Suchergebnisse

Measures to establish formal legal systems and to formalize informal arrangements have ignored the overlaps and interactions between formal and informal systems, and have increased tensions and conflicts between different resource users, as well as between government and villagers. Conflicts occur at different levels, with some of them embedded in marital and familial relations. The different levels and types of conflicts call for the coexistence of a variety of institutions to manage them. (Inwent/DÜI)

ABSTRACTFarmer–herder conflicts in Africa are often presented as being driven by 'environmental scarcity'. Political ecologists, however, argue that these conflicts should be analysed within a broader historical and policy context. This article presents a case study of a local conflict in the Kilosa District in Tanzania that tragically culminated in the killing of thirty‐eight farmers on 8 December 2000. To understand the conflict, the authors argue that it is necessary to study the history of villagization and land use in the District, as well as national land tenure and pastoral policies. Attempts at agricultural modernization have fostered an anti‐pastoral environment in Tanzania. The government aim is to confine livestock keeping to 'pastoral villages', but these villages lack sufficient pastures and water supplies, leading herders to search for such resources elsewhere. Pastoral access to wetlands is decreasing due to expansion of cultivated areas and the promotion of agriculture. The main tool that pastoralists still possess to counteract this trend is their ability to bribe officials. But corruption further undermines people's trust in authorities and in the willingness of these authorities to prevent conflicts. This leads actors to try to solve problems through other means, notably violence.

The extractive industries are becoming more important for Tanzania's economy. Mining and gas production contribute to generating jobs and revenues. However, investments may also pose a threat to existing rights to land, not least because it is the state that owns the sub-soil resources. Generally, it prioritises extraction over the protection of surface land rights. Based on reviews of the extractive sector legislation, the extractive sector literature, and the literature on mainland Tanzania's economic development models, this paper focused on how the rights of different stakeholders have changed over time. It focuses on three different groups of actors, namely smallholders, investors and state actors. It argues that the role of the state in governing investments in the extractive sectors have gradually been strengthened, but that its direct involvement as an investor has waxed and waned. Recently, it has been on its way back in again through state co-ownership in joint-venture operations. This is documented in a second paper, Rights to land and natural resources in Tanzania (2/2): The return of the state.

Under recent policy reforms in Tanzania's extractive sectors, the state is taking centre stage in the governance and regulation of minerals and oil/gas/petroleum resources. Through state-owned companies it is also re-emerging as a more direct investor in these sectors. This affects the rights of other stakeholders, not least the multinational companies. This paper analyses the key features of contemporary mining and petroleum legislation and their implications for smallholders, investors and state actors. It argues that recent return of the state signifies a major shift in bargaining power between the state and other actors, especially multinational companies. At the same time, while smallholders saw a gradual strengthening of their rights, rights to land in extractive investments are still precarious. For local communities, although local content and CSR provisions have been strengthened, local content is often reinterpreted to mean national content. This may potentially disfavour communities that bear burdens of extraction at the sub-national levels.

The extractive industries are becoming more important for Tanzania's economy. Mining and gas production contribute to generating jobs and revenues. However, investments may also pose a threat to existing rights to land, not least because it is the state that owns the sub-soil resources. Generally, it prioritises extraction over the protection of surface land rights. Based on reviews of the extractive sector legislation, the extractive sector literature, and the literature on mainland Tanzania's economic development models, this paper focused on how the rights of different stakeholders have changed over time. It focuses on three different groups of actors, namely smallholders, investors and state actors. It argues that the role of the state in governing investments in the extractive sectors have gradually been strengthened, but that its direct involvement as an investor has waxed and waned. Recently, it has been on its way back in again through state co-ownership in joint-venture operations. This is documented in a second paper, Rights to land and natural resources in Tanzania (2/2): The return of the state.

ABSTRACTDespite a decade of rhetoric on community conservation, current trends in Tanzania reflect a disturbing process of reconsolidation of state control over wildlife resources and increased rent‐seeking behaviour, combined with dispossession of communities. Whereas the 1998 Wildlife Policy promoted community participation and local benefits, the subsequent policy of 2007 and the Wildlife Conservation Act of 2009 returned control over wildlife and over income from sport hunting and safari tourism to central government. These trends, which sometimes include the use of state violence and often take place in the name of 'community‐based' conservation, are not, however, occurring without resistance from communities. This article draws on in‐depth studies of wildlife management practices at three locations in northern Tanzania to illustrate these trends. The authors argue that this outcome is more than just the result of the neoliberalization of conservation. It reflects old patterns of state patrimony and rent seeking, combined with colonial narratives of conservation, all enhanced through neoliberal reforms of the past two decades. At the same time, much of the rhetoric of neoliberal reforms is being pushed back by the state in order to capture rent and interact with villagers in new and oppressive ways.