Governance and Environmentality in East Africa (I-CAN) Mcgill University – African Conservation Center

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

The Institutional Canopy of Conservation: Governance and Environmentality in East Africa (I-CAN) McGill University – African Conservation Center

Research Scoping Report #4 Agro-pastoralism in Loliondo Division, Tanzania

Jacques Pollini€, Robert Kamakia¥, Emmanuel Saringe¥ € McGill University; ¥ Pastoralist Livelihoods Support And Empowerment Programme (PALISEP)

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Cover Picture: Agro-pastoralist landscape in Magaiduru. From the foreground to the background, we can distinguish: crop residues in a corn field consumed by livestock; pasture reserved for the grazing of weak animals during the dry season; Maasai settlements surrounded by a mosaic of cultivated fields and fallow land used as pasture; bush used as pasture. The settlements, cultivated fields, and fallow land have been allocated to individual households or family heads by Village authorities. The pasture for weak animals is communal land, shared at Village scale. The land with bushy vegetation on the hill is in principle communal land too, but in practice appropriated to some extent by people from adjacent settlements. They may exclude other users, as shown by the discontinuous fence visible above the fields in the middle of the picture. It is almost certain that most of the communal land will disappear in the future. In the worst-case scenario, it may be appropriated by the most powerful people. In the best-case scenario, it may be fairly distributed according to the needs of individual households.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ...... 3 Acknowledgements ...... 5 Summary ...... 6 1. Introduction ...... 7 2. Methodology ...... 7 3. Results ...... 8 3.1. Overview of the area ...... 8 3.2. Magaiduru ...... 13 3.2.1. Overview ...... 13 3.2.2. History ...... 14 3.2.3. Livelihood strategies ...... 19 3.2.4. Governance ...... 31 3.2.5. The conflict with the Sonjo people ...... 36 3.2.6. The Sonjo/Maasai battleground in Kisuyasuy ...... 38 3.2.7. Conclusion ...... 38 3.3. Oloirien...... 39 3.3.1. History ...... 39 3.3.2. Livelihood strategies ...... 41 3.3.3. Governance ...... 46 3.3.4. Conflicts ...... 47 3.4. Enguserosambu ...... 48 3.4.1. History, livelihood, and governance according to a group of elders ...... 48 3.4.2. Management of the forest according to the Village Council Executive...... 49 3.4.3. Discussion ...... 51 3.5. Conclusion ...... 51 Appendix 1: Future research ...... 54 Overview ...... 54 Topic 1: Equity in land allocation ...... 54 Topic 2: Community participation in forest management ...... 55 Topic 3: Interactions between key stakeholders and landscape components ...... 56

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Appendix 2: Figures ...... 58 Appendix 3: List of interviews ...... 62

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Acknowledgements

We thank first of all the people we interviewed in Magaiduru, Oloirien and Enguserosambu, from the local leaders to all the men and women who welcomed us and accepted to be interviewed. Many thanks also to the representatives from government services and local NGOs who attended our stakeholder workshop, and to the African Conservation Center (ACC) and McGill University, especially Jacque Macharia from ACC and John Galaty at McGill, for their support, encouragements and feedback throughout this work.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Summary

Land in the area around Loliondo, in the Ngorongoro District of North-West Tanzania, is used or coveted by multiple stakeholders, including pastoralists, agro-pastoralists, farmers, conservationists, and tourism entrepreneurs. In a context of population growth and land grabs by external actors, it is increasingly difficult for the population to sustain its livelihood and conflicts between communities are frequent. This report presents the results of 10 days of field work conducted in November 2016 in three localities around Loliondo: Magaiduru, Oloirien, and Enguserosambu. It is part of I-CAN’s effort to collect baseline information to identify research topics and strengthen its partnership with local civil society organizations, in this case the NGO PALISEP (Pastoralist Livelihoods Support And Empowerment Programme), whose staff participated to the study.

The study shows that agro-pastoralism is the dominant land use in the area, adopted by both the Maasai and Sonjo people who in the past were pastoralists and hunter-gatherers respectively. Increase of population density leads to a reduction of the land available for grazing around settlements, as the land is progressively allocated to individual households by Village authorities for agricultural use. Communal grazing resources are still available in forested highlands, as well as in a great plain located between Loliondo and the Serengeti National Park. This plain is coveted by a large commercial hunting business, while access to the forest is increasingly restricted by the commitment of the District and its partners to conserve ecosystems that provide critical water resources to the Serengeti.

