LOSING THE SERENGETITHE MAASAI LAND THAT WAS TO RUN FOREVERLOSING THE SERENGETITHE MAASAI LAND THAT WAS TO RUN FOREVERAcknowledgements
This report was authored by Anuradha Mittal and Elizabeth Fraser.
Field research was conducted by Anuradha Mittal, with assistance from several researchers and local Tanzanian organizations.
While their names are not listed to ensure their safety, we are deeply grateful for their support.
The map on page 3 was produced by Massimo Lambert-Mullen.
The views and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the Oakland Institute alone and do not reflect opinionsof the individuals and organizations that have sponsored and supported the work.
Copy Editor: Heather Blackie
Design: Amymade Graphic Design
Cover photo: Maasai herders with their cattle inside the Ngorongoro Conservation Area © The Oakland Institute.
Publisher: The Oakland Institute is an independent policy think tank bringing fresh ideas and bold action to the most pressing
social, economic, and environmental issues.
Copyright © 2018 by The Oakland InstituteThis text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy, campaigning, education, and research, provided that thesource is acknowledged in full. The copyright holder requests that all such uses be registered with them for impact assessment
purposes. For copying in any other circumstances, reuse in other publications, or translation or adaptation, permission must
be secured.
For more information:
The Oakland Institute
PO Box 18978
Oakland, CA 94619 USA
www.oaklandinstitute.org
info@oaklandinstitute.org

Tanzania

3Terms & Acronyms
Boma		

A thorn-bush compound that includes a series of small huts that house the Maasai,and provides an enclosure for cattle.

CCRO

Certificates of Customary Right of Occupancy

CSO

Civil Society Organization

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FEMACT

Feminist Activist Coalition

GCA

Game Controlled Area

GMP

General Management PlanHa

HectareICESCRInternational Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

IUCN

International Union for Conservation of Nature

LGCA

Loliondo Game Controlled Area

LHRC

Legal and Human Rights Centre

Maa

The traditional language of the Maasai

MRG

Minority Rights GroupNCA

Ngorongoro Conservation Area

NCAA

Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority

NGONET

Ngorongoro NGOs Network

NPC

Ngorongoro Pastoralists Council

OBC

Ortello Business Corporation

Orpul

A traditional Maasai ceremony

PINGOs Forum

Pastoralists Indigenous Non-Governmental Organizations Forum

SNP

Serengeti National Park

TBL

Tanzania Breweries Limited

TCL

Tanzania Conservation Limited

UAE

United Arab Emirates

UCRT

Ujamaa Community Resource TeamUNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization

WMA

Wildlife Management Area

www.oaklandinstitute.org

“The United Republic of Tanzania has always expressed reservations on the claim that indigenous
communities exist in her jurisdiction. In our case, indigenous concept found favor during the colonial
era; a notion intended to belittle local communities as inferior and there has never been criticalthinking to balance the nuance of this definition. As a result, underdeveloped societies are defined
as indigenous rendering their culture “alien” and of low esteem. It is in this regards that we havedifficulties in accepting the notion hence the definition itself. We believe that culture adopts itself tothe environment as it evolves.
Colonialism subjected pastoralist societies in Africa to perpetual marginalization and discrimination
leading them to remain backward. Cognizant of this situation, immediately after independence,
Tanzania adopted measures that were meant to engender the wellbeing of all people regardless of
their ethnicity or tribal affiliation to redress inherent imbalances.”– Statement by H.E. Ambassador Ramadhan M Mwinyi, Deputy Permanent Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania
to the United Nations. Twelfth Session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. May 23, 2013.

Maasai man entering his hut © The Oakland Institute5

Maasai man with his cows in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area © The Oakland InstituteExecutive Summary
In East Africa, the Great Rift Valley stretches lush and green
for thousands of miles, threaded with streams, speckledwith lakes, and home to some of the most diverse andabundant wildlife on the continent. For centuries it has also
been home to the Maasai, semi-nomadic pastoralists who
graze their cattle in the rhythm of the seasons, following theflush of grass, blending with the patterns established by thewild populations. The Maasai were once as rich as the landthat supported them. Maintaining its health had everything
to do with their own prosperity. Such an intimate connection
made them de facto stewards of the land, conservationists
without title or designation.
As with agriculturists the world over, the Maasai have
weathered disease and drought, but the most serious threatsof the past 75 years have come in the form of conservation
laws, and more recently, foreign investment. As areas havebeen deemed “protected” or transferred to new owners, theMaasai have been driven into smaller and smaller areas,

www.oaklandinstitute.org

creating a map of confinement that is as stifling and foreign
to them as a zoo to a lion.
Starting in the mid-20th century, a series of land and wildlife
laws aimed at conservation in Northern Tanzania pushed
the Maasai off large tracts of their traditional land, including
present-day Serengeti National Park. Initially, the Maasai
were offered concessions – for instance, to relocate to
the neighboring region of Loliondo and the Ngorongoro
Conservation Area. But for the past half-century, they havecontinued to face numerous evictions even from theseregions, while additional laws have curtailed their rights
to graze cattle and cultivate subsistence gardens, leading
to widespread hunger. When the rules of government aresuperimposed over the rules of nature, nature does notyield, but those who rely upon it – the indigenous – areforced to adapt, which usually means surrendering a wayof life.

More recently, with ecotourism becoming the fastest growing
sector within the tourism industry, East Africa’s Rift Valley
has become a tourist destination, and to some, the Maasai
are interruptions to the pristine view and wildlife experience
advertised by the industry. Two tourism-based companies
in Loliondo have had a particularly negative impact on the
Maasai – Tanzania Conservation Limited (TCL), a company
owned by the couple that owns Boston-based Thomson
Safaris, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based Ortello
Business Corporation (OBC).
In 2006, TCL purchased a 96-year lease to 12,617 acres ofland in Northern Tanzania from Tanzania Breweries Ltd(TBL).1 Three surrounding Maasai villages contest the saleof this land arguing that the land was sold to TBL in 1984
without their consent.2 TBL then abandoned the land in
1990. The Maasai villages assert that they are, therefore, theowners of the land through adverse possession.3 Since TCL
began occupying the land, the local communities have beendenied access to vital grazing areas and watering holes,
and face intimidation and violence from police, who aresometimes called in by the safari company, which has since
established its business on the land.4 For more information
about these allegations, please refer to the endnotes 4, 32,
and 41.
Operations of the Ortello Business Corporation havealso impacted the Maasai. In 1992, the OBC was granted
a hunting license for 400,000 ha – home to more than
50,000 Maasai.5 Community resistance over more than
20 years led the government to reduce the area to 150,000
ha. The license allowed the UAE’s royal family to conductprivate hunting trips and the company even built an airstrip
for exclusive use.6 The OBC also restricted access to lands
and water used by the Maasai. In addition, Tanzanian
government forces, in collaboration with OBC security
guards, have violently evicted several Maasai communities– burning their bomas, their belongings, and displacing

A boma in the Ngorongoro District © The Oakland Institute7their livestock.7 After decades of complaints against thecompany, Hamisi Kigwangalla, the newly appointed Natural
Resources Minister, terminated OBC’s 25-year-old hunting
concession in November 2017, suspended the Director of
Wildlife, and ordered investigations into the dealings of the
OBC as well as former Tanzanian tourism ministers.8
These actions – in tandem with ongoing conservationpressures, laws passed by the Tanzanian government,
and some government officials who favor investors over
the Maasai – haven’t just pitted indigenous land rights
against tourism and conservation. They actively disregard
the Maasai way of life, and have led to intimidation, loss of
livelihoods, starvation, and violent evictions.
This report exposes the hardships faced by the Maasai
in the Loliondo region of Tanzania. It weaves together
the travails of the communities most impacted by recent
events with a history of land laws, unpacks various legal
challenges, and exposes how these forces are leading to
starvation, outbreaks of disease, and the destruction of aChildren from Kartalu village © The Oakland Institutewww.oaklandinstitute.org

way of life. The report also explores various ways forward,
including immediate actions that must be taken, such as therestoration of the rights to graze and practice subsistence
agriculture in Game Controlled Areas and the need for clear
security of land tenure for the Maasai; various legal andpolicy remedies via the right to food and international caselaw; the role of non-state actors, including an explorationof the UN’s Guiding Principles for businesses on humanrights; and local grassroots innovations such as Certificatesof Customary Right of Occupancy (CCROs).
While this report focuses on the plight of the Maasai inNorthern Tanzania, it is a reality that is all too familiar toindigenous communities around the world. In too many
places, national governments, private corporations,and large conservation groups collude in the name ofconservation, not just to force indigenous groups off theirland – but to force them out of existence.
This colonization of indigenous land in the name ofconservation must end.

Ngorongoro Conservation Area © The Oakland Institute

Prologue
In August 2017, fire and destruction ripped through several
Maasai communities in Tanzania’s Loliondo region. Earlyreports suggested that 185 bomas had been demolished,displacing thousands of villagers, destroying their food,and leading to the loss of livestock along the way.9 By early
September, the extent of the damage had grown, with reportsthat 19 people had been arrested, 11 seriously injured, over
5,800 homes damaged, more than 20,000 left homeless,and significant losses of livestock.10
According to the Tanzanian Ministry of Natural Resources
and Tourism, the violent evictions began on August 10,2017 and were set to last for two weeks. The Ministry’spress release notes that bomas were being burned under
government orders, in order to preserve the ecosystems in
the region and attract more tourists.11 Claiming that false
information was being spread about the nature of theexercise with the intention of generating hate against the
government for its actions, the Ministry's statement warned
persons found to be misleading others.12
A year before, in July 2016, similar intimidation was waged
against the Maasai in Loliondo, when eight individuals– including villagers, civil society organization (CSO)
members, and secondary school teachers13 – were arrested.14
When a local lawyer and member of the Tanganyika Law
Society, Advocate Shilinde Ngalula, attempted to follow
up on these arrests, he was arrested as well. Though later
released, he was not allowed to meet his clients who werestill in detention. When he arrived at the District Court as
the counsel for the arrested, Ngalula was re-arrested in the
court precincts – this time in his full court attire.15 According
to the Tanganyika Law Society, the July 2016 arrests were
allegedly linked to the long-standing land conflict between
the Maasai pastoralist communities and foreign investors
from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and United States.16

It was through media and advocacy efforts of the Legal and
Human Rights Centre (LHRC), Tanzania Human Rights
Defenders Coalition, and the Tanganyika Law Society, thatthe accused were released on bail.17 However the arrests
significantly worsened the climate of fear among the Maasai
villagers.
In November 2017, OBC’s hunting license was cancelled
and an investigation was launched by the Tanzanian
government’s anti-corruption bureau.18 Local communities,
however, remain cautious as they push for the land in dispute– 150,000 ha – to be gazetted as a Wildlife Management Area
(WMA) as opposed to a Game Controlled Area, in effect a
No-Go-Zone for the communities. If declared a WMA, theprocess of creating the new land-use management plan willtake at least two years, requiring meaningful consultationand the involvement of local communities.
Furthermore, the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) is
undergoing a new General Management Plan (GMP) after
the expiry of the previous one. However, the Ngorongoro
Pastoralist Council (NPC) – the organization that represents
NCA residents – and the community members, have not yet
been consulted.19
Given the ongoing repression and widespread fear,
the names of those interviewed for this report and any
information that might endanger the informants and all
who supported the research, has been redacted to ensure
their safety and to protect them from retaliatory measures.
The Oakland Institute is very grateful to all who were willingto speak to us and who continue to courageously stand up
to challenge the widespread oppression and theft of the
Maasai lands and resources.
This report is dedicated to them and their daily struggles.

9The Maasai
In Maa, the Maasai language, Serengeti means, “the place
where the land runs on forever” or “endless plains.” With
its rivers, forests, marshes, savannahs, and arid expanses,
home to nearly 70 large mammal and over 500 bird species,
the Maasai herd their cattle alongside wild animals. The
Serengeti has been the Maasailand for centuries.

“The red that the Maasai wear symbolizes
the strength of the community ties. It is thecolor of the blood of our cows with whom wehave a special relationship. As children welearn to take care of them...to look for signsof disease, where to graze, and how to avoid
the poisonous bushes. Or what to do if thelions or hyenas attack...Sometimes the rivers
flood, making it impossible to return home.
Sometimes it gets late and the night comes...
As the children of the Maasai, we are taught
early on how to overcome fear and bringourselves and cows home safely.”20

Maasai hut in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area © The Oakland Institutewww.oaklandinstitute.org

The Maasai – fierce warriors known for their tall elegant
features, bright shuka shawls, and colorful beads – havecaptured the imagination of the outside world for decades.
But who are they?
The Maasai, a semi-nomadic ethnic group, are based in the
Great Rift Valley of East Africa, between Northern Tanzania
and Southern and Central Kenya.21 They have inhabited theregion for centuries, moving their herds of cattle with theseasons.
Oral history tells that the Maasai originated in the Lower
Nile Valley, not far from Lake Turkana, near the present-day
border of Kenya and South Sudan.22 By the 15th century, thesesemi-nomadic herders began migrating south.23 Their finaldestination was the vast and fertile Eastern section of theGreat Rift Valley. The Maasai flourished in the region, withboth human and cattle populations proliferating throughthe 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 of food. Drought, cholera, and smallpox beset
communities.24 This period, known in the Maa language
as emutai, “to wipe 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.25

Herd of cows in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area © The Oakland InstituteCattle have a unique and essential role in Maasai culture. Community position, nutrition andfood security, personal wealth, and cultural practices are all intimately intertwined with cattle.27
From a young age, boys learn to herd cattle, while the warriors provide security and guard against
threats, including attacks by lions.28 One Maasai prayer highlights the importance of cattle:
Meishoo iyiook enkai inkishu o-nkera, or in English, May Creator give us cattle and children.29

Today, the Maasai still reside in the Rift Valley. Population
estimates vary widely between a few hundred thousandto over one million.26 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 cattle.
Over time, when cattle populations suffered for one
reason or another, the Maasai have turned to subsistence
agriculture to supplement their diet. Now is no exception
as the available grazing lands have diminished. The Maasai

have been regarded as the first cattlemen, admired for the
management of their herds and relationships with wildlife
and the grasslands that support them. However, the colonial
rulers, and after independence the Tanzanian government,
failed to understand the symbiotic relationship that theMaasai have with the land. Consequently, conservation
schemes, game parks, and development strategies aimed
at attracting foreign investors have driven the Maasai fromtheir ancestral land.
Today, Serengeti – the land that runs forever – is a myth for
the Maasai.

