Tanzania: Villagers Up in Arms Over Sold Farm Sold to US Investors Options

[Ross]

allafrica.com reports:

A team of journalists who at the weekend toured the area found out that the investor has since blocked the pastoralists from grazing their animals in the farm.
Maasai people who spoke to journalists at Soit Sambu village said after the farm was dubiously sold to Thomson Safaris, the firm has also barred headers from accessing water found only in the farm.

You can res the arest of the article by clicking on the link

[Ross]

allafrica.com reports:

A team of journalists who at the weekend toured the area found out that the investor has since blocked the pastoralists from grazing their animals in the farm.
Maasai people who spoke to journalists at Soit Sambu village said after the farm was dubiously sold to Thomson Safaris, the firm has also barred headers from accessing water found only in the farm.

You can res the arest of the article by clicking on the link

[Nyamera]

Thanks for the link, Ross. It looks like this kind of thing is happening all the time. Local people have been treated like dirt, but to conservationists Thompson Safaris will be heroes as they’ve increased the percentage of protected land, and that’s what matters. If some slight muttering would be heard, they just have to say that they’re supporting a local school and the silence will be complete.

[Atravelynn]

This really undermines the premise that tourism can benefit the community. What are these displaced people going to do?

[safariguy]

just chiming in here. When the brewery company left the land a while back, there was a local Kenyan Maasai woman that encouraged all locals to squat on the land and use it for their benefit. Not a big deal, because the land wasn't being used. But when the legal title was transferred to Thomson Safaris, suddenly it is an issue. TS has been working out a way to build some dams and water catchment facilities for the locals and their grazing, but somehow this was never reported. And the local village is also receiving benefits in other ways through employment.

Completely one-sided article that does not tell the whole story. Sad, really, as it seems to be written with the purpose of getting people angry at one party. Seems to be working. Thomson wants to return the area back to wilderness, and grazing wildlife doesn't accomplish this goal. There are wild dogs in the area, and this specific community has 'issues' with the presence of the dogs. Could this be an ulterior motive to drag Thomson Safaris' name through the mud, in the case that the village doesn't want the presence of wild dogs? You be the judge.

[Nyamera]

Safariguy, it looks like the story about the “school” (water catchments etc.) is already in the making. I have very insufficient information about this story and about history and politics in Tanzania, but, with just some basic knowledge of the history of conservation in Tanzania, I’m far better informed than the immense majority of caring tourist that believe conservationists and tourist industry are always the good guys. This thread is really about the side that’s never heard. Now when you’ve mentioned dogs (probably very much exaggerating their part in this conflict), I suppose they can shoot as many villagers as they feel like without upsetting anyone.

[safariguy]

I totally agree that there are two sides to the story. And I anticipate that any firing of weapons was not authorized or approved of. That would really surprise me, as the Thomsons just aren't like that. Just for disclosure, Thomson Safaris is the safari outfitter for some of my safaris that I lead each year. I have built a nice relationship with them, and have learned quite a bit about the safari industry because of them.

[Guest_nyama_*]

[EDIT]

Since Andy has revealed his relationship with Thomson Safaris I've removed my original post here.

[Koda]

I may get roasted for saying this, but are the villagers not basically squatters in this particular situation? The farm was a privately owned TBL plot which was then left unused for a few years. While it was not being used, some locals decided to use it as it was handy for them. Now the privately owned land has been transferred to new ownership, and these owners intend to use the land as they are legally entitled to do so. The villagers are no doubt finding the situation very inconvenient as they had gotten used to using the area as they wished. However, they have no legal right to use the land if the legal owners say it is not ok. If they do not comply with this, they are then trespassers.

If there was a disused farm in the UK that was being used by some locals to graze sheep (which I have seen happern), and then the new USA owner decided to use the farm, there would be no question that the local sqatter must remove the sheep immediately. That is, unless the squatter had been there for a sufficient number of years to claim squatters rights.

Anyway, my main point here is that the article does seem to present a rather one sided view, and is clearly written with the angle of evoking sympathy for the locals. However, they legally had no right to ever use the private land, they just got lucky that it was unused for a while, but now the status quo has changed and that does not suit them.