Conflicts have existed between the Maasai and Sonjo communities for decades. However, relatively peaceful cohabitation is also possible, as shown by the case of Magaiduru. Population increase does not necessarily trigger violence, as communities modify their land uses and rely on their institutions to adapt to higher population density and negotiate agreements with their neighbours. But the intrusion of external, powerful actors with different agendas, ranging from tourism and hunting businesses to forest conservation, may complicate the rules of the game. It may modify the balance of power between communities and between categories of people (poor and better-off, formally educated or not, Maasai and non-Maasai) within communities. If pressure on land and resources increases abruptly, following closing of access to forest land to farmers by conservation programs and the closing of access to rangeland for livestock by tourism investors, inter- and intra-community conflicts may quickly escalate and become out of control.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

1. Introduction

McGill University and the Pastoralist Livelihoods Support and Empowerment Programme1 (PALISEP), partners on the research project Institutional Canopy of Conservation (I-CAN)2, conducted a research scoping study3 together in Magaiduru and other localities in the Loliondo Division, Tanzania, from November 19 to December 2, 2016. The team included Jacques Pollini, Research Associate on the I-CAN project at McGill University, Robert Kamakia, Head of PALISEP, Emmanuel Saringe, from PALISEP, and Sophia Mbise, field assistant recruited by PALISEP. The purpose was to provide baseline information to identify research questions and facilitate the selection of study sites for graduate students and other researchers working within I-CAN. We spent about ten days in Loliondo, including five days in Magaiduru, a locality mainly inhabited by Maasai agro-pastoralists; one day in Oloirien, an adjacent community inhabited by Maasai people only; one day in Enguserosambu, where PALISEP provided support to manage a community forest; and two days in Loliondo, where PALISEP organized a stakeholder meeting prior to start of our field work and a second meeting where we presented our results before leaving (Figures 1 and 2).

I-CAN, with partners ILEPA and SORALO, also conducted field research in Maji Moto, Naroosura, and Ol’Kiramatian Group Ranches (Research Scoping Reports #1, 3 and 6), on the Kenyan side of the Loita hills and Nguruman escarpment, north from the Loliondo landscape. Once combined, the results of these four studies will contribute to a better understanding of land uses, resource conflicts, and livelihood and conservation challenges in that area, especially regarding the transitions from pastoralism to agro-pastoralism and from communal to individual property rights regimes, which we observed in all four study sites.

2. Methodology

We used the same methodology as for other research scoping studies conducted by the I-CAN project. The approach is based on informal interviews. We do not use a questionnaire and do not organize focus groups. We employ an analytical grid that uses tools developed by the school of comparative agriculture (Cochet 2015),4 but is also influenced by the works of Scott (1976)5 on the moral economy of peasants, Chayanov (1984 [1922])6 on peasant economics, Netting (1993)7 on smallholder farming, Lhoste et al.

1 http://www.thekeshotrust.org/cms/wp-content/images/profile-palisep1.pdf 2 https://www.idrc.ca/en/project/designing-community-based-conservation-programs-east-africa 3 The approach presents some similarities with rapid Rural Appraisals (RRA): it has a comprehensive scope, the purpose being to understand how a landscape works and what are the main social and environmental challenges faced by people living on this landscape. But as we use an approach quite different from what is typically done in RRA exercises, we prefer not to use that term. 4 Cochet, H. 2015. Comparative agriculture. Versailles: Editions Quae. 5 Scott, J. 1976. The moral economy of the peasants: Rebellion and subsistence in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press. 6 Chayanov, A. 1986 (1922) The theory of peasant economy. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 7 Netting, R. M. 1993. Smallholders, householders: Farm families and the ecology of intensive, sustainable agriculture. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

(1993)8 on pastoralism, and Ribot (2007)9 on representation in governance institutions. Typically, when visiting a community, we meet with local leaders to explain the purpose of our work and ask a first set of general questions about local livelihood strategies and the challenges faced by the community. We then recruit additional Informants using a snowball sampling strategy to delve deeper into key issues. Given the short duration of the exercise (8 days of field work) and the broad range of topics to cover, we do not claim a high level of certainty for each single statement made in this report. We do not describe the situation in the study area as it is. We describe it as we are told it is by a limited number of informants. We derive conclusions that should not be considered as definitive. They are, rather, hypotheses to be tested by future research. But by virtually never asking the same question twice, we make it possible to address a much broader range of issues and collect a larger number of stories than what is typically done in baseline surveys. Triangulation, rather than replication, can then be used as a strategy to increase the level of certainty of our statements and conclusions.

