to other CSOs operating more widely. (HakiArdhi,

Haki Elimu etc)

AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL

Currently the pastoralist programme is working with various district offices including the livestock

department to empower them to work more effectively with pastoralists. Issues covered include:

Disease control and veterinary support

Pastoralist Markets and Abattoirs

Milk Collection points,added value products

Stock routes

Taxation

Land use planning

Recommended:Whereas district budgets are small they could be more effectively used to ensure that tax

contributions from the livestock sector are put to:

Develop and improve livestock facilities;

Stock routes are agreed and marked out;

Land use plans take into account pastoralists grazing and water needs;

Supporting pastoralist representatives on District Councils.

AT THE GOVERNMENT LEVEL

Currently the pastoralist programme is supporting lobbying to develop a pastoralist policy.


23

Recommended:This could be expanded tolobby for:

Co‐existence on national reserves,

Revocation of land title from abandoned projects,

Urgent financial support on land use planning

Revitalising of defunct national ranches for keen pastoralist youth to train in ranching.

Master Classes for political appointees on roles, responsibilities and the law.

AT THE NATIONAL CSO LEVEL

Recommended:Advocating for mainstreaming pastoralist issues on all donor supported programmes,

including health, education, land rights, agriculture, climate change, to ensure inclusiveness and a more

powerful lobby.

Support investigative journalism, media outlets and watchdog organisations to cover pastoralist issues.

SECTION 5: PP REMEDIAL ACTIONS & FURTHER RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

The Way Forward:

Whereas the Pastoralist programme as it stands, cannot address all the suggested actions, it is higly

recommended that can work the PP work with other CSOs and donor programmes to effect change.

Mind Set Changes:Current mind sets need changing. To effect this, it is important to provide the business

case to policy makers that promotes the concept of a potentially vibrant livestock sector.

Presidential Powers: It is believed from the research undertaken, that the former president unwittingly

exacerbated conflicts on the ground over the last ten years.

It therefore seems logical to present the case to the new President to really make the changes that are

needed.

It is the President alone that can order land revocations of abandoned projects and reallocate these lands to

pastoralists that have been evicted over the years. It is the President that can address the numerous budget

issues that restrain the pastoralist economy from flourishing. It is the President that can order his political

appointees, such as the DCs to stop evictions and find sustainable solutions in their own areas.

If the President were made aware of the issues, it is believed that the trend could be reversed.

BOX 1: RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS STRUCTURAL CAUSES OF CONFLICT: LOBBY TO:

1) Implement current policies;

2) Provide alternative lands for evicted pastoralists, with secure land tenure

3) Enforce laws and policies to protect the most vulnerable;

4) Recognise the contribution of that pastoralism plays in the 21st century economy;

5) Revocate of land of abandoned Projects, reallocate to pastoralists;

6) Revive State Ranches for Pastoralists youth to learn modern ranching techniques

7) Address Climate change;

8) Reverse evictions from national reserves, parks etc.;


24

9) Develop Land Use Plans;

10) Find a champion to walk the corridors of power to influence the above;

11) Sponsor investigative journalists to cover Evictions, conflicts and pastoralist issues;

12) Create Master classes for RCs and DCs: roles and responsibilities and laws and policies;

13) Enable support for change, provide health and family planning to pastoralists;

14) Invest ineducation for pastoralists children;

15) Ensure secure land tenure for pastoralists;

16) Advise on pastoralists markets and abattoirs;

17) Demarcate stock routes, water access;

18) Lead on cattle disease control;

19) Support co‐existence of wildlife and pastoralists;

20) Mainstream Pastoralist Issues, linking with other CSOs and donor programmes.


25

MINDSET CHANGES

It is advised that the Pastoralist Programme now expand to address the proximate and structural

causes of conflict, which will require the support of key champions who can walk the corridors of

power and drive change within government:

Develop the business case and incentivise the process for measurable results.

Develop multi‐disciplinary task force teams empowered to drive each issue forward

Provide the local informants a hotline to inform the independent watchdog on land take

incidences and promote accountability.

Prioritise smallholders and pastoralists economic growth.

SYNERGIZE DONOR SUPPORT

Not all of the initiatives need to be funded under the auspices of the Pastoralists Programme alone,

but linkages need be created with other donor support programmes. This will ensure interface

between the actors so a more holistic approach can be taken.

Potentially the Pastoralist Programme actors could be seconded to other donor‐funded

programmes to enrich their reach, mainstream the issues and ensure understanding of the

cultural nuancesfor equitable development and governance.

HakiArdhi has been working on land use planning supported by AcT1 (SIDA and DfID) on land use

planning. Most informants believe that the key solution is the development of land use plans, but

illegal land sales of communal land by village leadership may impact villages’ zoning options and

inadequate pastoralist representation on the land use committees would preclude equitable land use.

PP programme officers could support HakiArdhi by provision of pastoralist language speakers to

ensure proper representation.

Potentially there could be prioritisation of VLUP in areas of high conflict.

HakiElimu has been working on the improvement on the quality of education supported by AcT (SIDA

and DfID). Potentially there could be a special emphasis on ensuring pastoralist education is also

provided for all children. It may include pastoralist’ boarding facilities, peripatetic teachers and catch

up classes.

HakiElimu has also been working with the SIDA / World Bank Programme known as BRNEd ensuring

that direct funding is available to schools to enable improvements. Potentiallythere could be a special

emphasis on access to education of nomadic groups, the provision of culturally appropriate books and

teaching aids to more fully support the needs of various pastoralists.

TGNP has been working on gender equality supported by AcT (SIDA, DfID and SIDA). Potentially there

could be a special emphasis on ensuring pastoralist women are factored into the programmes.

There are a myriad of donor‐funded programmes that the Pastoralist Programme and its gender

component could make linkages, mainstreaming both and making a greater impact.

Potentially this could include some secondment arrangement, which would more holistically address

the proximate and structural causes of conflicts in the medium and long term.


26

SECTION 6: CONCLUSIONS OF THECS&T ANALYSIS

THE SCOPE OF WORK

The main purpose of this evaluation was to improve the effectiveness in resolving land conflicts and

document lessons for shared learning providing a clear set of recommendations that can be used by

the programme team.

Conclusions on the Direct Causes of Conflicts: It was assessed that the Pastoralist Programme

empowerment interventions have been successful in addressing empowerment as a whole, especially

with women. They have also been successful in specific interventions on conflict and these should

continue and be expanded where possible. It was suggested that this could include widening the

reach to more pastoralists minority groups and the youth. Additionally it would be helpful to find

commonalities between pastoralists and smallholders so they work together to find solutions and

then collectively work with the District Authorities. The primary recommendation was to mainstream

pastoralist issues with other donor programmes.

Conclusions on the Proximate Causes of Conflicts: It was assessed that the proximate causes of

conflicts was more complex. Whereas the pastoralist programme generally has been working with the

district on improving services and infrastructure for pastoralists, more emphasis now needs to be in

land use planning and ensuring pastoralist representation during the process. Furthermore, it was

assessed that specific interventions are required to enable district officials and local political

appointees follow current policies, roles, responsibilities and safeguards, which appear to be lacking

at the moment. Sponsoring Master Classes for DCs and other heads might be useful in this regard, but

how to initiate a programme is more problematic and follow up strategies are needed to initiate this

before action is taken.

Conclusions on the Structural Causes of Conflicts: It was assessed that structural causes of the conflicts

primarily relate to political, economic and conservationist priorities that do not envision that

pastoralism has a future in the 21st century. As a result evictions of pastoralists have escalated

exponentially over the last ten years. These evictions, without provision of alternative lands and

resources have been the major cause of the conflicts seen on the ground. This is further exacerbated

by climate change, minimal budgets, lack of change interventions to assist pastoralist youth in

learning about more modern livestock keeping. Additionally, the failure to provide adequate health

and education, precludes pastoralist children of today fro having more opportunities in the future.

Eliminating the structural causes of conflicts is paramount to halt the rising trend on the ground.

There are a series of suggestions that have been made to address the structural causes, but all go well

beyond the remit of the current Pastoralist Programme. Each suggestion needs a further review and a

strategy developed with the PP partners of what is actually possible. Two suggestions could be

considered more easily than the others. 1) Mainstreaming pastoralist issues in other donor

programmes and, 2) supporting investigative journalism to at least expose to the public the impacts of

the evictions.

It was concluded the champion to resolve land‐based conflicts in Tanzania is the President, as he has

the power to make some fundamental changes. A strategy with the donors and partners of the

current programme needs to be developed to follow this approach.

Summary Report - IDC Ltd. – March 2016

27

ANNEX 1: ACRONYMS

CCM Chama Cha Mapinduzi C

EDESOTA Community Economic Development & Social Transformation

CODERT Community Development and Relief Trust

COSITA Community Support Initiatives Tanzania

CSO Civil Society Organisation

DC District Commissioner

DED District Executive Director

DILAPS Dar es Salaam Institute of Land Administration and Policy Studies

DLO District Land Officer

ESARO Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office

ESRF Economic Social Research Foundation

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GIS Geographical Information System

Hon. Honourable (Member of Parliament)

HUDESA Human Development Strategies Association

ICUN The International Union for Conservation of Nature

IDC LTD International Development Consultancy Limited

ILO International Labour Organization ILO Convention No. 169

IPS Inter Press Service

IUCN The International Union for the Conservation of Nature

IWGIA International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs

KM2 Square Kilometers

LGCA Loliondo Game Controlled Area

LIDA Livestock Development Association

LPI Land Policy Initiative

LSDP Livestock Sector Development Programme

LUP Land Use Plan

MDA Ministries, Departments & Agencies

MN Meeting Note

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MP Member of Parliament

MUWAMBA Muungano wa Ushirika wa Wafugaji Wilaya ya Mbarali

NAFCO National Agriculture and Food Corporation

Draft Report SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS ON LAND BASED CONFLICTS IDC Ltd. – March 2016

28

ANNEX 1: ACRONYMS cont

NARCO National Ranching Corporation

NCA Ngorongoro Conservation Area

NLUPC National Land Use Planning Commission

OBC Ortello Business Corporation

OCD District Police Commanding Officer

PAICODEO Parakuiyo Pastoralists Indigenous Community Development Organization

PINGO’s Pastoralists Indigenous NGOs Forum

PM Prime Minister

Prof. Professor

RC Regional Commissioner

RAS Regional Administrative Secretary

SN Serial Number

TALIRI Tanzania Livestock Research Institute

TAPHGO Tanzania Pastoralist and Hunter Gatherers Organisation

TNRF Tanzania Natural Resource Forum, Arusha

TOR Terms of Reference

TPCF Tanzania Pastoralist Community Forum

TPDF Tanzania Peoples Defence Forces

TSAF Tanzania Social Action Fund

Tshs Tanzanian Shillings

TZPPG Tanzania Pastoralists’ Parliamentary Group

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948

UN United Nations

UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

URT United Republic of Tanzania

VEO Village Executive Officer

VICOBA Village Community Banking

VLUP Village Land Use Plan

VSG Veterinary Specialist Group (IUCN)

WCA Wildlife Conservation Society, New York

WEO Ward Executive Officer

WODSTA (Women Development for Science and Technology Association)


29


30

ANNEX 2: GOVERNMENT RECORDS OF CONFLICT

CONFLICT INCIDENCES

DATE DISTRICT INCIDENCE SOURCE / EFFECTS ACTION TAKEN

1945 ‐ 2013

NGORONGORO

Source of Conflict between Maasai pastoralists community and Agropastoralist (wasonjo) in Ngorongoro district is over land and cattle rustling.

The Conlficts led to the loss of many lives, theft of livestock and burning of houses from these two community

The government has been taking various steps to resolve all conflicts every time they occur for instance providing education on the importance of having good relations, noting the boundaries, several meetings and having good neighborliness

2000 ‐ 2014

KILOSA

Sources of conflict between farmers and pastoralits were pastoralist graze their cattle on farms and farmers not realizing pastoral villages as villages valid and thus cultivate in the area of pastures.

Due to the conflict 52 people were killed and many others run away from their home.

The government has been taking various steps to resolve all conflicts every time they occur for instance planning of land use including arbitrary control of animal importation.

07/02/05 NGORONGORO

Source of conflict between farmers and the investor of hunting Ortelo Business Company (OBC) is when investor needed the removal of all citizens from the area he uses for hunting which is almost 1,500 hectares, which was Game Controlled Area.

During the eviction of pastoralists in hunting area cause destraction of property and 200 houses were fired.

Prime Minister's Statement prescribes that pastoralists should continue to live in the area when the Government is seeking a sustainable solution on that confilct.

07/01/08 KILINDI

There was fighting farmers and pastoralists in border villages in Kilindi district and Kiteto. The source of the conflict was contested border.

In the conflict 5 people were killed, 75 houses were fired total of 150 acres of various crops were destroyed and burnt, 300 cows, 106 goats and 90 sheep lost.

Brawls border between Kilindi district and Kiteto. Settlement was done to identify the actual border between the two districts, which has scaled down the problem. .


31


CONFLICT INCIDENCES


06/01/12 RUFUJI

The Conflict occurred between farmers and pastoralists in the small town of Ikwiriri Rufiji district, Coast Province, the source of violence was due to death of one farmer who found the children of pastoralist herders near his farm and drove them away. In expelling collapsed and was taken to the hospital died. farmers and pastoralists claim they have killed their colleague and initiate violence.

The crisis led to the death of a farmer and 6 houses were fired, 3 cows and 120 goats were cut down swords and 200 cattle were lost (property of pastoralist)

Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture, Livestock and Water in collaboration with the leadership of Coast Province participated in the resolution. Moreover Rufiji district tested and allocate pasture in the village of Muyuyu and relocate Pastoralists from Ikwiriri to go into isolated areas.

2012 ‐ 2013

SERENGETI

Conflict between the investor GRUMETI Company Ltd and Pastoralists. Source were Pastoralists in different times have been grazing within the area owend by company deals hunting that lie close to their villages.

At a time when pastoralists were expelled by company's employees with their cattle, 20 cows died from drowning river. Furthermore incident 164 cattle of pastoralists of Isenye village Serengeti District had disappeared.

1/12/13 to 31/01/14

KITETO

7 Villages from Kiteto district isolate a grazing areas in the forest of social protection of Emborley Murtangos (133,000 hectares), farmers stormed and because they lived for many years,They demanded they had a legal right to own that land. Source of conflict was pastoralists incorporate animal in the park and feed on crops .

More than 34 people were killed in communal clashes between farmers and pastoralists.

The Prime Minister and the leadership of Manyara Region held a meeting with citizens from both sides and decide all Invaders of forest reserve they have obey court order and out of the reserve. Pastoralist and farmers have started to leave.


32


CONFLICT INCIDENCES


10/01/13 HANANG

There was a conflict between pastoralists and farmers of Murero and Lalagi villages of Hanang District. Pastoralists of Lalagi claimed that the area of conservation forest Murero (the mother village Lalagi) is belong to them. The source of conflict was farmers from Murero village cultivated in the reserve. Pastoralists entered and they wanted to use force to take them out.

One person was killed, two wounded and 25 hectares of crops were destroyed in the fighting

District Defense and Security Committee stepped in to stop the fighting.

12/01/13 MVOMERO

The source of the conflict was a contesting of Mgongola River basin which pastoralists of Kambala village claim that lies in their village and farmers they do not recognize the village .

There was fighting between farmers and pastoralists of Mvomero district. 7 people were killed after clashes.

Ministers of Agriculture and Fisheries, Agriculture, Food and Cooperatives, Home affairs, Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development, Water with regional leadership intervened to resolve the conflicts

03/01/14 IGUNGA

Source of conflict was the river have a tendency of shifting frequently so part of Kishapu district was taken to be the part Igunga district.

5 people were killed in clashes between farmers from Igunga and pastoralists from Kishapu district contested grazing area of Magalata(Kishapu) and Isakamaliwa (Igunga).

Respective area received a visit from the leadership of Ministry and the regions where it was found that the problem was a territorial dispute between the districts.The next step was to review the boundaries and planning of land use in conjunction with the relevant Council.


33


CONFLICT INCIDENCES


11/12/15 to 12/12/2015

MVOMERO

Fighting between farmers and herders at Dihinga village Kanga ward

Source farmers accuse herder to enter cattle into pulses farm and asked him to pay Tsh 200,000/= Effects: Allegedly a herder instead of paying cash, he came back with a group of herders and attacked farmers with arrows. 1 person died and 4 people were injured. 72 cattle were killed by hacked and 80 cattle were injured

Police arrest 16 herders accused for murder and 3 farmer accused for kill cattle.

15/12/2015 KILOSA

Fighting between farmers and herders Source herders of Ngaite harmlet leasing farms to farmers at Tindiga B village. The Village leader with the villagers went to review sites claimed to be of herders then they had been invaded and beaten by herders Effect 11 farmers were injured and admitted to hospital

Police are investigating to identify those responsible for the violence.

15/09/2015 KILOSA

One farmer killed and cattle hacked at Kimbiga village in Kilosa district

Source of Conflict was a farmer to snatch cattle who entered on his farm. Effects One farmer was struck by a Maasai boy who died, 109 cattle hacked and died. This act was carried out by

The Masaai herders arrest one farmer who has committed murder and handed him to the Police. Police are investigating to identify those responsible for hacked cattle.


34

farmers retaliation for killing of their colleague


35


CONFLICT INCIDENCES


02/08/16 MVOMERO

Livestock killings The group of youth farmers invided Masaai herders and killed 70 goats.

Minister of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries visited the scene and talked to the citizens of the two sides and give insructions to the leaders of the Morogoro region to address concerns that cause conflict

SOURCE: MINISTRY OF LIVESTOCK and FISHERIES


36


37

ANNEX 3: CASE STUDIES 1: LAND CONFLICT IN KITETO IN MANYARA REGION

KITETO OVERVIEW

Kiteto District Environment30

Kiteto District in Manyara Region covers an area of 16,685 km2,31and is divided into 7 divisions, 19

Wards with 58 villages and 210 sub villages. It is generally arid to semi – arid, has only one rain season

between January and May and has an average rainfall of 500mm per annum. The District has a land‐

based economy of mainly agriculture and livestock keeping32. There are also forestry, beekeeping and

mining activities. Transhumance pastoralism dominates the livestock industry and this contributes

about 38% of the economy in the district. Kiteto has traditionally been an area for livestock and

pastoralism and it is only in recent times that have farmers come in large numbers.

Kiteto District Support

District records show that there are currently 315,225 cattle in Kiteto, (Indigenous 315,131, improved

594), 227,468 goats, (Indigenous 225,921, improved 1,547) and 82,397 sheep. At present the average

milk produced per cow is 1 to 1.5 litres per day. In order to increase this, the cattle need access to

water33, which is limited during the dry season. Whereas livestock keeping is essential for the local

economy, the livestock infrastructure is wholly insufficient. Last year the District Livestock Office

applied for an annual budget of TSH 123,000,000 but only received one third of this amount.

Without taking poultry and fisheries into the count, this equates to only TSH61 budget support for the

listed numbers of cattle, goats and sheep. There are seven local livestock markets, only one

‘temporary’ abattoir and 3 slaughter slabs. The Livestock has potentially a large team34, but they have

no budgets to support their routine activities, training or provide livestock facilities. The Min. of

Livestock’s record for vet meds demonstrates there is only enough budget to cater for 500,000

livestock (2%) for the whole country35 which could be used in its entirety in Kiteto District. Considering

the economic importance of livestock to the Kiteto economy, the aim to control disease, build

capacity of pastoralists in modern techniques, it would appear that the District Livestock Officers

There are 80 primary schools in the District, of which 30 are in pastoralist villages. However these

schools have a ratio of one teacher per 60 students and a serious shortage desks and teaching

materials. Kibaya has the only primary boarding school36. Access to health services is also a serious

concern. The District has only one Hospital and 16 Dispensaries ‘on paper’. However in reality, most

buildings are ‘unfinished’, without qualified staff and have few medicines or diagnostic equipment37.

Access to family planning services are said to be ‘difficult’, especially in the remote areas and the

scattered nature of the transhumance pastoralists.

30 See Appendix: 3.1.1 Kiteto District Documents Listing 31 34.1% of the whole area of Manyara Region, bordered by Simanjiro District in the North, Kilindi District in the East,

Gairo and Kongwa Districts in the South, Chamwino and Kondoa Districts in the West32 See Appendix: 3.1.2 Kiteto Public Services & Infrastructure Graphs 33 See Appendix: 3.1.3 Water Projects ENG & SWH 34 The district has only one Veterinary Officer, 4 animal scientists and 31 field workers 35 See Appendix: 2.08 MDA Disease Control36 See Appendix: 3.1.4 Partimbo Stats 37 Among those 16 Dispensaries, 2 are Rural Health Centers (Sunya and Engusero); and 14 are owned by

Government and the rest 2 are under private ownership (Loolera and Chapakazi). 7 unfinished Dispensaries: Katikati, Ilera, Olkitikiti, Engung’ongare, Asamatwa, Bwagamoyo, Loltepes.


38

Current regional policy favours large agricultural projects, although there is little evidence this is

working. Without investment to optimise the livestock economy, family planning provision and quality

education, the next generation are being precluded from developing alternative sustainable

livelihoods envisioned by the country’s leaders.

Kiteto: History of Conflict Case Study 1:

Emboley Murtangos Forestry Reserve v Farmers and District

In 2002:38 a pilot programme was introduced by ICUN to develop the first ever formalized Forestry

Conservation Reserve with co‐existent pastoralists in an area known as Emboley Murtangos Reserve

(EMR). The development initiative included capacity building of both the District and participating

pastoralists on forestry and rangelands management which aimed to conserve resources more

effectively. As part of this process, a participatory land use plan was undertaken.

In 2003: The Forestry Conservation land was surveyed and the district approved the plans.

The pilot programme was deemed as a great success and there were plans to roll it out elsewhere.

However, political events were to change this.

In 2005: Hon. Kikwete came to power and announced in his inaugural speech that pastoralism has no

place in 21st century Tanzania and that the way forward was large scale agriculture.

In 2006: It was noticed that some farmers had entered the Forestry Reserve and were cultivating large

tracts of land. The Pastoralists requested them to leave and when they refused to do so, the District

assisted the pastoralists in their eviction, allegedly with help of funds from the pastoralists.

In 2007: Fifty farmers, some with allegedly ‘high political connections’39, took the District to court and

won their right to claim land within the reserve, despite that none of the claimants or witnesses came

from Kiteto District and regardless of the approved land use plans.

In 2010: The District won their appeal and the farmers were ordered out of the reserve.

In 2011: The police come to the area to evict the farmers, however, following a call from ‘someone

high up’ they withdrew and no further action was taken.

In 2011: The farmers, empowered by the ‘lack of power’ of the police and alleged funding from

‘powerful people’ cleared more land; and in response to some cattle eating their maize stalks, which

had already been harvested, went out and slashed the legs of several cattle. There followed a series

of violent and retaliatory responses.

Kiteto Changing Narrative

The Prime Minister intervened and set up the ‘Bishop’s Commission’, however the legacy or the

narrative changed in the process: The Forest Reserve with equitable co‐existence with pastoralist

families no longer fit with the current political discourse. History has been re‐written:

"The church should be in the forefront in building community's values because having a big group of

people who are not God‐fearing is also a problem”. Hon.Pinda Prime Minister

Kiteto Impact of Conflict

38 2007 ICUN 39 During the case it was alleged that the complainants were merely acting on behalf of the beneficiary owners, the

MP of Kongwa, Jobu Ndugai and later, the MP for Chalinze, Ridhiwani Kikwete.


