THE LOOMING THREAT OF EVICTION
THE CONTINUED DISPLACEMENT OF THE MAASAI UNDER THE GUISE OF CONSERVATION IN
NGORONGORO CONSERVATION AREA

THE LOOMING THREAT OF EVICTION
THE CONTINUED DISPLACEMENT OF THE MAASAI UNDER THE GUISE OF CONSERVATION IN
NGORONGORO CONSERVATION AREAACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was authored by Andy
Currier and Anuradha Mittal. We are
grateful to all the individuals who
provided valuable documentation for
the report. Their names are not listed toensure their safety.
The views and conclusions expressed inthis publication are, however, those of
the Oakland Institute alone and do notreflect opinions of the individuals andorganizations that have supported thework of the Institute.
Design: Elijah Allen
Cover Photo: A boma in the Ngorongoro
District © The Oakland Institute
Back Cover Photo: Ol Doinyo Lengai,
the Mountain of God, Ngorongoro
District © The Oakland InstitutePublisher: The Oakland Institute is anindependent policy think tank bringing

fresh ideas and bold action to themost pressing social, economic, andenvironmental issues.
This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (CC BY-NC 4.0). You are free toshare, copy, distribute, and transmit thiswork under the following conditions:
Attribution: You must attribute the work
to the Oakland Institute and its authors.
Non-Commercial: You may not use thiswork for commercial purposes.
Translations: If you create a translationof this work, please add the following
disclaimer along with the attribution:
This translation was not created by the
Oakland Institute and should not be
considered an official Oakland Institutetranslation. The Oakland Institute shallnot be liable for any content or errors inthis translation.

All queries on rights and licenses
should be addressed to:
The Oakland Institute
PO Box 18978
Oakland, CA 94619 USA
info@oaklandinstitute.org
The Oakland Institute, 2021

INTRODUCTION
Bordering the Serengeti National Park, in Northern
Tanzania, is the Ngorongoro Conservation Area
(NCA), an area of 8,100 km2 [810,000 ha], brimmingwith rich wildlife amidst breathtaking landscape. The
NCA is the home of Maasai pastoralists, a seminomadic ethnic group, who have stewarded the areafor generations. The Oakland Institute’s 2018 report,
Losing the Serengeti,1 documented how conservation
laws have been used to dispossess the Maasai, eroding
their traditional ways of life and threatening their very
survival.
On April 16, 2021, the Ngorongoro Conservation Area
Authority (NCAA) publicly released eviction notices
to 45 people and ordered over 100 buildings to be
destroyed on the basis they lacked proper permits.2
The condemned buildings included homes, publicschools, religious centers, medical dispensaries, andadministrative offices. The occupants and owners of
the buildings were given 30 days to comply. The noticeadditionally identified over 150 “immigrants” within the
NCA as a first step towards their future removal.3
On April 20, 2021, as a result of widespread outrage
created among NCA residents, the NCAA suspended
the relocation and demolition orders “until further
notice.”4 Despite this pause, the threat of relocation
scheduled to unfold on an unprecedented scale within
the NCA looms over the communities. The Tanzanian
government has prepared a multiple land use model(MLUM) and accompanying resettlement plan.5 If
implemented, this plan would radically rezone the NCA
and remove the vast majority of residents – tens of
thousands of people – threatening the very survival of
the Maasai pastoralists who have stewarded the land
for generations.
Eviction notices issued on April 12, 2021 that were paused several days later following outrage
from NCA residents

www.oaklandinstitute.org

3

Developed to address the concerns of international conservation agencies and generate tourism revenues, the plan is
the latest chapter in Tanzanian history of displacement anddestruction of the livelihoods of Indigenous pastoralists inthe name of “conservation.”
For centuries, the Maasai have been the ancestral occupants and guardians of the land in East Africa’s Great Rift
Valley. Their lifestyle, livelihoods, and culture are dependent on the thriving surrounding ecosystems. This kind of
long-term care and conservation should be rewarded andlauded. Instead, the Maasai are fighting for their lives – facing violence, starvation, eviction, and disease, as foreign
investors and tourism enterprises seek to profit off of theirstewardship.
Under new leadership of President Samia Suluhu Hassan,
the Tanzanian government has the opportunity to change
course and respect its international obligations as a signatory of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, which states “Indigenous peoples have the rightto own, use, develop and control the lands, territories andresources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use,” and that “States

www.oaklandinstitute.org

shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands,
territories and resources, with due respect to the customs,
traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.”6 Additionally, Tanzania has commitments
under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, andCultural Rights, as well as national obligations including
the right to life, as enshrined in the country’s Constitution.7
When a government fails to uphold such national and international obligations, international scrutiny and action isnecessary. Without access to grazing lands and wateringholes, and without the ability to grow food for their communities, the Maasai are at risk of a new period of emutai(“to wipe out”). This loss – of culture, knowledge, tradition,
language, lifestyle, stewardship, and more – is unfathomably large.
But it does not have to be this way. Unlike the emutai of
the 19th century, the hardships and abuses currently facedby the Maasai can be halted. The international community
must support the struggle of the Maasai in resisting further
displacement at the hands of international conservation
agencies and the Tanzanian government. The colonizationof Indigenous land in the name of conservation must end.

4

HISTORY OF DISPLACEMENT IN THE NAME OF CONSERVATIONThe Maasai are a semi-nomadic ethnic group based in the
Great Rift Valley of East Africa, between Northern Tanzania
and Southern and Central Kenya.8 They have inhabited
the region for centuries, moving their herds of cattle withthe seasons. Oral history tells that the Maasai originatedin the Lower Nile Valley, not far from Lake Turkana, near
the present-day border of Kenya and South Sudan.9 By the
15th century, they began migrating south and eventually
settled in the vast and fertile Eastern section of the Great
Rift Valley.10
The Maasai flourished in the region, with both humanand cattle populations proliferating through the early
19th century. But with the arrival of European colonizers,
disasters hit. Rinderpest and pleuropneumonia ravaged
cattle populations, wiping out the Maasai’s main source offood. Drought, cholera, and smallpox beset communities.11
This period, known in the Maa language as emutai, “towipe out,” resulted in the drastic decline of the Maasai
population and an estimated loss of nearly 90 percent of
their cattle by the early 20th century.12

Today, the Maasai still reside in the Rift Valley. Population
estimates vary widely between a few hundred thousandto over one million.13 The past century has delivered
more threats to their survival. The privatization of land,conservation laws, and game parks have pushed the Maasai
off their traditional lands and reduced the available spacefor grazing livestock. Over time, when cattle populations
suffered for one reason or another, the Maasai haveturned to subsistence agriculture to supplement their diet.
Now is no exception as the available grazing lands havediminished.
The Maasai have been regarded as the first cattlemen,admired for the management of their herds andrelationships with wildlife and the grasslands that support
them. However, the colonial rulers, and after independence
the Tanzanian government, failed to understand thesymbiotic relationship that the Maasai have with theland. Consequently, conservation schemes, game parks,
and development strategies aimed at attracting foreign
investors have driven them off their ancestral land.

Maasai herders with their cattle inside the Ngorongoro Conservation Area © The Oakland Institutewww.oaklandinstitute.org

5Over the past century, numerous land laws – passed
first by the British colonial government and then by the
Tanzanian government, often with the support and backing
of international conservation groups – have forced theMaasai onto smaller and smaller plots of land – stifling
their livelihoods and threatening their very existence.

clear to you all that it is the intention of the government todevelop the Crater in the interests of the people who use
it. At the same time, the government intends to protect
the game animals in the area, but should there be any
conflict between the interests of the game and the humaninhabitants, those of the latter must take precedence.”19

The 1940s and 1950s, witnessed crucial restrictions
imposed in the name of conservation. By 1957, a Britishled “community of enquiry” put forth the suggestion to
split Serengeti National Park (SNP) into two regions inorder to preserve the region’s natural beauty. One region
would become present day Serengeti National Park, where
all human habitation, including the Maasai, would beprohibited.14 The second region would become known as
the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), an area of 8,292
km2 [829,200 ha] including the Ngorongoro Crater – a three
million-year-old caldera rich with wildlife, encompassing
260 km2 [26,000 ha] within walls 600 meters high.15 The
NCA was proposed as a multiple land-use area: conserving
natural resources, protecting the interests of Indigenous
groups, and promoting tourism.16

Despite these promises, the Maasai representation on the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA) did notlast long. Instead, a series of laws passed over the years
have stripped the Maasai of their rights to cultivate crops
and graze livestock, denied their right to their cultural
heritage – their very means to subsistence and survival.20
In recent years, the Tanzanian government has carried out
violent evictions of the Maasai – burning Bomas [A thornbush compound that includes a series of small huts thathouse the Maasai, and provides an enclosure for cattle],
destroying food, seizing cattle, and forcibly displacing tensof thousands from their village lands, all in the name ofpreserving the ecosystems for tourism.21

In order to enforce the plans, the colonial government
needed to persuade the Maasai, who had resided in thearea for centuries, to vacate. In exchange for leaving theplains, they were told they could inhabit the newly formed
NCA and were promised the development of better
water resources, participation in the governing of theconservation area, and more.17 The Maasai agreed to leaveon these terms.18

Restrictions on livelihood activities like home gardens
have had a destructive impact on the Maasai. As
documented in the Oakland Institute’s 2018 report,
Losing the Serengeti, food insecurity, malnutrition, anddependence on inadequate food aid have ravaged theMaasai communities.22 This history has had a devastating
effect on the Maasai – not just leading to displacementand dispossession, but eroding their traditional ways oflife and threatening their very survival.