All interview notes are available on demand and large chunks of these notes are inserted into the body of this report. These notes are not exact transcriptions of the informants’ speeches. They are transcriptions of our notes, taken as accurately as was technically feasible. Most interviews were conducted in the Maa language and translated, meaning we took notes of the translation, not of the original speeches. The “citations” in the report, referenced I# with # the number of the interview, or PALISEP when the informants are PALISEP colleagues, are thus citations of notes, edited and reorganized for clarity.

There are very few bibliographic references in this report. The purpose of the exercise was to collect firsthand, up-to-date information, make it available in the short term to people interested in the study area, and provide an independent view of the situation in that area in complement to existing views available in the literature. Hence all information provided in the report comes from interviews conducted in localities around Loliondo, except for information in boxes or footnotes that were extracted from the literature. A literature review will be done later, when the material presented in this report is used to prepare scholarly articles.

3. Results 3.1. Overview of the area

Loliondo is located in the Ngorongoro District, which borders Serengeti National park to the west and Lake Natron to the east. It includes the world famous Ngorongoro Conservation Area and a Game Control Area, where Loliondo is located. It is divided into Divisions, Wards, Villages, and Sub-Villages and governed by a District Council that has 20 elected men and 11 women representing the 20 Wards of the District. The District Council operates several services that are managing the development of the area. There is also a District Office, which mostly manages security issues (PALISEP).

8 Lhoste P., Dollé V., Rousseau J., Soltner D., 1993. Manuel de zootechnie des régions chaudes: Les systèmes d’élevage. Paris: Ministère de la Coopération, coll. Manuels et précis d’élevage. 9 Ribot, J. 2007. Dans L’Attente de la Démocratie: La politique des choix dans la décentralisation de la gestion des ressources naturelles. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Loliondo is well known for the fact that it rejected the Wildlife Management Area (WMA) model,10 introduced in Tanzania during the early 2000s to promote Community Based Conservation after a few pilot operations in the late 1990s. Maasai communities in Loliondo perceived this model as a threat rather than an opportunity. They preferred “joint ventures between individual Villages and private ecotourism operators” (Nelson et al. 2009: 320). In 1991, a private ecotourism company made an agreement with several communities including Oloirien, which at that time included Magaiduru (Oloirien has recently been divided into two Villages: Oloirien and Magaiduru). Other companies followed. They were perceived as an alternative to larger investors like Otterlo Business Corporation (OBC), a large safari company based in the United Arab Emirates that operates in total disrespect of local people’s rights.11

PALISEP organized a stakeholder meeting to present the purposes of our work, facilitate the collection of information about the area, and select study sites. The meeting was attended by representatives from the District (Natural Resources District Council Officer and Agriculture District Council Officer); a foreign Technical Advisor working for the District Council as part of a GIZ project; Village Chairmen from several communities; and staff and Board Members from PALISEP. Below are the notes from this meeting, organized by topics. We indicate the institution that provides the information when we know which it is, instead of just giving reference to the interview (I5).

Prior to and during the meeting, a foreign advisor working for the Natural Resources department of the District Council as part of a GIZ project provided a general overview of the situation in Loliondo District, from the Ngorongoro Conservation Area to Lake Natron:

The main challenge is population growth. How to feed people here with pastoralism? People here were relocated from Serengeti and don’t want to be relocated elsewhere. In the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, in the OBC hunting block, which borders Serengeti National Park, people are in abject poverty because they are not allowed to do anything else other than raising livestock. They can’t do gardening or open small shops. All these people are there because there is free food distribution and opportunity of getting money from tourists. There is a rationale for relocation. The habitat does not support the population and the conservation objective is so high that the population is not allowed to develop and grow crops. Now [the authorities] promise land and other things for relocation, but people see that it is difficult to make a living on the land that is provided to them, and the promises are not respected. The relocation is done in land that was used by pastoralists in an extensive way and is difficult to make productive. People go there with cattle but it does not bring revenue. Now they try to revert that policy (GIZ).