11

Losing Land to the Owners of Boston-based Thomson Safaris“But the land belongs to me because
this is my village..."30
After a twelve-hour journey – clouds of red dust billowing around us – we reach our destination. Nestled into a hill,
Mondorosi village is in the Loliondo Division of the Ngorongoro District. Interspersed with rocky kopjes, shrubs, andacacia woodlands, the village cattle graze amidst the herds of zebra, wildebeest, and giraffes.
Home to some 3,200 residents, Mondorosi village, along with the neighboring villages Sukenya and Soitsambu, hasbeen in litigation with Tanzania Conservation Limited, a company run by the owners of the high profile, award-winning,
Boston-based tourism company, Thomson Safaris, since 2013.
The Chief of the village is at an orpul – a community-based healing retreat – but other villagers welcome us, and share
their stories:“From the top of the hills and between the plains . . . all this land belonged to Mondorosi village but has been now
taken over by Thomson Safaris and Tanzania Conservation Limited (TCL) without our consent.31 It all started nearlyten years ago when they started chasing us away from our lands. Some villagers were even shot at.32
Since then we have been organizing against the theft of our lands. In 2013, some of the women from the village
marched to the District Commissioner’s office in Olorien to demand the recognition of our land rights. Instead, wewere told, ‘You are like our mothers
and we ask you to leave.’ When werefused, the tone changed and theDistrict Commissioner threatened
us and told us to stop protestingor else we will be shot.
We live peacefully in our boma.
However, there is not enoughland for all of us and this causes
us hardship. All along the hills
and down the plains are many
Maasai. The lands that Thomson[Safaris] took over are the grazing
lands of our people. We live in fear,
surrounded by spies including
our neighboring villages. They
get bribes from the investors aswell as the jobs. No one fromour village is hired at Thomson’s.
But we believe in God. This land
belongs to us, and some day it will
be returned to us.”33
Women from Mondorosi village © The Oakland Institutewww.oaklandinstitute.org

A group of women is listening in. At the mention of jobs, they speak in animated voices:“We do not want their jobs. As their employees itwill become easy for them to take over our lands.
What we need is our land.”34
When asked what the village wishes for – for their lands to be released, for Thomson Safaris and TCL to leave, or toarrive at a fair deal – the villagers provide a firm and clear response:“Over the years we have given serious thought to what we want and have reached the only solution possible:
Thomson’s should go away. How do you befriend someone who shoots you . . . your family?35 We havespoken to women in the other two villages and we are all strong in our decision.”36
Another villager shares with a somber look, “Our lands were stolen.37 But the land belongs to me because
this is my village. This land is my birthright. They found me here when they arrived. They are from a foreign
land that we don’t know where it is. But I was always here.”38

As a Thomson Safaris website explains: “Judi Wineland and Rick Thomson, the husband-and-wife
team who own Thomson and TCL, purchased the land in an open bidding process in 2006 when
Tanzania Breweries Ltd. put the farm up for sale. They immediately saw its potential to be a model
for community development, conservation, and responsible tourism. Following the lead of the Maasai,
they called the land Enashiva Nature Refuge43 … Today, Thomson Safaris and Tanzania Conservation
Ltd. (TCL) are working alongside the Maasai to conserve this vast wilderness of wooded savannah andopen grassland covering 12,600 acres within the Serengeti ecosystem.”44
Another villager shares: “Imagine, a stranger comes and constructs a big building in the center of yourhome. Thomson’s camp is in the middle of our village. At the bottom is Marsiligi Nadooshoke subvillage
and the residents no longer have access to their own land. In Tanzania, every child has the right toeducation, but children of Marsiligi cannot go to school since their access through the camp is restricted.39
Our livestock cannot go to the water hole – there is no other route for the villagers or their livestock.
When Thomson’s camp started, they prevented the livestock from grazing on the grounds. They wouldchase the grazing cows with their cars. The frightened cows were scattered in the bush and eaten by
predators. People were arrested and taken to the Loliondo police station.40 Lesingo Ole Nanyoi, a villager
living close to the camp, was shot in his face when he was found grazing his cattle on the land. Olunjai
Timan, another villager was shot in 2014. He, too, was grazing his cattle on the village land that Thomson
claims.41
We are upset at being shot at and want justice. Now, through the lawsuit, we are trying to get the land backto the three villages of Soitsambu, Sukenya, and Mondorosi.
We don’t lose hope. One day our educated children will claim their land again. We also know that there are
tourists who sympathize with us, support us, as well as some NGOs. We have lawyers who assist us whenpeople are hurt or harassed. So we will continue to organize.
But if everything fails, we will mobilize as a community to resist the company as the last resort.”42

13

A COMMUNITY PROPOSAL

In 2011, community meetings took place with Maasai villagers from Sukenya, Mondorosi, and Soitsambu, to allow
the communities to discuss their options regarding the Thomson Safaris land conflict and build consensus on a
proposed resolution with the company.45
Over 550 Maasai from the three villages took part.46 The end result was the following proposal:“The village members recognize that Thomson Safaris has done investments on some part of the land. The village
members agree that Thomson Safaris could retain exclusive land ownership on 2,000 acres around the MOROGWA area
[immediately surrounding the company’s camp].
The community members are to acquire back the ownership of 10,617 acres of the land and then enter into direct agreementwith Thomson Safaris to allow company’s continued use of some of the land for tourism purposes.
The process leading to the agreement between the community and the company should be participatory, transparent andstipulate the following:
1. Recognition of community rights ownership over the 10,617 acres of the land.
2. Unrestricted access to water points, foot ways from one sub village to the other, and specified grazing areas
for the community.
3. Clear rules and procedures for implementation and management of the contract should be put in place.
4. Clarified roles and responsibilities for both parties in terms of security and other relationship resolutions. Items like thelength of the contract, the annual land renting fees, the bed fee per nights per person (for tourist entering the community
land) and the termination of the contract should be clearly be [sic] discussed in the contract.
5. The village council will oversee the use of the income generated by the contract for equitable sharing among the three
sub villages for their socio-economic development.”47
According to a report back from the UK-based Minority Rights Group (MRG), “approaches to Thomson Safaris toenter into negotiations have subsequently been met with a resounding ‘no’ as well as completely unfounded andunsustained allegations of fraud and false representation.”48
The land conflict between the Maasai and Thomson Safaris rages on.

One of the community meetings that took place in 2011 © Local NGO

www.oaklandinstitute.org

Seeking Recourse through the Courts
On July 4, 2013, the village councils of the Mondorosi,
Sukenya, and Soitsambu villages filed a lawsuit in the High
Court of Tanzania at Arusha against Tanzania Breweries
Limited (TBL), Tanzania Conservation Limited (TCL),
the Ngorongoro District Council, the Commissioner forLands, and the Attorney General49 claiming “jointly andseverally for ownership of a land known as Sukenye [sic]Farm comprising 12,617 acres [5,106 ha] located within
Ngorongoro District.”50
According to the plaintiffs, TBL, a parastatal company,
obtained a title for 10,000 acres [4,047 ha] near Soitsambu
village in 1984 in a deal with the District Council for barley
production, without the consent of the local communities
and without providing any compensation.51 In the ensuing
years, only approximately 800 acres of the 10,000 were usedwhile the villagers continued grazing their livestock, building
bomas, and watering cattle in the area. In 1990, the farm andbuildings were abandoned by TBL and the villagers “retook
physical possession of the disputed land.”52 According to
the Plaintiffs Written Closing Argument, in 2003 Tanzania
Breweries Ltd, “assisted by the 3rd and 4th Defendants[Ngorongoro District Council and Commissioner for Lands],
illegally acquired an extra two thousand six hundred andseventeen acres”53 “without the permission of the owner nor
compensation paid toward the owner of that land.”54
The Maasai villages argue that because the land had beenabandoned for so long, TBL and the Ngorongoro District
Council did not have the right to sell and transfer it to TCL,a Tanzanian registered company whose two directors, Judi
Wineland and Rick Thomson, own Thomson Safaris.55
According to Rashid S. Rashid, Counsel for the Loliondo
Maasai in court, “Under common law, if you own a pieceof land, but I come onto that land for 12 years and you
don’t object, then I can claim it. Therefore, our claim isthat the villagers, who did not benefit at all from the TBL
deal, through adverse possession, secured the rights to theland.”56“TBL brought two witnesses who stated that TBL was
farming till 1990. One or two guards were left behindprotecting buildings, amounting to physical possession.
But they were sitting on one acre while claiming 10,000
acres. And then, how did 10,000 acres translate into 12,617
acres? If the judge agrees to adverse possession, the case isstraightforward. In any case, 2,617 acres should be returnedand communities should be paid compensation for wastethat has been committed on this land. The title for 10,000

Certificate of Occupancy for Sukenya Farm (now Enashiva Nature Refuge)
listing land use as plant and animal husbandryacres stipulates that the land be used for plant and animalhusbandry while the land has been used for tourism by the
TCL, despite the rejection of their application in 2007 tochange land use.”57
The plaintiffs also alleged that following the arrival of TCL,
villagers’ access to the land was diminished.58 In his court
testimony, Sandet Ole Reya, a traditional Maasai leader,
described the displacement of the villagers by TCL, including
the burning of bomas and forced removal from the disputed
land.59 Another witness, Shangwe Isata Ndekere of Sukenya
village, testified that after Thomson Safaris’ arrival in 2006,
all villagers were forced to remove their cattle and bomas.
“The bomas that were built on the land were burnt down . . .
as a result of this, people were physically hurt, beaten by thepolice, and prosecuted.”60
On October 28, 2015, the Arusha-based Court ruled against
the Maasai. The villagers did win on the challenge that TCL
unlawfully acquired 2,617 acres of the land, however they
were not awarded any damages by the court.61
The plaintiffs appealed the decision in the Court of Appeal
in January 2017. The case is pending.62

15

A Climate of FearThomson Safaris, TCL’s sister company, has a long listof awards – including Humanitarian of the Year by the
Tanzanian Tourist Board.63 But these accolades have failed
to lessen the fear and intimidation amongst those who seek
their land rights in the Ngorongoro region. The Oakland
Institute observed firsthand this climate of fear during its
field research. Seeing a car approach, the first reaction of thevillagers visited by the research team was to run away. Whenapproached, they were hesitant to speak and expressed
their vulnerability and fear of the authorities and foreign
investors.64 Additional research, which is described in thefollowing paragraphs, further reinforced these findings.
Articles by VICE, The Guardian, and others allege that
Maasai pastoralists have faced violence, harassment, andarrest, at the hands of local police officers, who are called
in by TCL for trespassing on the Enashiva Nature Refuge.65
These same allegations can also be found in a letter fromthe United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights ofindigenous peoples, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working
Group on the use of mercenaries, and Special Rapporteur
on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment, to the Tanzanian government.66
Journalists and researchers probing into the situation in
Ngorongoro also contend that they have faced harassment
and intimidation while investigating Thomson Safaris
and TCL, often from the local District Commissioner. In
one case, journalists from VICE were questioned by local
authorities after a local man with close ties to Thomson
Safaris and TCL told the authorities that the journalists
were investigating the company.67 In another, a Guardianjournalist was questioned reportedly because of complaints

Group of villagers with the research team ©The Oakland Institutewww.oaklandinstitute.org

from TCL itself.68 Reporters have conducted interviews
hidden in ditches, in secret, and at night, because of thefears of their interviewees.69 Some have been escorted outof the region by police for investigation, had their passports
withheld,70 faced extensive interrogations,71 and one blogger
has written that she was deported for asking too manyquestions.72 The Oakland Institute’s own research team wasadvised several times by the villagers and local researchers
to leave villages before word got out to the company andDistrict Commissioner.
Looming large over all these stories is the mysterious
death of New Zealand-born photojournalist Trent Keeganin May 2008, whose body was found in a Nairobi ditch
after conducting research about Thomson Safaris. Keegan
told friends he was concerned for his safety because of his
research.73 The Kenyan police believe Keegan was killed
in an attempted robbery. However, the fact that his walletand cash were left behind, while his computer and camera
documenting research were missing, has led his friends
and family to call into question whether the cause of death
was, in fact, an attempted robbery.74 There is no evidence
linking Keegan’s death to his research relating to Thomson
Safaris. In a November 2017 email response to the Oakland
Institute, Judi Wineland and Rick Thomson reiterated,“Thomson Safaris has nothing to do whatsoever with thedeath of Trent Keegan.”75
No judgment has ever been entered against Thomson
Safaris in connection to any of the events described above.
Thomson Safaris denies all allegations. Regardless, aclimate of fear paralyzes local populations and visitors.76

River Pololet © The Oakland Institute

A Game Park for the Royal Family: Lost Homes and Lives of the Maasai
The villages of Ololosokwan, Soitsambu, Olorienmahaiduru, Arash, Oloipiri, Malambo, Piyaya and Maaloni
are all situated within the Loliondo Game Controlled Area
(LGCA) in the Ngorongoro District. For the past 25 years,
members of the Dubai royal family have regularly arrived
on an exclusive landing strip in Loliondo, complete with
UAE cell phone networks,77 to hunt and trap rare animals.78
This was done through the Ortello Business Corporation(OBC), which was granted a hunting license in 1992 thatwas reportedly revoked in 2017 after decades of complaintsof corruption. During those 25 years, thousands of animals
and birds were killed, and local communities denied
access to grazing lands and water as a result of the OBC.79
According to community members on the ground, despite
the cancelation of their license, as of March 2018, OBC isstill present in the Loliondo region.80
The OBC gained its license when the Tanzanian government,
purporting to act on behalf of, but without involving theimpacted villages of Ololosokwan, Soitsambu, Olorienmahaiduru, Arash and Oloipiri, granted concession of the
LGCA to Brigadier Sheikh Mohamed Abdul Rahim Al-Ali,
former Deputy Defense Minister of the UAE81 to provide
hunting excursions exclusively for the UAE’s Royal Family
and their esteemed guests.82 In recent years, the OBC’spresence led to violence and intimidation of the Maasai,along with growing divisions among the local population.
Villagers from the surrounding area told Oakland Instituteresearchers how the OBC benefitted from fueling theseconflicts.
“Today the OBC is well established – since its
arrival in Loliondo in 1992. It even has its own
airstrip, almost the size of an airport. OBC has
built water wells in several villages, especially in
Ololosokwon over the last three years. But thesetokens of goodwill have failed to curtail conflict.
The wells have won over the support of some
3,000-4,000 residents of Ololosokwon, while
neighboring villages suffer. Starting from the
Ololosokwon village, the OBC wants 150,000
ha of land with the help of the government. To
defeat the local opposition, it has divided the local
communities by supporting one village over theother.”83“River Pololet was once shared by the villages ofSoitsambu, Kartalu, and Ololosokwon. Kartalu wasa part of Soitsambu, but with demarcation, it is its
own village today. The residents of Ololosokwon
however refuse to acknowledge Kartalu as a village
with any rights over the river. With support from the17

government and the OBC, they have encroachedthe land of the village – they crossed the river tobuild homesteads and take over the river.”84“We need economic development but do notbenefit from the investments. We only facerestrictions. Foreign investors are taking away
our lands while we are left with no recourse. If
we speak out, we face harassment. But no one
from our boma works with the OBC. There is nopeace. We are uncertain about the future of ourchildren.”85

evictions involved physical and sexual violence.89 The Special
Rapporteur also stated, “The circumstances surrounding
the evictions indicate that the evictions were in fact part ofa larger Government policy favoring the interests of private
enterprises engaged in conservation tourism and wildlife
hunting, principally the Ortello Business Corporation, over
the rights of indigenous peoples, particularly the Maasai
pastoralists.”90

Over the course of its tenure in Tanzania, the OBC imposed
significant restrictions on grazing land and access to water
for the Maasai and their cattle.86 According to James Anaya,
former Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous
peoples, “herders who ignore such restrictions risk violent
conflict with hunters in the area as well as loss of livestock
due to hunting activities.”87

One of the official reasons given for the 2009 eviction
was reportedly that the Maasai’s cultivation of smallplots of land for subsistence agriculture was leading toenvironmental degradation.91 This rationale conveniently
disregards the impact of a private airstrip in the middleof wildlife migration routes. In addition, reports suggestthat the OBC had no regard for laws governing wildlife andhunting. Complaints against the company include corralling
animals by helicopter, trapping live animals, and leaving
behind wounded animals to suffer.92

Since their arrival, the OBC has evicted the Maasai fromtheir traditional lands. The most well-documented eviction
took place in July 2009, when OBC security guards andTanzania’s paramilitary Field Force Unit burnt 200 bomas
to the ground. Over 3,000 were left homeless and 20,000
impacted, while over 50,000 cattle were left without accessto pasture or water.88 According to a 2010 report by theSpecial Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, theShortly after the 2009 eviction – which took place withoutcompensation or a plan for resettlement – a group of
Tanzanian NGOs under the banner FEMACT launcheda fact-finding mission. The mission established a “closelink” between the police who carried out the evictions andOBC, concluding that the evictions were not because of the
Maasai’s subsistence agriculture practices, but rather toclear the area for hunting in favor of OBC’s purpose.93

Maasai herders with their cows in the plains © The Oakland Institutewww.oaklandinstitute.org

"We will not accept to be pushed by anyone
from our own land..."“Our boma is very close to the OBC investor so they want it removed.
Since 2013 we have faced many problems. We were beaten, some villagers
were even shot at, and our bomas were burnt.
Fear has been built in our community so we are afraid to speak out. In the beginning, theOBC were friendly. The land was big enough for everyone. Now they think that the spacefor hunting is not enough. So they want our bomas and our grazing cattle to move. But
we will not accept to be pushed by anyone from our own land.