39

Conflict inevitably brings distress to all the victims as well as economic and social impacts. Women are

particularly affected by these conflicts as they cannot leave their children or elderly to face any kind

of marauder, whether pastoralists or farmer. As bomas and huts are burnt down, they are left to face

the consequences and rebuild their homes and ensure their children get enough food to eat.

The DC on Impacts of Conflict

The death of 39 people was a great loss to both pastoralists and farmer communities. It means loss of

income and hardship. With each and every conflict, more hatred emerges. Some pastoralist families

have migrated to other areas to avoid this continual fighting.

NGO View of the Impacts of Conflict

The NGOs are angry by the Bishop’s Commissions Report as it blames conflict on the Pastoralists.

Conflict has bought economic depression and there is increased tribalism, annulment of land use

plans and requirement to re‐asses land use needs. Women and children are suffering the most.

Kiteto Current Status

The District Commissioner On Measures That Have Worked To Combat Conflict

‘We have established a mediation organ consisting of both farmers and pastoralist. We are raising

funds to complete the LUP (already started, we are training VEOs on implementation of Land Law no.

5 of 1999.Whereas the conflict has temporarily subsided, it has been decided that a new Land Use

Plan needs to be developed so the farmers can be secured.

The District Lands Officer

‘75,000 hectares would still be reserved for the Pastoralists out of the original 300,000’.

Pastoralists of Emboley Murtangos Reserve

The pastoralists feel let down by the Government, which failed to provide protection and the district

that has failed to safeguard their livelihoods. Meanwhile, everyone has been ordered out of the

Forestry Reserve.

Kiteto Related Conflicts

The research team went to two villages where violence has taken place to discover the status on the

ground. Currently the situation is more settled as land use plans are being redrawn.

KITETO: Case Study 2: KIMANA & ILERA: Pastoralists v Farmers and District

The team went to Partimbo Ward to visit two villages, Kimana and Ilera, where conflicts between

farmers and pastoralists have also become violent.

The Direct Causes of Conflict include:

Farmers and pastoralist have been fighting over access to land and water resources, especially during

dry season. Each incident has sparked reprisals and each reprisal has been disproportionate to the

initial ‘offence’.

The Proximate Causes of Conflict include:

Political promises were announced for the election, one candidate promising to give the disputed

land to the pastoralists and the other to the farmers heightening tensions40.

The Structural Causes of Conflict include:

40 As many of the pastoralists were not registered to vote, the politician advocating for more agriculture won the

election


40

Failure of the village implement the Land Use Planning, political bias against pastoralism and the

failure to recognise the economic value of pastoralism and invest in the livestock sector.

Kiteto Stakeholder Views

The DC believes that climate change has reduced crop production in neighbouring villages outside and

that has caused an influx of both farmers and pastoralists into the area. This has added stress to the

already strained resources especially in areas such as Emboley Murtangos which is very fertile; There

has also been political interference assisting farmers invade grazing lands. The outsiders do not know

village boundaries and should not extend farming activities to forest reserves.

The District officials41added that the increasing violence42 over shared water and land resource uses

has been exacerbated by large‐scale farmers, backed by powerful people have come into the District

from Chemba, Kongwa and Kondoa.

The Farmers43 say that Pastoralists are jealous if they see anybody do better than themselves. The

Maasai call us farmers “ORUMEICK” which means “trouser‐wearers’ and when a Maasai child cries its

parent rebukes him and says ‘Orumeick’ is coming to ‘get them’.

The `Pastoralists say that farmers have invaded their lands and planted over their stock routes.

The CSOs say that political interference has caused some conflict and the increasing population has

overstretched the diminishing resources. Migrant farmers from other regions seeking for areas

suitable for crop cultivations. Wealthy investors from Dar es Salaam and government officials have

become local land grabbers and bought up cheap land for farming.

Kiteto Solutions to Resolve Conflicts

KITETO: District Land Officer Conflict Resolution Plan

Central Government: Fundraising to facilitate a District Land Use plan for 44 villages. To raise funds for the Ministry of Land to enable the Project to succeed

District Government: To establish a budget from own sources to handle and sustain land conflict resolution. To collaborate with local and international CSOs To facilitate peace keeping forums

NGOs Continue to work on reducing conflict Help raise awareness with the district on land issues. Conducting workshop and seminars to assist the new association called OLENGAPA and help in the formation of other groups

Community & Village Government:

Provide information and data to district officials on any criminal issues in their area as early as possible.

41 See appendix 3.1.5 District responses 42 See Appendix: 3.1.7 Kiteto Conflict Survey 43 See Appendix: 3.1.6 Main Survey Kiteto


41

Village executive officers (VEO) should be committed to implement the land Use Plan. Both pastoralist and farmers should be responsible for any project in their areas with full participation.

Kiteto Future Planning

The Kiteto District Profile 44 has plans to attract outside investors. It has published district

opportunities and invites developers to bring in a range of industries, some of which are on lands

already being used by pastoralists.See Appendix 2.12

CASE STUDIES 2: LAND CONFLICT IN MVOMERO – MOROGORO REGION

The Morogoro Region is known for its good climate and geographical attributes attracting both

agricultural and pastoral activities. Morogoro has been facing a number of land‐based conflicts

between the pastoralists and farmers in Kilosa, Kilombero and Mvomero Districts, but since 2005

these have escalated in both number and intensity.

Background to the Mvomero District

Mvomero District has a population of 312,10945and characterized by high rainfalls, all‐season rivers

and fertile soils, attracting both crop cultivation and livestock keeping, all vying for the same water

and land resources. The district occupies a total area of 732,500 ha. The area suitable for agricultural

activities is 549,375 ha. The present cultivated area is 247,219 ha. This is equal to 45% of the total

area. The area that is suitable for livestock rearing is 266,400 ha.

The Maasai Pastoralists have been recorded in the area since the 1880s. The residents of now

Kambala Village have been there since the 1950s46. The Maasai have settled permanently in the

village of Kambala and herded livestock there in a seasonal rotation, making use of the Mgongola

wetlands in the dry season and the higher ground in the wet season. Kambala and Mkindo Villages in

Mkindo Ward have been in conflict since 2006.

Mvomero: Kambala Village – Case Study – Community Perspective

A Brief History:

The Maasai pastoralists were already in the area at the time of Villagisation.

1974: The pastoralist village of Kambala was officially recognized.

1986: Kambala’s geographical boundaries were surveyed with its neighbours.

1989: Kambala was provided with a Certificate of Occupancy

1993: Kambala village prepared a LUP for the village, which included pastures, access to the rivers and

some small agricultural land.

2006: Pastoralist villagers took invading farmers to court

201? DC Arnold Mtaka of Mvomero allowed a further five hundred farmers to farm in Kambala.

2013, The District resurveyed the boundaries of Kambala without consultation.

2014: The Land Commissioner removed 3000 Ha from the original village.

44 Appendix 2.12 Kiteto District Profile 45 2012 Census 46 The date provided here is different to the from the Mvomero District Profile Version 3, which states: ‘In 1980’s

other tribes including Maasai, Sukuma, Pogoro, Kaguru and Mang’ati/Barbeig migrated to Mvomero in search of pastures for their livestock’.


42

2015: The District dug a trench to demarcate the boundaries

2016: The trench continues to be dug, the court case is still not concluded

Mvomero: Causes of Conflict

Direct Cause of Conflict: Farmers allegedly backed by high ranking politicians, take over lands inside

pastoralist village boundaries, using the ‘Mwano, a youth militia group’.

Proximate cause of conflict: 1)The ensuing court case was delayed for over ten years allegedly due to

political influence, during which time the powerful farmers continued to take more land, create

violent conflicts. 2) Whilst the court has failed to come to any decision, the District has destroyed the

original land use plan, redrawn the boundaries and is digging a trench to create division between the

original pastoralists and the new farmers.

Structural Causes of Conflict: The political agendas disenfranchising the pastoralists.

Mvomero: Stakeholder Views

The DED: George Mkindo confirmed that the trench is simply a way of zoning off Kambala Village to

act as a buffer zone between pastures and farms but allowing livestock access to water.

The District: The District Council for Mvomero agrees the situation has been ‘quite complex’. They

insist that everything has been done and the changes made have been carried out according to the

laws of the country. With regards to the Trench, the DED

The Farmers: Smallholder farmers in the area believe that the trench was unnecessary and the main

issue has been the big farmers with political backing.

The Pastoralists: The Kambala pastoralist believe that the District Officers have abused their power

and authority to steal land and create conflicts where there were none before, they have actively

encouraged violence and division over the last ten years. They assert that The DC, the RC and DED are

all involved for their own gain. The then RC – Mzindakaya, Judge Kimicha, MP Simidu, they have all

taken land in Kambala and that’s why the trench was built.

The CSOs: Political manipulations and poor investments policies, which allow local investors to grab

villager’s land. There also say there is low awareness amongst the stakeholders on the importance of

legal ownership of land and procedures for its acquisition and climate change has reduced water

resources. Some of the pastoralist leaders have exacerbated the conflict.47

Mvomero: Issues

The Law & Justice48(See Appendix 3.2.) High‐ranking politicians and powerful businessmen are

allegedly backing the farmers invading Kambala and perverting the course of justice.

Changing the Narrative: The case became less about ‘farmers from outside invading our land’ and

more about a boundary dispute between Kambala and Mkindo and Dihombo’.

47 The NGOs mentioned that the Kambala Chairman was opinionated and made issues worse rather than being

conciliatory 48 See Appendix 3.2.1 IWGIA Report 23 Tanzanian Pastoralist Threatened P 55 2016: This report on the events in

Kambala is able to provide far more detail between 1970s and 2015 than this Situational Analysis can provide.


43

Lack of Consultation: During the re‐surveying of the boundaries, the Kambala pastoralists were not

consulted and there was also no consultation relating to the digging.

Mvomero: Impacts of Conflicts

Loss of Properties and Lives

In the year 2015/2016 conflicts between pastoralists and farmers at Kambala village caused cows to

be killed, 1 person killed and 3 policemen injured.

In 2016, 73 goats belonging to a widow were killed by farmers.

Women and Children Suffer

In the illegal operations from MWANO49groups which led to fights, women hide in the bushes while

their men went to fight.

Hostility between the Government and the Pastoralists

The agony that pastoralists is going through has caused unhealthy relationship as they consider

themselves unwanted, unrecognized, mistreated and unworthy of anything, by their very own

government. The one thing that could, would and should have been their redeemer and refuge is

abandoning them.

Mvomero: Current Status

The trench has separated the pastoralists from the Mgongolo Wetlands for pastures and the river for

water, which they depend on for their cattle during the dry season. The Secondary school they built in

Mkindo Villageis also on the other side of the trench.

Without the support of the District or the Courts the pastoralists of Kambala Village feel

disenfranchised and hopeless and conflict will continue to protect their lands and rights despite the

wall.

Mvomero: Case Study 2: The Mela Village Conflict

Mvomero: A Brief History:

In the 1980s some pastoralists approached the District to be allocated land, which was agreed,

although there were a few farmers living on the land at the time and they were provided with small

compensation.

Over the years the number of farmers and pastoralists have increased, so too have the cattle and

crops. The scarcity of land and water resources has been a cause of minor conflicts.

Mvomero: Causes of Conflict

Direct Causes: Farmers and pastoralists complete over reducing use of natural resources

Proximate Causes: Lack of support from the District and interfering political agendas.

Structural Causes of Conflict: The District failure to develop land use plans and mediate conflict.

Mvomero: Stakeholder Perceptions

The DED believes that the District is better for farming than pastoralism.

49 The MWANO are a group of vigilantes organized by outside farmers to protect their assets, but have also know to

extort mney from farmers, and cause much of th problems in the area.


44

Land Officers believe that new land use plans will be drawn up prioritising agriculture. The disused

ranches will also be used for agriculture, because they are more suitable for farming and pastoralists

will be moved to semi arid areas.

The Farmers believe that the pastoralists are arrogant and their leaders corrupt and are increasing the

numbers of cattle by inviting their friends to join them.

The Pastoralists believe that the farmers have purposefully planted crops to prevent them getting

water and they get favours and support from the government which are not provided to them.

Both sides are equally angry with the District for not assisting them when requested. They are also

angry for not providing basic public services such as health and education as well as access to

markets. Each believes that the other side is getting a better deal.

The CSO UMWEMA on Mela believes that the Government has not been supportive and that land use

plans would solve many of the on‐going disputes. They also believe that pastoralists have exceeded

the carrying capacity of land and they have caused a lot of their own problems.

Mvomero: Solutions

The District believes that land use planning will resolve conflicts and have created a 13‐man multi‐

disciplined team to carry this out including: building, forestation, agricultural, pastoral, statistics,

community development and water sports and recreation and GIS operators.

The CSO UMWEMA50believes that the government should listen to all sides before drawing

conclusions. Their current stance is fuelling conflict. The cattle population is should be reduced and

some pastoralist leaders should be less arrogant. Reassign failed NARCO farms to Pastoralists; the

District should provide public services such as health and education, access to markets and

infrastructure, training and other support. The village leadership should work with the district in

conflict resolution mechanisms

Mvomero: On‐Going Initiatives

UMWEMA has been addressing conflicts through sensitization on the importance of land ownership

in 12 villages; capacity building village councils in mediations; advising councils more inclusive

decision making and involving all parties in conflict, not just farmers; empowering pastoralists to

appoint better representatives of their people and women in VICOBA (Village Community Banking) to

generate Income through various activities.

The District is considering making the whole District into an agricultural area in which all pastoralists

would have to move from their current locations.

CASE STUDY 3: LAND CONFLICT IN LOLIONDO: ARUSHA REGION

Loliondo District Environment

50 It was observed in the field that there is a strong bond between the organization and had respect with the t District

Council officials.


45

Loliondo is the administrative centre for Ngorongoro District in Arusha Region. The whole District has

a population 174,27851. Loliondo has eight wards52 and twenty‐five villages that form the Loliondo

Game Controlled Area (GCA). The average rainfall ranges between 800mm to 1,000 mm per annum.

Loliondo is also part of the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem, hosting nearly three million wildebeest,

zebra, gazelles and antelope. With the onset of the short rains, the wildebeest head south into

Tanzania, passing through Loliondo, outside the boundaries of SNP. This brings in tourists and several

lodges have been set up taking large tranches of land from the conservation reserves.

Loliondo: Livelihoods

Today more than 80% of the Loliondo population depend on pastoralism, just as they have done for

several hundred years. Whereas the Sonjo were the indigenous population of the area, the Maasai

who are transhumance pastoralists have now become the majority ethnic group. The Sonjo practice

combined livestock keeping and crop cultivation and live in the area in the Sonjo hills between

Loliondo and Lake Natron.

Loliondo: Livestock Statistics

District records show that there is an estimated 383,387 cattle, 2,500 are an improved breed. There

are 629,884 goats, (15,000 improved) and 632,483 sheep (40,000 improved). Dairy cows produce

1,650 litres a day and 1,050 hides are harvested per annum.

Loliondo: District Budgetary Support

Whereas the Central Government has an annual livestock budget, this is only to carry out National

Livestock Policy and some specific programmes. The livestock offices at the District level have to raise

their own funds, some of which come from the district coffers, but most of it has to be found from

the private sector, NGOs or livestock keepers. If a private sector group wants to provide financial

support for livestock, it has to be paid directly into the District Finance Office, before it can be

allocated to the Department. This bureaucratic procedure delays access to needed funds in a time

sensitive area.

The Serengeti National Park (SNP) is one of the private sector groups that does support the Livestock

Office. It provides rabies vaccines and transport to the outlying villages in‐kind and so does the

Frankfurt Geological Society. This avoids any time wasting and ensures the vaccines are received in a

timely manner.

Oxfam has just started a programme in Loliondo to support markets, working directly with the

pastoralists also to avoid the bureaucracy of the District. This system however precludes the

opportunity for District Livestock officers’ development. The Oxfam Markets programme started in

2015 and its’ focus is to developing markets, abattoirs and added value products in the existing open

markets.

Ngorongoro District Council has a Livestock Development Fund and in this year’s budget its has a

Tsh15m budget to support the million livestock, equating to only TSH 15 per head. The District has 4

51 2012 Census 52 8 Wards:Orgosorok, Enguserosambu, Oloirien / Magaiduru, Soitsambu, Oloipiri, Ololosokwan, Arash and Maaloni.


46

livestock development centres, but currently they have only 29 livestock officers where 72 are

required to be to be fully functional.

The District also has 67 cattle troughs and several charcoal dams which are natural, and 30 cattle dips,

many of which are non functional. This is wholly insufficient to support the needs of almost 400

thousand (k) cattle and another 600k small stock.

There are three cattle markets in Loliondo Division; Oldonyo Sambu, which was constructed in 2014

from the District Agriculture Development Programme (DADPS); There are 12 slaughter slabs in the

district and one abattoir in Wasso which has just been constructed, but will not start to be start to be

functional until July 2016.

Box 3.3.1 Lost Opportunities Since there are no proper abattoirs, pastoralists are forced to sell live

cows, which means they do not get the full value and they miss the opportunity selling other by‐

products such as skin. Daniel Rogei, Chairperson Livestock Development Assoc. (LIDA).

There are 66 primary schools in the District and 30 Secondary schools, which have a student teacher

ratio between 1:40 and 1:70 students, a shortage of classrooms, desks and teaching materials. The

District has only one hospital, 5 Health Centres and 23 dispensaries, but most are under equipped and

undermanned.

Loliondo: History of Conflict

There is a history of disputes in the area between Loliondo pastoralists, agriculturalists, foreign

investors, and government officials53. Some disputes have resulted in violence. Residents have

experienced human rights abuses, extortion and intimidation, loss of property and they believe, a lack

of protection under the law54. Since 2007 these conflicts have increased in intensity and frequency,

and although there has been some lull in the last year, this is because decisions that will affect those

living in the GCA are currently on hold. The table below is a brief snap shot if the conflicts.

BOX 3.3.2 Chronology of Conflicts in Ngorongoro District55

1921 Serengeti ‐Maasai land was declared a game controlled area;

1954 Negotiations between Maasai traditional leaders and the British began;

1958 An agreement was signed between the Maasai and the British providing the Maasai right to live in the Ngorongoro area in perpetuity;

1958 / 9 Serengeti was declared a national park and NCA established;

1975 Maasai evicted out of Ngorongoro crater, 4,000 affected;

1979 NCA listed a world heritage site by UNESCO without Maasai knowledge and evicted from the archaeological sites;

1984 Sukenya farm, 10,000 acres are alienated for TBL for barley production and Maasai are evicted;

1990 All the villages in Loliondo obtained title deeds;

1992 Govt. leased 19 village lands for hunting without community consent;

53 Michael Echieng: 2008 Conflicts in Ngorongoro District: Causes, consequences and possible solutions.54 See Appendix 3.3.1;Ngorongoro DC; Loliondo, Dodoma Facts 55 Source: A combination of documents and field surveys collated in the Appendix Chronology 2.5


47

2007 Maasai are evicted from Oldonyo Sambu as illegal immigrants;

2009 Wildlife Management Act of 2009;

2010 The DC ordered a mass eviction in Loliondo, 300 homes were burnt and the livestock was decimated;

2010 Govt. proposed LUP, allegedly funded by OBC aimed at creating a1500km2 wildlife corridors taking village lands without consultation;

2011/12 Revocation of village land titles by the District;

2013 Land commissioner ordered for the surrender of titles and declaration of 1,500 Km2 to be a wildlife corridor;

2013 Due to the public outcry of this land take, the Prime Minister ordered new participatory land use plans to be developed.

2014 The Ministry of lands order the surveys to be stopped without explanation;

2104 The Minister for Natural Resources and Tourism offered inhabitants of the contested area compensation of 1 Billion shillings, which was rejected;

2014 Following more public outcry, President Kikwete used social media to confirm there has never been, nor ever will be a plan to evict pastoralists;

2016 FEB: The Ngorongoro District Council began re‐surveying the land again, but the RAS halted aspirations again.

Loliondo: Background

According to Village Land Act No. 5 of 1999, all land in Loliondo Division is classified as Village Land.

The same land is also under Game Controlled Area.56 (GCA) that since 1992 has been leased to the

Ortello Business Corporation.

Loliondo: Causes of Conflict

The Immediate Cause of Friction: During hunting season Ortello Business Corporation guards teamed

up with TANAPA and KDU to stop pastoralists grazing and use water sources in their hunting block.

Esero village are furious about this as it is their land and they have to pay a Tsh.10,000 fine for each

cattle found in the area. If they fail to pay this fine, their cattle are killed.

Proximate Cause of Friction: OBC was given the ‘concession’ to open a hunting operation, they were

not given the land, which remains in the hands of the villagers, but no consultation process was

undertaken. In 2008 central government and OBC convinced villages to sign an MoU in which villages

would leave an area for wildlife. Only three villages out of nine signed this MoU. Despite the refusal to

sign, OBC deposited 25,000/‐ to villages’ accounts57. OBC uses this MoU as basis for eviction and

stopping cattle to use area.

56 KIPOBOTA Clarence. 2013 The State of Pastoralists’ Rights in Tanzania Parakuio Pastoralists Indigenous

Community Development Organization978-9987-9726-1-6 www.iwgia.org 57 NANGIRIA Samwel, 2008 Resource Based Conflict in Ngorongoro District. Ngorongoro District Council.


48

Structural Causes of Conflict: The District has failed to implement laws and policies in place. Political

interference in hindered justice and due process.

Loliondo: Stakeholders Perspectives on the Causes of Conflict

The President: Following media reports that the Maasai were about to be evicted from the area,

Kikwete sent a tweet stating ‘There has never been, nor will they ever be any plan by the government

of Tanzania to evict the Maasai people from their ancestral land’. Interestingly, Loliondo is not an

ancestral land.

District Perspectives: The District Council feel that the DC were has failed to engage and listen to

people’s concerns, which has exacerbated conflict and distrust; OBC lacks the capacity to manage

community engagement and instead have used unreasonable force; political interference has

exacerbated conflict. The DC was notably not available to comment.

Community Perspectives: Pastoralists

The communities generally felt that government sided with the corporations over their own citizens.

Loliondo: Current Status

Following the public outcry against the evictions, the former Prime Minister Mizengo Pinda, wrote to

Arusha Regional Commissioner on May 2013 explaining his government position was to revisit

Declaration pertaining to the Loliondo GCA5859.

The people of Loliondo are still awaiting the outcome of the Region’s position on the Declaration after

three years. Ngorongoro District Council intends to survey all the lands in Loliondo and have a budget

of Tsh280m to carry this out. They are currently awaiting the Ministry Surveyors to commence work.

The pastoralists conflicts with OBC and local government have quelled for the time being whilst

awaiting resumption of the land use plans to start.

Loliondo: Conflicts 2: Farmers And Pastoralists


The eastern part of Ngorongoro District Sale Division is home to agro pastoralist tribe of Batemi and

the Maasai following evictions from elsewhere. They have been in dispute over the years. Maasai

pastoralists from the Loita clan in Enguserosambu village have been in dispute with Batemi farmers

from Kisangiro village over unclear village boundaries.

District Land, Natural Resource, and Environment Officer, Mr Byorushengo60, attributes this conflict to

the fact that the land has not been properly surveyed. There have been reports of Batemi farmers

expanding their farms into Enguserosambu, thus invading pastures or blocking important routes to

water sources. There are also reports of Maasai pastoralist letting their cattle loose onto Batemi

farms.