The Governor of Tanzania (then called Tanganyika)
affirmed the rights of the Maasai in the newly formed NCA,
telling the Maasai Federal Council: “I should like to make it

A fact-finding mission in early 2021 to settlements andvillages within the NCA revealed the impact these policies
continue to have in shocking detail.

www.oaklandinstitute.org

6Women from Ngorongoro travelling to Karutu seeking maize. Credit: Anonymous Indigenous resident“We, Ngorongoro residents, do not have food. We are permanently starving because of bad policies. Driven
by hunger and poverty women and youths are leaving Ngorongoro because hunger is no longer bearable.
In distant lands women and children are victimized by criminals. Some women have died of hunger. It is
genocide against Ngorongoro pastoralists.”– Alaililai Village Resident23“About 12 years ago the Government banned cultivation of [home] gardens in Ngorongoro. The ban triggered
serious hunger and starvation among the people of Ngorongoro. We use to depend on cultivation ofsmall gardens for food self-sufficiency…Food insecurity in Ngorongoro Conservation has caused a lot of
problems. Women, especially pregnant and lactating, are poorly fed. The same is true about children andelderly people. This is in tens of thousands. It is a very hard situation. This is unacceptable.”– Nainokanoka Village Resident24

www.oaklandinstitute.org

7

TIMELINE OF LAND LEGISLATION IN TANZANIA25
1895

German Land Decree: All territorial land becomes crown land, controlled by the German Empire. Any land without evidenceof ownership or continued use is considered vacant and ownerless.

1923

Land Ordinance No 3: All land in Tanzania is considered public land and is controlled by a Governor “for the use andcommon benefit, direct or indirect, of the natives of the Territory.”

1940

Game Ordinance: Creates distinctions for national parks and game reserves, including setting the original boundaries of the
Serengeti National Park. This ordinance imposes the first restrictions on settlement and use of the lands surrounding the
SNP.

1957

Community of Enquiry: Recommends that the existing SNP be split into two parts – one (the SNP) would not allow
inhabitation; the other (the Ngorongoro Conservation Area) is designated as a multiple-use land area.

1959

National Parks Ordinance: Creates new boundaries of the SNP (based on the suggestions of the Community of Enquiry) andgives the Governor the ability to declare any land in the country as a national park. Customary rights of the Maasai in nationalparks are lost.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area Ordinance: Establishes the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. Maasai are granted settlement
rights but the governing body (Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority) is given the ability to prohibit, restrict, or control
various activities in the region, including cultivating land, grazing cattle, and creating settlement dwellings.

1961

Arusha Manifesto: Creates a specific role for international conservation groups to provide technical expertise in the planningand management of conservation areas in Africa. These groups later lobby to restrict the rights of the Maasai to cultivate,graze, and move within the NCA.

1974

Wildlife Conservation Act: Creates three types of conservation land, in addition to game parks – game reserves, partial gamereserves, and game controlled areas. Significant restrictions are placed on activities within game reserves.

1975

Ngorongoro Conservation Ordinance Amendment: Section 9A of the amendment bans all forms of cultivation within the
NCA.

1992

Prime Minister Allows Cultivation: Prime Minister overturns the ban on cultivation within the NCA. The announcement isverbal and not written into law.

1999

Land Act & Village Land Act: Replaces Land Ordinance No. 3 (1923). Land is classified into three categories: general land,
village land, and reserved land, but general land is defined differently in the two acts, creating confusion. The Village Land Act
gives the President the power to declare “village land” “reserved” or “general” land, provided that the reclassification is donein the public interest. Both were enacted in 2001.

2009

Wildlife Conservation Act: Greater restrictions are put on activities within Game Controlled Areas – including the prohibitionof crop cultivation and livestock grazing.

www.oaklandinstitute.org

8DRIVEN BY INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION AGENCIES,TANZANIAN GOVERNMENT’S NEW PLAN THREATENS SURVIVAL
OF THE MAASAI
The cycle of broken promises with dispossession and devastatedecological and biological processes in the property should remain

livelihoods of the Maasai continues today.

a priority.”28

In March 2019, a joint monitoring mission report from theDrawing from the list of recommendations from the joint monitoring

UNESCO World Heritage Centre (WHC), the International Union

mission, the Tanzanian government proposed a new MLUM andfor the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and the International

resettlement plan with the stated goal of “promoting natural

Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) visited the NCA andresources conservation, safeguarding the interests of indigenous

held consultations with local stakeholders. The mission reportresidents and promoting tourism.”29

stated: “The NCAA urgently needs to implement stringent policies
to control population growth and its subsequent impact on the26

If enacted, the plan will expand the size of the NCA from 8,100

and called on the Tanzanian

km2 to 12,083 km2 [810,000 ha to 1,208,300 ha] by including areas

government to “complete the Multiple Land Use Model review

from Loliondo Game Controlled Area (GCA), already contested in

exercise and share the results with World Heritage Centre andthe East African Court of Justice, and Lake Natron GCA.30 The plan

Advisory Bodies to advise on the most appropriate land use model,

then divides the NCA into four management zones with varying

including in the matter of settling local communities in protected

land use rules governing the areas. The proposed zones include

OUV [outstanding universal value]”

27

areas.” The report specified, “while the State Party is conducting

a conservation core zone, conservation sub-zone, transition zone,

the review of the Multiple Land Use approach, maintaining theand a settlement and development zone.31

www.oaklandinstitute.org

99

Figure 1. Boundary Alteration and Management Zones for Ngorongoro Conservation Area32

With its expansion, the new NCA reduces significantly the land

from entering the “core conservation zone,” which covers an area

available to the Maasai for pastoralism, settlements, and farmingof 3,402 km2 – 28 percent of the NCA.36 The core conservation zone

crucial to their lives and livelihoods. This is particularly devastating

will consist of areas identified for conservation, wildlife refuge, andgiven the severe food insecurity that the Maasai already face with thewater catchment, and will only be used for “tourist development” andexisting restrictions.33“research and training.”37

The proposed plan restricts nearly all human settlement andThe “core conservation sub zone” covering 1,053 km2 (9 percent) willdevelopment to 2,230 km2 – just 18 percent of the total area.34 The lackalso be primarily used for “tourist development” and “research andof resources within the “settlement and development” zone presents

training” with no settlement, grazing, or crop production permitted.38

a grave threat to the continued survival of the Maasai.

The “transition zone” covering 5,398 km2 (45 percent), prohibits
settlements and crop production while allowing “seasonal grazing for

Under the proposed plan, NCA residents would be strictly restricted

livestock.”39“The land cited for development despite its size, does not have a single water stream and is not suitable for
pastoralism. If this plan is to prevail, cows will perish in the NCA …and it will mark the end of the Maasai
community in the famous World Heritage site.”– Maasai elder 35

www.oaklandinstitute.org

10Resettlement Plan: Clearing Settlements And Relocating Immigrants & “Volunteers”
To restructure the NCA into these four zones, a new Proposedbeing non-Maasai from other parts of Tanzania.45 Included among

Resettlement for the Villages within the NCA Plan has been developed

the “immigrants” are former employees of the NCAA who remain

to relocate up to 82,000 NCA residents, including the vast majority ofin the area after retiring, as well as employees from NGOs, religious

the Indigenous pastoralists. While the full proposed resettlement plan

organizations, and members of the tourism industry. Additionally,

has yet to be made public, the Oakland Institute obtained a copy of

migrants who moved to the NCA between 1992 and 2008 when

the plan currently under review.40

cultivation bans were lifted, are also included.46

In the proposed resettlement plan, the supposed “rising population”

Aiming to resettle 40,000 people in such a short period raises

within the NCA is used as the argument to justify massive relocation

concerns about the diligence of the process and the threat of Maasai

efforts scheduled to unfold through 2027.41 Basing its estimates on

pastoralists being considered immigrants in their own land. The

series of disputed assumptions,42 the plan calculates that 40 percent

classification of NCA residents as “immigrants” has begun with listsof those living within the NCA are “immigrants,” defined as “families,

in several villages already produced.47 As feared, residents who have

which were not present and those which were not resettled in NCA

lived in the NCA for generations have reportedly been added to thefrom Moru area in Serengeti National Park when the Conservation

list.48

Area was established in 1959 and their descendants.”43 The plan thus
outlines how 40,000 “immigrants” will be identified and moved backIndigenous residents recognize the high number of migrants into theto their “place of origin” by the end of 2021.44 No details, however, areNCA and largely support their relocation. However, the resettlement

provided on how NCA residents will prove that they descended fromplan outlines a top-down approach that does not grant authority tothe original families resettled from SNP.

the local communities to control the process. Given the absence of
documentation, it will not be possible for many Indigenous to prove

Despite legal requirements to prioritize employing Maasai for jobs

that they descend from the original inhabitants of the NCA and thiswithin the park, the number employed remains exceptionally low, atplan opens the very real possibility of Indigenous Maasai forcibly

just 60 in 2017 – resulting in the vast majority of NCAA employees

relocated under this pretense.