Displaced local Maasai woman© The Oakland Institute

If they take over that 150,000 ha, that will be our end. Our extinction. Where will we go?
See our history – we were driven away from Serengeti, and then again in the ‘60s andnow they again want our lands. Why can we not have some space to live?
What scares us is that the OBC isbuilding more structures with more
and more confidence. There is no
consultation or involvement of thecommunities. They don’t see us aspart of the landscape and ignore us as
stakeholders.
We asked the District Council tointervene, but that was not productive.
We even marched down to the OBC
camp, including women, but werechased away by the guards. Politicians
came and gave us false promises tocalm us down. We have lost hope given
we have narrated our plight so manytimes. The only result – we are shot,
beaten, and harassed.

Entrance to a new boma built by the displaced Maasai © The Oakland InstituteI heard about the President’s tweet that
the Maasai will not be evicted from theirancestral lands. But this year police
were deployed with teargas and wewere shot at and chased away from ourboma. Women and children, including
a minor, were arrested. We gave
statements over and over, including to
the Human Rights Council in Tanzania.
But nothing was accomplished.”94

19

In December 2010, Tanzanian civil society organizations,
including PINGO’s Forum, Legal and Human Rights Centre(LHRC), Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT),
and the Ngorongoro NGOs Network (NGONET), filed aconstitutional case against the OBC, under a certificate ofurgency in the High Court of Tanzania, Arusha Registry,
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, and theAttorney General challenging the constitutionality of theforceful eviction.95
Eight years later, despite being filed under the certificate ofurgency, the case has not progressed. Numerous requests
to relevant authorities, including letters to the High Court
and the Chief Justice went unanswered.96 This prompted theapplicants to consider other supranational mechanisms, inparticular the African Court for Human and Peoples Rights,97
given the continued plight of local Maasai communities.
Since the violence of July 2009, additional evictions werecarried out in connection with OBC.98
In April 2013, the Minister for Natural Resources andTourism, Khamis Kagasheki, announced a proposal toremove 250,000 ha from the LGCA (out of the 400,000 ha
seized in 1974), while also dedicating 150,000 ha specificallyfor wildlife protection. This would have been possible under
Section 16 of the Wildlife Conservation Act of 2009, which
provides for the separation of village land and wildlife
protected areas including in Game Controlled Areas.99
While the government claimed the decision regarding the
150,000 ha was because it was, among other reasons, “acrucial breeding area for wildlife, a corridor for iconic great
migration of wildlife in particular for millions of wildebeest
and a critical water catchment area,”100 it was also widelyreported that this new “wildlife corridor” would benefit
OBC.101
After sustained protests – including inspirational sit-ins
involving thousands of Maasai women,102 a petition thatgarnered millions of signatures,103 and numerous back-andforths with the government – the proposal was withdrawn.104

www.oaklandinstitute.org

Poster of the Avaaz campaign to support the Maasai

On November 23, 2014 the President of Tanzania, Jakaya
Kikwete, tweeted: “There has never been, nor will thereever be any plan by the government of Tanzania to evict theMaasai people from their ancestral land.”105
Less than three months later, the Maasai were evicted fromthe Arash and Loosoito/Maaloni areas. Between February
10 and 14, 2015, Serengeti National Park rangers reportedly
burnt 114 homes, leaving 2,000-3,000 Maasai, includingchildren, without shelter, food, or medical supplies.106 Local
CSOs and activists reported threats from the Ministry ofHome Affairs and Ngorongoro District Commissioner
to de-register pastoralist CSOs in Loliondo,107 while local
residents were depicted as immigrant Kenyans who were
responsible for the trouble.108
In October 2016, the Arusha Regional Commissioner set
up a committee to look into the issue and come up witha solution to the longstanding Loliondo land conflict.
Two options were offered for the 150,000 ha in question– to be either a Game Controlled Area (GCA) or a Wildlife
Management Area (WMA). The local community decided
in favor of the WMA because this option allowed land to
be used by both livestock and wildlife.109 The community’s
overwhelming support of the WMA was to be reported to
the Prime Minister and President for final approval.

As our vehicle approaches a boma, two young herders eye us withsuspicion. Then they start running, leaving the cattle behind. “The OBC
come to chase us from our lands. We are not allowed to graze and they
make several rounds each day. But it is not clear who decided this land is
OBC land. But with fear, it is accepted as OBC land,” they explain later.117

Young herders fleeing at the sight of the research team's
vehicle © The Oakland Institute

Women from XXXXX, who now live in XXXXXXX, share that they built the
new boma about four years ago. “But we live with fear and uncertainty. In
2009 they came one morning and gave us no time to collect our belongings.
I was screaming with fear. But we could do nothing. They burnt everything.
We want a life of stability, better bomas, safe grazing grounds. We have nolife without the cows,” the women tell the research team, while one beads
an intricate bracelet around a researcher’s wrist.118
The conversation is interrupted as OBC rangers drive past in a green Land
Rover. Fear spreads across the faces of the women and they whisper, “TheOBC are here.”“The guards chased the herders away this morning and now are back tocheck,” says a woman from the boma. “They threaten to burn our homes.
They say it is their land. We are tired of living in fear on our own land.”119

A Maasai woman beads a bracelet © The Oakland Institute“They threaten to burn our homes. They say it is theirland. We are tired of living in fear on our own land.”
While community members awaited this final decision,another round of violent evictions took place. In August 2017,
fire and destruction ripped through over a dozen Maasai
communities whose villages lie in the disputed 150,000 ha
corridor. Estimates suggest that 185 bomas were destroyed
along with food and livestock, thousands were displaced,and one person was critically injured.110 By early September,the extent of the damage had grown, with reports that 19
people had been arrested, 11 seriously injured, over 5,800
homes damaged, and more than 20,000 left homeless.111
According to the Tanzanian Ministry of Natural Resource andTourism, the violent evictions began on August 10, 2017 andwere set to last for two weeks. The Ministry’s press release
noted that bomas were being burned under government
orders, in order to preserve the ecosystems in the region andattract more tourists.112 However numerous organizations
and news agencies pointed out the connection, once again,
between the land that the Maasai were being evicted fromand the OBC’s hunting license.113
In early September 2017, Tanzania’s Commission for Human
Rights and Good Governance intervened, ordering aninterim stop order on the eviction, after receiving numerous
complaints from affected peoples.114 Later that month, four
Maasai villages – Ololosokwan, Olorien, Kirtalo, and Arash– sued the Tanzanian government at the East African Courtof Justice for the violent evictions.115 It was in the wake ofthese events that, in November 2017, OBC’s hunting license
was cancelled amidst charges of bribery and corruption.
The new Minister of Natural Resources also called for thearrest of Isaac Mollel, OBC’s executive director, for trying
to bribe the Ministry with donations of more than US$2
million. An investigation by the Prevention and Combatingof Corruption Bureau was launched into the actions of both
Mr. Mollel and former ministers.116
The struggle however continues. The local communities
remain cautious as they push for the land in dispute –150,000 ha – to be gazetted as the Wildlife Management
Area (WMA) as opposed to a Game Controlled Area, where
they would face restrictions on grazing and cultivating land.
If declared a WMA, the process of creating the new land-use
management plan requires meaningful consultation andinvolvement of the community.

21

Ngorongoro Crater © The Oakland Institute

A History of Displacement in the Name of Conservation
Long before companies like TCL and the OBC arrived in
Tanzania, land laws challenged the Maasai and their wayof life.
The expansion of the German Empire in the late 19th
century framed Tanzania’s colonial land laws and converted
all territorial land into crown land, vesting them in theGerman Empire. Any land without evidence of ownershipand continual use was considered vacant – resulting in
the theft of over one million hectares of land from local
communities.120
After World War I, modern-day Tanzania became a Britishcolony. In 1923, the British colonial government passed a
Land Ordinance,121 which along with its many amendments,
constituted the primary piece of land legislation in the country
until 1999. According to the Ordinance, all Tanzanian land
– whether occupied or not – was considered public land,
and all public land and their rights were to be controlled by
the Governor, “for the use and common benefit, direct orindirect, of the natives of the Territory.”122 An amendment
made in 1928 formally recognized customary rights to land,
creating a dual-track system of land tenure rights, where
the rights granted by the state were functionally superior tocustomary rights.123
In 1940, the colonial government passed Game Ordinance,
Cap. 159 that created national parks (including Serengeti
National Park, or SNP) and game reserves, and imposed
the first restrictions on settlement in and use of this pristine
region.124 The Maasai were not impacted by this initialwww.oaklandinstitute.org

legislation since it exempted people born or residing in
Serengeti National Park from any settlement restrictions.125
The 1940s and 1950’s, however, witnessed more restrictions
imposed in the name of conservation. By 1957, a British-led“community of enquiry” put forth the suggestion to split
SNP into two regions in order to preserve the region’s natural
beauty. One region would become present day Serengeti
National Park, where all human habitation, including the
Maasai, would be prohibited.126 The second region would
become known as the Ngorongoro Conservation Area
(NCA), an area of 829,200 ha including the Ngorongoro
Crater – a three million-year-old, caldera rich with wildlife,
encompassing 26,000 ha within walls 600 m high. The
NCA was proposed as a multiple land-use area: conserving
natural resources, protecting the interests of indigenous
groups, and promoting tourism.127
In order to enforce the plans, the colonial government
needed to persuade the Maasai, who had resided in SNP for
centuries, to vacate. In exchange for leaving the plains, they
were told they could inhabit the newly formed NCA, andwere promised the development of better water resources,
participation in the governing of the conservation area,and more.128 The Maasai agreed to leave on these terms
and put their declaration, unconditionally, in writing. The
verbal commitments made by the colonial government were
just that – verbal – which created an imbalance between
the promises of the Maasai and those of the colonial
authorities.129

In 1959, the passage of two pieces of legislation – theNational Parks Act and the Ngorongoro Conservation
Area Ordinance – enshrined the Maasai’s promises.130 The
Maasai vacated the Serengeti and made their home in the
NCA and the Loliondo area.
The 1959 National Parks Act created the terms andboundaries of SNP and gave the Governor the authority to
declare any land in Tanzania a national park. It legislated thatwhen a national park is created, “all rights, titles, interests,
franchises, claims, privileges, exemptions or immunities ofany person other than the Governor in, over, under, or in
respect of any land within such area shall, from the dateupon which such proclamation comes into operation,cease, determine, and be forever extinguished.”131 With this,any customary rights of the Maasai to the area were forevervanquished.
The Ngorongoro Conservation Area Ordinance contained
important provisions. It specifically named the Maasai as
having settlement rights in the region.132 In the early days of
the NCA, authorities verbally affirmed these rights, with theGovernor of Tanzania (then called Tanganyika) telling the“We had cattle so we were ok. But with thedrought in the 1980s, situation changed. We
started cultivating. In 1990, I was 13 years old.
The park rangers came and beat everyone. We
had broken the law by cultivating the land.
Everyone in my village was crying. Life washard. There was no food. Even milk was notenough, so it was diluted with water so all could
have some.”cultivation of land, the grazing of cattle, the collecting offorest products and honey, and creation of settlements andresidences.134 These conditions would later impact the very
survival of the Maasai.
In addition, the NCA Ordinance spelled out the official
governance function for the NCA. Despite promisesthat the Maasai would have a role, the Ordinance didlittle to stipulate any criteria for who should be on thegoverning body. The first Authority included five Maasai
representatives, along with local conservation officials andthe District Commissioner of the Ngorongoro area.135 The
Maasai representation on the Authority, however, would notlast long.
By the mid-1960s, governance of the NCA was handed overfrom the NCAA to a single person, the Conservator, who
was directly accountable not to the community but to afederal Minister.136 An amendment to the NCA Ordinancein 1975 further centralized power with the oversight of theregion vested in a corporate-style board that was appointed
by the Minster and run by a Chairman appointed directly by
the President.137 Local officials, who were previously elected,
were replaced by appointed officials – taking any semblanceof local accountability out of the governing authority.138–Head of a local NGO, Loliondo158

In the years leading up to the 1970s, much changed on
the ground. International conservation groups like theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
gained influence over conservation laws across Africa.
The 1961 Arusha Manifesto created a specific role forinternational conservation organizations to provide technicalexpertise in the planning and management of conservation
areas across Africa.139 These groups lobbied for increasing
restrictions on cultivation, grazing, and movement within
the NCA. Throughout the 1960s, enforcement of these rules
increased, including jail time, fines, and the confiscation ofproperty of the Maasai.140

Maasai Federal Council: “I should like to make it clear to you
all that it is the intention of the government to develop the
Crater in the interests of the people who use it. At the sametime, the government intends to protect the game animals
in the area, but should there be any conflict between theinterests of the game and the human inhabitants, those of
the latter must take precedence.”133

Then in 1974, the Wildlife Conservation Act created threedifferent types of conservation land outside of the alreadycreated game parks: game reserves, partial game reserves,and game controlled areas. The stipulations within gamereserves precluded habitation, the use of firearms and bow
and arrows, the fire and felling of vegetation, and grazing
without a permit—restrictions that would eventuallymarginalize the Maasai. 141

Despite these verbal promises, powers were granted to
the NCA governing body – the Ngorongoro Conservation
Area Authority (NCAA) – to prohibit, restrict, or control
many important activities within the region, including theThat same year, the post-independence government of Julius
Nyerere began to unravel the deal the Maasai had madewith the British, which had moved them from Serengeti
to Ngorongoro. Nyerere’s government reclassified 400,000 ha