Loliondo: Causes of Conflict:

58 See Appendix 3.3.2 Prime Minister’s letter to Arusha RC on 30th May 2013. 59 https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/tanzania/dispossession-and-land-tenure-

tanzania-what-hope-courts 60 See Appendix 3.3.3; MN Loliondo Land Officer Interview Byorushengo, Ngorongoro 15th March 2016


49

Immediate Cause: General insecurity amongst pastoralists faced with no security of tenure or support

from the District and an excess of guns on both sides.

Proximate Cause: The District has failed to listen to the people or provide land security.

The Structural Causes of Conflict: Land Use Planning Act of 2007 has not been implemented61. Many

with Village land Use Plans have not been registered.

Loliondo: Current Status

The conflicts are on‐going62 and promises of developing land use plans have not materialised.

Loliondo Conflicts 3 Tourism And Pastoralists


Another conflict between villages and investors involves the village of Soitsambu and Thomson Safaris

(TS), which leased 12,600 acres of Sukenya Farm from Tanzania Breweries Limited (TBL). Soitsambu

village had already been in dispute with TBL over the acquisition of the land and were further angered

by its lease to Thompson Safaris63. The village claims that TS has been expanding this farm to include

village land, thus denying pastoralists the right to use their land and access water resources.

Loliondo: Causes of Conflict

Direct Cause: Blockages of livestock routes to water.

Immediate Cause: The lack of consultation between investor and host communities;

Structural Cause: Corruption and government support for investors over pastoralists,

Loliondo: Stakeholders Perceptions

The District Perspective: Investment in the area needs to be reviewed as it has so far failed to provide

benefits to the people. Instead it has bought hardship and given the district a bad reputation. If the

TIC wants to be effective in attracting investment here, then it should ensure that investors engage

more effectively with local government authorities.

After a lot of pressure, the Ngorongoro District Council has finally formed a task force to deal with all

land conflicts. It is comprised of district officials who provide professional advice, elders of both

Batemi and Maasai tribes.

Loliondo: Solutions

Community Advice: Traditional Maasai conflict resolution mechanisms have relied on elders’

traditional knowledge and experience. However now some of the youth have an understanding of

Tanzanian law and can contribute to the process. Another recent change has been the introduction of

women into the meetings and their participation adds a new dimension and provides positive

outcomes.

District Advice: The TIC should insist that investors follow the law and policies to protect pastoralists

lives and livelihoods.

CSOs Advice: Capacity build conflicting parties to mediate peacefully.

61 See Appendix 3.3.4 Loliondo Maps 62 See appendix 3.3.6: MN Loliondo Wasso Village Chairman; Interview with Revocatus Parapara. 15th March 2016 63 See Appendix 3.3.8 MN Loliondo: Enguserosambu FGD with Elders 16th March 2016


50

ANNEX 4.1: USUNGU EVICTION

PST RESPONDENT DISTRICT ROLE TEL NO

Joakim Materu Kilosa Lindi

Retired District Livestock Officer

REF ITEM COMMENT

1 WHY and WHEN was there a decision to move Pastoralists from Usungu Plains to Lindi

The reason given for the 2006‐7 evictions of pastoralists from the Ihefu Wetlands in Usungu Plains, Mbarali District Mbeya Region, was due to environmental degradation and over grazing. There were just too many pastoralists.

2 WHAT plans were put in place by WHOM to move them

Following meeting with the Ministry and District Livestock officers, a plan was put into process to ensure that grasslands, access to water, were present in Lindi. That the District would undertake PLUM with the Host villages, supply cattle dips, markets, stock routes and dams. The Pastoralists moving would have better access to education, health and infrastructure would be supported by the District Council.

3 WHAT was the process and TIME involved?

The Eviction notice was given, passes would be provided by the District Livestock Officer for cattle to move through different districts to reach Lindi. Alternatively, if cattle were found roaming, they would be confiscated and owners fined 30,000 for each head of cattle.

4 WHAT was the BUDGET put aside and what did it cover?

The district was provided funds to support the plan. re was no special budget form the Ministry instead the District Council spend out of its budget which caused a lot of corruption. And they used the money received from the fine collected from the pastoralists captured cattle. The money was directed to pay the officials like policemen and building of Bomas for cattle which were captured.

5 HOW MANY PSTs AGREED / FORCED to move?

This was a forced eviction. There was no consultation with the pastoralists before hand. The order was give and they had to move or face cattle confiscation and heavy fines.

6 WHEN WERE YOU TRANSFERED TO LINDI AND DID YOU FIND EVERYTHING AS PLANNED

I shifted to Lindi in 2009. I found things are completely different from what we expected. The environment was unfriendly and torturing for the PST who managed to get there. The hosts were not welcoming and kind to the PST. The LUP conducted in the area did not involve both sides instead only farmers, so the area allocated for PST was not suitable for their cattle survival. Hence many PST did not stay longer in the area, many cattle died.

7 WHAT WAS NOT IN PLACE?

All of the basic Livestock infrastructures like dams, cattle dip and trough were not there. The social services like school, dispensaries and water were not in place in the area allocated for PST.


51

8 OVERVIEW: WHAT LESSONS COULD BE LEARND FROM THIS IN THE FUTURE

Politicians are not serious with land division and do not consider pastoralists as an economic activities.

8.1 PLANNING

LUP to be done all over the country with involvement of PST and not just farmers. This will reduce conflicts

8.2 BUDGET SAFEGUARDS AND AMOUNT

The budget is very low compared to the activities hence it should be topped up. The District cannot afford the expenses of LUP, it has to come form the Central Government.

8.3 CONSULTATIONS WITH LOCAL PEOPLE / HOSTS

It is important for the two sides to be consulted and involved in the process form A‐Z since these two groups will always live together an depend on each other. Involvement is important ad they live together they depend on each other. It is good to understand their willingness and wishes.

8.4 LAND SURVEYS & WATER ACCESS

Land surveys and mapping of water access should base on the number of the cattle and looking at the Climate factor. Water access can not be depending on river or dams only but other sources like underground and rain water tapping is to be developed.

8.5 LIVESTOCK INFRASTRUCTURE: DIPS MARKETS / INCREASED DISTRICT LIVESTOCK HR

Development of these infrastructure should be in a cost sharing form so as to bring the feeling of ownership to PST but this could go smoothly if PST. In contributing to funds, its better that they are provided with security of tenure.

8.6 PUBLIC SERVICES PROVISION

Dispensaries, Schools, Roads and Water were not provided (clean)

9 MESSAGE TO LIVESTOCK PLANNERS & POLICY MAKERS

PST should have a place within the country's plans, they should not isolate them as they are outcasts and they are not important in the economy and have right to land tenure. They should be catered for like other Tanzanians. There should be the presence of PST Land Act which states on the pastures and all important issues on livestock as they have Acts for mining etc.

10 OTHER COMMENTS

There is a tendency for the livestock sector to be moved around in the different Ministries, which means there is no continuity, no intention to support the sector. It needs as much attention as the agriculture sector and there should be a Ministry of Livestock in its own right.


52

ANNEX 4.2: HANANG EVICTIONS

HIST REGION Manyara DISTRICT Hanang TITLE

1.01 FIRST NAME

Dominic 1.04 M / F M TEL NO

0766 988 891

1.02 SURNAME Dancan 1.05 MRT‐ST TEL NO

0784 779 096

1.03 POSITION Katesh 1.06 KDZ E‐M

2 Hanang: NAFCO History Brief STATUS 1.10 ROLE

2.1 Status of land before NAFCO Excellent

2.2 Pastures Excellent HANANG PRE NAFCO STATUS

2.3 Water Access Excellent 2.9 SCHOOLS Provision Fair

2.4 Seasonal Movement Rare 2.10 HEALTH SERVICES Fair

2.5 Cattle Dips 2 in 50 km 2.11 EXTENSION SERVICES

2.6 Dams Fair 2 COMMENTS

2.7 Troughs Fair Cattle were in an excellent condition due to availability of pasture 2.8 Salt Licks 5 in 50 km

3 NAFCO LAND TAKE

3.1 When did NAFCO take the Land

1968 3.9 How much notice was given?

None

3.2 How much land was taken? 101,000 acre 3.10 Was Force used to evict?

Yes

3.3 By whom? Canadians 3.11 Where were PSTs told to go?

No where

3.4 By whose authority? NAFCO/GOVT 3.12 Was more land taken? No

3.5 Which PSTs were displaced Bargaig 3.13 Are NAFCO Still Operating?

No

3.6 How many pastoralists displace?

700 families 3.14 If Not, who has the land

Investors and few locals

3.7 How many cattle displaced? 7000 families 3.15 Who uses the land now?

Investors and few locals

3.8 Was there any consultation? NO 3.16 Who re‐distributed the land?

Government

4 CURRENT STATUS OF PSTs IN HANANG

4.1 Any Current Conflicts? Investors Vs. Neighbour PSTs 5 COMMENTS

4.2 Latest Land Takes? Investors

Even that a small land that was not returned to PST.

Today it is used for small scale farming.

4.3 Approach to land Take Today?

Government policy

4.4 IS District Funding Adequate No

4.5 Did any PSTs go to Bagamoyo?

Yes


53


54

ANNEX 5: POLICY BRIEF

POLICY YEAR REF ITEM COMMENT

THE LAND POLICY 1997: (2004)

4.2.27 Village Land Use Plans should include grazing areas for pastoralists and this will be guaranteed against encroachment.

Communal land is where grazing can take place, but this right is unprotected against encroachment.

It can then be taken for investment, sold off by the village council or can be planted upon by local farmers without consultation with the pastoralists.

LAND USE PLANNING ACT

2007 1997: (2004)

A Village Land Certificate is issued to protect common property regimes.

As of 2013, only 800 villages out of 12,000 nationwide had been surveyed and granted land certificates, which allow them (as villages) to have proper VLUPs. 1.4 million ha land for grazing livestock has been allocated in 266 villages in 15 regions

The updated 2010 legislation requires the specification of suitable grazing land, (not communal land), which has not been enacted.

NATIONAL LAND POLICY

1997 7.3.0

Security of tenure for pastoralists in pastoral land areas will be guaranteed by appropriate measures including gazetting to protect grazing land from encroachment.

NARCO defunct ranches have been sold off to private individuals

Certificates of Village Land will be issued to protect common property regimes.

Actuality: NAFCO lands have not been reverted to the Barbaig evicted.


55



1997 7.3.0

Underutilized or neglected former pastures will be reclaimed and restored to pastoralists, when not in conflict with national interests.

When any activity other than pastoralism ceases in rangelands (eg. abandoned ranch) that land will revert to its original land use.


1997 7.3.3

Shifting agriculture and nomadism will be prohibited.

Reality: Infrastructure, education and stock routes have never been provided.

Incentives to proper pastoral land stewardship including the provision of infrastructure like water supply and cattle dips should be provided and modern transhumant pastoralism will be encouraged.

Cattle movement will be regulated through coordinated planning and the provision of stock routes and other mechanisms.

Pastoralists and Agriculturalists / peasants will be educated on good land management and utilization.


56


NATIONAL LIVESTOCK POLICY

2006

Veterinary services encompass delivery of animal health services, control and eradication of trans‐boundary animal diseases; vector and vector borne diseases; other disease of economic importance; zoo sanitary inspectorate services; veterinary public health and food safety services.

Reliance on private sector for disease control

Animal Health Services Delivery. The main aim of animal health services is to control, eradicate and prevent the introduction of animal diseases. Control of Trans‐boundary Animal Diseases (TADs) and diseases of economic importance and zoonotic diseases is the responsibility of the Government.

Control of non‐TADs is the responsibility of the private sector and other stakeholders. The private sector is also responsible for the supply of veterinary medicines and other inputs Issues

Animal health service delivery is constrained by weak private sector, inadequate infrastructure, high‐cost of veterinary inputs, inadequate technical support services and low adoption of technologies


57


NATIONAL TOURISM POLICY

1999 5.6

Policy strategies for ensuring land for tourism include:

Collaborating with the relevant stakeholders in identifying

and setting aside specific areas for tourism development and

investment in collaboration with the relevant land authorities

These are aimed to protect communities but rarely enforced.

Making it mandatory that all proposed land allocations for

tourism investment are approved after an Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA) studies have been carried out,

approved and appropriate licence issued as a measure to

ensure sound environmental protection.

Putting into place mechanisms to ensure that developers and

investors in the tourist industry enter into written

agreements with the local authorities/communities in the

areas they intend to invest in or develop. The agreement will

stipulate the benefits that these communities will obtain

from the alliance(s) or agreement(s) and providing for

mechanisms for dispute settlement in the event of conflict of

interests.


58


COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN NATIONAL TOURISM POLICY

1999 5.9

Most tourist attractions lie within local communities or in their vicinities and in most cases coexist side by side with the communities e.g. in the wildlife areas. Some tourist attractions such as the sea or lakes, are sources of livelihood while others have great spiritual significance to the members within the communities.

These provisions are rarely enforced and rarely implemented

It is for such reasons that it is imperative for communities living within or around these areas to be fully involved in the development and management of these attractions and in addition, to get a share of the income generated from tourist activities within their areas.

Policy strategies for community participation include: Educating and sensitising communities to appreciate and value tourist attractions.

Educating and sensitising individuals, public and private institutions to identify, understand, value, protect and develop the national's cultural heritage.Emphasis during training should be placed on the relationship between tradition, customs, natural resources, the environment and the country's development plans.


59


WATER POLICY 2002

The National water policy provides for equal and fair access for water resources for the benefit of all Tanzanians including pastoralists to reduce conflicts and increase contribution of the sector to the economy.

Actuality: Pastoralists are evicted from sources of water.

THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT

2009 Part 3.15

This appears to preclude grazing form all reserves, but the actual wording says that grazing activities require written permission from the warden first.

No written permission have ever been granted


Act No 4 1999

44.2 A breach of condition subject to a fixed term shall arise‐

The right of the president to revoke the certificate of occupancy, if there is failure to carry out the conditions

45.1

upon any breach arsing from any condition subject to which any right of occupancy has been granted, the right of occupancy shall become liable to be revoked by the President

45.2 the President shall note revoke a right of occupancy save for the good cause, in this subsection ‘good cause’ shall include,

45.3 the land subject of the right of occupancy has been abandoned for not less that two years

46.4 Breach of a condition that is a subject of a right of occupancy.

46.6 (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) above, the president may revoke the right of occupancy if in his opinion it is in the public interest to do so.


60


61

ANNEX 6: FACTS AND STATS

ANNEX 6.1: CONFLICT CHRONOLOGY

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

1850

TNRF LOLIONDO TOURISM

LOLIONDO

Serengeti (NP)

MAASAI BACKGROUND MAASAI

N/A Maasai lived in Serengetti

1919

IDC FIELD SURVEYS March 2016

NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

Government

NA NA Serengeti / Maasai land was declared a game controlled

Maasai under control of British

1923

SUNDET 2004 The Politics of Land in Tanzania

8 RURAL AREAS

PASTORALISTS / FARMERS

GOV LAND ORDINANCE

Rights of Occupancy issued to alienate land. Natives hold land under 'customary law'

1945

Min Livestock Stats

NA NGORONGORO

Maasai

Wasonjo Agro‐pastoralists

Cattle Rustling

Gov Version

Loss of many lives, theft of livestock and houses burnt burning

1954


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

Government

NA NA

Negotiations between Maasai traditional leaders and the British began

Uncertain times

1958


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

Colonial Govern

NA NA Serengeti was declared a national park and


62

ment NCA established

1959


NA

NGORONGORO LOLIONDO

Serengeti NP

MAASAI COL. GOV

PSTs Resettled

NGORONGORO CONSERVATION AREA ACT

Colonial Gov creates Serengetti Park to secure wildlife / ecology

Safeguards promoting the interests of Maasai citizens of TNZ engaged in cattle ranching and dairy industry within the Conservation Area

1964

Relevancy of Mobility in a Disequalibrium Tanzania Pastoralists Hunters & Gatherers Org Fact Sheet

24 RURAL AREAS

LIVESTOCK GOV UTR POLICY

RANGE DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT ACT

Attempted to "domesticate Pastoralists" by forcing them into sedentary lifestyle

1964

IWGIA REPORT 23 Tanzanian Pastoralists Threatened

27 USANGU / IHEFU

PASTORALISTS

DISTRICT

EVICTION

ECOLOGICAL DESTRUCTION

Ruaha National Park created, incorporating part of the Ruaha Game Reserve


63

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

1965


16 RURAL AREAS


GOV LAND TENURE (VILLAGE SETTLEMENT) ACT

1. Regulating land tenure new village settlements established on virgin land

1965

SUNDET 2004The Politics of Land in Tanzania

16 RURAL AREAS


GOV LAND TENURE (VILLAGE SETTLEMENT) ACT

2. Rights of occupancy granted to a Rural Settelement Commission

1967

PST 2009 Kilossa Killings Benjaminsen, Maganga & Abdallah

434 KILOSA FARMERS

PARAKUYIO PASTORALISTS

PST FIGHT FRMS OVER LAND

UTR VILLAGISATON Marginal land for PSTs Cultivated lands and wetlands extended

Villagisation Act 1975

Village population (73‐75) 2,000,000 to over 9,000,000. PST expanded livestock grazing areas, destroying farmer crops Farmers killed

1969


26 RURAL AREAS

PASTORALISTS

GOV PRESIDENT CIRCULAR #1

PRESIDENT CIRCULAR #1

1. Government resources in rural development to concentrate on


64

starting ujamaa villages

1969


26 RURAL AREAS

PASTORALISTS

GOV PRESIDENT CIRCULAR #1

PRESIDENT CIRCULAR #1

2. Those who resists ujamaa policies denied provision of government services

1970

PST 1994 Scattering of the Dead.docx

2 HANANG

Basotu plains, Thousands of barabaig

BARABAIG NAFCO (GOV)

PST EVICTION DUE TO AGRIC INVESTOR

UTR ACT


1000s of Barbaig evicted

1970


19 HANANG

BALANGDA


MASS EVICTION


GOV GIVES 40,000 HA OF PASTORALIST LAND TO NAFCO

Barabaig beaten up, fined and imprisoned. 1000s of Barbaig evicted. Villages burnt down, dams destroyed Several 1000s Barabaig homeless

1972

OECD (2013) “Overview of progress & policy challenges in Tanzania”, OECD Policy Reviews,

27 CHUNYA RURAL DWELLERS

GOV RESETTLEMENT

UTR VILLAGISATON

VILLAGISATION PROGRAMME ENFORCED

Nyerere: population required to live in ujamaa villages within 14 months. Mtwara Region was villagised in


65

1970. In 1972 villagisation operations were executed in Kigoma Region and Chunya District


66

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

1973


28 RURAL AREAS

RURAL DWELLERS

GOV UTR PRESIDENTIAL ORDER

NYERERE: Live in villages is an order”

Villagisation effectively translated into an appropriation of all customary lands in practical, if not legal, terms.

1973


38 N/A GOV TNZ POLICY

RIDEP Regional Integrated Development Plans: Attract foreign assistance

1. International donors should empower district and regional administration

1973


38 N/A GOV TNZ POLICY RIDEP

2. World Bank commited most resources to RIDEP

1973


38 N/A GOV TNZ POLICY RIDEP

3. Played key role in guiding emergence of villages

1974

2010 Impacts of Government Policies on Past Livelihood in Semi Arid Areas of Tanzania

8 RURAL AREAS

PASTORALISTS

GOV

RESTRICTION EVICTION & LANDLESS

UTR ACT WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT 1974

1. Expands cultivation & wildlife reserves, reducing dry season grazing zone.


67

Forced migration to find alternative resources ‐ Conflict in new areas.

1974

2010 Impacts of Government Policies…

8 RURAL AREAS

PASTORALISTS

GOV



2. Preventing trans‐boundary migrations disrupting seasonal grazing patterns

1974


8 RURAL AREAS

PASTORALISTS

GOV



3. 3.5m ha (34,605 km ) of pastoralists land gazetted as Game Controlled Areas;

1974


8 RURAL AREAS

PASTORALISTS

GOV



4. Min. for Natural Resources & Tourism can make decisions on land use without consulting users, village, district or Parliament

1974

2011 Linkage of livestock & Land Policies of TNZ

8 RURAL AREAS

PASTORALISTS

GOV UTR ACT WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT 1974

5. National Parks & game reserves established, forcing


68

pastoralists from traditional grazing lands

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

1975

Politics Of Land In Tanzania ‐ Geir Sundet

45 RURAL AREAS


GOV UTR POLICY VILLAGISATION Policy’

NEC ratified the proposal and called for it to be implemented ‘throughout the country.

1975


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government

MAASAI EVICTIONS

POWER

Maasai resettlement out of Ngorongoro crater, 4,000 affected.

MAASAI EVICTIONS

1979


39 RURAL AREAS


LOCAL GOV

UTR ACT 1979 the Village Act was amended

Aimed to allow the Village Council ‘financial self‐reliance'

1979


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

Government

NCA listed a world heritage site by UNESCO without Maasai knowledge.

LAND INSECURITY


69

1980

1999 Historical Land Rights Struggles

3 USANGU

SANGU & MAASAI

GOV

PST EVICTION DUE TO GOV AGRIC PROJECT

LAND GRAB INTERNATIONAL

Commercial farm expansion by the State, 55,000 Ha of land including grazing lands

PST economy on verge of collapse

1980

Intergrating Pastoralist Livelihoods & Wildlife Conservation

4 NGORONGORO

PASTORALISTS

LOCAL GOV


Ignores Ngorongoro conservation act and GAME CONTROLLED AREA ACT

Government ordered pastoralists out

EVICTION

1980


5 HANANG

Grazing lands in Hanang

BARABAIG GOV



Giving land to NAFCO

Barbaig forced from ancestral lands

1980

PST 1990 Barbaig Documentary Transcript by Charles Lane

9 HANANG

BALANGDA




GOV GIVES 40,000 HA OF PASTORALIST LAND TO NAFCO

Results of the evictions ‐ there is a decline in cattle numbers. Worsening life quality

1980


NA MVOMERO

Kambala NA NA NA LAND SECURITY

Small holders join and co‐operate with PSTs

Smallholders ask permission to farm on the edge of Kambalas Land. Village leadership agree


70

1980


LOLIONDO

MAASAI GOV RESTRICTION OF LAND USE

UTR VILLAGISATON

ARUSHA DECARATION

Loliondo made Village Land Controlled by Government Officials & political appointees

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

1980


Serengeti LOLIONDO

MAASAI GOV UTR ACT GAME CONTROLLED AREA ACT

Allows grazing in GCA

1981


3 HANANG

Barabaig grazing lands in Hanang


COURT ACTION

COURT ACTION

Gvt land take from 1970

Barabaig takes NAFCO to court for Giving land to NAFCO

1983

2011 Linkages & Synergies Between The Lands and Food Production Sectors

2 RURAL AREAS

FARMERS GOV UTR POLICY NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY

Reversing communist era state‐owned poor land management and production

1983


9 RURAL AREAS

PASTORALISTS

WILDLIFE

PST EVICTION DUE TO CONSERVATION

WILD LIFE CONSERVATION

AGRIPOL POLICY 1983

1. Direct land conflict: land fragmentation & agriculture expansion threatens


71

wildlife migration routes and PST land uses

1983


9 RURAL AREAS

PASTORALISTS

WILDLIFE



AGRIPOL POLICY 1983

2. Arusha Regional authorities encouraged people & investors to start agricultural production in the Loliondo Division

1983


9 RURAL AREAS

PASTORALISTS

WILDLIFE



AGRIPOL POLICY 1983

3. Village lands became a target area for immigrants and outside investors

1984

PST 1990 Barbaig Documentary Transcript by Charles Lane

13 HANANG

BALANGDA


LAND APPROPRIATION

COURT ACTION

Court rules against pastoralists

Faltering trust in local/national government, Fear of investing in livestock

1984

OXFAM 2008 NA LOLIONDO

SOITSAMBU VILLAGE

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government

MAASAI EVICTIONS

Asserts rights

Sukenya farm, 10,000 acres alienated for TBL for barley production.

