Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:15:29.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Community Rights and Land Use Policies in Tanzania: The Case of Pastoral Communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

J. T. Mwaikusa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The statement above is an admission of failure, or neglect, to design a policy for livestock production and development. The admission appears t o be almost contradictory. Nyerere's leadership of Tanzania had its landmarks, the most indelible of which is probably the Arusha Declaration with its particularly heavy bias towards rural development in its policy objectives. Yet that rural bias conspicuously excluded the role of pastoral communities and their potential in the development of Tanzania's rural economy. The pastoralists are not a majority but constitute a substantial portion of the population. They are entitled, as of right, to proportionate attention by national policies, as well as access to national resources, especially land, proportionate to their needs and potential, just like the cultivators. But government policies in Tanzania have marginalized pastoralists and sometimes even their rights and their very presence have been ignored.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 37 , Issue 2: LAW AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN AFRICA , Autumn 1993 , pp. 144 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 James, R. W. and Fimbo, G. M., Customary Land Law of Tanzania: A Sourerbook, Nairobi, 1973, 262–292, esp. at 278.Google Scholar

2 Tenga, R. W., Pastoral Land Rights in Tanzania: A Review, London, 1992, 14–17.Google Scholar

3 James, and Fimbo, , op. cit., 67–74.Google Scholar

4 Tenga, , op. cit. 13.Google Scholar

5 James, and Fimbo, , op. cit., 94.Google Scholar

6 Arhem, K., Pastoral Man in the Garden of Eden, Uppsala, 1985, 16, 31, 42–43;Google ScholarFosbrooke, H., Ngorongoro: The Eighth Wonder, London, 1972, 65–67, 166–168.Google Scholar

7 As defined under s. 2 of the Land Ordinance, Cap. 113.

8 Arhem, , op. cit., 31.Google Scholar

9 The National Parks Ordinance.

10 Op. cit., 195.

11 Parkipuny, M. S., Pastoralism, Conservation and Development in the Greater Serengeti Region, London, 1991.Google Scholar

13 Citation from Proceedings of Royal Geographical Society, New Series 4 (1882), 730–746.

13 Panet News, Issue No. 2, October, 1992.

14 Tenga, op. cit.

15 Arhem, , op. cit., 19–20.Google Scholar

16 ibid., 20.

17 Fosbrooke, , op. cit. 171.Google Scholar

18 Parkipuny, , op. cit., 24.Google Scholar

19 Japhet, K. and Seaton, E., The Meru Land Case, Nairobi, 1967.Google Scholar

20 Arhem, , op. cit. pp. 21–22.Google Scholar

21 Parkipuny, , op. cit. 13.Google Scholar

22 Mustafa, K., “The Pastoralist Question”, in O'Neill, N. and Mustafa, K. (eds.), Capitalism, Socialism and the Development Crisis in Tanzania, Avebury, 1990, 101–124.Google Scholar

23 ibid., 108–109.

24 ibid., 112–116.

25 Lane, C. and Scoones, I., “Barabaig natural resource management”, in Young, M. D. and Solbrig, O. T. (eds.), The World's Savannas: Economic Driving Forces, Ecological Constraints Policy Options for Sustainable Land Use, Paris, 1984.Google Scholar

26 Fosbrooke, , op. cit., 31, 157.Google Scholar

27 ibid., 32, 157; Lane, and Scoones, , op. cit., 95–96;Google ScholarLane, C., The Barabaig Case: Implications for Land Policy in Pastoral Areas of Tanzania, Submission to Tanzanian Presidential Commission of Enquiry into Land Matters, London, 1991, 2–3.Google Scholar

28 ibid., 16–17.

29 ibid., 13–14.

30 ibid., 11–17.

31 ibid., 22–28.

32 James, and Fimbro, , op. cit., 94.Google Scholar

33 Klima, G. J., The Barabaig: East African Cattle-Herders, New York: 1970, 18–21.Google Scholar

34 Lane, , op. cit., 6.Google Scholar

35 Kjaerby, F., “The problem of livestock development and villagization among the Barabaig in Hanang District”, BRALUP Research Report, No. 40 (New Series), University of Dar es Salaam, 1980.Google Scholar

36 Arhem, , 26.Google Scholar

37 Land, and Scoones, , op. cit., 110.Google Scholar

38 ibid.; Lane, , 36.Google Scholar

39 Lane, , 46.Google Scholar

40 Lane, , 47.Google Scholar

41 Mulbadaw Village Council and 67 Others v. National Agricultural and Food Corporation, High Court of Tanzania, Arusha Registry, Civil Case No. 10 of 1981.

42 National Agricultural and Food Corporation v. Mulbadaw Village Council and Others, Court of Appeal of Tanzania, Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1985.

43 The two cases are Yoke Gwaku and Five Others v. National Agricultural and Food Corporation and Another, High Court of Tanzania, Arusha Registry, Civil Case No. 52 of 1988 and Ako Gembula and Others v. National Agricultural and Food Corporation and Two Others, High Court of Tanzania, Arusha Registry, Civil Case No. 12 of 1989.

44 Government Notice No. 260 of 1989.

45 Tito Saturo and Seven Others v. Matiya Seneya and Four Others, High Court of Tanzania, Arusha Registry, Civil Case No. 27 of 1985.

46 The reason why the court order was not attached is that they were actually not seeking to appeal against the order because it had in any case been in their favour. The Court of Appeal, however, insisted that from the finding they were appealing against, some form of order had to be extracted and attached in order to proceed with the appeal.

47 For criticism of the Act see The Express, Dar es Salaam, December 1992.

48 Actually the Act purports to revoke the Customary Law (Extinction) Order of July 1989, n. 44 above.

49 In fact the two cases only concern an area of 18,770 acres, which is the total acreage of the three farms, Gawal, Gidagamowd and Warret.

50 The farms now cover 12% of the entire Hanang District.

51 ibid., 37.

52 Fosbrooke, , 67.Google Scholar

53 ibid., 166–67.

54 Arhem, , 27.Google Scholar

55 ibid.; Mustafa, op. cit.; Kjaerby, op. cit.

56 Parkipuny, , op. cit., 25.Google Scholar

57 Fengen, M., Hignett, V. and Green, A., Soils of the Basotu and Balangda Ltlu Areas of Northern Tanzania, Ottawa, 1986.Google Scholar

58 Parkipuny, , op. cit., 8–9.Google Scholar

59 Arhem, , op. cit., 55–56.Google Scholar

60 Parkipuny, , op. cit., 7.Google Scholar

61 Fosbrooke, , op. cit., 69, 102–105.Google Scholar

62 Parkipuny, , op. cit., 21.Google Scholar

63 Motomoto, Dar es Salaam, No. 60 (16–30 April, 1993); also Mfanyakazi, Dar es Salaam, issues from mid-February to end of April, 1993.

64 Arhem, , op. cit., 99.Google Scholar

65 Business Times, Dar es Salaam, 1 December, 1992.

66 Joseph D. Kessy and Others v. City Council of Dar es Salaam, High Court of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam Registry, Civil Case No. 299 of 1988.

67 Africa Events, London, 09 1990.Google Scholar

68 Motomoto, Dar es Salaam, No. 60 (16–30, April 1993); Africa Events, London, 04 1993.Google Scholar