23

of land as the Loliondo Game Controlled Area (LGCA)
through Notice No. 269 from the Ministry of Natural
Resources and Tourism.142 The 1974 Wildlife Act, along withthe villagization policy issued the same year, 143 however,allowed human settlement and activities within the GCA.
Villages were established, providing some legal assurancesthat the Maasai would continue to have the right to inhabit
the area. However, the re-classification meant that Loliondo
was considered both a wildlife protected area as well as
village land, creating an uncertain future for the Maasai.
The following year, the conservation lobby won a significant
victory with the 1975 NCA Ordinance Amendment. Section
9A banned all forms of cultivation within the NCA,144
delivering a huge blow to the Maasai. While many categorize
the Maasai as nomadic pastoralists, for centuries they haverelied on the cultivation of subsistence plots when livestock
health or access to grassland were compromised.145 The ban
on cultivation, coupled with restrictions on the grazing andmovement of livestock, put the survival of the Maasai injeopardy.
By the early 1990s, the devastating impact of these laws on
the people was clear.
In 1992, Prime Minister John William Malecela, against
the wishes of the NCAA, overturned the ban on cultivation
within the NCA.146 This move brought much relief to the
Maasai who were facing starvation and death. In keepingwith the pattern of promises to the Maasai, there wasnothing in writing.
Interestingly, the 1995 General Management Plan for theNCA revealed that the Maasai’s subsistence plots weresignificantly smaller than those created by government
and NCA officials, and other non-indigenous groups in theNCA.147 In addition, crops grown by non-indigenous groups
in the NCA were often taken to market and sold for profit,
whereas the Maasai’s plots were subsistence – for personal
consumption and survival only.148
Throughout the 1990s, a process was underway to rewrite Tanzania’s land laws. This resulted in two acts – "theLand Act of 1999 and the Village Land Act of 1999 – bothof which were enacted in 2001. The Acts have been lauded
on several accounts – they recognize customary rights toland, empower women to own land, and they give villageauthorities the jurisdiction to govern their own land.149
However, they also gave way to many issues.150
At the heart of the two acts is the classification of land in
Tanzania into three categories: general land, village land,
and reserved land. Reserved land is special land set aside

www.oaklandinstitute.org

in previous legislations such as the Wildlife Conservation
Act, Ngorongoro Conservation Area Ordinance, Town andCountry Planning Act, Highway Act, Forests Act, National
Parks Act, and others. Village land has several specifications,amongst which is “land, other than reserved land, which
the villagers have been, during the twelve years preceding
the enactment of this Act, regularly occupying and using as
village land.”151 General land is defined differently in the twoacts. In the Village Land Act, general land is everything notconsidered village land or reserved land. However, in theLand Act, general land is defined as “all public land which is
not reserved land or village land and includes unoccupiedor unused village land.”152 No definition is offered for
unoccupied or unused land.
The Village Land Act also gives the President the power totransfer village land to reserved or general land, provided
that this is done in the “public interest.” “Public interest” isthen defined to include “investments of national interest.”153
For transfers of less than 250 ha of land, local concerns areto be sent to local village assemblies who have the right torefuse the transfer. For land totaling more than 250 ha, theMinister has the final say over the land transfer.154
To complicate matters further, in 2009, the Wildlife
Conservation Act was amended. The act now prohibits crop
cultivation in game reserves, wetlands reserves, or gamecontrolled areas,155 and imposes strict fines and possible jailtime for grazing livestock in game controlled areas.156
In practical terms, these changes, amount to Maasai livingin the LGCA, and other game controlled areas, being denied
their right to their cultural heritage – their very means to
subsistence and survival.
Unsurprisingly, since this Act was passed, land conflicts
between the government, investors, and the Maasai havegrown as access to grazing lands has been restricted,
violating the promises made when the Maasai were
resettled from the Serengeti plains in 1959. Their lives
are now characterized by food insecurity, malnutrition,and dependence on inadequate and infrequent food aid,
leaving them even more vulnerable in times of drought.
In 2011, after three consecutive years of drought in the
Ngorongoro region, a measles outbreak and the epidemicof malnutrition and food insecurity claimed the lives of 200
Maasai children.157 Cultivation and grazing rights continue
to be banned in game controlled areas.
This history has had a devastating effect on the Maasai –not just leading to displacement and dispossession, buteroding their traditional ways of life and threatening theirvery survival.

View of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area © The Oakland Institute

A TIMELINE OF LAND LEGISLATION IN TANZANIA

1895

German Land Decree: All territorial land becomes crown land, controlled by the German Empire. Any land
without evidence of ownership or continued use is considered vacant and ownerless.159

1923

Land Ordinance No 3: All land in Tanzania is considered public land and is controlled by a Governor “for theuse and common benefit, direct or indirect, of the natives of the Territory.”160

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 useof the lands surrounding the SNP.161

1957

Community of Enquiry: Recommends that the existing SNP be split into two parts – one (the SNP) would notallow 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 Communityof Enquiry) and gives the Governor the ability to declare any land in the country as a national park. Customary
rights of the Maasai in national parks are lost.162
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, andcreating settlement dwellings.163

1961

Arusha Manifesto: Creates a specific role for international conservation groups to provide technical expertise in
the planning and 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.164

1974

Wildlife Conservation Act: Creates three types of conservation land, in addition to game parks – game reserves,partial game reserves, and game controlled areas. Significant restrictions are placed on activities within gamereserves.165

1975

Ngorongoro Conservation Ordinance Amendment: Section 9A of the amendment bans all forms of cultivation
within the NCA.166

1992

PM Allows Cultivation: Prime Minister overturns the ban on cultivation within the NCA.167 The announcement
is verbal 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,168 creating
confusion. The Village Land Act gives the President the power to declare “village land” “reserved” or “general”
land, provided that the reclassification is done in the public interest. Both were enacted in 2001. 169

2009

Wildlife Conservation Act: Greater restrictions are put on activities within Game Controlled Areas – including
the prohibition of crop cultivation and livestock grazing.170

25

Nainokanoka village © The Oakland Institute“The next victim of tourism will be me.
Moved, displaced, and evicted...”In Maa, nainokanoka means “I am shivering.” Sure enough, the Nainokanoka village is possibly the coldest place inNgorongoro District. Located near the rim of the Ngorongoro Crater, the village is home to some 3,200 Maasai.
The thick evening fog envelopes the village. The research team huddles together with the villagers around a small coalfire. Eager to share their hardships, late evening is better to meet, as the villagers are afraid of the authorities learning
about them talking to outsiders. XXXXXXXXXX, born and raised in the village, speaks first.
“We are Tanzanians but the laws that govern the others do not apply to us. Instead, we are still governed by thecolonial laws of the past. The Maasai, chased from the Serengeti, were tricked into believing that we will have
Ngorongoro as compensation and that we will never be evacuated from here. We were even promised priority
in a case of conflict. But today we cannot use the land for grazing or for cultivation—the end result is starvationof our families. The only use left for this land is to be our burial ground.
Our right to use the land was never stipulated on paper. Our rights depended on the sympathy of thegovernment to allow cultivation. In the 1990s during the drought, the Prime Minister allowed us to cultivate.
With Ngorongoro declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO, orders came for the people to be removed andfor us to stop cultivation.
We were then promised food aid. But little assistance came and when it did, leaders sold it at exorbitant prices.
So we live in dire poverty and face malnutrition. Families have sold cows to buy food. With cattle gone, nothing
more is left. Men have been forced to look for jobs in urban areas. They work as night guards in South Sudan
where several have been killed.
Poverty, hunger, and illiteracy have increased. There is no money for education and those who go to school are
still starving. In 2012-2013, close to 500 children from 30 villages, faced with malnutrition, were taken to thehospitals, mainly the Endulen hospital in the Karatu District. But hunger is a sensitive political matter in thevillage and we are not allowed to speak of it.

www.oaklandinstitute.org

For food aid, we are provided maize flour to which we add water. There is no milk, vegetables, beans,nothing. For the small ration of aid to suffice – anywhere between 10-14 kg twice a year – we dilute thedrink. But what if people took their tools and planted a little home garden? We tried actually several times.
But the rangers put you in jail for improving food security of your family. We have a lot of land and water.
But we cannot grow food while we starve.”171
A woman from the village speaks, “We tried to organize and went to Olbalbal in 2013 to close the gatesand not allow any tourist into the crater. But the government intervened and called our leaders. In 2014,
a big group went to the gate and again threatened to close. The Prime Minister promised food aid andthat each household will receive ten sacks of maize. But nothing came. It’s now almost October, and weare still waiting.172
XXXXXXXX shared, “Yesterday President Kikwete was in the US. He declared that tourism is declining in
Tanzania and so he committed to dedicating 35 percent of the country’s land to tourism. I was shocked tohear this. I know the next victim of tourism will be me. Moved, displaced, and evicted.”173
The village lands lie barren, given the government stipulation banning cultivation. Villagers report that rangers
living in houses overlooking the village drive by regularly. They have the authority to come into any house to inspectand ensure that no crops have been planted. They hide in the bush to trap women who, in desperation, go to theforest to find wood to sell. When arrested, they are sent to jail and the families who already have nothing, are forced
to pay the bail.174"The only use left for this land is to be our burial ground."Next, a village elder, XXXXXXXXXXX, speaks:“I was among those moved from the crater, where I cultivated till 1954. The
first conservator was Fosbrooke.175 He started the conservation area and wewere asked to move to conserve the crater. We moved from Serengeti andwe were told to go to Ngorongoro, where there is water. After we moved,
we were told to go elsewhere, out of the crater, where we could farm andlive the way we wanted to live. We were promised, yet once again, the land
will belong to us.
We don’t do large farming. We do home gardens – just enough to feed afamily. We were farming till they banned it. We started cultivating under
the conservator in the 1960s and continued till 1975, when Tanzania
started the villagization policy, which completely banned us from farming
and a road was built between the crater and the villages, marking a clear
demarcation.

A Maasai elder in Loliondo © The Oakland Institute

Under the policy, villages were registered and allocated specific number ofmiles. This land was generalized both as conservation and as village land.
Here is the village certificate of formation and registration. We do not keep

27

“If we can break the ground to lower a body,why can’t we break it for cultivation?”

Ngorongoro District © The Oakland Institutethis in the village office where it might be misplaced or destroyed. The existence of our village cannot be denied.
After 1975, our lives changed. We were left powerless with the prohibition on cultivation and we soon saw famine andhunger. Today we eat two times a day, morning and evening – porridge each time. Milk is limited since there is no
grass for the cows. So milk in the porridge is for children alone. We have meat when a cow or a goat dies but we donot slaughter. We sell our cattle to buy maize since food aid is insufficient.
Today no youth are left in the village as they head out in search of jobs. Only the elders are left with no one to carefor them. Young children are malnourished. The elders cannot move due to lack of food. Women have moved fromfamilies to look for money, sometimes staying away as long as six months while their children go hungry. Some have
moved to Kenya, some sell snuff in cities. Hunger has destroyed our families.
I fail to understand why we are prevented from cultivating. But then my hunger limits my thinking. If allowed togarden, families that are separated will be united. Women and youth will return. Children left alone at home, will
have mothers.
If we can break the ground to lower a body, why can’t we break it for cultivation?"176

www.oaklandinstitute.org

Reeling from Hunger, Poverty, and Starvation
Ol Doinyo Lengai – Mountain of God in the Maa language– is an active volcano that looms above the Naiyobi village
in Ngorongoro District. One of the largest villages on theflanks of the mountain, Naiyobi is home to more than
10,000 people who have failed to see benefits from tourism
and reel from starvation.
“Earlier we farmed to sustain ourselves. In 1992, the Prime
Minister allowed gardens. But in 2006, the NCA prohibited
us from cultivating subsistence gardens again. These bansdepend on who is in power. Today the conservators in thearea do not know or sympathize with the community,”
explained a villager.177
In the village, the small gardens farmers tended to wereburned. The few cattle that comprise their herds are notenough to sustain them. The villagers have become asideshow for tourists with their beadwork and glimpses
into a life that is vanishing. Even with tourist fees, there is
scarcely enough income for food as most of the money issiphoned off by other agencies and tour operators.
“Among 10,000 villagers, only 200 have cattle. The majority
have no means to support a family. There is widespread
hunger and poverty. The youth have left the village insearch of jobs. They come back, if alive, with no success.
Women have left to marry men with food, leaving children
as orphans. If any villager tries to disobey the ban on
cultivation, they are beaten and jailed. But why is it a crime
to cultivate? As a XXXXXXXXXX village I don’t understandthe ban. It is oppression. We live alongside the wildlife. We
don’t eat game meat. There is enough land for wildlife. If we
get small plots of land, we will manage them sustainably.”178
The villagers share that promises of food aid were made– 10 bags of maize per family per year. But the promises
were broken. “We are offered very little that does not sustain
us. Instead, the agents of the NCA sell us the food aid (ata slightly lower price than the market price). But we stillcannot buy.”179
Villagers report different levels of food intake in the village.
“Some who have goats mix the milk with the porridge. The
others have only water to add. Some villagers don’t evenhave the capacity to mill the maize. A study conducted by
the NCA at the health centers, Endulen hospital, and thedispensary here, found high levels of malnutrition. Thismalnutrition has caused child starvation deaths. Endulen
hospital knows about the deaths.

Ol Doinyo Lengai, the Mountain of God, Ngorongoro District © The Oakland Institute29

Villagers from Naiyobi village line up for water © The Oakland InstituteWe need leaders who listen. The problem with the NCA isthat it is run by people who are outsiders and who have noknowledge or understanding of the local struggles.

and cry about our starvation. We tried four times, but thesubordinates prevented us. Instead we had to return towork as cheap laborers in order to survive.

There are 700 students in primary school, around 25 in thesecondary school and 15 in high school. Six have reachedthe university. The challenge is that even if they finish theireducation, there are no jobs for our children. NCA has
548 employees out of whom only eight are residents ofNgorongoro. Conservators hired from outside, hire theirfriends and family.”180

There is nothing in the forests for us to gather and cookwith. They want us to leave but where do we go? Loliondo isoccupied. We are restricted here. If we had another place tomove to, we would leave.”181

XXXXXXXXXXXX, a woman villager shares, “I was born
here. There are 16 people in my family and we face many
problems. I have many responsibilities as a woman – build
the boma, collect wood, fetch water, find food for my children– but I have had to abandon it all and work as a laborer
to get money to buy some rations. I am tired of begging.
I am suffering from hunger. Please help us pressure thegovernment to allow us to cultivate small gardens. With
women from other villages we went to meet the President

www.oaklandinstitute.org

The villagers insist, “Please share our grievances with theinternational community and put pressure on the Tanzanian
government to allow subsistence agriculture. This land isvast and our presence here will not impact tourism and wehave always coexisted with the animals. Tourism should
benefit the people of Ngorongoro. It’s a shame that between
1959 and 2015, only four members of this village have foundemployment in the NCA.”182
At the village well, long lines of women and clusters of cattle
were dispersing – buckets empty, thirst unquenched. Even
with rationing, many went without.

View of Ngorongoro Conservation Area © The Oakland Institute“Fighting hunger and malnutrition requires tackling the problems of discrimination andmarginalization that characterize the situation of many groups that are politically or geographicallymarginalized and live in relatively remote areas. In this regard, [Right to Food] Guideline 8.1 states,‘[S]tates should respect and protect the rights of individuals with respect to resources such as land,
water, forests, fisheries, and livestock without any discrimination … Special attention may be given togroups such as pastoralists and indigenous people and their relation to natural resources.’”– Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations183

The Way Forward
Throughout time, conservation has come with a significant
cost for indigenous communities, not just in Tanzania, butaround the world.184 There is a massive overlap globally
between traditional indigenous lands and lands that havebeen protected in the name of conservation.185 But whileconservation has often involved displacing indigenous
communities, studies show that indigenous groups
are often superior to governments when it comes toconservation. There are also numerous examples whereland given to governments for conservation has led to illegal
logging, agribusiness expansion, large-scale infrastructuredevelopment, the extraction of natural resources, and otheranti-conservation practices.186 Despite the clear and growing
evidence of exemplary environmental stewardship by many
indigenous communities, the important role played “byindigenous peoples as environmental guardians has still
failed to gain due recognition.”187
Hardships faced by indigenous groups worldwide –including hunger, poverty, loss of livelihoods, displacement,
violence, and more – demonstrate widespread andembedded discrimination, bringing a global perspective tothe plight of the Maasai shared in this report.
These struggles combined with the decades-long historyof abuse faced by the Maasai – including prejudicial
legislation, disenfranchisement, and now the actions offoreign investors and tourism companies – make it essential
to determine a way forward. While the following list is in
no way comprehensive, it offers several possible paths,
including inspirational grassroots solutions developed by
the Maasai.