Table 1. Resettlement Plan Settlement Classifications57“Should Be Abandoned”“Continue as Settlements with
Strict Land Use and Development
Activities”“Demarcated with physicalboundaries and given registration
numbers like any other villages in
the country”

Irtulele, Alchanimerok Alaitole,
Kayapus, Oloirobi, Masamburai,
Misigiyo, Longojoo and Kaitakitengas well as Irmelili sub-settlement of
Bulati settlement

Irkeepus, Bulati, Nainokanoka,
Nayobi, Kapenjiro, Sendui andMokilalMeshili, Ngoile, Osinoni, Kakesio,
Alailelai, Esere, Endulen, Olpiro,
Nasipooringwww.oaklandinstitute.org

11

The plan also estimates that 40,000 “destitute and very poor

strict land use and development activities but will be subject to “major

pastoralists” will be “interested to resettle out of NCA voluntarily

internal resettlement and demolishing of buildings both public and50

to specified areas.”

51

It vaguely outlines how they will be assisted

to relocate to an area with social facilities and basic infrastructure

private that are currently located in sensitive conservation areas likewildlife movement routes.”56

that the NCAA will help provide. It additionally estimates that 2,000
people will voluntarily move out and find their own place to live, once

The identification of buildings without proper permits has alreadyprovided with cash and transportation. The 42,000 “volunteers” willcommenced, as several homes, primary schools, religious centers,

be resettled by 2027, according to the plan.52

medical dispensaries, and administrative offices were condemned for
destruction, by orders issued by the NCAA on April 16, 2021.58 WhileIn addition to the tens of thousands of people marked for resettlement

the eviction orders have since been paused following opposition fromoutside of the NCA, the plan rules on the future fate of current

communities, there is no guarantee that they will not be reactivatedsettlements within the NCA (Table 1). Under Tanzania law, theany time soon.

demarcation of “village” grants communities more control over theirterritories compared to areas that are categorized as settlements.53

The resettlement plan concludes, “Future encouragement of people

While the plan recommends that nine settlements be elevated to village

to move outside NCA should focus more on proposed settlements

status,54 it also rules that nine settlements “should be abandoned.”55

and no further settlement shall be allowed.”59

The remaining seven settlements will continue to be settlements with

Complicity of International Conservation Groups
The 2019 joint monitoring mission report from the UNESCO World
Heritage Centre, the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature (IUCN), and the International Council on Monuments
and Sites (ICOMOS) exerted strong influence over the Tanzanian
government’s MLUM and resettlement plan.60 The power ofinternational conservation in determining the fate of the Maasai
spans decades, continually constraining Indigenous livelihoods.61

Joint WHC/ICOMOS/IUCN Mission report on NCA from March
2019 that called on the NCAA to review the Multiple Land Use
Approach and urgently control population growthwww.oaklandinstitute.org

12

The 1961 the Arusha Manifesto created a specific role for international

The NCA was added to the UNESCO World Heritage Site List forconservation organizations to provide technical expertise in theits natural characteristics (wildlife, ecosystem, landscape) in 1979

planning and management of conservation areas across Africa.62 Theseand again for its cultural values (paleontological and archaeologicalgroups lobbied for increasing restrictions on cultivation, grazing, andsignificance) in 2010. For both designations, the NCA resident

movement within the NCA. Throughout the 1960s, enforcement of

population was not consulted and the decision resulted in additional

these rules increased, including jail time, fines, and the confiscation

livelihood restrictions.66

of property of the Maasai. Then in 1974, the Wildlife Conservation Act
63

created three different types of conservation land outside of the alreadyThis legacy of international conservation agencies displacing andcreated game parks: game reserves, partial game reserves, and game

constricting Indigenous livelihoods continues through the influencecontrolled areas. The stipulations within game reserves precludedof the current MLUM and resettlement plan. In the stakeholder

habitation, the use of firearms and bow and arrows, the fire and felling

consultation for the MLUM review, the UNESCO Commission was oneof vegetation, and grazing without a permit – restrictions that wouldof the consulted groups that called for the total abandonment of theeventually marginalize the Maasai.

multiple land use model, and advocated for the removal of all people to64

create a Nature Reserve – while keeping the Bomas intact for “cultural
tourism.”67

Stakeholder opinions and views on the NCA model from the October 2019 Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism MLUM, Screenshot68

www.oaklandinstitute.org

13

Ignoring the fact that Maasai have lived sustainably alongside

the Maasai, but also for the internationally recognized rights ofthriving wildlife populations within the area for generations, UNESCO

Indigenous Peoples. It also contradicts UNESCO’s own assessment

advocated for an even more extreme plan than the Tanzanianthat “Cultural diversity is under attack and new forms of intolerance,

government ended up advancing. UNESCO cynically justified theirrejection of scientific facts and threats to freedom of expression

view with the fact that “relocation of Maasai will not be a new event inchallenge peace and human rights.”71

Tanzania.”69 The role played by UNESCO – a UN agency whose mottois “building peace in the minds of men and women”70 – demonstrates

The continued influence of agencies such as UNESCO is not lost on

not only its blatant disregard for the historical wrongs inflicted upon

local residents.

“UNESCO and the government of Tanzania’s plan is detrimental not only to the Maasai but also for theconservation of wildlife. Dividing the ecosystem doesn’t provide a long-term solution. It is a repeat of the
myopic actions of the British colonial government, and our challenges have continued.”– Maasai elder72

Press conference organized by local communities in response to the April eviction orders

www.oaklandinstitute.org

14

DEBUNKING THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE MLUM AND RESETTLEMENT PLAN
The justifications for the MLUM and resettlement plan ignore the historic role Maasai pastoralists have played in conservation. Instead ofincorporating their views and their needs, the plan prioritizes economic returns from the tourism industry.

MLUM and Resettlement Plan Created without Consideration for Needs of Indigenous Residents
While the Tanzanian government and NCAA claim73 that the proposed

communities. An Indigenous NCA resident echoed this concern: “WeMLUM and resettlement plan were developed through consultation

were not given a chance to present our opinions on the matter. The

with Indigenous residents, the most recent version of the plan does

prepared report which will later be presented to the president does

not adequately incorporate their concerns or recommendations.

not include residents' opinions.”76

In 2017, a new Ngorongoro General Management plan began to

The Indigenous representatives who had been sidelined laterbe drafted by a group that did not include a single NCA resident.74

drafted a “Dissenting Position on the Proposed Zoning Scheme”

By August 2018, the Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources

which highlighted how “some of critical concerns expressed by the

and Tourism formed a taskforce to review the MLUM of NCA andcommunity have not been appreciated and captured by some of therecommended management options. Again, residents within the NCA

MLUM team,” during the development of the plan.77 The Dissenting

were not initially included on the taskforce. Eventually, four community

Position noted, “Even with in-depth discussions and sharing ourmembers joined the taskforce after much of the document was alreadyecological knowledge, we have failed to reach a consensus on thedrafted but were reportedly “side-lined almost instantly.”75

removal of some villages from the proposed ‘core’ [conservation]zone.”78 Despite the fact that these villages did not overlap with critical

As a result, the majority of the MLUM plan was developed with[ecological] hotspots, they remained designated for abolishment bylittle consideration of opinions and viewpoints of the Indigenous

the MLUM plan.79

www.oaklandinstitute.org

15

Indigenous NCA residents have also expressed grave concern overSidelining Indigenous residents, the plan fails to incorporate their

the specific areas of land that they will be permitted to live withinbasic needs. In the MLUM “Stakeholder opinions and views on theunder the new plan. “We do not agree with zoning because we are theNCA model” section, Indigenous residents were clear in voicing theirreal conservationists,” added one Maasai NCA resident when shown

desire to be allowed to grow food, graze cattle, and build decent

the prospective MLUM plan. Another noted that despite the current

housing, while leaving the rest of the land for conservation andrestrictions that are already in place on grazing in Moru, Ngorongoro

tourism.82 Instead, they will be relegated to areas without adequate

crater, Embakaai and Ormoti – “you still want to get us out of here.

water and further restricted from growing food or grazing cattle –We are not ready.”81

crucial for their very survival.