No consultation

1985


NA MVOMERO


Local District Recognises Kambala Village

Kambala Village was officially recognized as a


72

village.

1985


NA MVOMERO


Kambal Village Surveyed

Village’s geographical boundaries was surveyed in with its neighbours.

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

1986


3 HANANG


COURT BATTLE

COURT ACTION

Court appeal of 1923 Land Ordinance (Barabaigs aren't natives)

Loss of access to grazing, water & burial sites Reduced land resources increasing conflict

1986

2008 OPTIONS FOR PSTS TO SECURE THEIR LIVELIHOODS IN TANZANIA

55 HANANG


LAND APPROPRIATION

COURT ACTION

Court rules against pastoralists

Village Council failed to show historical legal allocation of land PST failed to prove nativity to TNZ

1987


63 RURAL AREAS


GOV OVERLAPPING LAND USE

1987‐2002 PARTY PROGRAMME

1. Village land use planning generally allocated haphazardly with


73

few checks & balances

1987


63 RURAL AREAS




2. Policy failed to gain momentum, was ill‐conceived and of doubtable legal status ‐ led to policy vacuum

1987


63 RURAL AREAS




3. Partial reversal of villagisation showed flaws in existing legal framework

1987


SOITSAMBU VILLAGE

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government

MAASAI EVICTIONS

COMPANY STOPS OPERATING

Court case between Soitsambu village and TBL

Taking them to court

1988


5 MKOMAZI GR

MAASAI PARAKUYU

GOV

Court action against 1952 land permit holders

EVICTION Gvt clears Mkomazi Game Reserve

Pastoralists evicted Livestock trading economy collapse Lost course case against evictions

1988


56 HANANG


LAND APPROPRIATION

COURT ACTION

Court awards nominal victory

Gov gives more Pastoralist land to foreign investor


74

1989


56 HANANG


LAND APPROPRIATION

COURT ACTION

Ruled against pastoralists

Court: 1. GOV has priority in Food Security 2. The suit is bad in law

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

1989


77 BABATI Endagwe PASTORALISTS/FARMERS

GOV BOUNDARY DISPUTE

EVICTION

The Village Council designated two areas as ‘Village Forest’

1 trespasser sued Court ruled law invalid

1989


246 HANANG


LAND APPROPRIATION

COURT ACTION

Abuse of the process of court

Evictions ruled illegal & compensation award National court overrules Paltry damages

1989


NA MVOMERO


Kambal Village gets Cert of Occupancy

Village gets Right of Occupancy Certificate.

1990


1 N/A MAASAI GOV LAND GRABBING

LAND APPROPRIATION

Gvt gives land to investor

Farms built near water, preventing access for Maasai cattle50,000 land alienated


75

1990


59 MIKUMI NP

PASTORALISTS

TANAPA

EXTORTION CORRUPTION

N/A

Rangers take cattle into Nationa Park and order penalties from herd owners for tresspassing

1990


65 RURAL AREAS

VILLAGERS GOV ECONOMIC CRISIS

INVESTMENT PROMOTION POLICY 1990

1. Leadership of the country changed in face of "retreat from socialism"

1990


65 RURAL AREAS



2. Land administration changed dramatically, as land officials were instructed that priority lay with assisting investors

1990


65 RURAL AREAS



3. Village not available for commercial activities by investors, except for joint ventures

1990


65 RURAL AREAS



4. Plenty of excess land said to be available for investors to


76

lease

1990


65 RURAL AREAS



5. Plentiful land was accomplished by noting villagers lay claim to 'too much' land

1990

Integrating Pastoralists livelihood, 2014

NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

Government

Tanapa joins villages

All villages are given title deeds

All the villages in Loliondo obtained title deeds

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

1990

Min Livestock Stats

NA KILOSA Farmers Patoralists

Land Use Gov Version

Due to the conflict 52 people were killed and many others run away from their home.

1990


NA MVOMERO

Kambala Kambala

Big Farmers from outside

Land encroachm

ent

Rising tension between PSTs and Farmers

DC Fails to support village rights. RC does

Kambala request DC to ask repect their boundaries, he refused, but the RC wrote and informed them to follow due process.


77

1991


55 MVOMERO

Kambala PASTORALISTS

FARMERS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAND GRABBING

ENCROACHMENT

Village Land Use Plan (VLUP)

Unlicensed cultivation of rice on village land Village Chairman killed

1991


74 RURAL AREAS

VILLAGERS GOV OVERLAPPING LAND USE

REDUCING VILLAGER LAND

REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING DIRECTIVES

1. Too limited capacity in villages to carry out directives

1991


74 RURAL AREAS




2. Surveys normal BEFORE land use determination, against border disputes during demarcation Villages are normally share borders with no 'spare land'

1991


74 RURAL AREAS




3. Land administration was performing few regulatory duties satisfactorily

1991


74 RURAL AREAS

VILLAGERS GOV LAND GRABBING



4. Increased reports of landgrabbing

1991

SUNDET 2004 The Politics of

74 RURAL AREAS

VILLAGERS GOV LAND OWNERSHI

LAND GRABBING

REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING

5. Grazing Land are seen as


78

Land in Tanzania P DIRECTIVES communual, without ownership, Grazing land deemed a 'free land'


79

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

1991


430 KILOSA RURAL POPULATION


UTR POLICY

PRIVATIZATION POLICIES the ownership of sisal estates.

a. Confusion of ownership due to overlapping land classificationsb. Overlaps legislative bodies determining land management

1991


SOITSAMBU VILLAGE

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government

MAASAI EVICTIONS

Courts tended to side with large corporations

Court gives TBL right of occupancy

MAASAI EVICTIONS

1992


12 NGORONGORO

VILLAGERS

ORTELLO BUSINESS CORPORATION (OBC)

LAND GRABBING


Granted concession to hunting company

BEFORE ANNULMENT OF LAND TENURE ACT 2. Allegations of corruption and patrimony have been made about the OBC lease since it was initiated in 1992


80

1992


12 NGORONGORO

VILLAGERS

ORTELLO BUSINESS CORPORATION (OBC)

LAND GRABBING


Granted concession to hunting company

BEFORE ANNULMENT OF LAND TENURE ACT: 1. Considerable revenue to the Government as well as support for anti‐poaching, and also support for development projects

1992


15 NGORONGORO

OBC

TOURISM COMPANIES

LAND GRABBING


LIBERALISATION REFORM

Small holders & PST affected

1992


85 RURAL AREAS


GOV LAND OWNERSHIP

LAND TENURE ACT 22 of 1992 (Established Villages) .

a. The Act was almost immediately challenged & voided in court void. b. The Attorney General appealed the decision c. The Court of Appeal upheld the Arusha ruling and annulled the


81

Act in December 1994

1992


86 RURAL AREAS



UTR ACT


SECTION 3(1). Customary rights to land hereby extinguished.


82

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

1992


86 RURAL AREAS


GOV LAND OWNERSHIP

UTR ACT


SECTION 4. No compensation for lost land under section 3 of this Act. Pastoralists essentially lost their long‐standing, clan‐based customary rights to rangelands.

1992


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government

MAASAI EVICTIONS

CORRUPTION

Govt. leased 19 village lands for hunting without community consent

MAASAI EVICTIONS

1992


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government and OBC

MAASAI EVICTIONS

VILLAGE LAND ACT

LGA and OBC evict pastoralists

200 Maasai homesteads burnt 20,000 people affected 50,000 livestock dispaced Grazing & Water access taken


83

1992


LOLIONDO

Loliondao Hunting Block

NCA PST Villages

Government and OBC

LAND TAKE EVICTIONS

THE LAND TENURE ACT 1992

GOV gives concession to OBC

Villagers not consulted

1993

2007 tanzania_policy_study_report.pdf

30 IHEFU WETLANDS

PASTORALISTS

GOV PASTORALIST EVICTION

UTR POLICY Ruaha River Dries for first time

Eviction of more than 1000 pastoralists

1993


76 MONDULI

Lolkisale PASTORALISTS / FARMERS

LOCAL Government

CORRUPTION

Allegedly the RC and other senior LGA officers were given land by the DC and the impact is once a title has been issued it can only be revoked by president


LAND APPROPRIATION BY POLITICAL APPOINTEES (RC etc): Loss of nearly 19,000 acres through re‐allocation to 71 outsiders

1993


76 MONDULI

Lolkisale PASTORALISTS / FARMERS

LOCAL Government and villagers

LAND APPROPRIATION

ILLEGAL & EXCESS USE OF POLITICAL POWER / CORRUPTION


Loss of nearly 28,000 acres through re‐allocation to 17 European ranchers


84

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

1993

PST 2009 Kilossa Killings Benjaminsen,Maganga and Abdallah.docx

433 KILOSA

Rudewa Mbuyuni, Twatwatwa

FARMERS MAASAI

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAND GRABBING

POLITICIANS STIRRING ETHNIC DIVISIONS

Ward Councillor elect promised to evict Maasai

38 farmers klled district commander sacked elders arrested

1993


NA MVOMERO


Land Use Plan Prepared for Village

LUP prepared for the village, including pastures, access to the rivers & agric land.

1995

2007 tanzania_policy_study_report.pdf

30 IHEFU WETLANDS

PASTORALISTS

GOV EVICTIONS UTR POLICY Electricity Rationing in the country

Enforcement of policy against unregulated mobility Eviction of more than 1000 pastoralists

1997


27 KITETO FARMERS GOV UTR ACT REGIONAL AUTHORITIES ACT

Policy sees Simanjiro and Kiteto as reservoir for surplus population, causing massive influx of immigrants


85

1998


6 NGORONGORO

FARMERS PASTORALISTS

OVERLAPPING LAND USE

LOCAL CORRUPTION

Ngorongoro DC by‐laws/land use plans for village‐lands & resources governance

1. Village governments were selling off land

1998


6 NGORONGORO



LOCAL CORRUPTION

Ngorongoro DC by‐laws/land use plans for village‐lands & resources governance

2. The by‐laws and the land use zones helped resolve conflicts & developed tourism activities

1998

PST 2007 tanzania_policy_study_report.pdf

19 NGORONGORO

WILDLIFE PASTORALISTS

POACHING/HUNTING

UTR POLICY WILDLIFE POLICY 1998

4. Community resource mangement, helping pastoralists secure ownership and longterm use rights of wildlife and natural resources

1998


19 NGORONGORO


POACHING/HUNTING


5. Reduced reliance on poaching/hunting activities to supplement subsistence

1998


19 NGORONGORO


POACHING/HUNTING


6. Optimism that wildlife, forests, plants and grasses will be


86

conserved


87

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

1998


27 USANGU / IHEFU

PASTORALISTS

DISTRICT

EVICTION PST EVICTIONS

Usangu Game Reserve gazetted, incorporating Usangu/Ihefu wetlands

1999


16

NGORONGORO, KITETO, SIMAJIRO

52 pastoral villages

PASTORALISTS

GOV UTR CCRO

CUSTOMARY CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (CCRO)

1. The Village general assembly provides guidelines on its land resource management

1999


16



PASTORALISTS

GOV UTR CCRO


2. Acquisition of customary rights and registration of village lands with the commissioner of lands

1999


16



PASTORALISTS

GOV UTR CCRO


3. Increased pastoral security of tenure to land, elimination of encroachment, increased access to grazing


88

resources

2001


65 SIMAJIRO

Kimotorok Village

PASTORALISTS

TANAPA

BOUNDARY DISPUTE

REGIONAL AUTHORITIES ACT

Policy sees Simanjiro and Kiteto as reservoir for surplus population, causing massive influx of immigrants

Severe human rights violations reported 1000 homes burnt down

2001


430 KILOSA FARMERS PASTORALISTS


UTR BY LAW

2001: by‐law limiting pastoral use to designated villages ‐ fine + prison

Bye Law Limitng PST use to desinated PST Villages ‐ 5 livestock routes defined for markets a. areas alloced to pastoralists are not large enough b. cultivated areas in wetlands have been extended regardless

2001


Continuing

SIMAJIRO

Kimotorok PASTORALISTS

Tarangire NP & Mkungunero GR

BOUNDARY ENCROACHMENT

VILLAGE DESTRUCTION

— Boundary encroachment onto village land by .

1,000 homes burned down by TANAPA.


89

2002

Inclusive land use plan needed for farmers, herders in Kiteto

3 KITETO MAASAI FARMERS

RESETTLEMENT

REGIONAL AUTHORITIES ACT

Establishment of district land and housing tribunals (2003)

10 killed first, 60 houses set ablaze 20 further killings Destruction of livelihoods


90

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2002

PAICODEO 2013 Report on the state of PST human right in TNZ

32 N/A PASTORALISTS

GOV PRIVATISATION

LAND APPROPRIATION

Reallocation of ownership

Politician owned company given lion‐share of land

2002


NA KITETO Emboley Murtangos

Emboley Murtangos Pastoralists

NONE NONE

Pastoralists Reserve Development

Approved Plans, surveys and a Forestry Reserve combining co‐existance with PSTs

PSTS and ICUN

2003


63

WAMI MBIKI WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA

PASTORALISTS

RANGERS / ARAB HUNTERS

Establishment of WMA

a. PSTs not consulted on establishement b. PST no longer allowed to graze in the WMA; rangers shoot cattle and burn temporary bomas c. Harrassment & violence caught people

2005

IWGIA REPORT 23 Tanzanian Pastoralists

27 USANGU / IHEFU

PASTORALISTS

PRESIDENT

EVICTION ECOLOGICAL DESTRUCTI

Electricity cuts and rationing

Residents evicted despite licenses


91

Threatened ON Forcibly resettled Fines of $14,000 for refusal Livestock confiscations

2005

2012 Land Conflicts East Africa Paper

34 RURAL AREAS

WASGONJO (KENYA)

MAASAI

PASTORALIST EVICTION

N/A

Maasai cross border due to falling pastoral land, causes conflict with Wasonjo (sedentary people)

2005


56 KILOSA Mabwegere

PASTORALISTS

FARMERS

VIOLENT & DEADLY

LAND COMPETITION

2006 court case filed with High Court delayed

Confrontation between PST and farmer leads to killing Local militia (The Mwano) drove away 1600 cattle, 1000 livestock, and set 70 houses ablaze

2005

Min Livestock Stats

NA NGORONGORO

Pastorliats Farmers

GCA

Prime Minister Backs Evictions

Gov Version OBC in requiredg more land

July

2005



NA NA NA

KIKWETE announces pastrolism has no

KIKWETE comes to power

MP of Kongwa MP of Chilinze Kikwete


92

place in 21st century Tanzania

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2005

Min Livestock NA KILOSA

Ngaite harmlet Tindiga B village

Farmers Pastoralists

Gov Version Farmers leasing their land came to review but were beaten

11 farmers were injured and admitted to hospital

2005

Min Livestock Stats

NA MVOMERO

Livestock killings

The group of youth farmers invided Masaai herders and killed 70 goats.

2005

Min Livestock Stats

NA RUFUJI Ikwiriri Farmers Patoralists

Violent Gov Version

The crisis led to the death of a farmer and 6 houses were fired, 3 cows and 120 goats were cut down swords and 200 cattle were lost (property of pastoralist)

2006

WALSH 2007 Pastoralism and Policy Processes

11 USANGU KILOMB

MBARALI PASTORALISTS

GOV EVICTION NATIONAL ANTI‐LIVESTOCK

National Anti‐Livestock Operation

2006 ‐2007 People settled in Usangu and


93

in Tanzania ERO OPERATION

launched by the Vice President’s Office.

Kilombero valleys should leave immediately Herders with 100+ cattle removed, 16,000 cattle herded out

2006

IDC FIELD SURVEYS INTERVIEW WITH LIVESTOCK OFFICER MBEYA March 2016

12

USANGU GAME RESERVE


GOV


VIOLENT EVICTION FROM GAME RESERVES

NATIONAL ANTI‐LIVESTOCK OPERATION

300,000 cattle and hundres of PST moved out 'voluntarily' 1,500 livestock impounded, fine of tsh 15.5 million 70,000 PST Moved to Lindi Major spillover conflicts in districts of resettlement

2006


13 MBARALI

PASTORALISTS/FARMERS

GOV EVICTION

VIOLENT EVICTION FROM GAME RESERVES

NATIONAL ANTI‐LIVESTOCK OPERATION

16 villages disbanded 218,000 livestock removed Legal and human rights violations Alienation of village lands


94

2006


27 USANGU / IHEFU

PASTORALISTS

NATIONAL PARKS

EVICTIONS LAND GRAB INTERNATIONAL

National Anti‐Livestock Operation launched by the Vice President’s Office.

Forcible Removal of Patsoralists


95

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2006


34 MBARALI

Manawala PASTORALISTS

GOV EVICTION CORRUPTION

Operation Save Kilombero Valley

Similar to IWALANJI No loss of land & property was compensated Cattle rounded up, herders beaten, and large sums of money taken

2006


37 KILOSSA Parakuya PASTORALISTS

DISTRICT

EVICTIONS BACKGROUND PARAKUIYO

Records show Parakuiyo pastoralistsi in Morogoro Region before 1850

06/28/05


59 MIKUMI NP

PASTORALISTS

TANAPA


N/A

Rangers kidnap children & women then force families to pay for release

2006


SOITSAMBU VILLAGE

NCA PST Villages

Thompson/LOCAL Government

MAASAI EVICTIONS

Thompson changes land use from agric to tourism

TBL gives land to Thompson Tanzania Limited

TC employers burnt down homes and possessions. Beatings, shootings,


96

harassment, exjudicial arrest.

2006




FARMERS

EVICTION

Eviction of Farmers invading Forestry Reserve

EVICTION TRESPASS IN PST LANDS

Invasion of farmers into forestry reserves

2006


NA MVOMERO

Kambala Kambala

MWANO Vigilantes 'Big Farmers from outside

COURT ACTION AGAINST FARMERS

More Violence

NO ACTION

MWANO activities become more violent. Kambala takes 17 farmers. to court.

2007


27 USANGU / IHEFU

PASTORALISTS

NATIONAL PARKS

EVICTIONS PST EVICTIONS

Eviction from Usangu/Ihefu, and disbandment of 16 villages

2007


65 BABATI Vilima Vitatu Village

PASTORALISTS

FOREIGN INVESTOR

BOUNDARY DISPUTE

DESTRUCTION

Court of Appeal of Tanzania ruling ignored by local authorities

human rights violations loss of property 40 homes burnt down

2007


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government

MAASAI EVICTIONS

VILLAGE LAND ACT

Pastoral villages vs local govt

MAASAI EVICTIONS

2007


SOITSAMBU VILLAGE

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government

MAASAI EVICTIONS

Government supports companies over villages

President ignores grievance by villages

Farms changes hands to Thompson


97

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2007



DISTRICT FARMERS

COURT ACTION

Farmers file suit against District for Eviction

COURT ACTION BY PSTs

2007


BABATI Kimotorok Village

DATOGA

FOREIGN INVESTOR

VILLAGE DESTRUCTION

VILLAGE DESTRUCTION

Court orders halt

40 houses burnt Court of Appeal of Tanzania ruling ignored by local authorities human rights violations loss of property

2007

Min Lands Land Use Planning Act of 2007.

2008

2014 Tanzania Struggles to End Clashes Between Farmers and Herders Makoye

2 KILOSA FARMERS MAASAI

VIOLENCE CORRUPTION

Sided with Maasai in driving farmers off lands, took bribes

8 farmers killed ethnic hatred, dwindling resources, poor land management and population growth

2008

2013 Assessing Dynamics of Forced Livestock Movements

3 IHEFU PASTORALISTS

GOV PASTORALIST EVICTION

PST EVICTIONS

Formal eviction

Some Pastoralists evicted from Mbeya settled in


98

Songea, Tunduru and Namtumbo Ruvuma and Coastal regions instead ‐ reluctant to move aftewards

2008

2013 Assessing Dynamics of Forced Livestock Movements

9 N/A PASTORALISTS

FARMERS

BOUNDARY DISPUTE

LANDLESS EVICTEES

Caused by government eviction scheme + limited regional funds

PST fallen into poverty Water shortage

2008

PST 2009 NAFCO Lands Audit Farms .pdf

24 HANANG

FARMERS GOV LAND GRAB INTERNATIONAL

Councillor of Bassotu ward informed LHRC

Land disputes remained unresolved

2008


24

USANGU KILOMBERO


Local GOV

EVICTION

Ruaha MP expands border incorporating Usungu GR

People permanenetly excluded for the NP Boundary disputes incres

2008


27 USANGU / IHEFU

PASTORALISTS

NATIONAL PARKS

EVICTIONS

BOUNDARY DISPUTES / LAND PRESSURE

Expansion of Ruaha NP

Forcible Removal of Patsoralists Boundary disputes increase


99

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2008


33 RUAHA NP


GOV LAND APPROPRIATION

LAND GRABBING

Disbanded villages for creation of NP

Area's Donor projects abandoned Existing hunting blocks discontinued Ruaha NP boundary markers encroach on village land

2008


36 KILOSA PASTORALISTS

GOV EXTORTION CORRUPTION


Arrests of protestors Cows and goats taken away Livestock held hostage

2008



FARMERS

VIOLENT & DEADLY


8 farmers killed ethnic hatred, dwindling resources, poor land management and population growth

2008

IDC FIELD SURVEYS

NA KITETO Emboley Murtango

DISTRICT FARMERS

COURT ACTION

Farmers win case

DISTRICT ORDERED TO PAY


100

March 2016 s even though they have no evidence

FINE BY COURTS

2008

Min Livestock Stats

NA KITETO Forestry Reserve

Pastoralists

Farmers

Violent

Gov Version: Farmers lived in the Forestry Reserve for many years

More than 34 people were killed in communal clashes between farmers and pastoralists.

2009


8 NGORONGORO

WILDLIFE LOCALS OVERLAPPING LAND USE

UTR ACT WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT II

1. Prohibits both agriculture and livestock grazing in GCAs

2009


8 NGORONGORO

WILDLIFE LOCALS OVERLAPPING LAND USE

UTR ACT WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT II

2. No land falling under the village land can be included in the game controlled areas

2009


23 KILOSA Mabwegere Mbwade

PASTORALISTS

POLICE/FIELD FORCE UNIT

EVICTION EXTORTION

Operation Remove PST from Kilosa

DC & DED District leaderssupported by Ujaki Militia

Extortion & forced sale of livestock 2,000 PST affected 20,000 livestock taken and sold $500,000 paid in fines


101

Houses burned down

2009


37 KILOSSA PASTORALISTS

DISTRICT

EVICTIONS PASTORALIST EVICTION

Operation Remove Pastoralists

More evictions, no where to go

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2009


41 KILOSA Mbwade PASTORALISTS

POLICE/FIELD FORCE UNIT

EVICTION

Operation Remove PST from Kilosa

DC Sanctions removal of PSTs

Armed rounding up of livestock and driving away of animals $31,000 fines without receiptsPST forced to slaughter livestock

2009


71 KITETO Kimotorok Village

PASTORALISTS

TANAPA

ABUSE OF POWER

Boundary encroachment by NG, GR

7 herders robbed. 1000 homes burnt

2009


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

Government

Aimed to protect wild life but meant PST evictions

Wildlife Management Act of 2009.