There are areas around Lake Natron that need protection. Only 30% of the whole District is open to economic development. All the population growth should take place in these 30%. It could work if there were large investments to mobilize private capital and industries related to food processing or the tourism industry, but the thinking of most authorities is: we don’t want intensive tourism as it will endanger our lifestyle. But they cannot continue pretending that we are in a low population density country. If you have 1.5 million people here, you will have urban centers in the end. All thoughts are based on the short term. They only want high-end tourism. But you cannot build your economy on that. It has limits. Secondly, they think that pastoralists

10 See Nelson, Fred, et al., Community-Based Conservation and Maasai Livelihoods in Tanzania, In K. Homewood et al., eds., Staying Maasai: Livelihoods, Conservation and Development in East African Rangelands, NY: Springer, 2009: 299-333. 11 A lot of information is available on the web about OBC’s activities and related conflicts.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

have to reduce the number of cattle and invest in quality. But with the growing population, there is also a growing need for meat. People are thinking about extensive ways of keeping livestock which is good in a low-density area, but not in a highly populated area. With cultivation you can do so much more with the land here. You can work on water management, which is very poor. Interventions have decreased the water quality, because of overgrazing, overuse of soils and wood, which leads to degraded soils and also reduces availability of water. Rain has decreased. It is concentrated in short rains that disappear quickly so you have to do a lot to restore the vegetation. Agriculture can still be done, but processing and marketing are lacking. All the meat goes to Kenya. It is processed there and comes back. We lose opportunities. There is no milk processing. The Maasai people look only at quantity (GIZ).

People are destroying their future. They just consume. The idea of investing to rebuild the resources does not exist. Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS) protects the watershed because it is part of the Serengeti ecosystem. They want to remove people from the Loliondo 1 forest with the help of the Village government. People cultivate the land there. In that Village, there is also the Sariani community forest. People don’t know the law and are informed about it by the District and the Frankfort Zoological Society, which does education programs. People there are all Maasai (GIZ).

We can have much more tourism here, but 80% of the money spent does not stay. Crooks come and pay local people low wages to find gemstones. It should not continue like that. Activities can be developed in responsible ways if we invite the proper companies. We have to create links with spas in Germany. We can set up an industry that gives work to a lot of people and detracts them from Ngorongoro Conservation Area (GIZ).

There is also climate change, which is partly caused by changes in the way people use the land here. Deforestation is a big problem (GIZ).

The GIZ project provides technical support to improve planning and resource management. But external support has failed to solve resource management problems to date. They are exposed to the usual problems faced by projects funded by the international community, such as lack of continuity:

We have a plan to train natural resource services to use some tools: GIS and models. But I ask myself: GIZ is around, puts in systems, gives advice, and systems will start to run. How to make the guys more motivated? Once we have put the system in place, how to motivate the officers?

We have to make our plan and budget. All these projects, for irrigation, precipitation, were supported by DANIDA. Then they stopped because we did not put money in the budget. We have to make sure we plan things (District Council).

We did good things about 10 years ago with participatory projects, but they looked at short-term needs and did not look at the long term. We buy cell phones. After 2-3 years they don’t work. But nobody thought about provisioning money to renew the equipment. People working here do not remember the past. Data were collected during a few years. Then the District has no figures. Now we try to keep the data, but before we did not. Under this President, it may change (GIZ).

Other participants added information about the livelihood challenges in their community:

Pastoralists are facing challenges like inappropriate policies: zero grazing and destocking. Access to water is also a challenge. They have to walk long distances. They lack infrastructure.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Governments want fewer livestock, but there are no breeds adapted to our climate and environment. The biggest issue is that there is no area for keeping livestock. Mobility is limited. It is also very difficult to control diseases (PALISEP).

We need to protect the forest so we have asked to be given the right to manage the forest. We look for legal ways to manage the forest. A second issue is livestock. We improve breeds. We use our own money to walk to other markets and find better breeds. That shows that we are really committed to change. We are also defending our rights through demonstrations or protests, like rights for access to water and land. All this shows that people have awareness, that the communities are ready. But we face challenges because policy makers lack understanding of traditional pastoralist systems. So the changes are delayed or slowed because of the approach that the government is using. There are no initiatives taken for our people. Change of behaviour needs time. The government must come with appropriate approaches to make communities change slowly. It is very difficult to change quickly. The government does not show the example. They don’t even do farm field schools. There is no field from where the people can learn in that District. That is why the change is slow. People are ready, but the approach is not the right one (a Village leader from Enguserosambu).