80

Through consultative meetings and focus group discussions, the Ministry of Natural Resources andTourism collected clear suggestions from Indigenous pastoral communities on how to improve theMLUM. Their priorities included:83• Permission to build decent permanent houses according to building code that should be developed;• Maintaining MLUM with more benefits generated from tourism revenue;• Land ownership with title deeds;• Allowed to grow crops to ensure food security;• More social services in terms of water, health facilities, schools and electricity;• More grazing land including access to restricted management zones,• Reclaim encroached and excised area of NCA (192 km2);• Involvement in all issues which affect community livelihoods; and• Compensation for livestock depredation and human attacks.

Despite recording these priorities, the MLUM fails to adequately incorporate them into the new plan.

The failure of prioritizing the needs of Indigenous residents increation in 1959, local Maasai residents have been largely excluded

development of the MLUM and resettlement plan reflects theirfrom management positions in the NCAA.85 The Pastoral Council,

broader marginalization in the governance of the NCA, which dates

created to give Indigenous groups more authority over managementback decades. Past surveys given to Indigenous residents reveal thatdecisions, has not been able to exert strong influence.86 As a result,“the NCA management only superficially considers management

decisions continue to be made at the behest of “conservation” andinput from them, and in reality it fails to consider or integrate their

tourism dollars.

concerns into the management of the area.”84 Since the NCA’s

www.oaklandinstitute.org

16

Maasai Pastoralists Stewards of NCA’s Wildlife and Ecology
The impact that growing population within the NCA has supposedly

Maasai.90 Furthermore, Maasai hold great cultural respect for wildlife

had on ecological habitats and diminished wildlife populations

and do not hunt or kill animals within the NCA for sustenance.91

is one of the most prevalent myths used to justify the MLUM andresettlement plan. Claiming that the population of the NCA has

The health of wildlife populations within the NCA is not in an urgent

surpassed 100,000, the plan details how the number of people

state of decline. According to a 2020 study, the NCA currently

living in the park will be reduced to 20,000 – the alleged carrying

contains: “Approximately 25,000 large animals…the highest density

capacity necessary for the “sustainability of the NCA-MLUM toof mammalian predators in Africa including the lion population…

persevere.” The dynamic carrying capacity used in the resettlement

endangered wildlife species including the black rhino, wild dog,plan additionally lists the NCA as capable of supporting 300,000

cheetah, and elephant…” as well as “calving grounds for over 1

Large Herbivore Units (LHU) for both wild (140,000) and domestic

million wildebeest of the Great Serengeti-Mara ecosystem.”92 In 2017,

herbivores (160,000).88

the IUCN named the area the “most complex and diverse savanna

87

community on earth,” and noted that while still critical, the status of
The narrative that growing Indigenous population is responsible forthe area’s two most endangered species (black rhino and wild dog)

supposed ecological decline within the NCA ignores the finely honed

has shown signs of recovery.93 Along the same vein, the 2020 IUCN

symbiotic relationship that the Maasai have developed over centuries

World Heritage Outlook assessment of the NCA actually rated thewhich has allowed local ecology, domesticated livestock, and people

status of the area “Good with some concerns,” the second best rating

to coexist in a resource scarce environment. This local knowledge

within their system.94 The report did point to the “increase in thehas been largely credited as allowing the large mammal population

resident's population alongside their livestock and the socio-culturaland ecological diversity to grow under the stewardship of thechanges” as the greatest threat to the NCA.95

89

Black Rhino living within the NCA © The Oakland Institutewww.oaklandinstitute.org

17

The successful coexistence of Maasai pastoralists with the wildlife

while reducing plant diversity.99 These research findings are echoed bywithin the NCA is well established: “It has been shown that pastoral

pastoralists within the NCA, as explained by one community member:land and resource use has not had any deleterious effect on the NCA“Now that no burning is allowed, the Indigenous fauna have been

ecosystem. That pastoralism is compatible with wildlife conservation

suppressed thus why you see useless bushes and poisonous plants all

is today widely acknowledged. It is, therefore, obvious that there isover. The plants are radically reducing the pastures.”100

no scientific basis for continued restriction of Maasai livestock in
certain parts of the NCA, which are also crucial to their climate-driven

As poverty has increased, the Indigenous rangeland management

pastoral land and resource use.”governance rules that have ensured the long-term preservation of

96

natural resources for generations have been increasingly ignored.
The MLUM and resettlement plan cites “range degradation” and an

Research has shown that when poverty and dispossession rise, urgent“increase in invasive alien and pioneer weed species” as evidence ofneeds in the short-term result in less sustainable practices taking

the poor ecological condition of the NCA, ignoring how restrictions

precedence over Indigenous management practices.101

97

placed on traditional practices are responsible for these conditions.
For example, fire has been a crucial conservation tool used by the

Finally, the scientific basis that determined the stated “carrying

Maasai for centuries in managing the Savannah landscapes foundcapacity” of people, wild and domestic herbivores that the NCA canwithin much of the NCA. The periodic burning of grasses removed

sustainably support in the resettlement plan remains disputed.102

ticks and tsetse flies – threats to the health of both cattle and wildlife

Centuries of sustainable stewardship by pastoralists leaves the– while spurring the growth of fresh grass that allowed livestock andburden of proof on the government and conservation agencies towildlife to thrive.

concretely show how population growth among Indigenous is leading98

to environmental deterioration. They have categorically failed to prove
However, once pastoralists were restricted from certain areas,that further restricting grazing and removing Indigenous populations

mounting evidence has shown the absence of fire has allowed scrub

will positively impact the NCA ecosystem, as the opposite is likely

and woodland to take over in the Ngorongoro caldera and other areas,

closer to the truth.

making them unsuitable for herds of wild ungulates and their predators

Lion living within the NCA © The Oakland Institutewww.oaklandinstitute.org

18

Restricting Livelihoods to Create “Volunteer” Resettlement

The resettlement plan specifically outlines the relocation of 40,000 people who are
identified as “destitute” or “very poor” pastoralists and who own no livestock.103
According to the plan, people without livestock will “volunteer” to be relocatedoutside of the NCA. While poverty is undoubtedly a major issue for NCA residents,
the resettlement plan omits how current restrictions around land use and grazing
have resulted in both limited access to cattle and subsequent destitution.
The privatization of land, conservation laws, and game parks have pushed theMaasai off their traditional lands and reduced the available space for grazing cattle.
Previous restrictions on cattle grazing have decimated the health of livestock within
the NCA and frustrated Maasai pastoralists.104 Coupled with climate change induced
draughts, the impacts on cattle health have been catastrophic, as evidenced in2017, when the Ngorongoro division reported losses of 77,389 cattle, 72,881 goats
and 78,490 sheep – an estimated 70 percent of total livestock – following a severe
drought.105
Over time, when cattle populations suffered for one reason or another, the Maasai
have turned to subsistence agriculture to supplement their diet.108 However withincreasing restrictions on cultivating home gardens, hunger among the Indigenous
residents continues to grow.109
Instead of recognizing the impact grazing and cultivation restrictions have inflicted
on NCA residents and the health of the NCA, the MLUM and resettlement plan
doubles down on constraining livelihoods to create more “volunteers.” With
Starving cattle. Credit: Anonymous Indigenous NCA resident

www.oaklandinstitute.org

restrictions on cultivation and grazing, NCA residents are left with little choice but to“volunteer” even if plans detailing where they will go remain light on details.

19Burning of cattle carcasses that died during the 2017 drought106“The Government prohibited livestock from accessing pastures in many places in Ngorongoro. Livestock
without food, water and saltlicks are like sacks of skeletons. They cannot produce milk. If slaughtered they
are unpalatable. Selling them is not an option since they would not fetch good prices. So many people
have lost their livestock over the decades.”– Kayapus village resident explains the damage caused by restrictions107“If we can break the ground to lower a body, why can’t we break it for cultivation?”– Nainokanoka village resident110

www.oaklandinstitute.org

20

MLUM and Resettlement Plan Developed for Tourism Dollars not Conservation

Vehicle congestion within the NCA111

The restrictions constraining tens of thousands of livelihoods for NCA

percent of total gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019.115 In the same

residents are not about ensuring conservation but driven by tourism

year, revenues from tourism activities in Tanzania generated overrevenues within the World Heritage Site.