LAND INSECURITY


102

2009


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government

MAASAI EVICTIONS

Wildlife management Act

The DC ordered a mass eviction in Loliondo

300 homes were burnt and the livestock was decimated.

2009


NA MVOMERO

Kambala Kambala


COURT ACTION AGAINST FARMERS

Support from powerful actors

COURT FAILS TO SETTLE CASE

Despite the evidence, the case drags on. Famers' lawyers turn the case from a land invasion to a boundary issue

2009


LOLIONDO

MAASAI GOV LAND TAKE VIOLENT EVICTIONS


WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT II

Violence, huts burned Evictions Continued Harassment by Gov, Police, Private Security Guards

2009

PINGOs Forum PowerPoint

Kilombero, Ulanga & Kilosa

Kilombero, Ulanga & Kilosa Districts in Ramsar site (Tz‐2000) & establishment of WMA

PASTORALISTS

DISTRICT

VIOLENT & DEADLY

CONSERVATION

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Major Evictions and Human Rights Violations

2009

IWGIA REPORT 23 Tanzanian

KILOSA Operesheni Onda

PASTORALISTS

Local Gov

PST EVICTIONS

Operation to remove PSTs


103

Pastoralists Threatened

Wafugaji

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2010


13 TARIME PASTORALISTS

TANAPA

ABDUCTION


ABDUCTION 6 villagers disappeared

2010


41 KILOSA Mikumi NP

PASTORALISTS

TANAPA


WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

149 cattle & 20 goats seized and killed

2010


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government

LAND TAKE THREATEN

ED

CORRUPTION Allegedly Local Gov working on behalf of OBC to get more access to land not support svillagers

Govt. proposed LUP, allegedly funded by OBC aimed at creating a 1500km2 wildlife corridor taking village lands without any consultation;

LAND INSECURITY

2010


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government and OBC

LAND TAKE THREATEN

ED

Alleged corruption of local officials

Land use plans developed

Local villages lose 1500km2 for wildlife corridor


104

2010

MEDIA ‐ THOMPSON SAFARI LAW SUIT

NA LOLIONDO

SOITSAMBU VILLAGE/SUKENYA FARM

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government

MAASAI EVICTIONS


Court case ‐ Pastoralist village against Thompson

Land insecurity

07/02/05

Min Livestock Stats

NA NGORONGORO

Pastorliats Farmers

GCA

Prime Minister Backs Evictions

Gov Version OBC in requiredg more land

Eviction caused destraction of property and 200 houses were burnt down

2010



DISTRICT FARMERS

COURT ACTION

DISTRICT WINS APPEAL

POLICE CAME TO EVICT FARMERS

Police stand back, to stop eviction. Village feel powerless

2011



LOCAL GOV

VIOLENT & DEADLY

CORRUPTION

No action taken

20 Year old Maasai warrior killed by police officer

2011


14 MVOMERO

Kambala PASTORALISTS

LOCAL GOV


DISTRICT TAKE AWAY RIGHTS

Government officials took government seal from village chairperson


105

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2011


24 KILOMBERO VALLEY


GOV EVICTION EXTORTION

Operation Save Kilombero Valley: clear Ramar site for conservation

DISTRICT EXTORTION

Massive extortion, corruption $430,000 paid in fines 3,000 people made landless 2,000 people lost land/property Extensive violation of human rights, arrests & killingsReduced land for agriculture and livestock production, increased food shortages

2011



TANAPA DISTRICT


EVICTION WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Forced evictions

2011

IWGIA REPORT 23 Tanzanian Pastoralists

50 KILOMBERO VALLEY


GOV COURT CASE

Reaction to 2012 evictions by

Regional and district leaders continued to

Court stopped eviction of 1,994 residents from


106

Threatened 'Operation Save Kilombero Valley'

supervise the evictions regardless of the court order

50 villages

2011


60 GONABISI

PASTORALISTS

TANAPA

RAPE VIOLENCE PST arrested in defending his wife

2 TANAPA ranger attempted to rape married PST woman, co wife already killed

2011


65 KITETO Murtangos Vilage

PASTORALISTS

FARMERS

BOUNDARY DISPUTE

ENCROACHMENT

Government authorities ignore Court ruling denouncing farmers as illegal immigrants

Politically supported encroachment by large farms Killings & other human rights violations

2011


MEATU Makao WMA

PASTORALISTS

TANAPA



Major Evictions and Human Rights Violations Arrested by the Game Rangers

2011


KITETO PASTORALISTS

FARMERS

VIOLENT & DEADLY

LAND GRAB LOCAL

Killings & other human rights violations

2011


KILOSA Dumila PASTORALISTS

TANAPA


N/A

Brutal Clashes ‐ burning of pastoralists properties


107

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2012


37 KILOSSA

Pastoralists: Datoga, Sukuma, Gogo, Kamba and Iraqw

PASTORALISTS

DISTRICT


BACKGROUND KILOSSA

LOCAL GOV EVICTS ALL PASTORALISTS

Despite long history of pastoralists in the area, they were branded as' invaders'

2012


38 KILOMBERO ULANGA

PASTORALISTS

DISTRICT

EVICTIONS Forcible Removal of Patsoralists

Operation Save Kilombero Valley


2012


55 MVOMERO

Kambala PASTORALISTS/FARMERS

LOCAL GOV

2005 INVASION LEGAL CASE BECOMES BOUNDARY DISPUTE BY LOCAL GOV


Mvomero District Council bylaws prohibit livestock entering cultivated fields

Fines on grazing by herds

2012


71 KITETO Kimotorok Village

PASTORALISTS

TANAPA

CHILDREN ABDUCTION

ABDUCTION

Police returned the children to their homes

Children taken from fields to police station. 750 homesteads burned down

2012


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government

LAND TAKE CORRUPTION

Revocation of village land titles / Certificates by the Govt.

LAND INSECURITY


108

2012

Min Livestock Stats

NA SERENGETI

Farmers GREMITI

Eviction

Gov Version PST Grazing on land belonging to Gremeti

At a time when pastoralists were expelled by company's employees with their cattle, 20 cows died from drowning river. Furthermore incident 164 cattles of pastoralists of Isenye village Serengeti District had disappeared.

2012


NA MVOMERO

Kambala Kambala


COURT ACTION

CONTINUES


COURT FAILS TO SETTLE CASE

Meanwhile violent attacks continue against Kambala livestock and women. There were retaliations.

2012


Kilombero Case No.219

COURT RULING

Court Ruling not Implemented

PASTORALIST get no justice from legal system.. Hopeless

2012


KILINDI Kilindi, hearing No. 165

COURT RULING

Court Ruling not Implemented


109

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2013

Revealed: Government takes blame on Kiteto Killings

1 KITETO MAASAI FARMERS

BOUNDARY DISPUTE

ETHNIC TENSION

DISTRICT TAKELAND FROM PSTs

Serial murders Destruction of livelihoods, fear, abandonment of houses

2013

PST 2013 PASTORALIST MARKET REPORT IDC

3 BAGAMOYO

PASTORALISTS

CHARCOAL PRODUCERS


LAND CLAIMS

N/A

Overlapping claims to land Charcoal producers rape PST women and girls

2013


3 BAGAMOYO

PASTORALISTS

VILLAGERS

PST & FARMERS TIT FOR TAT REPRISALS

LAND CLAIMS

N/A Cattle stolen, legs cut, and hidden in bushes

2013


3 BAGAMOYO

PASTORALISTS

VILLAGERS


LAND CLAIMS

N/A

Villagers barricaded dams so their cattle can not access water

2013


3 BAGAMOYO

Matipwili PASTORALISTS

VILLAGERS

LAND GRAB

Corruption of Land use plan advsor paid by BEE

Land Use Plan undertaken by BEE Paid consultant.

PST Land for 2000 cattle reduced to 47acres to make way for village sugar outgrowers


110

2013



DISTRICT


Operation to evict all pastoralists from the district


2013


52 N/A PASTORALISTS

LOCAL GOV

COURT CASE

EVICTION

District Council ordered all 'illegal' PST to vacate district

PST ignored the order to vacate the district

2013


53 N/A PASTORALISTS

DISTRICT COUNCIL

VIOLENT & DEADLY

EVICTION

Village leaders complicit, refuse to recognise pastoralist village residents

Police opened fire Cattle forcibly sold for fraction of worth Village leaders re‐allocated vacated PST land

2013


53 N/A PASTORALISTS

HIGH COURT

EVICTION COURT CASE

High Court injunction on the land evictions

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2013


55 MVOMERO

Kambala PASTORALISTS/FARMERS

DSTRICT PRAISES MWANO


DISTRICT ENDORSES EXTOTION & VIOLENCE AGAINST PST

Penalties on livestock owners for damaging crops Mwano would slaugter PST livestock and


111

VIGILANTES

hold feasts

2013


56 MVOMERO

Kambala PASTORALISTS / FARMERS

MWANO VIGILANTES

INTIMIDATION

CORRUPTION

Supported by district level government

Intimidation & extortion by Mwano vigilantes, supported by DC2000 Mwano fighters invaded Kambala village land

2013


57 MVOMERO


MWANO VIGILANTES

VIOLENT & DEADLY

VIOLENCE Mvomero DC declared Mwano illegal

Deadly clashes ‐ 8 people died 33 Mwano members arrested

2013


59

SELOUS GAME RESERVE

PASTORALISTS

TANAPA

VIOLENT & DEADLY

VIOLENCE N/A

Game rangers opened fire on herdsmen Shot & killed one of the herders Killed 18 head of cattle

2013


60

SELOUS GAME RESERVE

PASTORALISTS

TANAPA

VIOLENT & DEADLY

VIOLENCE N/A

Guards approached and killed 7 cattle Killed one herderBurned body to get rid of evidence


112

2013


60

SELOUS GAME RESERVE

PASTORALISTS

TANAPA

VIOLENT & DEADLY

VIOLENCE N/A TANAPA guards killed herders

2013


73 KITETO Kisondoko Village

PASTORALISTS

TANAPA

CORRUPTION

EXTORTION

2000 livestock detained on bail 10 cattle died 7 cattle killed. 250 homesteads burnt Community belongings burned Property destroyed or burned


113

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2013


430 KILOSA FARMERS PASTORALISTS

PST FIGHT FARMER LAND EXTENSIONS

Violent LOCAL GOV EVICTS ALL PASTORALISTS

Continuous land conflict due to resource competition a. Insuffiicient land for PST b. cultivated areas in wetlands have been extended regardless

2013


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

Government

LAND TAKE CORRUPTION

Land commissioner ordered for surrender of village titles

LAND INSECURITY

2013


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

Government

EVICTIONS TEMP HALTED

NATIONAL and INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE

The PM orders new participatory LUPs

LAND INSECURITY

2013




NA NA

VIOLENCE NO SUPPORT FROM LOCAL GOV

NO ACTION VIOLENCE CONTINUES UNCERTAINTY


114

2013

Min Livestock Stats

NA MVOMERO

Kambala Farmers Pastoralists

Access to Mgongola River

Gov Version Villagers do not recognise Kambala

There was fighting between farmers and pastoralists of Mvomero district. 7 people were killed after clashes.

2013


NA MVOMERO

Kambala Kambala


VIOLENCE & Land

encroachment

Big Farmers engage MWANO VIGILANTES

MWANO attack cows, women, youth. District does not help Village

Large farmers pay MWANO vigilantes to stop Kamballa cows from accessing water. They do so violently.

2013


NA MVOMERO

Kambala Kambala


POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN COURT ACTION


DC gets permission to send more farmers into Kambala

Whilst case was undecided the DC sent a further 500 farmers backed by 'big people' onto Kambala Land. Despite objections, the Court agreed

2013


LOLIONDO

PASTORALISTS

GOV OBC

LAND TAKE VIOLENT EVICTIONS


LOCAL GOV GIVES HUNTING LICENCE VILLAGE LAND TO FOREIGN INVESTOR ‐ OBC Hunting Tourism

Morew Evictions Human Rights Violations


115

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2013


KITETO

Emboliey e Murtangus in Kiteto District

VIOLENCE Brutal Clashes in tit for tat killings

2013


KILOSA PASTORALISTS

RC & DC declare illegal PSTs will be removed

2013


MOROGORO

PASTORALISTS

Operation to evict all PSTs from District

2013


MVOMERO

PASTORALISTS

Militia operate dealdy clahshes in Kimbaala

2013


Gonabisi PASTORALISTS

TANAPA

Conservation

TANAPA Lethal

2013

IDC REPORT BAGAMOYO

PASTORALISTS CHARLOAL PRODUCERS SMALLHO

ARMY TANAPA

EVICTIONS OPERATION TOKAMEZA

TANAPA ENFORCES OPERATION TOKAMEZA OUTSIDE NP

Residents given 24 rs to leave Bomas burnt


116

LDERS

2013


KOROGWE

Korogwe Burning down of pastoralists’ homesteads

LAND GRAB LOCAL

Brutal Clashes

2014

Tanzania Struggles to End Clashes Between Farmers & Herders

1 KITETO FARMERS MAASAI

PASTORALISTS INVADE FARMER VILLAGE

VILLAGE DESTRUCTION

DISTRICT TAKE LAND FROM FARMERS

10 people killed Homes set ablaze

2014



VIOLENT & DEADLY



15 killed People's militia protect Maasai District authorities forced inhabitants to leave

2014



VIOLENT & DEADLY

CORRUPTION / OVERLAPPING LAND USE


Ethnic hatred Dwindling resources 10 farmers killed


117

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2014


1 KITETO MAASAI LOCAL GOV

BOUNDARY DISPUTE



Infighting in local government & communities 15 killed

2014


38 KILOSSA Mkumi PASTORALISTS

DISTRICT


TANAPA encounters, often lethal, near protected areas.

Human rights abuses

2014


58 MVOMERO


LOCAL GOV

LAND APPROPRIATION

COURT CASE

Morogoro Land and Housing Court ruling

a. Kambala village boundaries revoked & redrawn b. Farmers allowed more opportunity to acquire village land

2014


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

Government

LAND SURVEYS STOPPED

Min of lands order the surveys to be stopped without explanation

LAND INSECURITY

2014


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

Government

THREATS STOPPED LAND SRVEYS

INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE

President Kikwete tweeted "There is no plan to evict the pastoralists"

LAND INSECURITY


118

CONTINUE

2014


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

National Government

BRIBERY

ALLEGED CORRUPTION & BRIBERY

The Minister for Natl Res & Tourism offers compensation of 1 Billion shillings, which was rejected.

LAND INSECURITY

2014




Government

UNCERTAINTY

Planned co‐existant PST & Forest Conservation area reversed, PSTs only given 75,000 Ha from the priginal 300,000 HA is official plans.

Development of alternative Land Use Plans intergrating farmers

LAND INSECURITY


119

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2014




NA NA Reduced Conflict

AWAITING DECISIONS FROM GOVERNMENT

LAND INSECURITY

2014

Min Livestock Stats

NA KITETO KILINDI Farmers Patoralists

Village Boundary fights

BOUNDARY DISPUTES

Gov Version

5 people were killed, 75 houses were fired total of 150 acres of various crops were destroyed and burnt, 300 cows, 106 goats and 90 sheep lost.

2014


NA MVOMERO

Kambala Kambala




DED orders Kambala Certificate of Occupancy to be destroyed. New boundary set

The DED ordered the original Kambala CoO to be destroyed

2014


NA MVOMERO

Kambala Kambala

MWANO Vigilantes

POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN COURT


Land survey re‐done by District witout village participation

Without Kambala Knowledge or participation,


120

'Big Farmers from outside

ACTION the court order the resurvey of the village. The conclusion was that Kambala had 3000Ha more land and it was taken.

2014

Min Livestock Stats

NA KISHAPU IGUNGA

Magalata & Isakamaliwa


GOV VER Riverflow causing Boundary Issue

5 people were killed in clashes between farmers from Igunga and pastoralists from Kishapu district contested grazing area of Magalata(Kishapu) and Isakamaliwa (Igunga).

2014

Why land clashes continue unabated in Kiteto District

KITETO FARMERS MAASAI

VIOLENT & DEADLY


District and Regonal Government evictons Heavy presence of the police

7 killings 100 houses abandoned

2015

PST 2016 Police Terrorise Villagers The Guardian.docx

1 CHEMBA

PASTORALISTS

POLICE CORRUPTION

CORRUPTION

Claims ignorance

Distrust of officials Law enforcers elecit bribes


121

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2015

IDC Report 2015 BAGAMOYO

Old Razaba Ranch

PASTORALISTS SMALL HOLDERS

DC & BAGMOYO ECOENERGY

ATTEMPTED EVICTION

Bagamoyo EcoEnergy wins court case saying no‐one should be on Project site

DC & BAGMOYO ECOENERGY (BEE) ATTEMPT TO EVICT PST

PSTs & Small holders previously agreed to accept land offered by BEE, now being told no land is available, they should go back to where they cam from

2015

PST 2013 PASTORALIST MARKET REPORT IDC.docx

3 BAGAMOYO



LAND CLAIMS

N/A Destruction of crops

2015

KIPOBOTA 2016 Study on socioeconomic contribution of Pastoralism

13 MKURUGUSI

PASTORALISTS

LOCAL GOV


Received official receipt of $36 out of $500

Overcharged fines Loss of livelihoods for PST Loss of receipt by govt

2015


58 MVOMERO


BUSINESS PEOPLE

LAND GRABBING

ENCROACHMENT

Protection was not provided

Man killed in a struggle over land Reprisal injuring over 100


122

PSTs 38 houses burnt 266 men, women & children left homeless

2015


79 N/A PASTORALISTS/FARMERS

GOV UTR POLICY Investment Promotion Policy

Goal of Policy was to provide land for commercial developers contradicting the Arusha Declaration

2015


NA LOLIONDO


Farmers Thompson

MAASAI EVICTIONS

Denied accusations, but admits illegal transfer of land by government

Court finds on behalf of Thompson

The Maasai will go back to court

2015

Min Livestock Stats

NA HANANG

Lalagi & Murero


Gov Version: Farmers planted in PST land

One person was killed, two wounded and 25 hectares of crops were destroyed in the fighting

2015

Min Livestock Stats

NA KILOSA Kimbiga Farmers Pastoralists

PSTs took revenge &

Gov Version farmer took cattle


123

then Farmers took revenge

on land, hit boy who died


124

YEAR

DOC PAGE NO

DISTRICTVILLAGES /

PP Impacted

CONFLICT PARTY 1

CONFLICT

PARTY 2

TYPE OF CONFLICT

RELATED CAUSE

EVENT/ GOV ACTION

IMPACTS

2015

Min Livestock Stats

NA MVOMERO

Dihinga Farmers Pastoralists

Gov Version Farmers demand for compensation over lost pulse

Source farmers accuse herder to enter cattle into pulses farm and asked him to pay Tsh 200,000/= Effects: Allegedly a herder instead of paying cash, he came back with a group of herders and attacked farmers with arrows. 1 person died and 4 people were injured. 72 cattle were killed by hacked and 80 cattle were injured

2015


NA MVOMERO

Kambala Kambala

MWANO Vigilantes 'Big Farmer



Boundary divide with a trench, precluding access for Kambala PST to wetlands and school

The District sent in bulldozers to dig a big trench between Kambala and theor access


125

s from outside

routes to the wetlands.

2015


NA MVOMERO

Kambala Kambala




Trench continues to be built. The case has still not been decided

The trench in March 2016 is 11km long and 700m wide. It also seprates Kambaal for the secondary school they built with their own money

2016


NA LOLIONDO

NCA PST Villages

NCA PST Villages

LOCAL Government

LAND SURVEYS STOPPED

ALLEGED CORRUPTION & BRIBERY

FEB: The local gov began resurveying the land but then the RAS stopped it again

Living in uncertainty due to the local government.

2016


NA LOLIONDO


NCA PST Villages

Thompson

MAASAI EVICTIONS


Maasai intend to appeal

No land security


126

ANNEX 6.2: MDA CATTLE POPULATIONS 1919‐1993

CATTLE POPULATION YEAR 1919‐1994



HUMAN POPULATION YEAR 1950 ‐2050

YEAR TOTAL YEAR TOTAL YEAR TOTAL YEAR TOTAL

1919 3,147,442 1949 6,373,000 1995 1950 7.65

1925 4,472,000 1950 6,113,000 1996 1960 10.1

1926 4,479,000 1951 6,263,000 1997 1970 13.59

1927 4,705,625 1952 6,474,000 1998 1980 18.86

1928 4,813,063 1953 6,633,000 1999 1990 26.33

1929 4,867,000 1954 6,488,000 2000 2000 34.76

1930 5,170,162 1955 6,755,000 2001 2010 41.89

1931 5,336,000 1956 7,005,000 2002 2020 49.99

1933 4,853,000 1957 7,057,000 2003 2030 56.53

1935 4,793,000 1958 7,417,000 2004 2040 62.09

1937 5,035,000 1959 7,720,000 2005

1938 5,087,000 1960 7,940,000 2006 SOURCE:

http://www.africapedia.com/TANZANIA:‐POPULATION‐TRENDS

1939 5,190,000 1961 8,016,000 2007

1940 5,263,000 1962 8,176,000 2008

1941 5,592,000 1964 8,783,000 2009

1942 5,888,000 1965 9,997,000 2010

1943 5,844,000 1966 10,500,000 2011


127


CATTLE POPULATION YEAR 1919‐

1994


HUMAN POPULATION YEAR 1950 ‐

2050

YEAR TOTAL YEAR TOTAL YEAR TOTAL YEAR TOTAL

1944 5,745,000 1971 8,000,000 2012

1945 6,082,000 1978 12,000,000 2013

1946 6,420,000 1979 12,101,926 2014

1947 6,370,000 1984 12,500,000 2015 21,000,000

1948 6,425,000 1993 13,600,000

1949 6,373,000 1994 15,644,806

SOURCE: LIVESTOCK SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2011

CATTLE POPULATION GROWTH 1950 ‐2015 % Increase HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH % Increase

1950 2015 65 years 1950 2015 65 years

6,113,000 21,000,000 14,887,000 7,650,000 44,000,000 36,350,000

Percentage Increase 243.53 Percentage Increase 475.16


128

ANNEX 6.3: MDA LIVESTOCK LOCATIONS & NOS

Table F. 11: Number of Indigenous Cattle by Category of Cattle and Region, Tanzania, 1st October, 2008

Region Category of Indigenous Cattle

Bulls Cows Steers Heifers Male calves

Female calves

Total

Shinyanga 1,336,814 1,006,672 85,576 565,170 303,826 337,201 3,635,260

Tabora 671,932 601,684 50,931 393,741 186,277 219,080 2,123,645

Mwanza 593,054 584,516 36,889 348,566 175,959 231,918 1,970,901

Mara 484,718 620,406 25,453 248,344 150,161 153,487 1,682,569

Singida 472,867 597,208 53,194 128,893 172,413 159,740 1,584,313

Manyara 456,137 588,876 25,109 200,534 173,180 204,653 1,648,488

Arusha 418,592 675,516 48,152 172,695 190,154 211,404 1,716,514

Dodoma 367,651 403,894 37,570 145,191 95,099 117,310 1,166,715

Rukwa 293,488 254,775 10,260 77,290 72,193 91,694 799,700

Mbeya 265,210 269,541 10,729 95,644 60,383 86,405 787,912

Morogoro 221,605 166,090 21,077 113,006 47,620 59,077 628,475

Iringa 167,163 154,311 7,869 41,703 37,740 50,488 459,275

Kagera 126,401 379,585 13,060 126,077 67,974 100,115 813,212

Tanga 103,593 267,204 16,240 127,482 86,407 87,188 688,114

Kilimanjaro 56,227 119,573 12,836 50,349 38,631 43,555 321,171

Pwani 36,306 92,682 8,756 37,820 24,772 25,274 225,610

Kigoma 22,538 61,942 1,319 32,664 13,684 21,852 154,000

Ruvuma 14,448 25,963 1958 6,784 4,956 7,660 61,768

Region Bulls Cows Steers Heifers Male calves

Female calves

Total

Mtwara 3,721 8,983 458 1,505 305 2,442 17,415

Lindi 3,554 9,947 811 5,242 2,780 4,116 26,450

Dar es salaam 1,218 1,762 303 1,311 579 934 6,108

Tanzania Mainland

6,117,238 6,891,131 468,5502,920,01

11,905,09

42,215,59

2 20,517,61

6

Tanzania Zanzibar

31,104 58,0612361.82

824,972 14,910 17,334 148,744

Tanzania 6,148,341 6,949,192 470,9122,944,98

31,920,00

52,232,92

7 20,666,36

0

Source: National Bureau of Statistics, (Tanzania Agriculture Sample Census 2007/08)


129

ANNEX 6.4: MDA NARCO STATS

PST CODE RESPONDENT NAME DESIGNATION RESPONDENTS

TEL NO

MDA MDA 3 Bwire Kafumu Acting General Manager 0767‐926 846/ 0652‐409 494

STATS

1 Cattle in TNZ PRIVATE RANCHES

GOV RANCHES SMALL HOLDERS PASTORALISTS

25.8 Mil. 54,000 12,681 0 0

2 Total Land in

TNZ Total Private Ranches

Total Gov Ranches

Total Snmall Holders

Total PSTs

522,003 Ha 286,235 235,768 0 0

3

Cattle Holding Capacity Good Land

In Ranch In Ranch PSTs Good Land PSTs Marginal

Land

174,001 95,413 78,589 0 0

4 Water Requ'd p/head

Vets required Extension Services

Vets Required Abbatiores

Cattle P/Dip Cattle P/Salt Lick

5 Water

Available p/head

Vets Available Extension Services

Vets Available Abbatiores

Available Cattle Dips

Available Salt Licks

20‐30lts 12 Y 12 Y

6 Gov Cattle Markets

Private Cattle Markets

PST Markets Gov Abatoires Private Abatoires

7 Meat

Consumption TNZ

Meat from Gov Ranches

Meat from Private Ranches

Meat from PSTs Meat Imports

8

Milk Products

Consumption TNZ

Milk from Gov Dairies

Milk from Private Dairies

Milk from PSTs Imported Milk

9 GDP TNZ GDP AGRIC GDP LIVESTOCK GDP PSTs GDP PSTs By Products (leather)

10 COMMENTS

Other Data is awaited!