Need for Immediate Action
In the context of ongoing intimidation and harassment of
the Maasai, there are several important actions that must
be taken immediately to ensure their rights. These include:• An independent commission of inquiry, which includes
the Maasai pastoralists, must be set up to investigate
land-related human rights violations, including unlawful
arrests, injury, evictions, and more. Its findings should bemade public and the culprits prosecuted.
• The Tanzanian government must refrain from intimidating pastoralists, human rights defenders, journalists, andcivil society actors through state machinery. Instead, thegovernment should prosecute perpetrators involved in
the arbitrary arrests, mistreatment, and imprisonment of
innocent pastoralists.
• The Loliondo Constitutional case against the OBC has
been pending in the High Court of Tanzania Arusha Registry since December 2010, despite being filed under aCertificate of Urgency with the aim of speeding up legal
proceedings. While the OBC’s hunting license was cancelled in 2017, the case never went to court. It is essential
to improve the efficiency of the justice system to ensurethat constitutional and other public interest litigations
are conducted expediently.
• The government, through affirmative action, should ensure the representation of pastoralists in decision-making bodies that impact their lives and livelihoods. For
instance, the new General Management Plan (GMP) for
the Ngorongoro Conservation Area has failed to consult
with the Ngorongoro Pastoralist Council or local commu-

31

nity members.188 The GMP should be stopped until theprocess and Terms of Reference between the NCAA andresidents are agreed upon.
• The Tanzanian government must immediately address
the issue of severe hunger faced by the Maasai and allow
them to maintain their culture and livelihood. Their rights
to grazing cattle in Game Controlled Areas and other traditional grounds, as well as the cultivation of subsistence
garden plots, must be restored.
• The Tanzanian government must ensure security of land
tenure and communal ownership of land for pastoralists
through constitutional and legislative safeguards.
• The Tanzanian government must ensure that all land taken unlawfully is restored to the pastoralists and must notallow any further land grabs and unlawful evictions.

Legal Recourse and Policy Solutions
Various legal precedents exist in international case law thatoffer opportunities for legal recourse for the Maasai. For
example, in 2001 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
confirmed that, even if official titles and deeds are absent,
indigenous groups in Nicaragua have legitimate land rights
based on the traditional occupation of their land. The court
also determined that these indigenous peoples maintainthose rights even if they are forced off their land or it isotherwise expropriated without consent.189 Another court
ruling, by the African Commission on Human and Peoples
Rights, confirmed violation of the rights of the Endorois
peoples of Kenya in the 1970s, when they were forced fromtheir lands to make way for a game reserve. The commission
found that, although their land had become a game reserve,
the Endorois people were its traditional guardians and thus
best positioned to maintain its ecosystems.190

Tanzania’s Constitution also requires the state to respect,
protect, and fulfill various human rights. While the right tofood remains un-articulated, Article 14 of the Constitution
does guarantee all citizens the right to life.192 The right tofood is linked to this and other rights, including the right tohealth and shelter, as well as various civil and political rights.
Thus, the deprivation of access to resources constitutes
a violation of human rights assured to all citizens in
Tanzania’s Constitution.
Article 11 ICESCR:The States Parties to the present Covenant
recognize the right of everyone to an adequate
standard of living for himself and his family,
including adequate food, clothing and housing,and to the continuous improvement of living
conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate
steps to ensure the realization of this right,
recognizing to this effect the essential importanceof international co-operation based on freeconsent.
The States Parties to the present Covenant,recognizing the fundamental right of everyone
to be free from hunger, shall take, individuallyand through international co-operation, themeasures, including specific programmes, which
are needed.193
Article 14 of the Tanzanian Constitution:
Every person has the right to live and to theprotection of his life by the society in accordancewith the law.194

Within Tanzania, there are several possible legal routes tohelp enshrine their rights to their land and survival.

The Right to Food is also implicitly recognized by the African
Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, as reinforced
through the case of SERAC v. Nigeria, which was heard by acourt established to resolve interpretations of the charter.195

First, Tanzania is a state party to the International Covenant
on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Article
11 of the ICESCR recognizes the right of citizens to an
adequate standard of living, which includes adequate food,clothing, and housing. The same article acknowledges theduty of the State to take action in securing the “fundamental
right to be free from hunger.”191 To fulfill this duty, states
are required to adopt appropriate economic, social, andenvironmental policies to ensure availability of food in
sufficient quantities and quality, as well as sustainable
accessibility to food. The Tanzanian government has clearly
failed in this responsibility towards the Maasai.

There are therefore numerous avenues for internationalpressure and legal recourse to ensure the Tanzanian
government recognizes the legal and land rights of the
Maasai. In addition, the case of the Maasai should be
investigated and taken up by UN special mandate holders,
including the Special Rapporteur on the right to food; theSpecial Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples;
the Special Rapporteur on minority issues; the Special
Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment; and the Working Group on theissue of human rights and transnational corporations andother business enterprises.

www.oaklandinstitute.org

There is also the question of the current legal proceedings
between Maasai communities and the two companies
discussed in this report – TCL and the OBC. While legal
precedents in Kenya and Nicaragua are important forpointing out the legitimate rights of the Maasai, the fate ofthese two proceedings lies in the hands of the Tanzanian
courts. Recent rulings on these cases raise serious
questions of whether the Tanzanian courts, and now also
the East African Court of Justice, will ultimately uphold
the rights of the Maasai, or continue to side with foreigninterests.
As this report details, from colonial times to the present day,
Tanzania’s land-use policies have largely been determined
without consulting the Maasai.196 It is imperative that
Tanzania does away with laws that inhibit the pastoral wayof life that defines the Maasai. Instead, legislation should
welcome and support co-management of protectedareas by empowering villagers and village authorities tosustainably manage wildlife and the lands they share. The
Maasai’s right to land, life, and natural resources must be
realized and respected.

The Role of Non-State Actors
There is also important responsibility that must be taken
by businesses and corporations like TCL and the OBC.
These companies must, at the very minimum, respect
and abide by the rights of the Maasai, including land
rights defenders, and use their resources to help stop
all instances of violence, arrest, harassment, and threats
made against the Maasai.
In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council
endorsed a set of “Guiding Principles” for businesses
regarding human rights.197 A three-pronged framework
known as “Protect, Respect, Remedy” asserts that states
have a duty to protect against human rights abuses at thehands of businesses; corporations have the responsibility
to respect human rights; and access to remedies (legal
and otherwise) must increase, knowing that abuses canstill take place despite the previous commitments.198
The corporate responsibilities outlined in the guiding principles are particularly relevant here. Included in the manytasks and responsibilities that business enterprises should
carry out is the need for due diligence. This includes conducting meaningful consultations with “potentially affected groups” and other stakeholders, and altering businessplans to avoid and mitigate any potential abuses.199
While these guidelines provide important directives forbusinesses, they are not legally binding. At the time of

the writing of this report, various negotiations aimed atcreating a binding treaty based on the above framework
are still underway.200 Nevertheless, the principles outline
moral obligations and responsibilities that private
businesses should clearly undertake.

Supporting Locally-Grown Solutions
Locally-grown solutions offer encouraging ways forward
for the Maasai and other indigenous groups in Tanzania.
One example is that of Certificates of Customary Right ofOccupancy (CCROs), a new model of land titling piloted
by the Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT).
CCROs are a type of land designation made possible under
Tanzania’s Village Land Act. Typically, they have been granted
to individuals, but starting in 2011, UCRT began working
with local communities, district officials, and the Ministryof Lands to pilot the establishment of these certificates for
entire groups or communities.201 Community CCROs are
unique in that they “allow entire communities to secureindivisible rights over their customary lands and manage
those territories through bylaws and management plans.
By formalizing communities’ land holdings and providing
legal documentation, CCROs … help them protect theirland rights and ensure the environmental stewardship of
their territory for future generations.”202
CCROs are also powerful in that the certificates can beissued to “minority groups” who often face land grabs orother pressures on their land. Once granted, they last forlife, and the land cannot be sold, traded, or subdivided
without full consensus from the entire community. The
eight-step process for receiving a certificate for more than
250 ha of land is also relatively fast and straightforward,
according to the group.203
Between 2011 and 2014, eight CCROs were obtained withthe help of UCRT, one of which was granted to the Hadzabe
indigenous peoples of Northern Tanzania. Their CCRO
“dedicates approximately 20,000 ha of land as a Hadzabe
conservation zone and secures Hadzabe communal
rights to live on, manage and use their ancestral land inperpetuity.”204 According to UCRT’s 2016 annual report,that year the group protected over 335,000 ha of land forcommunity use through CCROs, more than tripling theland previously secured through this mechanism.205
With such progress, CCROs might be the best opportunity
to ensure the protection of customary land rights for
Maasai communities.

33

Conclusion
Marcus Colchester, a British zoologist, once stated, “It is
exactly because the areas that indigenous people inhabit
have not been degraded by their traditional resource
practices that they are now coveted by conservationists
who seek to limit their activities or expel them altogether
from their customary land.”206
This could not be more true in Tanzania.
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 longterm care and conservation should be rewarded andlauded. Instead, the Maasai are fighting for their lives –Overlooking the Ngorongoro Crater © The Oakland Institutewww.oaklandinstitute.org

facing violence, starvation, eviction, and disease, as foreign
investors and tourism enterprises seek to profit off of theirstewardship.
Without access to grazing lands and watering holes, andwithout the ability to grow food for their communities,
the Maasai are at risk of a new 21st century period of
emutai (“to wipe out”). This loss – of culture, knowledge,
tradition, language, lifestyle, stewardship, and more – isunfathomably large.
But it does not have to be this way. Unlike the emutai of the
19th century, the hardships and abuses currently faced by
the Maasai can be halted. If only action is taken now.

Endnotes
1

In an email response to the Oakland Institute, dated November 21, 2017, Judi
Wineland and Rick Thomson stated, “Thomson Safaris did not buy 12,617
acres of land.” Judi Wineland. Email message, Subject: “TCL responses” sent
to Anuradha Mittal. November 21, 2017, 14:10 PT.
A Thomson Safaris’ blog, however, states, “Judi Wineland and RickThomson, the husband-and-wife team who own Thomson and TCL,
purchased the land in an open bidding process in 2006 when Tanzania
Breweries Ltd. put the farm up for sale” and “Today, Thomson Safaris andTanzania Conservation Ltd. (TCL) are working alongside the Maasai toconserve this vast wilderness of wooded savannah and open grassland
covering 12,600 acres within the Serengeti ecosystem.” Thomson
Safaris. “The Enashiva Nature Refuge.” Thomson Safaris Spotlights Good
Works in Tanzania, August 21, 2009. https://thomsonsafaris.wordpress.
com/2009/08/21/ena_nat_ref/ (accessed February 28, 2018).
Documents obtained in a 2014 discovery action include a copy of theofficial lease from 2006 between Tanzania Breweries Limited and Tanzania
Conservation Limited showing a 96-year lease was obtained for a lump sumof US$1.2 million. Wineland-Thomson Adventures, Inc., d/b/a Thomson
Safaris (“Thomson Safaris”) and Thomson Safaris’ owners, Judi Winelandand Warwick Thomson, during the discovery action, In Re Application ofLoserian Minis, e t. a l. for an Order Granting Leave To Issue Subpoenas
for the Taking Of Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, Civil Action No.
1:14-mc-91050-DJC, (D. Mass. April 18, 2014), pp. TS2017-0672 - TS20170675.
A letter written on Thomson Safaris letterhead, also obtained through the2014 discovery action, reads “The dilemma is that Tanzania Conservation
Ltd, whom I represent, along with Thomson Safaris Ltd, have purchased
land for tourism purposes under TIC from Tanzanian Breweries (TBL) in2006, but to date we have not been granted the change of land use, thus
substantially enabling various interests to frustrate the progress of theinvestment, to the detriment of the investors concerned, the local area,
district and the countries’ attractiveness as an investment destination.”
Letter from Thomson Safaris Ltd, December 14, 2012, Ibid, p. TS2017-0024.

2

3

In sworn testimony from June 2014, Judi Wineland commented: “When, along time ago when this was all one big village, what was the Soitsambu
village, there were three subvillages. And the land that XXXXXXX sits on at
the moment belonged to the Sukenya, the Loita … Laitayok … So anyhow,
this land is actually, this land actually belonged to them. And this land,
when this land ended up with Tanzanian Breweries, it was the Purko who
made that decision. This is what we hear, so I’ll just tell you what we hear.
So it was Purko who made the decision for this land, that belonged to thepeople of Sukenya, to go to Tanzanian Breweries.” Documents obtained from
Wineland-Thomson Adventures, Inc., d/b/a Thomson Safaris (“Thomson
Safaris”) and Thomson Safaris’ owners, Judi Wineland and WarwickThomson, during the discovery action, Op. Cit., p. TS2017-0330.
Direct communication with Rashid S. Rashid, Counsel for the Loliondo
Maasai, September 30, 2015.
Details of the legal case are also discussed and summarized in: Gilbert, J.
“Litigating Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Africa: Potentials, Challenges andLimitations.” International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 3(2017), 657-686; Minority Rights Group. “Tanzania: Protecting Maasai rightto land.” Law and Legal Cases, November 11, 2016. http://minorityrights.org/
law-and-legal-cases/mondorosi-sukenya-and-soitsambu-village-councils-vtanzania-breweries-limited-tanzania-conservation-ltd-ngorongoro-districtcouncil-commissioner-for-lands-and-attorney-general-tanzania/ (accessed
February 28, 2018).

4

Several internal emails, obtained in a 2014 discovery action, verify thatgrazing at the Enashiva site has been limited by TCL. For example: An email
dated February 8, 2008 states: “For grazing, I told them that we will only
discuss that during the severe drought, right now it is raining heavily every
where and that there is grasses everywhere so they don’t need to ask forthat now.” Internal email message, Subject: “RE: Loliondo Issues,” February
8, 2008, 3:02AM, obtained as part of Wineland-Thomson Adventures, Inc.,d/b/a Thomson Safaris (“Thomson Safaris”) and Thomson Safaris’ owners,
Judi Wineland and Warwick Thomson, during the discovery action, Op. Cit.,
p. TS2017-0143.

Another email dated October 15, 2008 states: “This is not a big problem
anymore, even people from XXXXXXXX area have stopped bringing cattle tothe property, but they have been coming constantly to me asking to graze,
my fear is that once I allow them, then we will have herds of cattle in theproperty again as everyone will think it is now allowed. … The committee
is also insisting that we should allow people to graze but, I have always
told them that it is a bad coincidence because it is a bad time of the year
for them and this is the time that we have clients who want to see wildlife
too…” Internal email message, Subject: “Loliondo report,” October 15, 2008,
8:55AM, Ibid, p. TS2017-0213. Note: The committee mentioned in the above
email is a grazing committee created by TCL to help create a grazing policy
for the farm.
With regards to water access, in summer 2010, a local Maasai person
emailed: “We have a big problem here, Mondorosi community are very
disparate of water problems … They have been using Pololet River of the last
4 months. Yesterday your guards turn overt [sic] 500 livestock preventing
them from Pololet water source. And telling them never to come and drink
water or even to across [sic] the disputed property. I’m writing this email to
ask you if you could make an official statement to you [sic] staff here to allow
the community surroundings the disputed property to use the pololet waterand Elotim water … We do not know if this decision to denied access towater again is made by you or somebody else. The community at Mondorosi
thinks that after meeting this Friday that refused to accept XXXXXXX money
for the school led to XXXXXXX decision to denied [sic] access to water. As
since January 2010, we have seen improvement in XXXXXXX allowing thecommunity access to water and grazing, and are shocked by the current
change in situation. We know we are in the middle of the conflict over thisproperty, but please do not harm so many people at this critical stage ofdrought.” Internal email message, Subject: “urgent request,” July 25, 2010,
4:26AM, Ibid, pp. TS2017-0105 – TS2017-0106.
In November 2013, a similar request came from local Maasai man: “Herein Tz we are having a long drought by the time being, people and livestock
are moving from one place to another in search water and pasture. XXXXXX
may I please ask this question, yes we have been in land conflict for almost 8
years, when will this conflict come to an end, please take time to think about
the best way of bring this misunderstanding to an end for the betterment ofour people and your company.” Internal email message, Subject: November
20, 2013, 12:25PM, Ibid, pp. TS2017-0255 – TS2017-0256.
In sworn testimony, also obtained in a 2014 discovery action, Judi Wineland
argued that during the dry season, there is no water in the Pololet, and that
there is only ever water on the farm at times when there is water elsewherein the region. Their answers to questioning by lawyers from EarthRights
International are as follows: “Q: Are there water sources on the land? A:
Okay. What’s a water source? Help me with that, because that’s a real sticky
thing, as you and I know. What to you is a water source? So you and I are on
the same page. Q: Are there natural bodies of water on the land? A: Thereis a spring and there is a catchment that is called a pololet, but it’s not likea raging, running river. And the spring is only there occasionally. So that’s it… Q: And the river, the pololet or the catchment, as you said, when is therewater in the pololet? A: There’s water in there during rainy season when
there’s water everywhere. In other words, it doesn’t hold water where otherpeople don’t have water … Q: But just to ask the question as, I mean, you
could answer it yes or no. Do people from the surrounding communities
bring cattle onto the land to drink water? A: I’m not going to answer that yesor no, because do they bring the cattle on for water? No, because there’s nowater there if they’re bringing their cattle on. Q: You did say that there aretimes when there is water on the land. A: And they bring their cattle on. Q:
I feel that this is a pretty simple question. A: I don’t think it’s simple at all.”Ibid, pp. TS2017-0320 - TS2017-0321.
These discovery action documents also reveal that TCL employees either
call police directly or the District Commissioner, who then calls the police,
when situations arise on the land. While the company argues that this is
only when things are confrontational (“The police are only called when thesituation is escalating and people are feeling like they’re being threatenedor something of that nature.” Ibid, p. TS2017-0384) the documents also
demonstrate that police have been called, via the District Commissioner, fortrespassing, chopping wood, and possibly for farming. See endnote 32 formore information.