The community is changing. It starts to understand the meaning of environmental management because of the lack of water, resources, and firewood. All these resources drop down and some tree species disappear in the forest. So we start initiatives to protect the environment in our own way, with our own culture. We see the importance of keeping fewer livestock with quality breeding and we search for them in foreign countries. You can see these different breeds around. That’s our initiative, not the government’s. But there is lack of grazing land. That’s the big challenge. We keep livestock everywhere. There is no specific area. And there is lack of water. Water resources dry out. Environmental destruction is one of the causes of the lack of water. We understand that if we don’t send kids to school, they will be left behind in development. We have projects of building houses in town and at home. We move from traditional boma to more modern habitats. It is the same for clothes and for the ways of eating. We eat eggs and ugali because of the changes in the environment and the adoption of changes from other people. The government does not prioritize pastoralism as a mode of production. That’s why livestock resources are not in place in the District. Resources are not given to us. If the government understood pastoralism, these problems would be solved. Changes in lifestyle and in the environment are inevitable. We cannot avoid them (a Village Chairman).

The big problem here for pastoralism is water, maybe because of climate change or environmental destruction. There is shortage even where we would not expect. The other issue is education. The community realized it is very important and there is increased enrolment of kids in school. Pastoralism faces many problems, but the worst one is low rainfall. There is a long drought and rain lasts maybe 2 months only. Water is reduced and pastures are diminishing because of long drought and increase of cultivation. Areas that we used for livestock are now cultivated. Also, town centers grow and reduce pasture availability (a Village Chairman).

These portrayals show many similarities from one locality to another, the main issues being lack of access to water, prolonged drought, lack of support to education, and disregard of pastoralism by the government. There are differences though:

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

In Enguserosambu and Ng’arwa, the issue is the competition between farming and pastoralism. Agnes Sirima12 did her research there. A community forest has been created (see Section 3.4). It is a crime to cut a tree or to cultivate in the forest. There is only one community doing one activity, which is pastoralism, and farming arrived just a few years ago (I5).

In other areas like Magaiduru, there are many communities with different interests. There is pastoralism and farming plus forest conservation. These land uses are competing. The place has not been investigated yet, contrary to Enguserosambu. It is located just behind the Loliondo Mountain that dominates Loliondo town (I5).

In Oloirien, conflicts are arising between three Villages and people destroy the environment (I5).

In Wasso, the town blocks access to water and reduces the grazing area, which increases conflicts (I5).

In Ololosokwan, people are confronted with investors who reduce the land available for livestock. There are also a lot of challenges and you may be interested to visit there. There are conflicts with investors. There are hunting companies. We don’t know what to do. OBC hunts across the Village land, not the government land (I5).

OBC (Box 1) is a large hunting company from Dubai that creates a lot of conflict. It is the hot issue in the area:

OBC is a façade for a Sheikh of Abu Dhabi who wants to control the area for hunting grounds. He is linked to the government and uses the police force and army. NGOs want conflict because that brings attention to them and draws international support. OBC wants the area to be emptied of all its people and livestock. The company has written a letter to the Presidential office, to claim the area bordering the Serengeti. Ololosokwan is on the frontline of this. It attracts lots of attention because it has facilities supported by UNESCO and Samsung. They do very well to obtain 100,000 / year from another tourist company, AndBeyond,13 that runs a camp. OBC does not want to have any claimant or arrangement with local communities, but they give a lot of money to the District. You will see water wells from the Red Crescent or Abu Dhabi Resources and they invest a lot for their game reserve. They have a confrontation policy that is very different from other tourist companies. You can google and you will find a lot of information on OBC (GIZ).