130

ANNEX 6.5 MDA NATIONAL BUDGET

NATIONAL BUDGET & LIVESTOCK & FISHERIES NATIONAL BUDGET & AGRICULTURE

YEAR NATIONAL BUDGET LIVESTOCK % YEAR NATIONAL BUDGET AGRICULTURE %

2015/2016 22,495,492,000,000 6,881,040,400 0.03 2015/2016 22,495,492,000,000 1,001,400,000,000 4.45

2014/2015 19,600,000,000,000 6,614,262,700 0.03 2014/2015 19,600,000,000,000 1,084,700,000,000 5.53

2013/2014 18,248,983,000,000 4,718,022,500 0.03 2013/2014 18,248,983,000,000 908,100,000,000 4.98

NATIONAL BUDGET & EDUCATION NATIONAL BUDGET & HEALTH

YEAR NATIONAL BUDGET EDUCATION % YEAR NATIONAL BUDGET HEALTH %

2015/2016 22,495,492,000,000 3,870,200,000,000 17.20 2015/2016 22,495,492,000,000 1,821,100,000,000 8.10

2014/2015 19,600,000,000,000 3,465,100,000,000 17.68 2014/2015 19,600,000,000,000 1,588,200,000,000 8.10

2013/2014 18,248,983,000,000 3,127,900,000,000 17.14 2013/2014 18,248,983,000,000 1,498,000,000,000 8.21

NATIONAL BUDGET & TRANSPORT NATIONAL BUDGET & WATER

YEAR NATIONAL BUDGET TRANSPORT % YEAR NATIONAL BUDGET WATER %

2015/2016 22,495,492,000,000 2,428,800,000,000 10.80 2015/2016 22,495,492,000,000 573,500,000,000 2.55

2014/2015 19,600,000,000,000 2,139,020,000,000 10.91 2014/2015 19,600,000,000,000 665,100,000,000 3.39

2013/2014 18,248,983,000,000 2,177,300,000,000 11.93 2013/2014 18,248,983,000,000 747,600,000,000 4.10

Ministry of Livestock officer stated in March 2016 in Interview:' We rarely get up to 30% of the budget allocated'


131


132

ANNEX 6.6 NATIONAL PARKS TANZANIA

NAME KM Sq HA TYPE PARK / RESERVE DISTRICT DATE EVICTIONS DATE

Serengeti 14,763

1,476,300

grassland plains, savanna, riverine forest & woodlands

NATIONAL PARK Serengeti District 1929 1959 1981

YES 1959

Ruaha 10,300

1,030,000

River Ruaha NATIONAL PARK Mbarali District 1964 YES

Ngorongoro 8,320

832,000

volcanic highlands, montane forest,grassland, bushland, small wooded areas, salt lake in the center, and Ngoitokitok Spring.

NATIONAL PARK Ngorongoro District

YES

Mikumi 3,230

323,000

Alluvial plain of the river basin Mkata,savannah, grassland plains, spectacular rock formations of the mountains Rubeho and Uluguru,

NATIONAL PARK Morogoro Region

1975 YES 2010

Ruangwa 9,000

900,000

NATIONAL PARK Ruangwa District

Tarangire 2,850

285,000

Mountains NATIONAL PARK Manyara Region 1970

Katavi 4,471

447,100

Katuma River, seasonal Lake Katavi, Lake Chada and floodplains

NATIONAL PARK Mpanda District 1951

Saadani 1,100

110,000

Savannah, Mangrove forest, Wami River and Indian ocean,

NATIONAL PARK Bagamoyo District

2002 YES 2013

Udzungwa 1,990

199,000

Tropical rainforest, mountain forest, miombo woodland, grassland and steppe, Udzungwa Mountains and Sanje Waterfalls

NATIONAL PARK Morogoro Region

1994

Kilimanjaro 754

75,350

Mount Kilimanjaro NATIONAL PARK Kilimanjaro Region

1973

Mahale Mountains

1,613

161,300

Miombo Forest & montane forest 1985


133

Rubondo Island

240

24,000

Forest, open grasslands 1977


134


Kitulo 413

41,290

Lake, forest and grasslands NATIONAL PARK Kigoma Region 2002

Manyara 330

33,000

Lake Manyara NATIONAL PARK Arusha Region 2009

Arusha 137

13,700

Mount Meru,Jekukumia River, Ngurdoto crater, Momella Lakes,

NATIONAL PARK Arusha Region 1973 YES

Gombe Stream

52

5,200

Grassland,hills, steep slopes, river valleys and Lake Tanganyika

NATIONAL PARK Kigoma District 1943

Saa Nane Island

2.18 218

Lake Victoria NATIONAL PARK Mwanza District 2013 NA

Selous 44,800

4,480,000

Rocky acacia‐clad hills, ground water forests, swamps, lowland rain forest, Miombo woodlands, sand rivers, wooded grasslands, Rufiji River and remote forests.

GAME RESERVE Lindi region 1922 1982

Kigosi 8,000

800,000

Floodplain,Grass swamps, Miombo woodland, Nikonga, Kigosi and Gombe Rivers

GAME RESERVE Shinyanga Region

Moyowosi 6,000

600,000

Floodplain, wetland, Miombo woodland,Malagalasi, Moyowosi, Kigosi, Gombe and Ugalla River.

GAME RESERVE Kibondo District

Burigi ‐ Lake Burigi GAME RESERVE Biharamulo and Karagwe District

Uwanda 5,000

500,000

GAME RESERVE Sumbawanga District

1971

Maswa ‐ Maswa District

Kizigo ‐ Manyoni District

Umba ‐ Lushoto District


135

Biharamulo ‐ Biharamulo District

Mkomazi 3,254

325,400

Lushoto District 2006

Mount Meru

‐ Part of Arusha National Park NATIONAL PARK Arumeru District YES

Ngorongoro 8,292

829,200

Arusha Region YES

Ngorongoro ‐ National Heritage Site 1 & 2 Arusha Region YES


Ngorongoro ‐ Forest Reserve Arusha Region YES

Ngorongoro 8,288

828,800

Conservation Area Arusha Region 1959 1979

YES

Loliondo ‐ YES

Ibanda ‐ Karagwe District

646 covering 28% of the country

http://www.unep‐wcmc.org/#?country=TZ&dashboard=show


136

ANNEX 6.7 MDA LAND AVAILABLE FOR LIVESTOCK

Surveyed allocated land for Livestock

No Region District Number of surveyed

vilages Allocated Area (Ha)

1 Arusha Arumeru 7 3,767.40

Karatu 1 852.71

Monduli 3 13,707.59

Longido 11 110,267.22

2 Dodoma Chamwino 4 17,360.68

Kondoa 5 1,632.98

Kongwa 1 398.9

Mpwapwa 3 5815.38

3 Geita Geita 2 535.49

Chato 1 582

4 Iringa Iringa (v) 11 7,477.96

Kilolo 3 1,162.51

Mufindi 7 13,549.81

5 Kagera Bihalamulo 2 5,714.40

Bukoba (V) 1 386.12

Karagwe 2 4,807.51

Missenyi 2 4,653.25

Muleba 11 16,162.60

Ngara 4 2,695.27

6 Katavi Mpanda 16 16,231.20

7 Kigoma Kasulu 1 713

Kibondo 1 101

Kigoma (v) 27 20,014.86

8 Lindi Kilwa 27 54,804.41

Lindi (v) 16 5,249.30

Liwale 9 115,028.60

Nachingwea 14 34,833.17

Ruangwa 2 146.26


137

No Region District Number of surveyed

vilages Allocated Area

(Ha)

9 Manyara Babati 20 13,636.62

Mbulu 4 37,703.25

Babati 1 7,588.34

Kiteto 3 10,688.41

10 Mara Bunda 3 964.21

Musoma (v) 2 663.06

Serengeti 5 10,387.88

Tarime 3 122.89

11 Mbeya Chunya 16 451,580.66

Ileje 2 135.08

Mbarali 18 41,027.81

Mbeya (v) 5 6,563.19

Mbozi 1 193.3

12 Morogoro Kilombero 28 45,974.01

Kilosa 7 24,960.23

Morogoro(v) 28 27,898.41

Mvomero 2 7,592.70

Ulanga 23 26,877.36

13 Mtwara Mtwara (v) 12 1,508.44

Nanyumbu 6 6,790.68

Tandahimba 3 1,022.22

Newala 2 223.32

14 Njombe Njombe 3 1,017.12

Ludewa 3 2,670.25

15 Pwani Bagamoyo 22 53,106.91

Kisarawe 21 49,033.39

Mafia 5 580.66

Mkuranga 8 3,176.26

Rufiji 30 41,077.49

Kibaha 5 7,451.63

16 Rukwa Nkasi 3 2,368.86

Sumbawanga (v) 1 42.8


138

No Region District Number of

surveyed vilages Allocated Area

(Ha)

17 Ruvuma Mbinga 1 19

Namtumbo 18 23,985.81

Songea 8 20,029.95

Tunduru 7 4,006.31

18 Shinyanga Kishapu 1 678.26

19 Simiyu Bariadi 2 2,149.10

Meatu 1 8,713.50

20 Singida Manyoni 10 27,316.00

Singida (v) 3 1,162.41

Iramba 1 2,664.10

21 Tabora Sikonge 2 1,828.14

Urambo 14 18,944.53

Uyui 3 8,258.62

22 Tanga Handeni 4 1,120.19

Kilindi 2 398.6

Korogwe 2 26.57

Mkinga 15 39,702.73

Muheza 1 261.51

Pangani 4 2,941.54

Tanga (v) 1 320.5

Total 80 589 1,507,806.39

Source: National Land use planning commision


139

ANNEX 6.8 MDA LIVESTOCK PRODUCE STATS

Production of Livestock and Poultry Products; Tanzania Mainland, 2007‐2013

Product Unit 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

MEAT

Beef Tonne 180,629 218,976 255,178 243,943 262,606 289,835 299,851

Mutton/Lamb Tonne 80,936 81,173 82,884 86,634 103,709 111,106 115,652

Pork Tonne 31,721 33,307 36,000 38,180 43,647 47,246 50,814

Chicken Tonne 77,280 77,250 78,168 80,916 93,534 84,524 87,408

Meat Total Tonne 370,566 410,706 452,230 449,673 503,496 532,711 553,725

MILK

Traditional Dairy catles Litres (000) 945,524 980,000 1,012,436 997,261 1,135,422 1,255,938 1,297,775

Graded breed Dairy cattle Litres (000) 475,681 520,000 591,690 652,596 608,800 597,161 623,865

Milk Total Litres (000) 1,421,205 1,500,000 1,604,126 1,649,857 1,744,222 1,853,099 1,921,640

HIDES & SKINS

Catle Number 1,979,710 2,500,000 1,650,000 1,500,000 2,500,000 2,800,000 2,900,000

Goats Number 1,600,000 1,900,000 2,700,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 3,400,000 3,600,000

Sheep Number 1,216,920 1,500,000 1,250,000 650,000 200,000 650,000 700,000

Total hides and skins Number 4,796,630 5,900,000 5,600,000 4,550,000 5,100,000 6,850,000 7,200,000

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives


140

ANNEX 6.9 MDA LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

Production of livestock products from 2008/09 ‐ 2014/04

Product 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/2014

Meat (Tonne)

Beef 225,178 243,943 262,606 289,835 299,581 309,353

Mutton/ Lamb 82,884 86,634 103,709 111,106 115,652 120,199

Pig 36,000 38,180 43,647 47,246 50,814 79,174

Chicken 78,168 80,916 93,534 84,524 87,408 54,360

Total 422,230 449,673 503,496 532,711 553,455 563,086

Milk ('000' litres)

Traditional Dairy catle 1,012,436 997,261 1,135,422 1,255,938 1,297,775 1,339,613

Graded breed dairy 591,690 652,596 577,962 597,161 623,865 650,570

Total 1,604,126 1,649,857 1,713,384 1,853,098 1,921,640 1,990,183

Eggs ('000')

Egg 2,806,350 2,917,870 3,339,566 3,494,584 3,725,200 3,899,568,750

Source: Ministry of Agriculture,Food Security and Cooperatives, 2014


141

ANNEX 6.10 MDA MEAT PRODUCTION

YEAR PRODUCT PRODUCTION EXPORT IMPORT

IDC COMMENT

2008 / 2009

Beef 243,943

139.8 MEAT PRODUCTION IS STEADILY

INCREASING 2009 / 2010

Beef 262,606

36.9

2010 / 2011

Beef 289,835

20.3

IDC COMMENT

2011 / 2012

Beef 299,581

31.6

MEAT EXPORT IS DECREASING 2012 / 2013

Beef 309,353

126.2 335.77

2013 / 2014

Beef 319,112

2.8 574.69

IDC COMMENT

2014 / 2015

Beef 49.69 921.09 MEAT IMPORT IS MAJORLY

INCREASING 2015 / 2016

Beef 50.19 1831.55

STATS FROM MIN LIVESTOCK


142

ANNEX 6.11 MDA DAIR PROCESSING

Dairy Processing 2013/2014

SN Region and No

of Daires Dairy

Capacity (Litters per

Day) Status

Processing (Littles per day)

Capacity %

1 Dar es Salaam (7)

Azam Dairy 3,000 Operating 2,000 67

Tommy Dairy 15,000 Operating 0 0

Profate Dairy Investment

2,000 Operating 400 20

Manow Dairy 1,000 Operating 300 30

Dairy Daily 500 Operating 200 40

Milk com 2,000 Operating 1,000 50

Tan Dairies 15,000 Operating 6,000 40

Sub Total 38,500 9,900 26

2 Pwani (3) Chawakimu Cooperative

1,000 Operating

500 50

Mother Dairy Ltd (Rufiji)

1,500 Operating

1,000 50

SADO Farm Dairy 1,000 Operating 500 50

Sub Total 3,500 2,000 57

3 Tanga (4) Tanga Fresh Ltd 50,000 Operating 48,000 96

Ammy Brothers Ltd 2,000 Operating 1,000 50

Irente Farm 1,000 Operating 500 50

Montensory Sister’s 1,000 Operating 300 30

Sub Total 54,000 49,800 92

4 Arusha (14) Northern Creameries

45,000 Operating

4,500 10

International Dairy Products

5,000 Operating

3,000 60

Mountain Green Dairy

1,500 Operating

750 50

Agape Dairy Group 500 Operating 200 40

Jitume Dairy Group 300 Operating 150 50

Idafaso Dairy Group 300 Operating 100 33

Inuka Dairy Group 300 Operating 500 167

Arusha Dairy Company

5,000 Operating

2,500 50

Kijimo Dairy Cooperative

1,000 Operating

300 30

Ayalabe Dairy cooperative Society

1,500 Operating

300 20

Uvingo Dairy 1,000 Operating 500 50

Prince Food Technologies

1,000 Operating

900 90

Grand Demam 2,000 Operating 200 10

Longido (Engiteng) 500 Operating 400 80

Sub Total 64,600 14,300 22


143

5 Manyara (3) Terrat (Engiteng) 500 Operating 250 50

Orkesumet (Engiteng)

500 Operating

400 80

Naberera (Engiteng) 1,000 Operating 450 45

Sub Total 2,000 1,100 55


144

SN Region and No

of Daires Dairy


Day) Status


Capacity %

6 Kilimanjaro (11)

Nronga Women 8,000 Operating 2,000 11

West Kilimanjaro 2,000 Operating 1,000 50

Mboreni Women 1,000 Operating 300 30

Marukeni 1,000 Operating 450 45

Ng'uni Women 1,000 Operating 350 35

Foo Dairy 1,000 Operating 300 30

Kalali Women 1,000 Operating 550 55

Same (Engiteng) 500 Operating 300 60

Fukeni Mini Dairies 3,000 Operating 1,800 60

Kilimanjaro Creameries

15,000 Operating

4,000 17

Kondiki Small Scale Dairy

4,000 Operating

1,000 25

Sub Total 39,500 12,150 31

7 Mara (6) Musoma Dairy 120,000 Operating 20,000 17

Victoria Maziwa Mara

1,500 Operating

1,000 67

Baraki Sisters 3,000 Operating 2,100 70

Nyuki Dairy 1,000 Operating 500 50

Mara Milk 15,000 Operating 8,000 53

AFRI Milk 500 Operating 200 40

Sub Total 141,000 31,800 23

8 Njombe (1) CEFA Njombe 6,000 Operating 3,800 63

Sub Total 6,000 3,800 63

9 Mwanza (2) Mwanza Mini Dairy 3,000 Operating 500 17

Tukwamuane Dairy 500 Operating 200 40

Sub Total 3,500 700 20

10 Kagera (11) Kagera Milk (KADEFA)

3,000 Operating

400 13

Kyaka Milk Plant 1,000 Operating 450 45

Bukoba Market Milk Bar

500 Operating

300 60

Bukoba Market Milk Bar Soko Kuu

500 Operating

300 60

Mutungi Milk Bar 800 Operating 200 25

Salari Milk Bar 800 Operating 200 25

Kashai Milk Bar 800 Operating 200 25

Del Food 1,000 Operating 300 30

Kikulula Milk Processing Plant

1,000 Operating

500 50

Kayanga Milk Processing Plant

1,000 Operating

300 30

MUVIWANYA 1,000 Operating 350 35


145

Sub Total 11,400 3,400 30


146

SN Region and No

of Daires Dairy


Day) Status


Capacity %

11 Morogoro (2) SUA 3,000 Operating 200 7

Shambani Graduates

2,500 Operating

1,500 60

Sub Total 5,500 1,700 31

12 Tabora (2) Uhai Mazingira (Sikonge)

200 Operating

100 50

New Tabora Dairies 16,000 Operating 300 2

Sub Total 16,200 400 2.5

13 Iringa (1) ASAS Dairy 12,000 Operating 6,000 50

Sub Total 12,000 6,000 50

14 Mbeya (1) Mbeya Maziwa 1,000 Operating 600 60

Ushirika wa maziwa wa Vwawa

2,000 Operating

1,200 60

Sub Total 3,000 1,800 60

15 Dodoma (1) Gondi Foods 600 Operating 300 50

Sub Total 600 300 50

16 Singida (1) Singidani Dairy 500 Operating 200 40


17 Lindi (1) Narunyu Sisters 500 Operating 300 60


18 Shinyanga (2) Saweka Cooperative 200 Operating 150 75

Dr. Alphonce 500 Operating 100 20


Total Dairies 74 403,000 139,800 35

Source: Ministry of Agriculture Foodsecurity and Cooperatives


147

ANNEX 6.12: STATUS OF MILK PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION

Milk production for the year 2014/20115 was around 2.06 bilion litres, of which 70% comes from local

cattle and the remaining 30% from improved cattle (pure dairy breeds and their crosses). Over the

last two decades total milk production has been increasing at the rate of about 2.8% per annum

largely due to increase in cattle population rather than increase in productivity.

Table No 1: Milk production from 2005‐2015 (per 000,000 lts)

YEAR 2005/

6

2006/

7

2007/

8

2008/

9

2009/1

0

2010/1

1

2011/1

2

2012/1

3

2013/1

4

2014/1

5

Amoun

t (lts)

1386.

4

1412.

8

1421.

2 1500 1602.1 1650 1740 1850 1920 2,000

Processing

Processing is done by small, medium scale industries with the capacity to process around 500 to

50,000 per day. Up to date there are 82 dairy industries with the capacity producing a total of

651,500 per day however these industries are processing only 26% of their capacity (167,620 liters

per Day).