35

Allegations of denied access to water, grazing lands, and intimidation andviolence at the hands of the police, who are sometimes called in by TCL,
were also communicated to Oakland Institute researchers through in-person
interviews with Maasai villagers.
Allegations of violence and harassment have also been made in numerous
articles, and letters from the then-Special Rapporteur on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples to the Tanzanian government. See: Anaya, J., Arias, P.,
and J.E. Méndez. Letter to the President of Tanzania. Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Reference: AL Indigenous(2001-8) G/SO 214 (2005-4) G/SO (53-24) TZA 1/2014. https://spdb.ohchr.
org/hrdb/27th/public_-_AL_Tanzania_02.04.14_(1.2014).pdf (accessed
February 28, 2018); Renton, A. “Tourism is a Curse to Us.” The Guardian,
September 5, 2009. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/06/
masai-tribesman-tanzania-tourism (accessed February 28, 2018); Anaya, J.
& A. Katz. Letter to the Tanzanian Government. Reference: AL Indigenous(2001-8) G/SO 214 (2005-4) TZA 3/2013. November 14, 2013. http://unsr.
jamesanaya.org/docs/cases/2014a/public_-_AL_Tanzania_14.11.13_(3.2013).
pdf (accessed February 28, 2018); Friedman-Rudovsky, J. “The Ecotourism
Industry is Saving Tanzania’s Animals and Threatening its Indigenous
People.” Vice, May 11, 2015. http://www.vice.com/read/casualties-ofconservation-0000649-v22n5 (accessed February 28, 2018).
5

Elbagir, N. “Tanzania’s Maasai fight government, game hunters for ancestral
lands.” CNN, May 1, 2013. https://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/world/africa/
tanzania-maasai-eviction/index.html (accessed February 28, 2018); Anaya,
J. Cases Examined by the Special Rapporteur ( June 2009 – July 2010), A/
HRC/15/37/Add.1. James Anaya, Former United Nations Special Rapporteuron the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, September 15, 2010. http://unsr.
jamesanaya.org/cases-2010/32-united-republic-of-tanzania-alleged-forcedremoval-of-pastoralists (accessed February 28, 2018).

6

Anaya, J. Cases Examined by the Special Rapporteur ( June 2009 – July 2010), A/
HRC/15/37/Add.1. Op. Cit.

7

Ibid.

8

Kabendera, E. “Tanzania ends hunting deal with Dubai royal family.” The East
African, November 12, 2017. http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/Tanzaniaends-hunting-deal-with-Dubai-royal-family/2558-4182470-dv6hysz/index.html(accessed February 28, 2018).

9

Kamal, B. “Forced Evictions, Rights Abuses of Maasai People in Tanzania.”
Inter Press Service, August 28, 2017. http://www.ipsnews.net/2017/08/forcedevictions-rights-abuses-maasai-people-tanzania/ (accessed February 28,2018); “Maasai displaced after huts burned in Tanzania.” BBC News, August
16, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-40950383 (accessed
February 28, 2018).

10 Kolumbia, L. “Ngorongoro eviction victims now pondering court option.”
The Citizen, September 1, 2017. http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/News/
Ngorongoro-eviction-victims-now-pondering-court-option/18403404078976-11da3ib/index.html (accessed February 28, 2018).
11

Tanzanian Government Communications Unit. “Zoezi La Kuondoa Mifugo
Na Makazi Ndani Ya Hifadhi Ya Serengeti Na Mpaka Wa Pori Tengefu La
Loliondo.” Ministry of Natural Resource and Tourism, August 17, 2017. http://
www.mnrt.go.tz/highlights/view/zoezi-la-kuondoa-mifugo-na-makazi-ndaniya-hifadhi-ya-serengeti-na-mpaka-wa (accessed February 28, 2018).

12 Ibid.
13 Direct communication with local Maasai and civil society organization
members. August 2016.
14 Kolumbia, L. “Groups demand release of activists.” The Citizen, July 25, 2016.
http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/News/1840340-3309600-k8t898z/index.html(accessed February 28, 2018).
15 The Tanganyika Law Society. Press statement on the arrest of advocate Shilinde
Ngalula while in the course of performing his duties as an officer of the court. July26, 2016. http://tls.or.tz/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Statement-on-Illegalarrest-of-Advocate-Shilinde-Ngalula-Signed.pdf (accessed February 28, 2018);
Ubwani, Z. “Tanzania: Police Break Up Lawyers’ Protest March in Arusha.”
The Citizen, July 27, 2016. http://allafrica.com/stories/201607270699.html(accessed February 28, 2018).

www.oaklandinstitute.org

16

The Tanganyika Law Society. Press statement on the arrest of advocate Shilinde
Ngalula while in the course of performing his duties as an officer of the court. Op.
Cit.
Local reports suggest that communication with Susanna Nordlund, aSwedish blogger who writes about land-related human rights violations in
Loliondo, might have sparked the arrests. Kolumbia, L. “Groups demand
release of activists.” Op. Cit.

17 Direct communication with the civil society organizations, September 5,
2016.
18 Kabendera, E. “Tanzania ends hunting deal with Dubai royal family.” Op. Cit.
19 Direct communication with local villagers, ongoing since 2016.
20 Direct communication with a local Maasai researcher, September 24, 2015.
21 The Maasai Association. The Maasai People. http://www.maasai-association.
org/maasai.html (accessed February 28, 2018).
22 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
February 28, 2018).
23 New World Encyclopedia. Maasai, Op. Cit.
24

Blue Gecko. Maasai – History. Op. Cit.

25

New World Encyclopedia. Maasai, Op. Cit.

26

Ibid.; The Maasai Association. The Maasai People. Op. Cit.

27

Ibid.

28

The Maasai Association. The Maasai People. Op. Cit.

29 Ibid.
30 Direct communication with local villagers, September, 2015.
31 As discussed in endnote 1, Tanzania Conservation Limited (TCL) paid
Tanzania Breweries Limited (TBL) US$1.2 million to obtain a 96-year leaseover 12,617 acres of land in an open bidding process in 2006. As noted
later in the report, three Maasai villages situated on this land argue that thesale of the land lease was not valid both because the initial sale of the land
to Tanzania Breweries Ltd (TBL) in 1984 allegedly took place without theirconsent, and because TBL then abandoned the land in 1990. The villages
assert that they are, therefore, the owners of the land through adverse
possession. More details and citations regarding these allegations andthe ensuing court case are found later in this report in the section entitled“Seeking Recourse through the Courts.”
Aspects of this case have been reported on extensively, including in Gardner,
Benjamin. 2016. Selling the Serengeti: The Cultural Politics of Safari Tourism.
University of Georgia Press; and in Gilbert, J. “Litigating Indigenous Peoples’
Rights in Africa: Potentials, Challenges and Limitations.” Op. Cit.
32 Oakland Institute researchers did not independently verify if anyone was shotat by TCL employees or guards.
Journalists have reported that TCL staff are unarmed (see, for example,
Renton, A.“Tourism is a Curse to Us.” Op. Cit). In sworn testimony obtained
from a 2014 discovery action, Rick Thomson states: “The company has
no firearms to issue to them … No one has, is allowed or is issued with afirearm to carry.” Wineland-Thomson Adventures, Inc., d/b/a Thomson
Safaris (“Thomson Safaris”) and Thomson Safaris’ owners, Judi Winelandand Warwick Thomson, during the discovery action, Op. Cit., p. TS2017-0395.
This same sworn testimony reveals that TCL relies on the wildlife divisionand local police to provide security at their property in Loliondo. Staff fromthe wildlife division and local police are paid for their services, carry firearms,
and are not bound by the code of conduct of the company, which outlines
rules and guidelines around violence and confrontations. The testimony,in response to questions from lawyers at EarthRights International is asfollows: “Q: To your knowledge does XXXXXX employ or contract individuals
to provide security on the farm? A: Yes. Q: Who are those individuals? A:
We source security from two places, either the wildlife department or thepolice department.” When asked whether it is an informal arrangement,

Rick Thomson responded: “A: Yeah. In mean, informal in the sense that, I
just want to let you know that tomorrow we’ve got some guests coming to
the camp. We need a couple of your wildlife department guys to come tothe camp and give us security, and that’s that. … When they perform duties
outside of their station, we have to pay them, I believe it’s 10,000 shillings aday, for that … Q: Do these wildlife division rangers carry firearms? A: Theydo, yes. … Q: Do you know if these wildlife division rangers would sign thecode of conduct? A: No, they wouldn’t.” Ibid, p. TS2017-0394.
Documents obtained in the same discovery action reveal that TCL employees
either call the police directly or the District Commissioner, who then calls thepolice, when situations arise on the land. Rick Thomson argues that this is
only when things are confrontational (“The police are only called when thesituation is escalating and people are feeling like they’re being threatened orsomething of that nature.” Ibid, p. TS2017-0384).
The documents also demonstrate that police have been called, via theDistrict Commissioner (DC), for trespassing, chopping wood, and possibly
for farming. For example: “The cops, under the direction of the DC detained
5 herders who were grazing on XXXXXXX without permission. This follows
the protocol established by the DC, whereby XXXXXXX was told that hecannot take any direct action towards herders. He must call the OCD whowill deal with it … and so they did … by detaining the herders … last week.”
Internal email message, Subject: “Detained herders,” July 30, 2012 11:57AM,
Ibid, p. TS2017-0472.
Response: “Nice to know that it is the DC and police that are dealing with
this, that we are out of that picture in the sense that we did not have face
to face conflict and the usual thing of being accused of beating people etc.”
Internal email message, Subject: “Detained herders,” July 30, 2012 12:07PM,
Ibid, p. TS2017-0471.
“I have not updated you on the guy whom did open a farm at the northerncorner of XXXXXXX … Recently when it was raining a lot and pololet
floods that we can not cross to the other side … then he started farming,
I immediately communicated the matter to the DC whom ordered theGame officer to follow up on the issue … I told the game officer that, wehave nothing to discuss, the fact is that the guy want [sic] to farm inside
the property and he should stop immediately … I then I called the DC …
the DC told me that he is in Arusha attending the meeting but he will givea call to Ngoitiko to tell him to tell the guy to stop farming otherwise theDC will arrest him. (I hope so).” Internal email message, Subject: “Farmencroachment,” January 9, 2014, 9:15AM, Ibid, pp. TS2017-0292 – TS20170293.
Sworn court testimony shows that a man named Mr. Meitaya was arrestedon the property for having cut down wood. When Rick Thomson was asked
about the incident under oath, he replied, “He was discovered with, youknow, a surprisingly large amount of cut wood. And I don’t think he had
a whole lot to say about it. And I believe he was taken to court.” When
asked, “Do you know if Mr. Meitaya happens to live in the settlement in
the northeastern corner [of the Enashiva property] that we just discussed?”
the answer was, “I think I’ve learned that he does.” Mr. Thomson could not
answer where he was found cutting the wood. Ibid, p. TS2017-0383.
The specific case of the shooting of Lesingo Ole Nanyoi is addressed in
endnote 43.
A letter from John Bearcroft, General Manager of TCL, to the Oakland
Institute, states “The allegations and questions regarding the role ofgovernment, police, commissioner of lands, government policy, etc,
including the alleged intimidations and impacts that you mention, must be
addressed directly to the proper authorities in government … We cannot
speak for them, nor can we accept responsibility or blame for the policies,
decisions, actions and impacts of government of what you or any of us might
believe is wrong.” John Bearcroft. Letter to Anuradha Mittal, September 14,
2017.
33 Direct communication with a villager, Mondorosi village, September 26,
2015.
34 Direct communication with villagers, Mondorosi village, September 26, 2015.
35 Oakland Institute researchers did not independently verify if anyone was shotat by TCL employees or guards. Please see endnote 32 for more information.

36 Direct communication with villagers, Mondorosi village. Op. Cit.
37 For more information on the Maasai’a allegation that these lands werestolen, please see the section “Seeking Recourse through the Courts.”
38 Direct communication with villagers, Mondorosi village. Op. Cit.
39 TCL denies this allegation. In sworn testimony from June 18, 2014, RickThomson commented: “That kids are walking 16 kilometers a day each way
to get to school, because we’re not, you know, we’re not, we’re restricting
them somehow. That’s nonsense.” In the same testimony, when asked “Do
you know of any communities that would require attending school across theproperty, the other side of the property, let’s say a community that doesn’t
have its own school?” his response was “Not really. I mean I’ve heard people
talk about this matter, but I don’t really, I don’t really know names of areas
or so on.” Wineland-Thomson Adventures, Inc., d/b/a Thomson Safaris(“Thomson Safaris”) and Thomson Safaris’ owners, Judi Wineland andWarwick Thomson, during the discovery action, Op. Cit., p. TS2017-0386.
In the Plaintiffs Written Closing Brief from the case of Mondorosi, Sukenya,
and Soitsambu Village Councils v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd, et al., Joshua
Makko, Chairman of Mondorosi Village, “clarified that the children who lived
in either of the sub-villages of Enadooshoke or Irmasiling must necessarily
pass through the disputed land to get to Mondorosi primary school and thatthey were therefore hindered or prohibited from getting to school by the 2nd
Defendant [Tanzania Conservation Ltd].” High Court of Tanzania at Arusha.
Plaintiff’s Written Closing Brief in case of Mondorosi, Sukenya, and Soitsambu
Village Councils v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd, et al. Land Case No. 26. 2013, p. 12.
Joshua Makko testified on December 10, 2014.
40 Allegations that the Maasai have lost access to grazing areas, and have faced
arrest and intimidation by the local police were elevated and brought to theattention of the Tanzanian government by then-Special Rapporteur on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, and the Chair-Rapporteur on the
Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries, Anton Katz, in correspondence
from November 2013. The letter states: “It is reported that since the 2006evictions, the private security guards connected to TCL and local police
have continually subjected Maasai pastoralists to acts of intimidation,harassment, and beatings when they have attempted to graze their cattle oraccess water points in the disputed land area. It is also alleged that Maasai
pastoralists attempting to access Sukenya Farm are often detained by thecompany security guards or police and taken to local prisons where they are
required to pay a substantial fee in order to be released.” Anaya, J. & A. Katz.
Letter to the Tanzanian Government. Op. Cit.
For more information on allegations of lost access to grazing areas andfacing arrest and intimidation by the local police, please see endnotes 4
and 32.
41 Thomson Safaris disputes these allegations.
Regarding the shooting of Lesingo Ole Nanyoi, the company claims he waspart of a group that came onto the Enashiva land and threatened TCL staff.
“In April of 2008, a group of almost 30 armed young men entered Enashiva
and threatened XXXXXXX who later contacted the local police. The police
arrived, firing off warning shots in the air, and eventually taking 3-4 of theyoung men into custody ... Later, community groups alleged that Lesinko
ole Nanyoi was shot on the land during this altercation and was in criticalcondition.” Internal email message, Subject: “Conde Nast traveler andThomson Safaris.” June 9, 2010, 3:16PM, Wineland-Thomson Adventures,Inc., d/b/a Thomson Safaris (“Thomson Safaris”) and Thomson Safaris’owners, Judi Wineland and Warwick Thomson, during the discovery action,
Op. Cit., p. TS2017-0191).
Thomson Safaris argues that Lesingo Ole Nanyoi could not have been shotby the police because of the nature of the weapons used (“The police were
there with automatic police weapons … He was lucky he didn’t lose his head
if he got shot by one of their weapons. How could it have just resulted inthat wound to his jaw?” Ibid, p. TS 2017-0386.) and alleges that Nanyoi went
to Kenya for treatment (“And then the really weird thing is that instead ofhim crying out for help immediately, he somehow gets himself to a clinic in
Kenya … why he didn’t just ask for help and people would have taken him
immediately to Wasso Hospital which was, in my way of thinking, the closest
place to go.” Ibid, pp. TS2017-0386 – TS2017-0387).