US$2.6 billion.116

Tourism within the NCA has exploded in recent years. The number

Tourist accommodation facilities within the NCA include six lodges, 12

to 644,155

permanent tented camps, and 48 campsites, with additional facilities

in 2017/2018113 making it one of the “most intensively visitedin the nearby Karatu district.117 According to the Ministry of Natural

This growth has made the tourism

Resources and Tourism, these facilities are no longer sufficient toof annual tourists to the NCA rose from 20,000 in 1979
conservation areas in Africa.”

114

112

sector a significant economic resource for Tanzania, contributing 10.3

satisfy the growing number of visitors.118

Map of hotels located within the NCA119www.oaklandinstitute.org

21

Figure 2. Number of Vehicles Entering Ngorongoro Crater by Year122

Between 2014 and 2018, the number of vehicles entering
the Ngorongoro Crater, one of the most popular sites
within the NCA, rose from 45,090 to 73,514 – an increaseof 63 percent.120 At its peak, the number of tourist vehicles
entering the crater can number 350 per day.121

The 2019 joint monitoring mission report from the UNESCO World

Indigenous pastoralists the government would lose 50 percent of

Heritage Centre, the International Union for the Conservation of

expected revenue by 2038.”127 By limiting settlements and areas that

Nature (IUCN), and the International Council on Monuments andresidents can access, areas available for tourism expand. While buses

Sites (ICOMOS) noted that the “number of tourist and passenger

full of tourists continue to pour into the NCA, the environmental

vehicles into the property [NCA] has increased, posing a threat

threat this poses is not being prioritized as restrictions insteadto the Outstanding Universal Value.”123 Similarly the 2020 IUCN

primarily target local residents.

Conservation Outlook Assessment of the NCA noted that the “numberof tourists and tour vehicles to the property has increased thereby

This double standard is further illuminated by restrictions on housing

disturbing the "naturalness" of the property,” and yet categorized thewithin the NCA. The 2019 joint monitoring mission report fromthreat it poses as “low.”124

the international conservation agencies expressed concern for the“emerging modern housing architecture and impact on the integrity

Despite acknowledging the rapid growth of tourism within the NCAof the landscape.”128 While recognizing that “modern architecture

and mentioning several strategies to ensure it does not negatively

and comfort are needed for better lives,” the mission subsequently

impact the health of the ecosystem, the MLUM and resettlement plan

recommended that “the existing policy should therefore be madedoes not implement specific restrictions on tourism. Several actions

more explicit as to the types of houses that can be developed inside

to mitigate the threat posed by tourism on the ecological health ofthe property.”129

the NCA have been proposed, including placing a moratorium on
additional lodges and commercial facilities along the rim of theDuring an April 2021 fact-finding mission to the NCA, residents

Ngorongoro crater and reducing the number of vehicles entering thevoiced frustration with government restrictions on their ability tocrater each day.125 However, as the MLUM notes, these actions “havebuild permanent housing structures.130 These restrictions constrain

not been well implemented.”126

NCA residents despite the fact that “there are many massive
permanent tourist accommodation facilities in the area.”131 Allowing

Financial motives likely play a role in allowing tourism’s unfetteredinfrastructure for tourism while limiting the ability of communities

growth. The MLUM plan explicitly mentions the financial stakes

to make even modest improvements to their housing reveals theconceding that: “maintaining the status quo or leaving the NCA tohypocrisy of international conservation groups.

www.oaklandinstitute.org

22

Ngorongoro Wildlife Lodge, located above the Ngorongoro Crater. Screenshot from: http://www.hotelsandlodges-tanzania.com/properties/
en/ngorongoro_index.ph132

Ngorongoro Serena Safari Lounge Guest Suite and Dining Room. Screenshot from: https://www.serenahotels.com/serenangorongoro/en/
default.html133

www.oaklandinstitute.org

23

THE WAY FORWARD
The plight of the Maasai in Tanzania is not an isolated case but rather

environmental guardians still fails to gain due recognition.”137

indicative of broader hardships faced by Indigenous worldwide.
Despite their demonstrated ability to preserve biodiversity and ensure

The failure to recognize Indigenous stewardship is perhaps nowhere

ecosystem health, the Indigenous continue to face hunger, poverty,

more clearly exemplified than by the Tanzanian government in theirloss of livelihoods, displacement, and violence.

treatment of Maasai pastoralists.

At a time where human actions threaten more than one million species

Shortly following her inauguration, President Samia Suluhu Hassan

with global extinction – a greater number than ever before – action

signaled approval for the need to take drastic measures in the NCA.

Extensive research has

In a speech on April 5, 2021, she stated: “Ngorongoro runs the risk offound that “Nature is generally declining less rapidly in indigenous

being extinct,” adding: “We agreed that Ngorongoro is an area of a135

peoples’ land than in other lands, but is nevertheless declining.”

particular kind where people and animals can co-exist. But it appears

Encompassing 22 percent of the world’s land surface, traditional

now that the number of people surpasses that of animals… I don’t

Indigenous territories coincide with areas that hold 80 percent ofknow how you’re going to relocate these people [to other areas], but

the planet's biodiversity, demonstrating that Indigenous “provide

at least you can control the population to 100,000 so that the number

must be taken to reduce biodiversity loss.

134

the most effective and sustainable form of conservation.”

136

Despitedoesn’t increase.”138

this evidence, “the important role played by Indigenous Peoples as

Speech from President Samia Suluhu Hassan on April 5, 2021. Screenshot from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W15Uza3cBjA139
www.oaklandinstitute.org

24

It is imperative that Indigenous residents of the NCA are not justThe most recent Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity andconsulted but given substantial authority over any resettlement

Ecosystems echoes this finding, concluding: “Recognizing theschemes or changes to land use regulations. Instead of prioritizing

knowledge, innovations, practices, institutions and values ofthe decisions coming from international agencies such as UNESCO

indigenous peoples and local communities, and ensuring theirand IUCN, giving proper consideration to the needs of the Maasai will

inclusion and participation in environmental governance, often

effectively ensure the sustainability of the NCA.

enhances their quality of life and the conservation, restoration andsustainable use of nature.”141

The dominant framing used by international conservation agencies
and Tanzanian government departments – that the NCA must

For centuries, the Maasai have been the ancestral occupants andeither prioritize conservation or Indigenous livelihoods – ignores

guardians of the land in East Africa’s Great Rift Valley. Their lifestyle,the evidence that empowering local communities often ensures

livelihoods, and culture are dependent on the thriving surrounding

environmental sustainability. Research has shown: “Participation of

ecosystems. This kind of long-term care and conservation should be

different communities in conservation planning can do more thanrewarded and lauded. Instead, the Maasai are fighting for their lives –meet basic human rights obligations and placate local populations

facing violence, starvation, eviction, and disease, as foreign investors

into accepting conservation. It can actually be good for conservationand tourism enterprises seek to profit off of their stewardship.142

and for maintaining the ecological integrity of an area.”

140

Overlooking the Ngorongoro Crater © The Oakland Institutewww.oaklandinstitute.org

25

The international conservation community continues to promote“recommend the best way forward to develop the area improved

land use restrictions without proven ecological benefits. But the

livelihood of the communities in the manners that both the area’s

Indigenous communities within the NCA have outlined clear steps

ecology, wildlife and pastoral livelihoods will be developed.”144

that the Tanzanian government must take to drastically improve theirlivelihoods while ensuring the sustainability of the land they have

The PINGOS Forum, representing over 50 civil society groups ofcalled home for generations.

pastoralists and hunter-gatherers, echoes many of these calls. In
addition to lifting of grazing, cultivation, and housing restrictions,

The restrictive bans on cultivation and limited area available to grazing

a 2021 report from PINGOS calls for increased representation ofhave been the driving force behind the ongoing hunger crisis facing

Maasai in NCA decision-making bodies and a higher proportion of

the Maasai. Lifting these bans will not threaten wildlife within the

tourism income to be allocated to the residents.145

NCA – given the proven record of the Maasai in sustainably balancing
the needs of livestock and wildlife for generations.