If I am totally wrong on this, then please correct me. Just raising an alternate view...

[predator]

I think you've made a very valid point Koda. If the people grazing and watering livestock on the farm dont own it then they have no legal right to use it as it is private property belonging to someone else.

This is nothing to do with conservation or tourism - this is a simple matter of property law - if land is privately owned then the owner is able to restrict access to their land.

If the sale is proved to have been done illegally or without going through the proper channels then Thomson are likely to lose the land, but this doesnt give the local people the right to use the land. The only way to do that is to make it communal land.

If there is a lack of suitable water sources in the area then that is a separate issue that the govenment needs to address to avoid future problems.

[Guest_nyama_*]

That is, unless the squatter had been there for a sufficient number of years to claim squatters rights.

In "3.2 Community Experience in Natural Resource Conservation And Land Conflict: The Case of Soitsambu Village, Loliondo." of http://pingosforum.org/Docs/equator_workshop_report.pdf (page 15) it says that the land has been unused by the previous owner for over 12 consecutive years.

[Nyamera]

Even if Thompson Safaris have got the ownership of this land in a legally correct manner, which I doubt – some village leaders gave the land to TBL without villagers’ participation, but it didn’t cause to many problems as TBL just farmed a little bit for a year and then didn’t do anything for 12 years until they decided to sell the land - I think they have a duty to see what’s happening around them. I just can’t understand the kind of teenage reasoning of “if it’s your private property you can do whatever you feel like doing”. Thompson and others involved must understand that people living close to wildlife has been treated like something very much less than citizens when they’ve been evicted to give place to national parks and private businesses. They’re under very high pressure as there’s not enough land and naturally there’s resentment against conservation. Of course, Thompson is in this to make money, but it looks like they also want to be seen as caring about wildlife. Then they must understand than treating people under pressure that have been grazing their animals for years on this land as trespassers can only lead to more resentment that will hurt wildlife. Btw, it must be against Tanzanian law to shoot at “trespassers”.

[safariguy]

Nyamera, why all the negativity? Unless you have specific information, it appears that you are responding only to accusations and hearsay? Why do you doubt that the land wasn't purchased legally? You don't know Rick and Judi if you think they they are just in this to make money.

[predator]

I just can’t understand the kind of teenage reasoning of “if it’s your private property you can do whatever you feel like doing”.

Anyone in the world who buys land has the right to control who uses that land - I guess your home has locks so you can control who comes in and out of your house ?
This is the same situation - people have bought some land - not from a village, but from a brewery, and they are being attacked for not letting everyone who lives nearby use it how they want.

The law is pretty much the same around the world, if you own land and use it in accordance with any laws that apply then you are able to restrict access to people you choose to allow onto the land. If you were to say that this didnt apply then why would anybody buy land - they could just use other peoples land without fear of being kicked out.

Thompson and others involved must understand that people living close to wildlife has been treated like something very much less than citizens when they’ve been evicted to give place to national parks and private businesses. They’re under very high pressure as there’s not enough land and naturally there’s resentment against conservation. Of course, Thompson is in this to make money, but it looks like they also want to be seen as caring about wildlife. Then they must understand than treating people under pressure that have been grazing their animals for years on this land as trespassers can only lead to more resentment that will hurt wildlife.

I'm sure the new owners would like to work with the villagers to find a solution - no landowner wants conflict with their neighbours, but equally they do need to enforce their legal rights - after all they have bought the land !

In my view the wildlife aspect is irrelevant at this stage - the dispute is nothing to do with the owners plans - it is purely about villagers wanting to graze cattle and water them on land that doesnt belong to them. If the new owners had bought it to grow crops or raise cattle the dispute would still exist as they'd still have to bar the villagers from the land.

My guess is that things will be resolved - if nothing else then a Safari company is going to be employing staff who live locally. If its a hunting company then there will be meat for the villagers. Once the villagers see benefits then there is room for compromise. If the biggest issue is water then maybe an agreement will be reached to provide an alternative water source.

Btw, it must be against Tanzanian law to shoot at “trespassers”.

Well if you read the article you will see it was the police who shot the villager. Yes there were armed guards there (like many parts of Africa), but it was the police who did the shooting....