37

This same testimony also reveals that the company obtained medical records
for Mr. Nanyoi from a Dar Es Salaam hospital, including admit and discharge
dates, blood tests, and notes from the examining physician stating: “Theabove named patient admitted following traumatic injury of the chin due
to gun shot which led to upper mandibular fracture.” When asked how thecompany came to possess this document, the response was “Maybe we
printed it off of the Internet.” Ibid, p. TS2017-0389.
In an email response from Judi Wineland to Anuradha Mittal on November
21, 2017, in response to allegations of violence on the Sukenya property, theystate “These are mere allegations and we reserve our right to demand forevidence to proof the same.” Judi Wineland. Email message, Subject: “TCL
responses” sent to Anuradha Mittal. November 21, 2017, 14:10 PT.
Allegations regarding the shooting of Olunjai Timan are also containedin Friedman-Rudovsky, J. “The Ecotourism Industry is Saving Tanzania’s
Animals and Threatening its Indigenous People.” Op. Cit.
42 Direct communication with XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, a villager in Mondorosi
village. September 26, 2015.
43 The farm is known locally as Sukenya Farm. Enashiva means “happiness” in
the Maasai language, Maa.
44 Thomson Safaris. "The Enashiva Nature Refuge." Op. Cit.
45 Batundi, F. “Tanzania: Maasai Land Dispute with Safari Tourism Group.”
Minority Rights Group, March 22, 2012. http://www.minorityvoices.org/news.
php/en/1055/tanzania-maasai-land-dispute-with-safari-tourism (accessed
February 28, 2018).
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.; Gardner, Benjamin. 2016. Selling the Serengeti: The Cultural Politics ofSafari Tourism. Op. Cit., pp. 120-121.
48 Batundi, F. “Tanzania: Maasai Land Dispute with Safari Tourism Group.” Op.
Cit.
49 High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. Plaintiff’s Written Closing Brief in case of
Mondorosi, Sukenya, and Soitsambu Village Councils v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd,et al. Op. Cit.
50 High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. Defendants’ Joint Final Submissions. Land
Case No. 26 of 2013, pp. 1-2.
51 High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. Plaintiff’s Written Closing Brief in case of
Mondorosi, Sukenya, and Soitsambu Village Councils v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd,et al. Op. Cit. This case is also discussed in Gardner, Benjamin. 2016. Selling
the Serengeti: The Cultural Politics of Safari Tourism. Op. Cit. and in Gilbert, J.
“Litigating Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Africa: Potentials, Challenges andLimitations.” Op. Cit.
52 High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. Plaintiff’s Written Closing Brief in case of
Mondorosi, Sukenya, and Soitsambu Village Councils v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd,et al. Op. Cit., p. 29.
53 Ibid, p. 30.
54 Ibid, p. 29.
55 High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. Judgment in case of Mondorosi, Sukenya,
and Soitsambu Village Councils v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd, et al. Land Case No
26. 2013.
56 Direct communication with Rashid S. Rashid, Counsel for the Loliondo
Maasai, September 30, 2015.
57 Ibid.
58 High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. Plaintiff’s Written Closing Brief in case of
Mondorosi, Sukenya, and Soitsambu Village Councils v. Tanzania BreweriesLtd, et al. Op. Cit; High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. Judgment in case of
Mondorosi, Sukenya, and Soitsambu Village Councils v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd,et al. Op. Cit.
59 High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. Plaintiff’s Written Closing Brief in case of
Mondorosi, Sukenya, and Soitsambu Village Councils v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd,et al. Op. Cit, pp. 24-25. Sandet Ole Reya testified on May 13, 2015.
Similar allegations were asserted in letters from various UN Special

www.oaklandinstitute.org

Rapporteurs: Anaya, J. & A. Katz. Letter to the Tanzanian Government. Op.
Cit.; Anaya, J., Arias, P., and J.E. Méndez. Letter to the President of Tanzania.
Op. Cit.
60 High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. Plaintiff’s Written Closing Brief in case of
Mondorosi, Sukenya, and Soitsambu Village Councils v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd,et al. Op. Cit, p. 25. Shangwe Ndekere testified on May 13, 2015.
TCL argues that these were temporary structures that had been abandoned.
In sworn testimony from 2014, when being questioned by lawyers from
EarthRights International, Judi Wineland responded with the following: “Q:
When XXXXX, to your knowledge were there any existing structures on theland? A: Yes. Q: What structures were there? A: There were TBL structures
where the TBL staff was living that was on the land. Q: And were there anyother human made, any other things built by humans? A: Other things built
by humans? From what I hear there were some old thorny fences that wereon the land at some point. But otherwise, I’m looking around, no, that I
know of … Q: Who told you about there being old thorny fences at XXXXX?
A: The first time I heard that there were old thorny fences at XXXXX waswhere – I don’t know if it was XXXXX contacted us to say that the regional
commissioner had flown up to see, because somebody in the neighborhood,
XXXXXX, was telling everybody that we were burning down homes on ourland that belonged to Maasai. He flew up, pissed as a rat, that she haddone this, because it was not. It was thorny brushes and he looked at that.
And then he wrote to me – He wrote to us, actually, cc’d to me, about thishappening. And that was the first time I even knew they were on the property… Q: And was XXXXX burning those thorny obstacles? A: Yes, I hear thatthey did.” Wineland-Thomson Adventures, Inc., d/b/a Thomson Safaris(“Thomson Safaris”) and Thomson Safaris’ owners, Judi Wineland andWarwick Thomson, during the discovery action, Op. Cit., pp. TS2017-0318 –TS2017-0319.
The testimony also confirmed that it was since discovered that additionalbomas exist on the Enashiva property. In the testimony, Judi Winelandstated: “We found out that there are, there’s a boma inside our property that
we didn’t know about. And there is one, but it’s not – So it’s not been built.
All the questions you have asked me. It’s been there all along. We just didn’tknow that our land went to the far corner where this place is. Q: Do you
know who lives in those bomas? A: I’m trying to give you a name, but thefamily of a fellow who ended up in the hospital. I’m sorry, I can’t remember
his name … Q: Was that the man who was shot? A: Somewhere, yeah. Not
on our property, but somewhere. Q: Lesingo Ole Nanyoy? A: Nanyoy’s family.
I think that’s who that is.” Ibid, pp. TS2017-0339 – TS2017-0340.
61 High Court of Tanzania at Arusha. Judgment in case of Mondorosi, Sukenya,
and Soitsambu Village Councils v. Tanzania Breweries Ltd, et al. Op. Cit.
“The title deed reads 12,617 acres. Any changes made to the size of the land
did not happen under the ownership of the land by TCL. This is the correct
position regarding the appeal. The Villages as any other litigant in Tanzania
have a constitutional right to appeal against a decision of any court or
tribunal should they feel aggrieved.” Judi Wineland. Email message, Subject:“TCL responses” sent to Anuradha Mittal. November 21, 2017, 14:10 PT.
62 Direct communication with Rashid S. Rashid, Counsel for the Loliondo
Maasai, Op. Cit.
63 Thomson Safaris. Thomson Safaris Affiliations & Awards. http://www.
thomsonsafaris.com/affiliations-awards (accessed April 12, 2016). This
webpage is no longer active online, but a previous version can be found at:https://web.archive.org/web/20170514065450/http://www.thomsonsafaris.
com/affiliations-awards (accessed February 28, 2018).
64 Direct communication with young herders, September 2015.
65 These allegations have not been independently verified by Oakland Instituteresearchers. They have, however, been extensively reported, including by thefollowing sources: Friedman-Rudovsky, J. “The Ecotourism Industry is Saving
Tanzania’s Animals and Threatening its Indigenous People.” Op. Cit; Renton,
A. “Tourism is a Curse to Us.” Op. Cit. Additional information regardingthese allegations can be found in endnotes 4 and 32.
66 Anaya, J., Arias, P., and J.E. Méndez. Letter to the President of Tanzania. Op.
Cit.
67 Friedman-Rudovsky, J. “The Ecotourism Industry is Saving Tanzania’s
Animals and Threatening its Indigenous People.” Op. Cit.

68 Renton, A. “Tourism is a Curse to Us.” Op. Cit.
69 Ibid.; Friedman-Rudovsky, J. “The Ecotourism Industry is Saving Tanzania’s
Animals and Threatening its Indigenous People.” Op. Cit.
70 Renton, A. “Tourism is a Curse to Us.” Op. Cit.
71 Friedman-Rudovsky, J. “The Ecotourism Industry is Saving Tanzania’s
Animals and Threatening its Indigenous People.” Op. Cit.
72 Nordlund, S. “Brief Report about How I Was Arrested in Loliondo.” View
from the Termite Mound [blog], July 1, 2015. https://termitemoundview.
blogspot.com/2015/07/brief-report-about-how-i-was-arrested.html (accessed
February 28, 2018).
73 Committee to Protect Journalists. “Trent Keegan.” Journalists Killed. https://
cpj.org/killed/2008/trent-keegan.php (accessed February 28, 2018).
74 MacCormaic, B. “Follow-up to Maasai Dispute.” An African Farmer’s
Journal [blog], September 14, 2008. http://africanfarmersjournal.blogspot.
ie/2008/09/follow-up-to-maasai-dispute.html (accessed February 28, 2018);
Committee to Protect Journalists. “Trent Keegan.” Op. Cit; Who Killed Trent
Keegan. [video], Directed by R. Harley. 2011. Produced by Project Melting Pot,
2011.
75 Judi Wineland. Email message, Subject: “TCL responses” sent to Anuradha
Mittal. November 21, 2017, 14:10 PT.
76 Villagers and communities shared the fear they live with, their experiences of
intimidation, and outside researchers being forced to leave the country with
the Oakland Institute research team. Direct communication with villagers,
September 2015.
77 Patinkin, J. “Tanzania’s Maasai Battle Game Hunters for Grazing Land.”
BBC, April 18, 2013. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22155538(accessed February 28, 2018).
78 Renton, A. “Tourism is a Curse to Us.” Op. Cit.
79 Kabendera, E. “Tanzania ends hunting deal with Dubia royal family.” Op. Cit.
80 Direct communication with local villagers, March 2018.
81 Anaya, J. Cases Examined by the Special Rapporteur ( June 2009 – July 2010), A/
HRC/15/37/Add.1. Op. Cit.
82 Patinkin, J. “Tanzania’s Maasai Battle Game Hunters for Grazing Land.” Op.
Cit.
83 Direct communication with local villagers, Soitsambu Ward, September 2015.
84 Ibid.
85 Ibid.
86 Anaya, J. Cases Examined by the Special Rapporteur ( June 2009 – July 2010), A/
HRC/15/37/Add.1. Op. Cit.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.; Feminist Activist Coalition. FEMACT Loliondo Findings. August 2009,http://mokoro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/femact_loliondo_findings.pdf(accessed February 28, 2018).
89 Anaya, J. Cases Examined by the Special Rapporteur ( June 2009 – July 2010), A/
HRC/15/37/Add.1. Op. Cit.
90 Ibid.
91 Ibid.
92 Renton, A. “Tourism is a Curse to Us.” Op. Cit.
93 Feminist Activist Coalition. FEMACT Loliondo Findings. Op. Cit. p. 8.
94 Direct communication with a village elder XXXXXXXXXXXXX of Kartalu
village, Soitsambu Ward, September 25, 2015.
95 Direct communication with civil society leaders, Arusha, September 25, 2015.
96 Ibid.
97 Direct communication with Edward T. Porokwa, Executive Director of
PINGOS Forum, September 30, 2015.

98 “Tanzania breaks promise - thousands of Maasai evicted to make way forlion hunt.” The Ecologist, February 27, 2015. http://www.theecologist.org/
News/news_analysis/2771261/tanzania_breaks_promise_thousands_of_
maasai_evicted_to_make_way_for_lion_hunt.html (accessed February 28,2018).
99 Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania.
Government clarifies on decision to provide huge tracks of land to Loliondo
residents. [Press Release], April 7, 2013. http://www.mnrt.go.tz/highlights/
view/government-clarifies-on-decision-to-provide-huge-tracks-of-land-tololiondo (accessed February 28, 2018).
100 Ibid.
101 Smith, D. “Tanzania Ditches Plan to Evict Masai for Serengeti ‘Wildlife
Corridor.’” The Guardian, October 7, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/
world/2013/oct/07/tanzania-maasai-serengeti-wildlife-corridor (accessed
February 28, 2018).
102 “Maasai Face Eviction from Ancestral Lands to make way for Dubai Hunting
Firm.” Christian Science Monitor, April 5, 2013. http://www.csmonitor.com/
World/Africa/2013/0405/Maasai-face-eviction-from-ancestral-lands-tomake-way-for-Dubai-hunting-firm (accessed February 28, 2018); Patinkin, J.
“Tanzania’s Maasai Battle Game Hunters for Grazing Land.” Op. Cit.
103 Stop the Serengeti Sell-off. Avaaz: The World in Action. https://secure.avaaz.
org/en/save_the_maasai/?slideshow (accessed February 28, 2018).
104 Smith, D. “Tanzania Ditches Plan to Evict Masai for Serengeti ‘Wildlife
Corridor.’” Op. Cit.; Smith, D. “Tanzania Accused of Backtracking over Saleof Masai’s Ancestral Land.” The Guardian, November 16, 2014. http://
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/tanzania-government-accusedserengeti-sale-maasai-lands (accessed February 28, 2018); Smith, D.
“Tanzania’s Masai ‘Breathe Sigh of Relief’ after President Vows Never to
Evict them.” The Guardian, November 25, 2014. http://www.theguardian.
com/world/2014/nov/25/tanzania-masai-eviction-uturn (accessed February
28, 2018).
105 Tweet of President Jakaya Kikwete. November 23, 2014, https://twitter.com/
jmkikwete/status/536439161927266305 (accessed February 28, 2018).
106 According to The Ecologist, these evictions are linked to clearing land foruse by the OBC. “Tanzania breaks promise - thousands of Maasai evicted tomake way for lion hunt.” Op. Cit.
107 Direct communication with civil society leaders, Arusha, September 25, 2015.
108 For instance, Nguchuk Turuni, a resident of Maaloni village, was arrested
on claims of being a Kenyan, and taken to Loliondo. He was found not
to be Kenyan, but was then accused of hosting a Kenyan national. The
person accused to be Kenyan was a resident of Enguserosambu, a village in
Loliondo and therefore a Tanzanian not a Kenyan. Both were later found to
be Tanzanians but still forced to pay TZS 200,000 (approximately US$92)
in fines. Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition. Loliondo Joint Fact
Finding Mission: Human Rights NGOs Joint Intervention Report. May 2015, p.
18.
109 Direct communication with villagers and CSO members, June 2017.
110 Kamal, B. “Forced Evictions, Rights Abuses of Maasai People in Tanzania.”
Op. Cit.; “Maasai displaced after huts burned in Tanzania.” Op. Cit.
111 Kolumbia, L. “Ngorongoro eviction victims now pondering court option.”
Op. Cit.
112 Tanzanian Government Communications Unit. “Zoezi La Kuondoa Mifugo
Na Makazi Ndani Ya Hifadhi Ya Serengeti Na Mpaka Wa Pori Tengefu La
Loliondo.” Op. Cit.
113 See, for example: “Maasai displaced after huts burned in Tanzania.” Op. Cit.;IWGIA. “Forced evictions of Maasai people in Loliondo, Tanzania.” Urgent
Alert, August 2017. https://issuu.com/iwgia/docs/urgent_alert_tanzania_
august_2017 (accessed February 28, 2018); Lang, C. “Urgent request forintervention against violent Maasai evictions in Tanzania: ‘Losing the land
would mean losing everything.’” Conservation Watch, August 22, 2017. http://
www.conservation-watch.org/2017/08/22/urgent-request-for-interventionagainst-violent-maasai-evictions-in-tanzania-losing-the-land-would-meanlosing-everything/ (accessed February 28, 2018).