These calls are rooted in the past experience of dealing with agovernment that has failed to respect the rights of the Indigenous

In an April 2021 “Statement on the Fate of People Living in thetime and time again. Following violent government-led evictions of

the pastoral communities living in the

Maasai villagers in the Loliondo region from their legally registered

NCA called on President Samia Suluhu Hassan to take immediate

land in August 2017 which left 5,800 homes damaged and 20,000

action. Their demands begin with the halting of the implementation

homeless, four impacted Maasai villages sought recourse againstof the MLUM and resettlement plan. It also calls for the resignation

the government – perpetrator of these abuses – in the regional Eastof both NCAA Conservation Commissioner Dr. Freddy Mangogi andAfrican Court of Justice (EACJ).146 In September 2018, EACJ granted

the Minister of Tourism and Natural Resources, Damas Ndumbaro;

an injunction prohibiting the government from evicting communities,

establishment of a judicial committee to investigate the injustices,prohibited the destruction of Maasai homesteads and the confiscation

brutality, and human rights violations driven by these departments;of livestock on said land, and banned the office of the Inspector

and creation of a new “independent and participatory commission,”

General of Police from harassing and intimidating the plaintiffs,

comprised of ecology experts, human rights activists, and NCA

pending the full determination of their case. Despite the injunction,

residents, “in an equal ratio.” The commission will then work tointimidation and threats made by the government have continued.147

Ngorongoro National Park,”

143

www.oaklandinstitute.org

26

In October 2019, several United Nations Special Rapporteurs wrote tofrom forced evictions, and to ensure that any decision affecting theirformer President John Magufuli expressing concern that: “decades ofhomes and lands is taken with their free, prior and informed consent,

successive forced evictions and displacements, the shrinking of Maasai

and that any resettlement or relocation agreement includes just andpeoples’ vital space, and the lack of protection against commercial andfair compensation.” They further requested “information on whether

private interests on their remaining land has had a highly detrimental

your Government is working together with the Maasai peoples in

impact on the preservation of Maasai pastoralist culture and isorder to restore trust between parties and design a land management

now threatening the very existence of this people…”148 The Special

plan with the active participation of the Maasai to ensure conservation

Rapporteurs called on the government to provide information on theand tourism activities are performed in harmony with the rights of the“measures undertaken, legislative or otherwise, to protect the Maasai

Maasai.”149

Ol Doinyo Lengai, the Mountain of God, Ngorongoro District © The Oakland InstituteThis letter followed several earlier communications from Special

has commitments under the International Covenant on Economic,

Rapporteurs on “allegations of attacks, forced eviction, arrest,

Social, and Cultural Rights, as well as national obligations includingharassment and intimidation in the context of the use of Maasai

the right to life, as enshrined in the country’s Constitution.153

traditional lands for tourism” that the Tanzanian government
failed to respond.150 The Magufuli administration, which abruptly

When a government fails to uphold such national and international

ended following his death in March 2021, was marred by growing

obligations, international scrutiny and action is necessary. Withoutauthoritarianism and intolerance of dissent – implemented throughaccess to grazing lands and watering holes, and without thelegislation limiting the freedom of civil society and media.151

ability to grow food for their communities, the Maasai are at riskof a new period of emutai (“to wipe out”). This loss – of culture,

Under new leadership, the Tanzanian government has theknowledge, tradition, language, lifestyle, stewardship, and more – isopportunity to change course and respect its international

unfathomably large.

obligations as a signatory of the UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples, which states “Indigenous peoples have theBut it does not have to be this way. Unlike the emutai of the 19th

right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories andcentury, the hardships and abuses currently faced by the Maasai canresources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or

be halted. The international community must support the struggle

other traditional occupation or use, and that States shall give legalof the Maasai in resisting further displacement at the hands ofrecognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources,international conservation agencies and the Tanzanian government.

with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems

The colonization of Indigenous land in the name of conservationof the indigenous peoples concerned.”www.oaklandinstitute.org

152

Additionally, Tanzania

must end.

27

ENDNOTES
19

Taylor, G. and L. Johansson. Our voices, our words and our pictures: Plans, truths
and videotapes from Ngorongoro Conservation Area. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0271e/
x0271e06.htm (accessed April 20, 2021).

20

For a detailed review of these amendments and the centralization of power
see: Mittal, A. and E. Fraser. Losing the Serengeti: The Maasai Land that was to
Run Forever. Op. Cit.

21

The Oakland Institute. “The Dangerous Legacy of Fortress Conservation.”
April 18, 2019. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/dangerous-legacy-fortressconservation (accessed April 21, 2021).

22

Mittal, A. and E. Fraser. Losing the Serengeti: The Maasai Land that was to Run
Forever. Op. Cit.

23

Ndaskoi, J.N. Report of the Fact Finding Mission Conducted in Ngorongoro
Conservation Area. PINGOS Forum, April 3, 2021. https://pingosforum.or.tz/
wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Ngorongoro-Fact-Finding-Mission-Report.pdf(accessed April 20, 2021).

24

Ibid., p. 6.

25

Mittal, A. and E. Fraser. Losing the Serengeti: The Maasai Land that was to Run
Forever. Op. Cit., p. 25.

26

Moukala, E., Taruvinga, P., Zulu, T. Report on the Joint WHC/ICOMOS/IUCN
Mission to Ngorongoro Conservation Area, United Republic of Tanzania. UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre, International Council on Monuments and Sites(ICOMOS), International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), March
2019. p. 27. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/
pdfpreview/unesco-nca-report.pdf (accessed April 14, 2021).

Mittal, A. “An Open Letter to the Tanzanian Government with Regard to its
Response to the Oakland Institute’s Report, Losing the Serengeti.” Public
Letter. The Oakland Institute. June 6, 2018. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/
open-letter-tanzanian-government-response-losing-serengeti (accessed April
26, 2021).

27

Moukala, E., Taruvinga, P., Zulu, T. Report on the Joint WHC/ICOMOS/IUCN
Mission to Ngorongoro Conservation Area, United Republic of Tanzania. Op. Cit.,
p. 38.

28

Ibid., p. 27.

8

The Maasai Association. The Maasai People. http://www.maasai-association.
org/maasai.html (accessed April 12, 2021).

29

9

New World Encyclopedia. Maasai. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/
entry/Maasai (accessed February 28, 2018); Blue Gecko. Maasai – History.
http://www.bluegecko.org/kenya/tribes/maasai/history.htm (accessed April
19, 2021).

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The
Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements andLessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op. Cit., p. xii.

30

Within the MLUM report, another estimate lists the amount of land to beannexed to the NCA as 4,304km2 ande new total size to be 12,404km2. Ibid.,
pp. 96-97.

New World Encyclopedia. Maasai. Op. Cit.

31

Ibid., p. 97.

11

Blue Gecko. Maasai – History. Op. Cit.

32

12

New World Encyclopedia. Maasai. Op. Cit.

13

For the entire Maasai population across East Africa. Ibid.; The Maasai
Association. The Maasai People. Op. Cit.

In the report, the amount of land within each zone differs slightly from what
is included in the table that accompanies the map. This report lists the figures
provided in the map. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United
Republic of Tanzania. The Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation
Area: Achievements and Lessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future.
Op. Cit., p. 97.

14

Rogers, P. J. “International Conservation Governance and the Early Historyof the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania.” Global Environment, 4(2009): p. 88.

33

Mittal, A. and E. Fraser. Losing the Serengeti: The Maasai Land that was to Run
Forever. Op. Cit.

15

“Encroachment reduced the size of NCA from 8,292 km2 in 1959 to 8,100
km2 by 2006. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republicof Tanzania. The Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area:
Achievements and Lessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op.
Cit., p. 69.

34

The report lists slightly different values for the area within each zone in the
map and the text. The values included in the map are included here. Ministryof Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The Multiple
Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements and Lessons
Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op. Cit., p. 97.

16

Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority. “Welcome to the Ngorongoro
Conservation Authority.” http://www.ngorongorocrater.org/welcome(accessed April 20, 2021).

35

The Oakland Institute. “UNESCO and Tanzanian Government's Plan
Threatens the Continued Survival of the Maasai.” Press Release. October 10,
2019. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/dividing-ngorongoro-conservationmanagement-resettlement-plan (accessed April 13, 2021).

17

Rogers, P. J. “International Conservation Governance and the Early History of
the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania.” Op. Cit., p. 89.

36

18

Ibid.; Shivji, I. G. and W.B. Kapinga. 1998. Shivji, Issa G., and Wilbert B.
Kapinga. Maasai rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. International Institute forEnvironment and Development (IIED), p. 9. 1998.

Several settlements located within the “core conservation zone” are notdesignated as “should be abandoned,” by the Resettlement Plan for Villages
within the NCA plan, but will be subject to even more stringent land use rules.
The future status of these settlements remains unclear at this time. Ministryof Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. Proposed
Resettlement for Villages Within the NCA. Op. Cit.

1

Mittal, A. and E. Fraser. Losing the Serengeti: The Maasai Land that was to Run
Forever. The Oakland Institute. 2018. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/
oaklandinstitute.org/files/losing-the-serengeti.pdf (accessed April 15, 2021).

2

Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority. Notisi Ya Siku 30 Ya Kuondoka
Ndani Ya Mamlaka Ya Hifadhi Ya Ngorongoro. April 20, 2021. Available at:https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/country/tanzania.