Recently, a pastoralist who ventured into the farm was shot at close range by a policeman guarding the farm.

Its important to accept that we have only heard one side of the story, and that newspapers are notorious for making a story as controversial as possible to sell more papers.

I would be surprised if the sale was "dodgy" - after all this is not case of buying some communal land from a corrupt official, this is buying land that was already privately owned, from its owner, a brewery.

[Nyamera]

Nyamera, why all the negativity?

Because Thomson Safaris have very heavy-handedly blocked people from grazing their animals where they’ve been doing this for over 12 years, and because I’ve read about so many stories similar to this. I’d be a lot more cheerful if I had a nice relationship with some safari company, but then there would be a risk that I’d not want to know the truth about this. Now I’m trying to find more information.

Anyone in the world who buys land has the right to control who uses that land - I guess your home has locks so you can control who comes in and out of your house?

Predator, your parable has no relevance whatsoever. It’s more like if I had been grazing my goats on a piece of land in Thailand and was completely dependent on these goats for my survival. Years ago my drunkard husband had, without consulting me, given the land away to someone who was going to open a bar. The barman just put up a beer-selling stand for a while and I’d continued grazing my goats until many years later the barman sold the land to a Norwegian. This Norwegian was very aware of the situation and was a great lover and benefactor of Thailand. Now he wanted to set up an eco theme park on the land and he wanted no goats there. I still thought, quite rightfully, that it was my grazing land and as my goats were bleating I continued grazing them on the land until one day when a local policeman who was working as a guard for the Norwegian shot me. While I was in hospital my goats died. Then, an expert Thailand lover came up with a perfect solution: I should be given employment as a toilet scrubber at the eco theme park. Thereafter everything was pure harmony?

[predator]

The villagers are bound to manipulate the story to make them look like poor downtrodden people, but take a quick look how many cattle they have - around 12,600. That is a huge amount of cattle, and even if you divide it by say 200 people thats still 600 cattle per person.

No farm is likely to be able to support both wildlife and that number of cattle, so either the wildlife or the cattle lose out.

Nyamera, if you had purchased the land with the intention of using it for wildlife, how would you handle this problem. Its easy to accuse people of doing it wrong - its a lot harder to find a perfect solution. You seem to have decided that the Thomson safari company is the villain, but surely they are victims too - they almost certainly bought the land in good faith and now find themselves in this situation.
How do you know the proper processes didnt happen ? You dont. The Land was sold to the brewery over 20 years ago and villagers werent able to use the land (while the brewery grew crops), so if the processes hadnt been followed then, why didnt somebody do something then ? Probably because the processes were followed. With the recent sale the land was not "stolen from locals" as they didnt own it - it was sold by one company to another company.

If this company hadnt purchased the land, someone else would have - and the results would be the same as nobody is likely to spend a lot of money on land to have it used for profit by the neighbouring people at your expense.

I'm quite certain that the shooting incident was not the first clash between the villagers and the police and farm staff. The villagers would have been made aware of the fact that they were no longer allowed to graze their cattle there, but they clearly chose to ignore that and went back. I dont believe the policeman would have shot someone for no reason - but obviously the villagers wouldnt admit to attacking him or threatening him, but why else would he shoot if not for self defence ? He knows that if he shoots without justification then he is in big trouble.

I did not say that giving some people jobs was the solution - I just pointed out it was one benefit. The only way to get a good solution is to look at grazing and water issues. If as the article claims (and I doubt) the only water source is on this farm, then part of any solution must be to provide alternative places to water the cattle. Alternative grazing sites are also essential.

Problems like this are inevitably going to get worse as populations grow and formerly nomadic people stop moving around with their cattle following the rains and the grazing, and choose to live in a single place which puts more pressure on the resources in that area.

Yes the local people have justified grievances, but that doesnt give them the right to ignore the law and use other peoples land how they want.

[Guest_John Milbank_*]

The land was sold to the brewery over 20 years ago

I keep seeing this line, but I thought I read that some of the village elders gave the land to the brewery without consulting their people. Which is correct? And what sort of conditions-- verbal or written, if any-- applied to the 'gift' or 'sale'? Then, it seems that when the brewery stopped using the land, there must have been some kind of agreement or understanding which enabled the people to graze their stock on it for many years...because the brewery didn't object. It also seems to me that unless that agreement or understanding was formally ended by the brewery and the people (before the sale to the safari company), then it surely has some legal weight after such a long period-- even with a change of land use as planned by the safari company.