Table No2: Milk Processing (litres) from 2010 to 2015

Year Milk processing per year (ltrs)

2010/11 40,464,000

2011/12 46,944,000

2012/13 48,708,000

2013/14 50,328,000

2014/15 60,145,200

Milk products consumption 1,809 million (year 2012) but milk consumption per person per year up to date is approximately 45ltrs/person/year Milk from PSTS 1,340 milion litres in 2012 Imported Milk 26million litres (data of year 2012)


148

ANNEX 6.13 MDA LIVESTOCK SHARE OF GDP

Table E. 7: Shares of Gross Domestic Product at Current Market Prices by Economic Activity (Monetary and Non‐ monetary); Tanzania Mainland, 2004 – 2013

Economic Activity 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012r 2013p

Monetary

Gross domestic product at market prices 83.6 84.1 84.5 84.8 84.1 86.2 85.1 85.8 86.4 86.6

Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry 17.2 16.2 15.3 15.1 14.9 15.7 13.9 14.6 15.1 15.2

Crops 12.5 11.5 10.6 10.7 10.6 10.3 10.1 9.8 10.2 10.4

Livestock 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.2

Forestry and hunting 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 2.0 0.7 1.5 1.6 1.6

Fishing 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Industry and construction 19.9 19.7 19.6 19.9 19.8 20.7 21.3 20.6 21.0 21.0

Mining and quarrying 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.3

Manufacturing 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.6 9.0 8.4 8.4 8.5

Electricity, gas 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8

Water supply 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Construction 7.2 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.1

Services 38.8 39.1 40.0 40.2 39.9 40.0 40.4 41.0 41.0 41.6

Trade and repairs Hotels 11.4 11.0 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.8 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.1

and restaurants 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5

Transport 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 5.0 5.1 5.3 5.3 5.8

Communications 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

Financial intermediation 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8


149


Real estate and business services 5.9 6.1 6.2 6.3 5.7 5.3 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.6

Public administration 7.7 8.0 8.0 7.9 8.2 8.1 8.0 8.0 7.8 7.8

Education 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Health 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7

Other social and personal services 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Gross value added before adjustments 77.3 76.5 76.1 76.4 75.7 77.8 76.9 77.7 78.5 79.1

lessFISIM ‐0.9 ‐0.9 ‐0.9 ‐1.0 ‐1.0 ‐1.2 ‐1.1 ‐1.2 ‐1.1 ‐1.2

Gross value added at current basic prices 76.5 75.6 75.2 75.4 74.7 76.6 75.8 76.5 77.4 77.9

Add Taxes on products 7.2 8.6 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.3 9.3 9.0 8.7

Non‐monetary

Gross domestic product at market prices 16.4 15.9 15.5 15.2 15.9 13.8 14.9 14.2 13.6 13.4

Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry 12.3 11.4 11.0 10.8 10.8 8.9 10.2 10.0 9.6 9.3

Crops 9.9 9.0 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.7 7.4 8.6

Livestock 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 0.5 0.8 1.4 1.3 1.2

Forestry and hunting 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.3 1.7 0.9 0.9 0.9

Fishing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Industry and construction 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2

Water supply 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Construction 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1

Services 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.9 3.6 3.5 3.0 2.8 2.8

Real estate and business services 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.9 3.6 3.5 3.0 2.8 2.8

Total Gross Domestic Product at current market prices 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


150

Source: National Bureau of Statistics

ANNEX 6.14 MDA LIVESTOCK MARKET PRICES

Table E. 8: Gross Domestic Product at Constant 2001 Market Prices by Economic Activity; Tanzania Mainland, 2004 ‐2013


Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry

3,017,988 3,148,384 3,268,238 3,399,648 3,554,488 3,669,646 3,824,428 3,960,673 4,129,431 4,306,789

Crops 2,262,725 2,361,930 2,457,373 2,567,955 2,698,921 2,790,684 2,913,474 3,015,446 3,157,172 3,299,244

Livestock 503,000 525,109 537,498 550,398 564,708 577,922 597,572 620,877 640,125 664,449

Forestry and hunting 252,263 261,345 273,367 281,295 290,859 301,039 313,382 324,350 332,135 343,095

Fishing 185,543 196,676 206,510 215,734 226,521 232,637 236,126 238,960 245,890 251,299

Industry and construction

2,204,619 2,433,261 2,639,902 2,889,519 3,138,241 3,357,703 3,633,664 3,883,366 4,184,808 4,500,597

Mining and quarrying 254,000 295,000 341,000 377,559 386,998 391,642 402,331 411,182 443,154 473,731

Manufacturing 977,000 1,071,000 1,162,000 1,263,435 1,388,515 1,499,596 1,618,064 1,744,273 1,887,303 2,032,179

Electricity and gas 240,708 263,218 258,347 286,507 301,978 327,344 360,733 366,144 388,113 405,190

Water supply Construction

49,557 51,700 54,905 58,474 62,333 65,824 69,955 72,753 76,682 80,439

Construction 683,354 752,343 823,650 903,544 998,416 1,073,297 1,182,581 1,289,013 1,389,556 1,509,058

Services 5,182,094 5,596,784 6,035,932 6,527,561 7,085,136 7,594,661 8,214,209 8,860,652 9,567,176 10,351,802

Trade and repairs Hotels 1,486,931 1,585,906 1,736,631 1,906,821 2,097,503 2,254,816 2,439,711 2,637,328 2,840,402 3,076,155

and restaurants Transport

285,732 301,873 314,921 328,859 343,658 358,779 380,664 398,175 417,287 443,576

Communications 588,574 627,951 661,000 703,965 752,539 797,691 853,529 910,715 975,376 1,035,850

Financial intermediation 169,158 200,900 239,537 287,684 346,659 422,577 515,967 614,001 740,485 909,316

Real estate and business services

184,775 204,694 228,000 251,280 281,120 306,339 337,356 373,453 422,748 474,324


151

Public administration 1,141,014 1,226,790 1,316,000 1,408,120 1,508,097 1,610,647 1,723,392 1,835,413 1,958,386 2,083,722

Education 871,169 970,786 1,033,488 1,102,951 1,180,158 1,232,313 1,312,414 1,401,658 1,482,954 1,559,099

Health 215,910 224,547 235,774 248,742 265,905 284,704 305,402 328,002 349,322 369,792


Other social and personal services

151,370 163,572 177,520 193,142 210,525 224,654 240,058 253,021 267,190 282,196

Gross value added before adjustments

87,461 89,765 93,061 95,998 98,974 102,141 105,716 108,887 113,025 117,772

lessFISIM 10,590,244 11,375,105 12,150,582 13,032,462 14,004,385 14,854,646 15,908,427 16,943,651 18,127,304 19,410,487

Gross value added at 2001 basic prices

‐106,931 ‐119,497 ‐137,287 ‐158,292 ‐175,704 ‐190,990 ‐208,370 ‐231,708 ‐261,135 ‐289,598.50

Add Taxes on products 10,483,313 11,255,608 12,013,295 12,874,170 13,828,681 14,663,656 15,700,057 16,711,943 17,866,169 19,120,889

Gross Domestic Product at Constant 2001 market prices

756,422 812,482 867,868 927,751 999,664 1,057,645 1,128,507 1,201,860 1,289,596 1,368,261.10

11,239,735 12,068,090 12,881,163 13,801,921 14,828,345 15,721,301 16,828,563 17,913,803 19,155,765 20,489,150

Source: National Bureau of Statistics


152

ANNEX 6.15 MDA REGONAL IMPROVED CATTLE BREEDS

Table 3: Breakdown of Improved Breed 2010/2011 – 2013/2014

Region Improved Breed 2010/2011 Improved Breed 2011/2012 Improved Breed

2012/2013 Improved Breed

2013/2014

Mwanza 20,000 26,800 32,900 47,100

Shinyanga 24,000 32,000 39,300 54,400

Kagera 2,000 2,846 3,350 13,800

Total Lake Zone 46,000 61,633 75,550 115,300

Tabora 2,000 2,580 3,100 7,480

Singida 1,600 2,146 2,600 6,930

Dodoma 2,000 2,775 3,400 7,860

Total Central Zone 5,600 7,501 9,100 22,270

Arusha 4,000 5,360 6,500 15,180

Manyara 2,400 3,216 3,900 12,250

Total Northern Zone 6,400 8,576 10,400 27,430

Rukwa (SAAFI) 480 729 800 1,000

Iringa Mark Taylor arm) 220 290 350 500

NARCO Ranches 40,000 53,500 65,800 8,500

Grand Total 98,700 132,246 162,000 175,000

Source: Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development, 2014


153

ANNEX 6.16: MDA GDP ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 2009‐2013

Table E. 22: Percentage Shares of Gross Domestic Product by Economic Activity; Tanzania Zanzibar 2009‐ 2013

Description 2009 2010 2011 2012r 2013p

GDP at market prices 100 100 100 100 100

Agriculture, forestry and fishing 30.8 32.4 32.2 30.2 31

Industry 13.1 12.6 12 11.7 11.1

Services 44 42.8 44 45.3 44.1

Adjustment to market prices 12.1 12.2 11.8 12.8 13.8

Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

Crops 20.8 21.2 20.9 18.9 19.7

Livestock 4.5 4.7 4.2 3.8 3.8

Forestry and hunting 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3

Fishing 5.2 6.2 6.7 7.1 7.2

Industry

Mining and quarrying 1 1 1 1.1 1

Manufacturing 4.1 4.2 3.9 3.4 3.3


154

Description 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Electricity gas and water supply 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6

Construction 6.6 6 5.6 5.7 5.3

Services

Trade and repairs 8.4 8.8 9.7 9.4 9.3

Hotels and restaurants 7.2 7.3 7.3 6.5 6.3

Transport and communications 11 9.1 9.2 9.6 9.3

Financial intermediation 1.7 2.1 2 1.9 1.9

Real estate and business services 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8

Public administration 9.1 9.1 8.8 9.8 9.4

Education 4.1 3.9 4.6 5.5 5.3

Health 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.4

Other social and personal services 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4

Adjustments to Market Prices

Taxes on products 12.1 12.2 11.8 12.8 13.8

Source: Office of Chief Government Statistician


155

ANNEX 6.17: FORMAL MEETING REGISTER

FORMAL MEETING REGISTER PROJECT: SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS: PASTORALIST & FARMER CONFLICT

SN DATE REGION DISTRICT PLACE WARD VILLAGE SUB

VILLAGE AIM INFORMANT Nos

1 11/3/2016 Pwani Bagamoyo IDC Office Dunda Mwanakalenge Block P Training IDC Team 10

2 14/3/2016 Arusha Arusha TNRF Office Themi Themi Corridor Area

Workshop CSOs 13

3 14/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto KINAAPA Office

NA NA NA FGD CSOs 10

4 14/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero UMWEA Office

NA NA NA Workshop CSOs 7

5 15/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto District Office NA NA NA IDVs DC & DAS 2

6 15/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto District Office NA NA NA IDVs DLO 1

7 15/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto District Office NA NA NA IDVs DVLO 4

8 15/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto District Office NA NA NA IDVs AO 1

9 15/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto District Office NA NA NA IDVs DWT 1

10 15/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto Village Partimbo Irela NA FGDs & IDVs PST M 4

11 15/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto Village Partimbo Irela NA FGDs & IDVs PST W 1

12 15/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero District Office NA NA NA IDVs DED 1

13 15/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero Village Mkindo Kambala NA FGDs & IDVs PST W 14

14 15/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero Village Mkindo Kambala NA FGDs & IDVs PST CC 3

15 15/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero Village Mkindo Kambala NA FGDs & IDVs PST YL 3


156

16 15/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero District Office NA NA NA IDVs DC 1



17 15/3/2016 Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Olorien/Magaiduru Wasso Wasso North

FGDs & IDVs CSO 6

18 15/3/2016 Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Olorien NA NA FGDs & IDVs VW 10

19 15/3/2016 Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Maaloni NA NA FGDs & IDVs DLO 9

20 16/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto District Office NA NA NA IDVs DED 1

21 16/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto District Office NA NA NA IDVs DWT 1

22 16/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto District Office NA NA NA IDVs DE 1

23 16/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto Village Partimbo Irela NA FGDs & IDVs FRM M 2

24 16/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto Village Partimbo Irela NA IDVs FRM W 2

25 16/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero Village Hembeti Msufini NA FGDs & IDVs FRMs CC 9

26 16/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero Village Hembeti Msufini NA FGDs & IDVs FRMs W 1

27 16/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero Village Hembeti Msufini NA FGDs & IDVs PST W 10

28 16/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero Village Hembeti Msufini NA FGDs & IDVs YL 8

29 16/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero District Office NA NA NA IDVs LVST 1

30 16/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero District Office NA NA NA IDVs DLO 1

31 16/3/2016 Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Olorien/ Magaiduru

Wasso Wasso North

FGDs & IDVs CC 3


Wasso Wasso North

FGDs & IDVs DLNRO 1

33 16/3/2016 Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Olorien Wasso Wasso FGDs & IDVs VL 1


157

North

34 16/3/2016 Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Olorien Lopolun Lopolun FGDs & IDVs PST W 5



35 16/3/2016 Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Enguserosambu NA NA FGDs & IDVs VL 9

36 17/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto District Office NA NA NA IDVs DM 1

37 17/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto Village Partimbo Kimana NA FGDs & IDVs PST M 3

38 17/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero Village Mangae Mela NA FGDs & IDVs PST CC 9

39 17/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero District Office NA NA NA IDVs AO 1

40 17/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero District Office NA NA NA IDVs EO 1


Wasso Wasso North

FGDs & IDVs DCDO 1


Wasso Wasso North

FGDs & IDVs DLVO 1


Wasso Wasso North

FGDs & IDVs Agric O 1

44 17/3/2016 Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Enguserosambu Enguserosambu Ndulele FGDs & IDVs CC 2

45 17/3/2016 Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Maaloni Loswash Loswash FGDs & IDVs YL 2

46 18/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto District Office NA NA NA IDVs OCD &OC CID

1

47 18/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto Village Partimbo Kimana NA FGDs & IDVs PST W 3

48 18/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto Village Partimbo Kimana NA FGDs & IDVs FRM M 2

49 18/3/2016 Morogoro Mvomero UMWEA Office

NA NA NA Feedback CSOs 4


158

50 18/3/2016 Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Enguserosambu Enguserosambu Ndulele FGDs & IDVs VE 1

51 19/3/2016 Manyara Kiteto Village Partimbo Kimana NA FGDs & IDVs FRM W 2

52 19/3/2016 Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Enguserosambu Enguserosambu Ndulele FGDs & IDVs VY 4

LEGEND

Agric O Agriculture Officer DAS District Administrative Secretary

DLFO District Livestock& Fisheries officer

OCD Officer Commending District

AO Agricultural Officer DEO District Education Officer DWT District Water Technician OC CID Officer Commending of Criminal Investigation Department

CC Council Chairman DED District Executive Officer FGDs Focus Group Discussions PST M Pastoralist Man

CSO Civil Society Organisation

DLNRO District Land and Natural Resources Officer

FRM M Farmer Man PST W Pastoralist Woman

CSOs Civil Society Organisations

DLVO District Livestock Officer FRM W Farmer Woman PST YL Pastoralist Youth Leader

DC District Commissioner DM District Magistrate NA Not Applicable VY Village Youth


159


160

ANNEX 7: LAND USE PLANNING REVIEW There is a general opinion at all levels that Land Use Planning will resolve many of the current conflicts.

The Processes to develop a land use plan include:

1) A boundary survey is required to obtain village land certificate from the District and a pre‐required of this is to settle any outstanding border issues;

2) A socio‐economic survey is undertaken to ascertain the current status quo and demographics;

3) A village land use committee is set up with representatives of the whole community, including at least three women, for them to decide their priorities and concerns and develop a draft template of the new land use plan;

4) This is presented to the village assembly for discussion where they have the opportunity to make modifications and adjustments, or return the plan for to re‐think the plan drawing.64

5) Once agreed by the Village assembly, It is then presented to the district authority for approval;

6) Finally it is registered with the central government land authorities.

Post Land Use Plan

Once the plans have been agreed with the district:

o The District can install beacons to mark the area, each beacon having a designated number which can be checked in district records for any future land dispute;

o The plan can also be enforced with village by‐laws and fines levied for those crossing boundaries illegally.

A Land Use plan requires land for:

Residential areas, including land for natural growth,

Livelihoods (agriculture and forestry, and commercial areas including markets, services and eateries),

Public services areas (health centres, schools, cemeteries and playgrounds),

Forestry or other conservation areas,

Land for access infrastructure

Land to access natural resources including water resurces

Communal areas.

64 According to Geoffrey of TNRF, most of the plans get stuck at Stage 4 and approvals are rarely provided by

the District.


161

ANNEX 7: LAND USE PLANNING REVIEW cont.

Whereas a Land Use Plan is not about ownership, ownership does affect the outcomes.

Challenges in Village Land Use Planning

This research concurred that Village Land Use Planning undertaken as a participatory process will

to a large extent resolve many of the direct causes of conflict. However it is not a simple solution

and there are many issues that need to be resolved first.

Funds, Human Resources and Time

The primary reasons for the Land Use Planning Act of 2007 not bingn implemented across the

country is due to the lack of funds, stretched human resources to help facilitate the participatory

process and the time it takes.

Communal Land

Most often the grazing land and the communal land are deemed as one and the same thing65.

Situation 1: If ‘communal land’, previously used for grazing has been sold off by village leadership

without due process, what land is available in the village to re‐allocate for grazing land?

Situation 2: Whereas there has been an update to the 2007 Land Use Planning Act, which clearly

states pastoralist land should be designated as such rather than just ‘communal land’, it has yet

to be implemented. New land use plans could further preclude security of any tenure for

pastoralists.

Inclusive Representation

Example 3: Although many pastoralist live in the village, few are on the Village Council or on the

land use committees. Adequate representation is required along with capacity building to ensure

that pastoralists rights are catered for.

Example 4: Even when an advisor is present to support the development of theLand Use Plan, if

they are being paid for by a company wanting land for investment, there is a conflict of interest.

ANNEX 7: LAND USE PLANNING REVIEW cont.

65 Section 2 of the Land Act defines general lands as all public land which is not reserved or ‘unoccupied or

unused village land.” The Village Land Act does not include this phrase. The Land Act can be a loophole for state agencies to Transfer of “idle land” to the category of general land, from which it can be made accessible to investors. Once village land is converted to general land, it cannot be converted back.


162

Inter Village Land Use Plans

Land needs to ensure to ensure the plan takes into account water access and stock routes, which

may traverse other village boundaries. This means several VLUPs should be undertaken together

and be a joint submission?

Access to Stock Routes and Water Access

Plans that benefit pastoralists also ensure maintenance of livestock routes to key grazing areas,

ensure a large area of common grazing land, as well as individual plots for either farming or

grazing for both farmers and pastoralists. They need to follow through with markers so that these

stock routes are clearly seen to exist.

Time & Costs

According to informants a VLUP can cost between Tsh. 17‐30m; According to the Loliondo District

where none of their villages have plans or have been surveyed, they hold funds of Tsh. 280m to

carry out the process, which would only partially cover the VLUP costs.

Examples of Previous Land Use Planning

Emboley Murtangos: It is understood there was a recognised land use plan at the time for the

pastoralists’ co‐existent arrangement in the forestry reserve agreed by the District. It is

understood that they have now been evicted and the Land Plan.

Kambala: Again there was a land use plan for a pastoralist village, purportedly approved and

registered with the District and which included access to their secondary school and water

resources. Now there is an 11km trench cutting them off from this land.

In both cases, a Land Use Plan has not provided any security of tenure.

Recommendations

1. Prior to the agreeing to a land use plan, the villages should get some form of training

(HAKIARDHI) to ensure full representation, planning tools and equitable decisions are

made without disenfranchising the minorities.

2. Land Sales should be checked prior to VLUPs to ensure any land sold followed due

process and the title revoked if this has not been the case.

3. Land Use Planning should map out stock routes and access to water and markets in a

joint Land Use Planning agreement between neighbouring villages.

4. All stock routes, grazing areas and water resources reserved for the pastoralists should

be marked and security of tenure is provided.

ANNEX 8: TERMS OF REFERENCE

Conflict Situational and Trends (CS & T) Analysis


163

in Pastoralist Programme Land Conflict in Tanzania

EVALUATION PURPOSE.

The main purpose behind this is to improve the effectiveness in resolving land conflicts

and documenting lessons for shared learning. In this respect, the conflict situational and

trend analysis aims at meeting the following specific objectives:‐

EVALUATION QUESTIONS.

To identify and document the nature and key driving factors of specific land conflicts,

including the historical, political, economic, cultural, policy and regulatory frameworks

causes and key actors/parties involved and remedial actions taken to redress the

conflicts;

To develop a snapshot of the current (and potential future?) consequences of the land

conflicts on communities, specific groups within the communities (e.g. women and

children), the economy of the area, poverty and vulnerability and pastoralism

sustainability; and

On the basis of the above, to develop a set of clear recommendations that can be used

for shared learning and by the programme team in planning, design and implementation

of the programme.

SCOPE OF WORK

The conflict situational and trends analysis seeks to understand the situation and trends

of land resource conflict in Tanzania by looking at structural, proximate and immediate

causes, identifying the different stakeholders/actors and the relation between them with

strong eye being put to explore gender‐based conflicts, identifying conflict dynamics,

driving factors (pertinent activities escalating and exacerbating the conflicts), time and

frequency of occurrences, measures and mechanisms employed in addressing the

conflicts. The question of access to resources including contestations in relation to

agricultural activities, mining and reservations areas should also be explored together

with it’s the land related policies existing in Tanzania. The Consultant should also make a

comprehensive assessment of the overall land conflicts situation to explore historical

background and determine if specific types of land conflicts are increasing, stable or

decreasing over recent years since the commencement of the PP. Emphasis should be

given to getting accurate information as much as possible. The consultant will also be

responsible to share cases (examples in different forms like video, photos etc) on how

land related conflicts are managed as recommendations.


164

ANNEX 8.1: WORK PLAN

Week 1: Desk Review – 6 days

Study the political, economic, cultural and historical context of conflicts arising; Review the laws and policies in Tanzania that relate to land use and shared

resources; Assess the impacts of these laws and policies that support or exacerbate conflict; Reveal implementation of policies & their effectiveness on the ground as it relates to

conflict; Gauge the trends and types of conflict; Map stakeholders within land resource conflict scenarios;

Week 2: Field Studies In Three Different Regions ‐ 4 days and 2 days travelling

Provide a snapshot of the situation on the ground in three different regions in Tanzania including Arusha, Morogoro and Manyara;

Illustrate the findings using case studies, videos and photos; Identify current support mechanisms in place to avoid conflict and their

effectiveness; Explore types of gender conflict and gender input in resolving conflict; Assess the impacts of conflicts on livelihoods, social cohesion and the most

vulnerable;

Week 3: Data Collation and Draft Report ‐ 3 days

Review including the structural, proximate and immediate causes of conflict and their dynamics, (official responses which may escalate the situation), time and frequency of occurrences, conflict resolution methodologies;

Develop a set of clear recommendations that can be used for shared learning and by the programme team in planning, design and implementation of the programme.

Validation Workshop ‐ 1 day

LIMITATIONS

BUDGET

There are many limitations to undertake this TOR as expressed in the pre‐discussion

meeting at the Care offices. The TOR is extensive and yet the budget target was too small

to fulfill in its entirety.

TIMING

As consultants we normally pre‐plan everything before going out to the field. As within

the TOR, the first week was put aside for a) Desk research, b) Meetings with Ministries in

DSM c) planning and developing bespoke survey instruments for potential respondents.

At the beginning of the third week these details are still not confirmed.

It is advised, that future TORs should provide adequate time and budgets sufficient to

cover consultants and all logistical costs.


165

ANNEX 8.2: SURVEY DEVELOPMENT & TRAINING

SURVEY INSTRUMENTS &TRAINING

The variety of survey instruments and techniques were employed in this evaluation. See

Appendix 3

Training was held with the team going to the field to ensure they optimize the visits. This

included review of the TOR, the issues, the instruments and the reporting. Each

questionnaire was reviewed and played out using role‐play and translating them to

Swahili to ensure intent of the Questions. Training was also held on health and safety,

fulfilling protocols, gender sensitivity, body language, listening, scribing, observations,

transect walks and recordings.

Within the villages, women were interviewed separately, either in Focus Group

Discussions, or individually depending on the circumstances.

Constrained by time and budget in the field of 4 days in 3 different regions of the

country, reliant on others to set up the meetings in the District and villages, precluded

any sampling methodology. Triangulation of data was balanced by interviews with the

various parties on the ground, from the reports and studies available. Meeting notes will

be captured including venue, aim, attendees, discussion and outcomes.