3

Ibid.

4

Juma, M. “Activities to relocate invaders to Ngorongoro Conservation
Area have been suspended.” Mawanachi, April 20, 2021. https://www.
mwananchi.co.tz/mw/habari/kitaifa/shughuli-kuhamisha-waliovamia-hifadhingorongoro-yasitishwa-3369994 (accessed April 20, 2021).

5

6

7

10

Both plans remain under consideration at the time of publication. Ministryof Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The Multiple
Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements and Lessons
Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. October, 2019. Available at:https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/country/tanzania (accessed April 20,2021).; Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of
Tanzania. Proposed Resettlement for Villages Within the NCA. 2020. Available
at: https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/country/tanzania.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Mandates of theSpecial Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to
the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment; theSpecial Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health; the Special Rapporteur on
the rights of indigenous peoples; and the Special Rapporteur on the humanrights of internally displaced persons.” Op. Cit., p. 10.

www.oaklandinstitute.org

28

37

Annex 1 of the Tanzanian government’s proposed MLUM specifies that many
“core conservation zones” will be “restricted to communities. Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The Multiple
Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements and Lessons
Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op. Cit., p. 110.

38

Ibid., p. 112.

39

Ibid.

40

Ibid.

41

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania.
Proposed Resettlement for Villages Within the NCA. Op. Cit.

42 “Assuming an average growth rate of 3.5% per year is taken, humanpopulation would has grown from 8,000 people in 1959 to an estimated
63,025 in 2020 but in actual sense it will reach 103,262, which may men thatabout 40,237, which representing about 40% of the total population was
accounted for by immigration.” Ibid., p. 5.

61

Mittal, A. and E. Fraser. Losing the Serengeti: The Maasai Land that was to Run
Forever. Op. Cit.

62

Rogers, P. J. “International Conservation Governance and the Early Historyof the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania.” Global Environment, 4(2009): pp. 98-99.

63

Shivji, I. G. and W.B. Kapinga. 1998. Maasai Rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania.
Op. Cit., p. 13.

64

United Republic of Tanzania. Wildlife Conservation Act, No. 12, 1974. July 30,
1974. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/tan8960.pdf (accessed February
28, 2018).

65

The property was inscribed under natural criteria [landscape, wildlife,
ecosystem] in 1979 and under cultural criterion in 2010. World Heritage
Centre. Ngorongoro Conservation Area. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/39(accessed April 21, 2021).

66

Olenasha, W. "A world heritage site in the Ngorongoro conservation area:
Whose world? Whose heritage" World heritage sites and indigenous peoples’
rights (2014): 189-220. https://www.iwgia.org/images/documents/popularpublications/world-heritage-sites-final-eb.pdf (accessed April 23, 2021).

43

Ibid.

44

Ibid., p. 6.

45

Melubo, K., and B. Lovelock. "Living inside a UNESCO world heritage site:
The perspective of the Maasai community in Tanzania." Tourism Planning &Development 16, no. 2 (2019): 206. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2018.15
61505 (accessed April 22, 2021).

67

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The
Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements andLessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op. Cit., p. 95.

68

Ibid.

46

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania.
Proposed Resettlement for Villages Within the NCA. Op. Cit.

69

Ibid.

70

UNESCO. “Building peace in the minds of men and women.” https://en.unesco.org/70years/building_peace (accessed April 21, 2021).

71

UNESCO. “About us.” https://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco(accessed April 20, 2021).

72

The Oakland Institute. “UNESCO and Tanzanian Government's Plan
Threatens the Continued Survival of the Maasai.” Op. Cit.

73

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The
Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements andLessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. October, 2019, pp. xviixix. Available at: https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/country/tanzania.

74

Email Communication with PINGOS Forum, April 15, 2021.

75

Ibid.

47

NCAA. Notisi Ya Siku 30 Ya Kuondoka Ndani Ya Mamlaka Ya Hifadhi Ya
Ngorongoro. Op. Cit.

48

According to a local source who will remain unnamed for their safety whoreviewed the Eviction Notices: “There are about 115 migrants whose their
grandparents migrated to the area [a] long time [ago].”49

Dissenting Position on the Proposed Zoning Scheme. 2021. Available at: https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/country/tanzania.

50

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania.
Proposed Resettlement for Villages Within the NCA. Op. Cit.

51

“An incentive scheme including provision of descent houses in areas, where
people will settle, establishment of social facilities for education, health,water supply and electricity will also be a continuous process starting from2020. Establishment and improvement of residential houses and social
facilities will also be provided in areas to be annexed to NCA including
Gilai Meiguror Ward in Longido District and Ngaresero Village in Pinyinyi
Ward, Ngorongoro District. People will not move to new settlements until
residential houses and social services have been provided.” Ministry of
Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. Proposed
Resettlement for Villages Within the NCA. Op. Cit., p. 7.

76

Maasai Community member, name withheld for security reasons, 2020.

77

Dissenting Position on the Proposed Zoning Scheme. 2021. Available at: https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/country/tanzania.

78

Ibid.

79

Ibid.

80

Maasai Community member, name withheld for security reasons, 2020.

81

Ibid.

82

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The
Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements andLessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op. Cit., p. 95.

52

Ibid.

53

Dissenting Position on the Proposed Zoning Scheme. 2021. Available at: https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/country/tanzania.

54“Demarcated with physical boundaries and given registration numbers fordevelopment like any other villages in the country.” Ibid.

55

Ibid.

83

Ibid., p. 82.

56

Ibid.

84

57

In the October 2019 Multiple Land Use Management Review Document,
several villages received different classifications. Ibid.

Melubo, K., and B. Lovelock. "Living inside a UNESCO world heritage site:
The perspective of the Maasai community in Tanzania." Op. Cit., p. 207.

85

58

Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority. Notisi Ya Siku 30 Ya Kuondoka
Ndani Ya Mamlaka Ya Hifadhi Ya Ngorongoro. Op. Cit.

Olenasha, "A world heritage site in the Ngorongoro conservation area:
Whose world? Whose heritage." Op. Cit., p. 212.

59

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania.
Proposed Resettlement for Villages Within the NCA. Op. Cit., p. 1.

60

The Oakland Institute. “UNESCO and Tanzanian Government's Plan
Threatens the Continued Survival of the Maasai.” Op. Cit.

www.oaklandinstitute.org

86 “Moreover, while the Pastoral Council was initially intended to be anautonomous body of local people contributing to the management of
the NCA, this has not been achieved as the Pastoral Council was set up
as a branch of the NCAA. It is therefore often perceived as an arm of theNCAA rather than an independent organ safeguarding the interests of local
communities.” Ibid., p. 212.

29

87

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania.
Proposed Resettlement Plan for the Villages within the NCA. Op. Cit.

88

Ibid., p. 5.

89

Melubo, K. "Why are wildlife on the Maasai doorsteps? Insights from the
Maasai of Tanzania." AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous
Peoples 16, no. 3 (2020): 180-192. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
pdf/10.1177/1177180120947823 (accessed April 15, 2021).

90

Ibid.

91

Ibid., p. 185.

92

Ibid., p. 181.

93

IUCN. Zone de conservation Ngorongoro: 2017 Conservation Outlook.
November, 2017. https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/index.php/fr/
node/964/pdf?year=2017 (accessed April 22, 2021).

94

The four levels include: critical, significant concern, good with some concern,and good. IUCN. 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment: Ngorongoro
Conservation Area. December 1, 2020 https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/
node/964/pdf?year=2020 (accessed April 22, 2021).

95

Ibid., p. 7.

96

Lissu, T. “Policy and Legal Issues on Wildlife Management in Tanzania's
Pastoral Lands: The Case Study of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area.” Law
Social Justice and Global Development Journal. 1 (2000). https://warwick.
ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/lgd/2000_1/lissu/ (accessed April 14, 2021).

97

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The
Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements andLessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op. Cit., p. vi.

98

Melubo, K. "Why are wildlife on the Maasai doorsteps? Insights from the
Maasai of Tanzania." Op. Cit., p. 184.

99

Ibid.; Estes, R. D et. al. “Downward trends in Ngorongoro Crater ungulate
populations 1986– 2005: Conservation concerns and the need for ecologicalresearch.” Biological Conservation, 131(2006): 106–120. https:// doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.02.009 (accessed April 20, 2021).

106 Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The
Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements andLessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op. Cit. Screenshot, p.
74.
107

108 Mittal, A. and E. Fraser. Losing the Serengeti the Maasai Land that was to Run
Forever. The Oakland Institute, 2018. Op. Cit., p. 11.
109 For more on the restrictions and subsequent hunger facing the Maasai livingin the NCA see: Mittal, A. and E. Fraser. Losing the Serengeti the Maasai Land
that was to Run Forever. Op. Cit.
110

Ibid.