39

114 Kamagi, D. “Human Rights Commission stops evictions in Loliondo.” The
Citizen, September 5, 2017. http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/News/HumanRights-Commission-stops-evictions-in-Loliondo/1840340-4083752-5nes8w/
index.html (accessed February 28, 2018).
115 Rweyemamu, F. “Govt taken to East African court over Ngorongoro landcrisis.” The Citizen, October 3, 2017. http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/News/Govttaken-to-East-African-court-over-Ngorongoro-land-crisis/1840340-4122904m5xqvc/index.html (accessed February 28, 2018).
116 Kabendera, E. “Tanzania ends hunting deal with Dubai royal family.” Op. Cit.
117 Direct communication with young herders, Soitsambu Ward, September
2015.
118 Direct communication with village women, September 25, 2015.
119 Direct communication with women in a boma at Ololosokwan village,
September 25, 2015,
120 Veit, P. The Precarious Position of Tanzania’s Village Land. Focus
on Land in Africa, August 2010. http://www.focusonland.com/
download/5232e696a2a57/ (accessed February 28, 2018).
121 Tanganyika Territory. Land Ordinance No. 3, 1923. January 25, 1923. http://
celp.org.uk/webpages/projects/laws/land/1923land/pdf/1923land.pdf(accessed February 28, 2018); Veit, P. The Precarious Position of Tanzania’s
Village Land. Op. Cit.
122 Tanganyika Territory. Land Ordinance No. 3, 1923. Op. Cit. Sec 3.
123 Veit, P. The Precarious Position of Tanzania’s Village Land. Op. Cit.
124 Shivji, I. G. & W.B. Kapinga. 1998. Maasai Rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania.
London: IIED/HAKIARDHI, p. 7.
125 Ibid.
126 Rogers, P. J. “International Conservation Governance and the Early Historyof the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania.” Global Environment, 4(2009): p. 88.

138 Ibid.
139 Rogers, P. J. “International Conservation Governance and the Early History of
the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania.” Op. Cit., pp. 98-99.
140 Shivji, I. G. & W.B. Kapinga. 1998. Maasai Rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Op.
Cit. p. 13.
141 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).
142 Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism, United Republic of Tanzania.
Government clarifies on decision to provide huge tracks of land to Loliondo
residents. Op. Cit.
143 Villagization was part of Julius Nyerere’s larger socialist vision, Ujamaa.
Amongst other things, it envisioned the creation of villages around acommon service center, and the cooperative farming of land.
144 United Republic of Tanzania. An Act to amend the National Parks Ordinanceand the Ngorongoro Conservation Ordinance, No. 14, 1975. August 12, 1975.
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/tan17715.pdf (accessed February 28,2018), Sec 9a.
145 Shivji, I. G. & W.B. Kapinga. 1998. Maasai Rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Op.
Cit. p. 5.
146 Ibid, p. 25.
147 Ibid, p. 40.
148 Ibid.
149 Veit, P. The Precarious Position of Tanzania’s Village Land. Op. Cit.; Palmer,
R. The Tanzania Land Acts, 1999: Analysis of the Analyses. Oxfam GB, March
1999. http://mokoro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/tanzanian_land_acts_1999_
analysis_of_analyses1.pdf (accessed February 28, 2018).
150 See, for example, Veit, P. The Precarious Position of Tanzania’s Village Land.
Op. Cit.

127 Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority. Welcome to the Ngorongoro
Conservation Authority. http://www.ngorongorocrater.org/welcome.
html#land (accessed February 28, 2018).

151 United Republic of Tanzania. Village Land Act, No. 5, 1999. May 15, 1999.
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/tan53306.pdf (accessed February 28,2018), Sec 7(e).

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

152 United Republic of Tanzania. Land Act, No. 4, 1999. Op. Cit., Sec 2.

129 Ibid.; Shivji, I. G. & W.B. Kapinga. 1998. Maasai Rights in Ngorongoro,
Tanzania. Op. Cit. p. 9.
130 Legislature of Tanganyika. National Parks Ordinance, No. 12, 1959. June 26,
1959. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/tan5350.pdf (accessed February
28, 2018); Tanganyika. Ngorongoro Conservation Area Ordinance, CAP. 413Supp. 59, 1959. July 1, 1959. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/tan17716.pdf(accessed February 28, 2018).
131 Legislature of Tanganyika. National Parks Ordinance, No. 12, 1959. Op. Cit. Sec
6(1).
132 Tanganyika. Ngorongoro Conservation Area Ordinance, CAP. 413-Supp. 59, 1959.
Op. Cit. Sec 6(2)(f).
133 Taylor, G. & 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 February 28, 2018).
134 Tanganyika. Ngorongoro Conservation Area Ordinance, CAP. 413-Supp. 59, 1959.
Op. Cit. Sec 9.
135 Shivji, I. G. & W.B. Kapinga. 1998. Maasai Rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Op.
Cit. p. 11.
136 Ibid, p. 12.
137 Ibid, pp 18-19.; United Republic of Tanzania. Game Parks Laws Act, No. 14,
1975. August 12, 1975. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/tan17715.pdf(accessed February 28, 2018).

www.oaklandinstitute.org

153 United Republic of Tanzania. Village Land Act, No. 5, 1999. Op. Cit. Sec 4(2)(1).
154 Ibid, Sec 6.
155 United Republic of Tanzania. Wildlife Conservation Act, No. 5, 2009. March
12, 2009. http://www.lrct.go.tz/download/laws_2009/05-2009%20The%20
Wildlife%20Conservation%20Act,%202009.pdf (accessed February 28,2018), Sec 20 (1) (c).
156 Ibid, Sec 20.
157 Ngorongoro Youth Development Association & PINGO’s Forum. Report after
visiting NCA, 9-12 December, 2011. 2012.
158 Direct communication with XXXXXXXXXXXX, April 27, 2015.
159 Veit, P. The Precarious Position of Tanzania’s Village Land. Op. Cit.
160 Tanganyika Territory. Land Ordinance No. 3, 1923. Op. Cit. Sec 3.
161 Shivji, I. G. & W.B. Kapinga. 1998. Maasai Rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Op.
Cit p. 7.
162 Legislature of Tanganyika. National Parks Ordinance, No. 12, 1959. Op. Cit. Sec
6(1).
163 Tanganyika. Ngorongoro Conservation Area Ordinance, CAP. 413-Supp. 59, 1959.
Op. Cit., Sections 6(2)(f) & 9.
164 Rogers, P. J. “International Conservation Governance and the Early History of
the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania.” Op. Cit., pp.98-99.
165 United Republic of Tanzania. Wildlife Conservation Act, No. 12, 1974. Op. Cit.

166 United Republic of Tanzania. An Act to amend the National Parks Ordinanceand the Ngorongoro Conservation Ordinance, No. 14, 1975. Op. Cit., Sec 9a.

193 United Nations. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. Op. Cit.

167 Shivji, I. G. & W.B. Kapinga. 1998. Maasai Rights in Ngorongoro, Tanzania. Op.
Cit. p. 25.

194 United Republic of Tanzania. The Constitution of the United Republic of
Tanzania, 1977. Op. Cit.

168 United Republic of Tanzania. Village Land Act, No. 5, 1999. Op. Cit. Sec. 7(e);United Republic of Tanzania. Land Act, No. 4, 1999. Op. Cit., Sec 2.

195 Tenga, R. “The Right to Food and Security of Pastoral Resource Rights in
the United Republic of Tanzania,” In The Right to Food and Access to Natural
Resources, edited by Lorenzo Cotula, 50-58. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 2008. http://www.fao.org/3/a-k8093e.
pdf (accessed February 28, 2018), p. 58.

169 United Republic of Tanzania. Village Land Act, No. 5, 1999. Op. Cit., Sec. 4(2)(1).
170 United Republic of Tanzania. Wildlife Conservation Act, No. 5, 2009. Op. Cit.
171 Direct communication with XXXXXXXXXXX, a villager from Nainokanoka
village, September 27, 2015.
172 Direct communication with a pastoralist with 5 cows, 100 goats and sheep,and eight family members, who was born in the Nainokanoka village after
the family moved from the crater following evictions in the 1970s. September
26, 2015.
173 Direct communication with a villager, Nainokanoka village. September 26,
2015.
174 Direct communication with villagers from Nainokanoka village. September
26, 2015.
175 During field research, “Force Brook” was mentioned often as one of theConservators in Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) who proposed theburning of cultivation in Ngorongoro claiming it to be a threat to a world
heritage site.
176 Direct communication with a villager, Nainokanoka village. September 27,
2015.
177 Direct communication with XXXXXXXXXXX, a villager. September 28, 2015.
178 Ibid.
179 Ibid.
180 Direct communication with a villager. September 28, 2015.
181 Direct communication with a woman villager. September 28, 2015.
182 Ibid.
183 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Report of the Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Permanent Forum on
Indigenous Issues, 6th Session, E/C.19/2007/3, February 15, 2007. http://
www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/6_session_fao.pdf (accessed
February 28, 2018).
184 Tauli-Corpuz, V. Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Report of the Special Rapporteurof the Human Rights Council on the rights of indigenous peoples, Victora
Tauli-Corpuz. United Nations General Assembly, July 29, 2016. http://unsr.
vtaulicorpuz.org/site/images/docs/annual/2016-annual-ga-a-71-229-en.pdf(accessed February 28, 2018).
185 An estimated 50 percent of areas protected in the name of conservation
globally are found on traditional indigenous lands. Ibid, p. 7.
186 Ibid. p. 8
187 Ibid. p. 7.
188 Communication with impacted villagers and local NGOs. January 2018.
189 Tauli-Corpuz, V. Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Report of the Special Rapporteurof the Human Rights Council on the rights of indigenous peoples. Op. Cit. p. 11.
190 Ibid. p 12.
191 United Nations. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. Entered into force, January 3, 1976. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/
ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx (accessed February 28, 2018), Article
11.2.
192 United Republic of Tanzania. The Constitution of the United Republic of
Tanzania, 1977. http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/tz/tz030en.pdf(accessed February 28, 2018).

196 Ibid.
197 Ruggie, J. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on
the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other businessenterprises, John Ruggie. United Nations Human Rights. Council, 17th Session,
A/HRC/17/31, March 21, 2011. http://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/
business/A.HRC.17.31.pdf (accessed February 28, 2018).
198 Ibid.
199 Ibid.
Regarding the due diligence conducted before purchasing the Enashivasight, in sworn testimony from 2014, Judi Wineland provided the following
response during dialogue with EarthRights International lawyers: “Q: Did
you check whether there were any conflicting claims to XXXXXX before
you bought it? A: I wasn’t the person who was responsible for buying theproperty. We worked with our lawyer and there were – Nothing, I remember
there was no conflict. There was no mention of conflict. Q: So if someone
had done a check for conflicts, it would have been your lawyer, is that right?
A: I don’t know. Who does a check for conflicts? I don’t know if it would havebeen my lawyer or if it would have been – I don’t know who would have done
that. Most likely our lawyer told us it was a free and clear and titled, deeded
piece of property. Q: Did you check whether any people were using the land
before you bought it? A: I’m the wrong person to ask. I’m sorry.” WinelandThomson Adventures, Inc., d/b/a Thomson Safaris (“Thomson Safaris”) andThomson Safaris’ owners, Judi Wineland and Warwick Thomson, during thediscovery action, Op. Cit., p. TS2017-0317.
An internal email produced as part of the discovery action also addresses
this issue: “We bought this land not understanding the difficulties of clan
warfare that was taking place in Loliondo … We carefully, as all Americans
do, did our title searches … but what we might not have realized is that weshould have done a “clan search, or a community search”…like here when
you buy property you look at the neighbor hood [sic] that you are moving
into, you look at the schools, you look at the political aspects. We didn’t
really do that well enough.” Internal email message. Subject: “RE: Loliondo”
June 7, 2010, 11:44AM, Ibid, pp. TS2017-0177 – TS2017-0178.
Testimony from Rick Thomson also touched on this issue. “Q: Did you or
the guides that you sent previously ask any questions about whether or not
any of the members of a certain community had any use for the land or wereusing the land at the time? A: Well, no. I mean, not really in that sense. I
mean, it was TBL property. You know, it wasn’t a huge thought in my mind.”Ibid, p. TS2017-0367.
Later, while discussing details about a meeting conducted with local elders
prior to purchasing the property, Mr. Thomson answered questions asfollows: “Q: Did you go to several different of the settlements around theproperty at that time? A: Well, I think rather than go to all around the place,because I wasn’t that familiar yet with all these places, but somehow wemight have helped with that. And so wecalled a meeting and I thinksort of had a group of elders and, you know, chatted to them, talked to them.
had experience in the area, so he was able to call a meeting? A:
Q
is a guy who had bought a prior property from Breweries – not in
the area, but, you know, and he was our, yeah, he – I went with him to look at
the property the first time, you know, and have a look around and investigate
it personally so I could have a look at it. So he kind of toured me around.”Ibid, p. TS2017-0371.
200 Business & Human Rights Resource Center. Latest new on proposed binding
treaty. https://business-humanrights.org/en/binding-treaty/latest-news-onproposed-binding-treaty (accessed February 28, 2018).

41

201 Lekaita, E., Nelson, F., and J. Davie. Securing Communal Land Tenure
in Northern Tanzania Using Certificates of Customary Right of Occupancy.
Ujamaa Community Resource Team, 2014. http://www.ujamaa-crt.org/
uploads/1/2/5/7/12575135/ucrt_ccro_brief_2 014.pdf (accessed February 28, 2018).
202 Goldman Environmental Prize. Edward Loure: 2016 Goldman Prize Recipient.
http://www.goldmanprize.org/recipient/edward-loure/ (accessed February
28, 2018).
203 Lekaita, E., Nelson, F., and J. Davie. Securing Communal Land Tenure in
Northern Tanzania Using Certificates of Customary Right of Occupancy. Op. Cit.

www.oaklandinstitute.org

204 Ibid.
205 Ujamaa Community Resource Team. Annual Report 2016. http://www.
ujamaa-crt.org/uploads/1/2/5/7/12575135/ucrt_ar_2016.compressed.pdf(accessed February 28, 2018).
206 Quoted in: Dowie, Mark. 2009. Conservation Refugees: The Hundred Year
Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples. Cambridge: MIT
Press, p. 265.

The Oakland Institute

PO Box 18978

Oakland, CA 94619 USA

www.oaklandinstitute.org