I don't think any of us know enough about both sides of the story to pass judgment on either party. I feel sympathy for the local people who on the face of it seem to have been wronged by somebody, whether it's some of their elders or somebody else. And the safari company might be a tad unfortunate, too, though they must have realised there may have been an agreement or understanding in existence with the people. Did they explore that before buying the land?

[safariguy]

Debates like this are good and healthy. Especially when we all know who each other is, and what we have in the game.

Nyamera, who are you and what is your role in the safari industry?

[Atravelynn]

In a year or so I'd like to know what has happened to those who were grazing on the land and who all is employed in this camp--the toilet scrubbers on up. Also how the wildlife is doing. For answers on the wildlife, the time frame may be more than a year. Two steps forward, one step back and some people getting stepped on.

I like to read the insights and information you all provide that elaborates on the news.

[Nyamera]

Nyamera, if you had purchased the land with the intention of using it for wildlife, how would you handle this problem

Predator, I would know, just as Thomson Safaris must know, that I’d bought land with cattle on it. If I wanted to have only wildlife and tourists I’d have to negotiate with the cattle owners, giving them good enough compensation for not using parts of the land, which could be very difficult as there’s an acute land shortage and I’d expect and accept the land to be “invaded” in times of drought.

Re. the “bias” of the article: the newspaper was probably contacted by the villagers who wanted to tell what was happening, the journalists went there, talked to some villagers, to the deputy farm manager who must be a Thomson representative and who said that

since the farm was handed over to the investor they have faced trouble to stop pastoralists from taking animals into the farm to graze

, then they talked to the Ngorongoro District Commissioner who described the overall situation in the area much as what I’ve heard it – then an article was written a bit too quickly making people into each others’ uncles. I don’t find it biased.

Re. TBL, the land was given away to the brewery by some leaders that didn’t consult the villagers in 1983, they farmed some of the land for one year and since 1984 they haven’t used it.

Nyamera, who are you and what is your role in the safari industry?

Andy, in my profile it says, “tourist (regular visitor)”, but I’m the future owner of Nyamera Camp. Though at the moment I’m a complete and utter nobody in the safari industry. I’m not even much of a customer as I usually contact hotels and camps myself and try to use public transport when possible.

As a psychological profile, to explain why these things upset me I could tell that before my first trip to Africa I was some kind of psychopath enjoying the thought of poachers being shot on sight and wildlife being more important than human rights. In 2003 I went to Kenya for the first time and, as tourism was low, people had the time to talk about the dirty reality instead of singing Jambo Bwana all the time and I heard some things that made me think. Then I read No Man’s Land by George Monbiot about what was going on in the 90s and Fortress Conservation by Dan Brockington about Mkomazi Game Reserve and celebrity conservationists. I’m constantly trying to inform myself about what’s going on in East Africa and I’m constantly irritated over that people who are more engaged than I am are even less informed.

Jim Igoe from the University of Colorado in Denver has written, among other things, an article about what’s going on in Tanzania and I’m a member of his fan club. The conflict between Grumeti Reserves Ltd. and Robanda Village is mentioned and I think I remember that Thomson Safaris was one of the 3 companies that Robanda preferred to have a partnership with and now I’ve got the impression that Thompson want their own mini-Grumeti Reserves.

I was going to link to the article, but now I just can’t find it! It’s called “Human rights, conservation and the privatization of sovereignty in Africa – a discussion of recent changes in Tanzania”. I can email it if anyone is interested.

[Guest_John Milbank_*]

I would know, just as Thomson Safaris must know, that I'd bought land with cattle on it. If I wanted to have only wildlife and tourists I'd have to negotiate with the cattle owners

the safari company... must have realised there may have been an agreement or understanding in existence with the people. Did they explore that before buying the land?

This is the most important question to me. I'm no legal expert, but it seems it could be the weakness in the safari company's argument if they did not cover all bases.