111

Ibid., p. 86.

112

Melubo, K., and B. Lovelock. "Living inside a UNESCO world heritagesite: The perspective of the Maasai community in Tanzania." Op. Cit.,
p. 201.; Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of
Tanzania. Hotuba ya Waziri wa Maliasili na Utalii Mheshimiwa Dkt Hamisi
A. Kigwangalla (Mb) wakati akiwasilisha Bungeni makadirio ya mapato na
matumizi kwa mwaka wa fedha. 2018.

113

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The
Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements andLessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op. Cit., p. 85.

114

IUCN. 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment: Ngorongoro Conservation Area.
Op. Cit., p. 4.

115

World Travel & Tourism Council. Tanzania 2020 Annual Research: Key
Highlights. https://wttc.org/Research/Economic-Impact/moduleId/704/
itemId/218/controller/DownloadRequest/action/QuickDownload (accessed
May 5, 2021).

116

Tanzania Invest. “Tanzania Tourism Revenues and Arrivals Slashed by Halfin 2020.” February 5, 2021. https://www.tanzaniainvest.com/tourism/
revenues-2020 (accessed May 5, 2021).

117

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The
Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements andLessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op. Cit., p. xv.

117

Ibid.

118

Ibid.

119

Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority. “Tourism Information.” Screenshot.
https://www.ncaa.go.tz/tourisminfo (accessed May 5, 2021).

100 Melubo, K., and B. Lovelock. "Living inside a UNESCO world heritage site:
The perspective of the Maasai community in Tanzania." Op. Cit.
101

Manzano, P. and L. Yamat. "Livestock sector in the Ngorongoro
District: Analysis, shortcomings and options for improvement." Wasso& Dar es Salaam: Ngorongoro District Council and GIZ (2018). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332447188_Livestock_sector_in_
the_Ngorongoro_District_analysis_shortcomings_and_options_for_improvement (accessed April 22, 2021).

102 In 2012, after a UNESCO monitoring mission suggested undertaking acarrying capacity study, fierce community opposition cancelled the study
as the mission concluded: “a study of carrying capacity should no longer
be envisaged as it is impracticable, unnecessary and could lead to serious
conflict with the Maasai pastoralist groups.” Olenasha, W. "A world
heritage site in the Ngorongoro conservation area: Whose world? Whose
heritage." Op. Cit., p. 210.; UNESCO, ICOMOS and IUCN. Report on the Joint
WHC/ICOMOS/IUCN Mission to Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Republicof Tanzania. April 10, 2012. https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/125457(accessed April 23, 2021).
103

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania.
Proposed Resettlement for Villages Within the NCA. Op. Cit., p. 7.

120 Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The
Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements andLessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op. Cit., p. 86.
121

Ibid.

122

Ibid., p. 87.

123

Moukala, E., Taruvinga, P., Zulu, T. Report on the Joint WHC/ICOMOS/IUCN
Mission to Ngorongoro Conservation Area, United Republic of Tanzania. Op. Cit.,
p. 32.

124

IUCN. 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment: Ngorongoro Conservation Area.
Op. Cit., p. 4.

125

Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania. The
Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area: Achievements andLessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op. Cit., p. xxxvi.

126

It remains unclear if additional restrictions will be implemented throughanother policy. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, United Republicof Tanzania. The Multiple Land Use Model of Ngorongoro Conservation Area:
Achievements and Lessons Learnt, Challenges and Options for the Future. Op.
Cit., p. xxxvi.

127

Ibid., p. 100.

104 Melubo, K., and B. Lovelock. "Living inside a UNESCO world heritage site:
The perspective of the Maasai community in Tanzania." Op. Cit., p. 203.
105 “When compared with the livestock count the previous year, it translates
into a total loss of 70% of livestock that can probably be extrapolated
to the rest of the district.” Manzano, P. and L. Yamat. "Livestock sector
in the Ngorongoro District: Analysis, shortcomings and options for
improvement." Wasso & Dar es Salaam: Ngorongoro District Council andGIZ (2018): p. iii. https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/livestocksector-in-the-ngorongoro-district-analysis-shortcomings (accessed April 23,2021).

www.oaklandinstitute.org

Ndaskoi, J.N. Report of the Fact Finding Mission Conducted in Ngorongoro
Conservation Area. Op. Cit., p. 8.

30

128

143

People of Ngorongoro Ward. “Statement on the Fate of People Living in
the Ngorongoro National Park.” April 19, 2021. Available at: https://www.
oaklandinstitute.org/country/tanzania.

129 Ibid., p. 21.

144

Ibid., p. 12.

130

Ndaskoi, J.N. Report of the Fact Finding Mission Conducted in Ngorongoro
Conservation Area. Op. Cit., p. 13.

145

Ndaskoi, J.N. Report of the Fact Finding Mission Conducted in Ngorongoro
Conservation Area. Op. Cit., p. 15.

131

Ibid.

132

Hotels and Lodges Tanzania Limited. “Ngorongoro Wildlife Lodge.”
Screenshot. http://www.hotelsandlodges-tanzania.com/properties/en/
ngorongoro_index.php (accessed April 27, 2021).

146 The Oakland Institute. “Maasai Villagers Win a Major Victory in the East
African Court of Justice in Case Against Tanzanian Government.” Press
Release. September 27, 2018. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/maasaivictory-east-african-court-justice-tanzanian-government (accessed April 26,2021).

133

Ngorongoro Serena Safari Lodge. “Dining.” Screenshot. https://www.
serenahotels.com/serenangorongoro/en/default.html (accessed May 5,2021).

Moukala, E., Taruvinga, P., Zulu, T. Report on the Joint WHC/ICOMOS/IUCN
Mission to Ngorongoro Conservation Area, United Republic of Tanzania. Op. Cit.,
p. 20.

134

S. Díaz et al. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on
biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services., IPBES secretariat, Bonn,
Germany, p. 14. https://ipbes.net/global-assessment (accessed April 16,2021).

135

Ibid.

136

Statement of Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Special Rapporteur on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples, at the 71st session of the General Assembly. October
17, 2016. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.
aspx?NewsID=20748&amp;LangID=E (accessed April 16, 2021).

137

Ibid.

138

Ikulu Tanzania. MHE.RAIS SAMIA SULUHU HASSAN AKIWAAPISHAVIONGOZI WATEULE IKULU DAR ES SALAAM. Video, April 5, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W15Uza3cBjA (accessed April 20, 2021).;
Oleshangay, J. “What President Samia Needs to Know About Ngorongoro.”
The Chanzo Initiative. April 14, 2021. https://thechanzo.com/2021/04/14/
what-president-samia-needs-to-know-about-ngorongoro/ (accessed April 20,2021).

139

Ibid.

147

Ibid.

148

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Mandates of theSpecial Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to
the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment; theSpecial Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health; the Special Rapporteuron the rights of indigenous peoples; and the Special Rapporteur on thehuman rights of internally displaced persons.” October 11, 2019. https://
spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunication
File?gId=24872 (accessed April 23, 2021).

149 Ibid.
150

Ibid., p. 4.

151

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. “UNexperts call on Tanzania to end crackdown on civic space.” Public
Letter. July 22, 2020. https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/
DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26117&LangID=E (accessed April 26, 2021);
Mittal, A. “Tanzania's Withdrawal from the African Court on Human andPeople's Rights.” The Oakland Institute. Blog. December 9, 2019. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/blog/tanzanias-withdrawal-african-court-humanpeoples-rights-wrong-move (accessed April 23, 2021).

152

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Mandates of theSpecial Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to
the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment; theSpecial Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health; the Special Rapporteur on
the rights of indigenous peoples; and the Special Rapporteur on the humanrights of internally displaced persons.” Op. Cit., p. 10.

153

Mittal, A. “An Open Letter to the Tanzanian Government with Regard to its
Response to the Oakland Institute’s Report, Losing the Serengeti.” Public
Letter. The Oakland Institute. June 6, 2018. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/
open-letter-tanzanian-government-response-losing-serengeti (accessed April
26, 2021).

140 Goldman, M. "Strangers in their own land: Maasai and wildlife conservationin Northern Tanzania." Conservation and Society 9, no. 1 (2011): 68. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26393126.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A516ecbdb3e2bb656e859d0827eb7c2e2 (accessed April 15, 2021).
141

S. Díaz et al. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on
biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Op. Cit., p. 18.

142

For more on the role of foreign investors, see: Mittal, A. and E. Fraser. Losing
the Serengeti the Maasai Land that was to Run Forever. The Oakland Institute,2018. Op. Cit.

www.oaklandinstitute.org

31

The Oakland Institute PO Box 18978 Oakland, CA 94619 USA www.oaklandinstitute.org