PROTOCOLS

At the National level, there are a range of protocols to fulfil, and despite the provision of

a ‘Letter of Introduction from Care’, this was deemed insufficient by the MDAs to: a) hold

interviews and b) collect necessary data. However it emerged that the PS was required to

approve the research and following additional letters of request to meet officers and

obtain information. Three weeks later, one Ministry has responded, but due to time

availability only one interview has taken place. to date and the latest promise of data

(hard copy) is at the end of Week 3. At the regional Level, permission for the District

officers is required from the DED, but it has been revealed that this has yet to be

requested.

EVALUATION MATRIX

Despite the major limitations in budget, timing and planning, as experienced consultants

one makes the best of the opportunities available and the circumstances on the ground.

So whereas we did not know whom we will be seeing, where we were going and what we

would find on the ground, three weeks into the 15‐day consultancy, it is believed that

some useful information emerged.

EVALUATION TEAM

IDC undertook situational analysis with 12 team members in the field, three back office

ata collators and 2 analysts.


166

ANNEX 8.3: DATA COLLECTION, COLLATION & ANALYSIS

SURVEY INSTRUMENTS &TRAINING

The variety of survey instruments and techniques were employed in this evaluation. See

Appendix 3

Training was held with the team going to the field to ensure they optimize the visits. This

included review of the TOR, the issues, the instruments and the reporting. Each

questionnaire was reviewed and played out using role‐play and translating them to

Swahili to ensure intent of the Questions. Training was also held on health and safety,

fulfilling protocols, gender sensitivity, body language, listening, scribing, observations,

transect walks and recordings.

Within the villages, women were interviewed separately, either in Focus Group

Discussions, or individually depending on the circumstances.

Constrained by time and budget in the field of 4 days in 3 different regions of the

country, reliant on others to set up the meetings in the District and villages, precluded

any sampling methodology. Triangulation of data was balanced by interviews with the

various parties on the ground, from the reports and studies available. Meeting notes will

be captured including venue, aim, attendees, discussion and outcomes.

PROTOCOLS

At the National level, there are a range of protocols to fulfil, and despite the provision of

a ‘Letter of Introduction from Care’, this was deemed insufficient by the MDAs to: a) hold

interviews and b) collect necessary data. However it emerged that the PS was required to

approve the research and following additional letters of request to meet officers and

obtain information. Three weeks later, one Ministry has responded, but due to time

availability only one interview has taken place. to date and the latest promise of data

(hard copy) is at the end of Week 3. At the regional Level, permission for the District

officers is required from the DED, but it has been revealed that this has yet to be

requested.

EVALUATION MATRIX

Despite the major limitations in budget, timing and planning, as experienced consultants

one makes the best of the opportunities available and the circumstances on the ground.

So whereas we did not know whom we will be seeing, where we were going and what we

would find on the ground, three weeks into the 15‐day consultancy, it is believed that

some useful information emerged.

EVALUATION TEAM

IDC undertook situational analysis with 12 team members in the field, three back office

ata collators and 2 analysts.


167

ANNEX 8.4: KEY INFORMANTS

The stakeholder interviews for this research on the National Level include: CARE International Land Rights Advocates Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Livestock Workshop Attendees in Arusha Led by TNR, The key informants at District Level included: TNRF CARE Partners: Field Workers Farmer and Pastoralist Villages: Leaders, Elders, Women& Youth District Officials: District Commissioner (DC); District Executive Director (DED), District Department Officers: Land, Agricultural, Livestock and Community Development Officers Law Enforcement Officers: Police and local courts, Local Conflict Officer Private Investors: CEO and Security personnel The key informants at the Community Level included:

KITETO District Officials: District Commissioner (DC); District Executive Director (DED) District Department Officers: Livestock, Water Engineer and Agricultural. Law Enforcement Officers: Police and District court Resource Management Zone Plan P.34 Farmer and Pastoralist Villages: Leaders, Elders, Women& Youth KINAPA MVOMERO District Officials: District Commissioner (DC); District Executive Director (DED) and OCD District Department Officers: Land, Educational and Agricultural Farmer and Pastoralist Villages: Leaders, Elders, Women& Youth CSO’s: UMWEMA Village Council LOLIONDO Farmer and Pastoralist Villages: Leaders, Elders, Women& Youth District Department Officers: Livestock and District Lands Natural Resources & Environment Officers (DLNO) Council chairpersons

REGION DISTRICT PLACE WARD VILLAGE

Manyara Kiteto Village Partimbo Ilera

Manyara Kiteto Village Partimbo Kimana

Morogoro Mvomero Village Mkindo Kambala

Morogoro Mvomero Village Hembeti Msufini

Morogoro Mvomero Village Mangae Mela

Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Olorien/

Magaiduru Wasso

Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Olorien Lopolun

Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Enguserosambu Enguserosambu


168

Arusha Ngorongoro Loliondo Maaloni Loswash

ANNEX 9: BIBLIOGRAPHY

AWINIA Christopher Dr. 2014 The Pastoralist Programme Care, Tanzania Natural Resource Forum & Irish Aid BENJAMINSEN Tor A., MAGANGA Faustin P. & ABDALLAH Jumanne Moshi 2006 The Kilosa Killings: Political Ecology of a Farmer‐Herder Conflict in Tanzania Research Gate www.researchgate.net BOES Tobias 2013 Political Animals: Serengeti Shall Not Die and the Cultural Heritage of Mankind German Studies Review36.1 (2013): 41–59 © 2013 The German Studies Association. www.tobiasboes.net CARE Tanzania & TNRF 2011 Proposal for Management Agency for Pastoralist Program in Tanzania (PP) 2011 – 2015 Submitted to:The Embassy of Ireland/Irish Aid Dar es Salaam CARE Tanzania & TNRF 2014 Annex 2: PP Revised Logical Framework with Targets Dar es Salaam CARE Tanzania & TNRF 2014 Final Report: Strategy for Refocusing of the Pastoralist Programme in line with Mid Term Review Recommendations Pastoralist Programme Dar es Salaam CHAMA CHA WAFUGAJI TANZANIA (CCWT) 2016 RE: Pastoralist Evictions To Permanent Secretary, Prime Minister’s Office Dar es Salaam CHACHANGE Chambi 2009 The State of the NAFCO, NARCO and Absentee Landlords’ Farms/Ranches in Tanzania Land Rights Research and Resources Institute (LARRRI/HAKIARDHI) Dar es Salaam www.udadisi.blogspot.com COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RELIEF TRUST (CODERT)


169

2013 Project Proposal for Land Rights Advocacy for Agro‐Pastoralists’ Socio‐Economic Empowerment Geita District www.codert‐tz.org COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION (CEDESOTA) 2012 Proposal for Empowerment of Pastoralist and Agro‐pastoralist Communities for Livelihood Improvement in Meru District Submitted to: The Country Director, CARE International Tanzania Arusha, Tanzania COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION (CEDESOTA) 2014 Project Proposal for Policy Advocacy for Pastoralists and Agro‐pastoralists Livelihood Improvement in Tanzania Submitted to: The Country Director, CARE International Tanzania Arusha, Tanzania DISTRICT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 2015 Socio‐Economic Profile Loliondo ‐ Arusha [email protected] DONDEYNE Stefaan, LENAERTS Lutgart, BREUSERS Mark, BAUER Hans, HAILE Mitiku & DECKERS Jozef 2014 This Pasture is ours since Ancient Times. The Interplay of Social, Political and Geographical Space along the Afar‐Tigray Regional Boundary www.researchgate.net ELLIOT Fratkin 1999 Land, Resources and Environment Maasai and Barabaig Herders Struggle for Land Rights in Kenya and Tanzania EMAYO ERETO MAASAI YOUTH

2012 Proposal on Formation of Pastoralists Network and Advocacy Capacity Building in Kilindi

District

Submitted to Country Director, Care International Tanzania

Kilindi, Tanga

FRANKSA DM, DAVIS R, BEBBINGTON AJ, ALI SH, KEMP D & MARTIN S

2014 Conflict Translates Environmental and Social Risk into Business Costs

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov GIDABUDAY Francis Wilhelm 2015 Conflict between Pastoralists and Farmers in Morogoro Region ARUSHA


170

www.gidabuday.blogspot.com HICKS Walter 2012 Tanzania’s Troubling Trend of Land Rights violations and Evictions www.ecology.com HOMEWOOD M. Katherine, CHENEVIX Pippa & BROCKINGTON Daniel 2012 Pastoralist Livelihoods and Wildlife Revenues in East Africa University College London www.pastoralismjournal.com Hon. TELELE Kaika Saningo’ole (MP) 2009 The violation of Human Rights in the Relocation of Pastoralizations from Loliondo Ngorongoro District. Ngorongoro District Council HUMAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES ASSOCIATION (HUDESA) 2014 Project Proposal for Gairo Agro‐Pastoralists Land Rights Improvement (GAPALARI Project) Submitted to: CARE Tanzania Kilosa, Morogoro IDC LTD 2013 Pastoralist Market Report Bagamoyo, Tanzania INTERNATIONAL WORK GROUP FOR INDEGENOUS AFFAIRS (IWGIA) 2007 Human Rights 43rd Ordinary Sesssion Ezulwini, Kingdom of Swaziland IWGIA 2015 Ethnic Violence in Morogoro Region in Tanzania Briefing Note Classensgade 11 E, DK 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark www.iwgia,org IWGIA REPORT 23 2016 Tanzanian Pastoralists Threatened IWGIA with PINGO’s Forum, PAICODEO and UCRT ISBN: 978‐87‐92786‐66‐1 www.iwgia.org KATIBA INITIATIVE (Kai) 2014 Constitution Booklet [email protected] KIKUNDI CHA VIJANA WAFUGAJI (BAFODA) 2016 RE: Pastoralist Eviction in Razaba Area


171

To District Commissioner Bagamoyo KINNAPA DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2012 Pastoralist Resource Access Project Submitted to: Care International Tanzania Arusha, Tanzania KIPOBOTA Clarence 2009 In the Matter of THE Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 as Amended from Time to Time The High Court of Tanzania, Main Registry Dar es Salaam KIPOBOTA Clarence. 2012 Legal Opinion to Loliondo Conflict. Ngorongoro District Council. KIPOBOTA Clarence. 2013 The State of Pastoralists’ Rights in Tanzania Parakuio Pastoralists Indigenous Community Development Organization 978‐9987‐9726‐1‐6 www.iwgia.org KIPOBOTA Clarence. 2015 Socio‐Economic Contribution of Pastoralism as a Livelihood System in Tanzania Draft, PINGO’s Forum Study Report Arusha www.iwgia.org KIRONDE J. Prof LUSUGGA M. 2012 Natural Resources and Conflict Management: The Case of Land Land Policy Initiative (LPI) Dar es Salaam KITABU G. 2014 Inclusive Land Use Plan Needed for Farmers, Herders in Kiteto www.ippmedia.com KITABU G. 2014 Government Takes Blame on KitetoKillings www.ippmedia.com KITABU G. 2016 How Police, Wildlife Officers Terrorise Villagers with Bogus Charges www.ippmedia.com LANE Charles 1990 Barbaig Natural Resource Management: Sustainable Land Use under Threat of Destruction


172

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Discussion Paper 12 LISSU Tundu 2000 Policy and Legal Issues on Wildlife Management in Tanzania’s Pastoral Lands Ngorongoro Conservation Area www.elj.warwick.ac.uk LUGOE Furaha N. 2007 Linkages between Lands and Agricultural Polices and Strategies and their Effects on Food Production Dar es Salaam Institute of Land Administration and Policy Studies, DILAPS www.dilaps.or.tz LUGOE Furaha N. 2011 Aligning and Harmonizing the Livestock Policy with the Land Regulatory Mechanism in Tanzania Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) Dar es Salaam, TANZANIA

MAKOYE Kizito 2014Tanzania Struggles to End Clashes between Farmers and Herders IPS www.ipsnews.net

MAKOYE Kizito 2016 Tanzania Farmers, Pastoralists Launch Forum to Resolve Water Conflicts IPS www.ipsnews.net MALLYA Usu 2009 RE: The Visit of FEMACT to the Villages where Homes were burned in the Loliondo Area Conceded to Hunting FemAct to Ngorongoro DC Dar es Salaam www.tgnp.org MASSOI Lucy Willy 2015 Land Conflicts and the Livelihood of Pastoral Maasai Women in Kilosa District Of Morogoro. Mzumbe University (MU) www.researchgate.net MGWENO Gladness (COSITA) 2013 Babati Pastoralists’ Land Right Project Submitted to: CARE International Tanzania Babati, Manyara MINISTRY OF LANDS AND HUMAN SETTLEMENTS DEVELOPMENT


173

1997 National Land Policy Second Edition Dar es Salaam MONBIOT George 1994 The Scattering of the Dead Guardian 23rd November Dar es Salaam MVOMERO District Council 2016 The Land Sector Report for Mvomero District to the Minister of Land, Housing and Human Settlement Hon. William Lukuvi Morogoro MWAMBENE P L, MBWILE R P, HOEGGEL F U, KIMBI E C, MATERU J, MWAIGANJU A, MADOFFE S. 2013 Assessing Dynamics of Forced Livestock Movements, Livelihoods and Future Development Options For Pastoralists/Agro‐Pastoralists in Ruvuma and Lindi Regions, in the Southern Tanzania Tanzania Livestock Research Institute (TALIRI) Uyole – Mbeya, Tanzania MWAMFUPE Davis 2015 Persistence of Farmer‐Herder Conflicts in Tanzania International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 5, Issue 2, February 2015 1 ISSN 2250‐3153 www.ijsrp.org MWARABU Adam Ole 2011 The State of Pastoralists’ Human Rights in Tanzania PAICODEO Tanzania MWENDERA Emmanuel 2010 Situational Analysis for Water and Wetlands Sector in Eastern and Southern Africa International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office (ESARO) Nairobi, Kenya MWINYI Ramadhan M. (Ambassador) 2013 Government Statement on “African Region” NAADUTARO (PASTORALISTS’ SURVIVAL OPTIONS) 2012 Project Proposal: Contemplating on Climate Resilient Pastoralism: A Climate Change Awareness Project among Pastoralists Submitted to: CARE International Tanzania Kibaya Manyara NANGIRIA Samwel.


174

2008 Resource Based Conflict in Ngorongoro District. Ngorongoro District Council. NATIONAL LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION & NGORONGORO DISTRICT COUNCIL 2011 District Land Use Framework Plan (2010‐2030) Ngorongoro District NDIKA G.A.M. (Judge) 2015 Land Case No. 162 of 2012 (Judgment) In the High Court of Tanzania Land Division NGORISA Elias, TIMAN Tina, KULINJA John, TIMAN Mathew & MINIS Loserian 2014 Press Release on the Government Stand on Intention to Evict Maasai Ngorongoro, Arusha OECD “Overview of progress and policy challenges in Tanzania”, (2013) inOECD Investment Policy Reviews: Tanzania 2013, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204348‐6‐en https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural‐survival‐quarterly/tanzania/dispossession‐and‐land‐tenure‐tanzania‐what‐hope‐courts ODHIAMBO Michael Ochieng 2008 Conflicts in Ngorongoro District: Causes, Consequences and Possible Solutions Ngorongoro District Council. PINDA Mizengo P. (MP) 2013 Conflict Involving Loliondo Game Controlled Area Letter to the Regional Commissioner for Arusha Hon. Magesa S. Mulongo Dodoma PINGO’s FORUM 2016 Presentation on the Situation of Pastoralists and Hunter‐gatherers Communities To Members of Parliament Morena Hotel Dodoma PHILEMON Lusekelo. 2011 Loliondo Residents Fault Land Use Plan. Ngorongoro District Council. POROKWA Edward, EUSEBI Anna, MSAMI Andrew 2007 The Impact of National Policies Processes on Pastoralism in Tanzania IUCN The World Conservation Union PRESIDENT’S OFFICE 2007 The Functions and Organisation Structure of Regional Secretariats www.pmoralg.go.tz


175

SAFARI Thomson 2016 Maasai Pastoralists Filed a Claim in Tanzania against Tanzania Breweries (TB) and Tanzania Conservation Ltd (TC) http://thomsonsafris.wordpress.com SAKI Frank (UMAKWA) 2012 Project of Land Rights and Conflict Resolution between Pastoralist and Farmers Submitted to: The Country Director, CARE International Tanzania Dodoma, Tanzania SEMBERYA Daniel 2014 Farmers, Pastoralists Conflicts: Where have we failed Source The Guardian 15th January 2014 http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/?l=63745 SENDALO D.S.C. 2009 A Review of Land Tenure Policy Implications on Pastoralism in Tanzania Department of Livestock Research, Training and Extension Ministryof Livestock Development and Fisheries

SHEM Martin N 2010 Impacts of Government Policies on Pastoralist Livelihoods in the Semi‐Arid Areas of Tanzania Department ofAnimal ScienceandProduction Sokoine University of Agriculture CHUO KIKUU Morogoro, Tanzania Email: [email protected], [email protected]

SUNDET Geir 2004 The Politics of Land in Tanzania legacy.landportal.info TANZLER Dennis & ALTENBERG Joran 2010 Toolkit and Guidance for Preventing and Managing Land and Natural Resources Conflict Adelphi Research, Berlin TANZANIA NATURAL RESOURCE FORUM & MALIASILI INITIATIVES 2011 Integrating Pastoralist Livelihoods and Wildlife Conservation Options for Land Use and Conflict Resolution in Loliondo Division, Ngorongoro District www.oxfam.org.uk TANZANIA Daily News 2014 Tanzania: Ten to Probe Kiteto Land Dispute www.allafrica.com TECH Tetra ARD 2012 East Africa Regional Conflict and Instability Assessment USAID


176

TENGA Ringo, MATTEE Amon, MDOE Ntengua, MNENWA Raymond, MVUNGI Sengondo& WALSH Martin 2008 Options for Pastoralists to Secure Their Livelihoods in Tanzania Current Policy, Legal and Economic Issues Volume One: Main Report THE CITIZEN NEWS PAPER 2014 Why Land Clashes Continue Unabated in Kiteto District www.thecitizen.co.tz THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING 2014 Education and Training Policy Dar es Salaam THE MINISTRY OF LANDS AND HUMAN SETTLEMENTS 1997 National Land Policy Dar es Salaam, Tanzania THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND TOURISM 1999 National Tourism Policy Government Printer Dar es Salaam, Tanzania UBWANI Z. 2014 Why land clashes continue unabated in Kiteto District www.thecitizen.co.tz UMWEMA GROUP 2013 Project Proposal for: Land Rights and Conflict Resolution between Local Pastoralist and Farmers Submitted to: Care Tanzania Mvomero, Morogoro UNECA 2012 Natural Resources and Conflict Management: The Case of Land Sub‐Regional Office for Eastern Africa Addis Ababa, Ethiopia UNESCO 2014 How can a Communication be sent to UNESCO? UNESCO’s Procedure for Dealing with Alleged Violations of Human Rights http://portal.unesco.org/ UN DPA & UNEP 2015 Natural Resources and Conflict: A Guide for Mediation Practitioners United Nations Department of Political Affairs and United Nations Environment Programme ISBN: 978‐92‐807‐3433‐1 http://www.unep.org


177

USAID 1997 Conflict Mediation Mechanisms www.usaid.gov WALSH Dr. Martin 2007 Pastoralism and Policy Processes in Tanzania Mbarali – Mbeya‐ Tanzania WOMEN DEVELOPMENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION (WODSTA) 2013 Proposal on Pastoral Land Use Conflict Resolution and Advocacy Project – Phase Two Submitted to: CARE International Arusha, Tanzania YAMANO Takashi & DEININGER Klaus 2005 Land Conflicts in Kenya: Causes, Impacts, and Resolutions Foundation for Advanced Studies on International Development/National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies FASID Discussion Paper 2005‐12‐002 POLICIES MINISTRY AND DISTRICT DOCUMENTS, LETTERS & NEWS ARTICLES 1977 The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 2002 THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT CAP 283 Principal Legislation www.judiciary.go.tz 2006 THE MEAT INDUSTRY ACT No 10 2008 THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT Arrangement of Sections 2009 The List of the Effects of the Operation to Remove Pastoralists From One of the Hunting Blocks within Loliondo Reserve from 4th of July to 25th of September 2009. Ngorongoro District Council OCD NGORONGORO 2009 Request for Approval for Demonstration Women from Piyaya Soitsambu, Ololosokwani, Olorien, Maalon And Arusha Ngorongoro District

Council

2010 THE GRAZING LAND AND ANIMAL FEED RESOURCES No 10 Arrangement of Sections 2010 Loliondo Land vs Tourism Conflict Arusha Tanzania www.ejatlas.org


178

2012 Agriculture Project. Kiteto District Council. 2012 Mvomero District Profile Draft. Mvomero District Council. 2013 Kiteto District Profile. Kiteto District Council. 2013 Prime Minister Letter. Ngorongoro District Council. 2013 Statement by H.E Ambassador Ramadhan M. Mwinyi, Deputy Permanent Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania to the United Nations. New York. 2014Government Told People of Loliondo That It Cares and Promise to Serve Them Directorate of Communication White House Ngorongoro District Council 2014 Press Release on the Government Consistent Stand on Intention to Evict Maasai. Ngorongoro District Council. 2014 Quick Press Release on Loliondo Land Conflict Community Representatives from Loliondo and Sale Divisions

Ngorongoro District Council 2016 Kiteto DC Data collected from Court Kiteto, Manyara 2016 Pastoral Women Rights Violations 2004 PINGO’s Forum Presentation on the situation of Pastoralists and Hunter‐gatherers communities at a meeting with Members of Parliament held At Morena Hotel, Dodomaon 31st January , 2016. The Politics Of Land In Tanzania GeirSundet December


179

ANNEX 10: LIST OF AVAILABLE APPENDICES

1.1 Situational Analysis Field Work Itinerary 1.2 Signed Meeting, Training & Workshop Registers 2.1 IDC MN on Hanang vs NAFCO 2.2 MDA Min of Livestock Vision & Mission 2.3 MDA Disease Control 2.4 MDA Development Programme 2.5 Kiteto District Investment Profile 2.6 IDC Usungu Evictions Stats 2.7 Land Laws in Tanzania Bibliography 4.1 Kiteto District 4.1.1 Kiteto District Documents Listing 4.1.2 Kiteto Public Services & Infrastructure Graphs 4.1.3 Water Projects ENG & SWH 4.1.4 Partimbo Stats 4.1.5 District Responses 4.1.6 Main Survey Kiteto 4.1.7 Kiteto Conflict Survey 4.1.8 Kiteto DC Land conflict Court Cases ENG & SWH 4.1.9 Kiteto District Cooperatives ENG & SWH 4.2 Mvomero District 4.2.1 Extract from IWGIA Report 4.2.2 Population of Hembeti Ward 4.2.3 District Profile Formalization Plan 4.2.4 Land Conflicts in Mvomero 342.5 Mvomero Villages and Ward 4.3 Ngorongoro District 4.3.1 Brief Loliondo Timelines 4.3.2 MN Loliondo Land Officer 4.3.3 MN Loliondo Council Chairman 4.3.4 Brief Wasso Village V1 4.3.5 MN Enguserosambu Village PSTC 4.3.6 MN Enguserosambu V5 3.3.7 MN Loliondo Maaloni Village 4.3.8 Loliondo Maps 4.3.9 MN Loliondo Enguerosambu 4.3.10 Loliondo Public Services 4.3.11 MN Loliondo District Veterinary Officer 4.3.12 MN Loliondo Land Officer 4.3.13 MN Loliondo Lopolun Village 5 Recommendations 5.1 Mkomazi Game Reserve Wikipedia Extract 5.2 MDA Min Livestock Organigram 5.3 MVIWATA & ILS NES Workshop 5.4 IWGIA Report 23 Recommendations Extract