Box 1: OBC (from Nelson, Fred, et al., 2009).14

“In 1991, a Brigadier of the United Arab Emirates submitted a letter requesting the use of the Loliondo hunting blocks. The government agreed, subject to a few conditions. Hunting blocks could only be leased to companies registered in the country and not to individuals. The Ortello Business Corporation (OBC) was created and the block granted in 1992. The OBC was accused of obtaining the block through high-level graft (e.g., Honey, 1999; Odhiambo, 2000; Anon., 2002; Thomlinson, 2002), and of being given considerable autonomy by their patrons in central government. The OBC was seen by many observers as being able to do whatever they wanted. In part to quell local opposition to the concession and as a response to the

12 A Tanzanian researcher affiliated to I-CAN project. 13 See http://www.andbeyond.com/ 14 Nelson, Fred, et al., 2009. Community-Based Conservation and Maasai Livelihoods in Tanzania, In K. Homewood et al., eds., Staying Maasai: Livelihoods, Conservation and Development in East African Rangelands, NY: Springer, 2009: 299-333).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

government’s request that the OBC contribute to local development, the OBC agreed to provide two million Tanzanian shillings (~$2,000) to each of the six villages annually. They also promised significant employment and local development assistance, including road building, water projects and building local schools. The company’s offer and presence was met with a mix of scepticism and expectation by the villages. By 2000, relations between villages and the OBC had soured, and most Maasai saw the OBC as an impediment to development and threat to their land rights” (Nelson et al. 2009: 323-324).

A few days after our stakeholder meeting, Loliondo received the King of Morocco, who came for a safari in the OBC camp:

For 3 days the pastoralists were pushed away from the OBC camp. They were in trouble. They could be chased any time. It is 40 Km away from here. When a “Muzungu” [a white person] visits there he can even be shot. It is in Osero. If you go there you need permission from the camp, from OBC. Perception is that the muzungu will tell the Tanzanians that the land should not be given to Arabs. So the muzungu could be shot by guards (I8).

After this general presentation of the area, the participants raised the issue of the impact that research could have on their community:

The forest has been given to the community, so whenever researchers come and investigate the forest, people worry about the kind of work they will do. Recently a researcher came and said that the community should not manage the forest. So researchers need permission of the community to do their work. We will ask whether your research will affect forest management. The forest is creating struggles and divisions between people. Sometimes researchers are coming without a good motive. I agree that you can visit Enguserosambu, but you must go through the Forest Committee and then the General Assembly of the Village, and they will allow you to pass through this procedure (a Village leader from Enguserosambu).

Many researchers do recommend things that affect the community. A woman did research and argued that the community is the source of destruction of the forest. She said that community activity destroys the environment. So people worry about the outcomes if researchers recommend removal of people from the forests. These people used to live in Serengeti and were evicted. They worry they will be evicted from Enguserosambu now (PALISEP). 3.2. Magaiduru 3.2.1. Overview

Magaiduru is essentially a Loita Maasai settlement, but a small community of Sonjo people also lives there, as well as Chagga, Wairak, Warusha, Wahehe, and former government employees like teachers and state collectors, often called “Swahili,” who found the place suitable for settlement when they retired. The population is 1092 people. Magaiduru used to be part of Oloirien, which was subdivided last year into two Villages (Magaiduru and Oloirien). Most households practice farming and pastoralism, although the Maasai prioritize pastoralism and often have large herds while other groups focus on farming and have fewer livestock. These groups live in different hamlets but cooperate in social work, social affairs, and meetings. Several neighbouring communities are inhabited by Sonjo farmers: Mgongo (10 km away), Mageri (12 km), and Tinaga (20 km). A strong competition exists between Maasai and Sonjo to access land, and deadly conflicts occurred until a few years ago (I6).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

3.2.2. History

3.2.2.1. Maasai settlement

Maasai people in Magaiduru come from different places. Some came from Serengeti in 1959 (I20), probably evicted when the park was created, but did not immediately settle here as they may have been in conflict with other groups, for instance the Purko Maasai people (I20). A wealthy Maasai old man, who belongs to a family that is said to be among the most powerful in the community, tells us the story of Maasai settlement in Magaiduru:

People came to this place because of a conflict between Maasai groups. The Laikipia Maasai came to Kirio, up there, maybe in Kenya, where they found the Loita and fought. So we moved to the Loita plain where there were more fights, and then we moved to this area. We were already here when the white people came. When we fought, there was no boundary but the white men put a boundary and divided us. The main thing that moved people was conflict. We moved. We ran. But the conflict ended when the white people came. Wherever the white people find us, we stayed there and there was no more conflict. When we arrived here we found people and there was more fighting and we moved. I don’t remember who fought us in Kirio, but here we found Laikipia people. They were here until Ngorongoro. Eventually, the Laikipia left and we settled here, and the Muzungu found us. There were 2 groups working together and moving together here: the Loita and the Kisongo. We fought together against the Laikipia and the war was wide, until Ngorongoro. The Muzungu came for establishing peace, the Loita stayed here, and the Kisongo moved to another area. This is the story of my grandfather. He is of the Tareto age set. That was 5 age sets before me. I am a Makaa. Before were the Seuri, Nyangusi, Terito, Tareto. And before that was the Twati age set. And before was the Iltalala (I7).

A second interview with a Maasai elder provides additional information about more recent times:

I am 67 years old. I was born in Ng’arwa and moved to Oloirien. This was during the years known as Olari Loongariak, which means the year of heavy rains. I got the opportunity to go to school as I was nominated by my father. During those days pupils were enrolled according to the location and family/clans. My family nominated me because I was a son born out of marriage (I15).

The Maasai community came from Serengeti and they were divided into three groups. A few went to the Ngorongoro crater and others went to Loliondo, and some ran to neighbouring country Kenya, to a place known as Kisokon. In those years my community moved to Ng’arwa before it migrated to Oloirien, before moving to Magaiduru (I15).

By then the main foods were milk, meat, and blood. Milk was consumed during the wet season while meat and blood were consumed during the dry season. Diseases were not much compared to today. In 1974 the government of Tanganyika donated yellow maize to mitigate the prolonged drought that happened those years. I do remember the love within the Maasai community as you could not see the difference between the rich and the poor. Everything was managed by traditional leaders and women were not involved in anything, especially decision-making. Something that women were involved in was singing and worshipping the Spiritual leaders known as Oloiboni. Farming arrived in 1979 at small-scale and people did not take it into consideration as a main livelihood option (I15).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Young men were involved in security but also in stealing cows from neighbouring community Sukuma. I still can remember my older brother Katoria Kereku who was killed during confrontation with anti-poaching troops. We were also involved in killing lions (I15).

There was some drought but due to the fact that we did not use antibiotics, animals were resistant to the drought. Another challenge is that education was only for a few individuals who went to school. Also, there was no good connection between the government and the community compared to now (I15).

3.2.2.2. Sonjo and Somali settlement

The Sonjo community would have settled in 1979, coming from a lake zone around Serengeti and Musoma (I16). Its livelihood depends mostly on farming but it relied also on hunting in the past. An informant explained how a community of Sonjo and Somali people was created in Magaiduru:

I come from a place called Kirio. I came during the colonial time as a young man. I was lost in Maasai land and I was brought by Somali people who were doing business. I was a worker and they were doing business. They bought cows, goats, brought donkeys and sold them. We travelled to Endulen and Kakesio in Ngorongoro Division and I stayed there until I was grown up. I was working there. The Somalians were building shops and I worked with them. I was employed to look after cattle. Then during the early years of Nyerere, I quit my employment and moved to Magaiduru. I came here because I knew people in this area as we were doing business with them. I found 3 old Sonjo men who were doing cultivation. They were not keeping livestock. They moved to Sonjo and I remained. Two other men came. They were working around. Then we formed a Village and the number of people increased. Many people are migrants. We have been living here up to now, though many of those who were the first to form the Village died. We remain the only three. We were just doing farming, nothing else (I9).

I found no one living here except for the Maasai. Later on the Sonjo came. The Sonjo were living neighbour to the Maasai. The Maasai were just keeping livestock when I arrived. All things changed since I arrived. There are many shops now. Livestock prices increased. Leadership has changed. In the past the leaders were Wazungu, but the leaders are now Africans. Now the youth does not respect old people. Leaders and old people were more respected in the past compared to current times. With development, people have changed how they do building. They construct good houses. Clothes have changed (I9).

People were living in Oloirien. Only wildlife was grazing in this area. During the iltareto and ilterito age sets, only one person, called Olengai Lepunuka, was living in Magaiduru. Other people were living in Oloirien. Population was small (I9).

The story below shows that people came to settle in Magaiduru for different reasons. Maasai people were attracted by pastures, while other people came to take jobs, start businesses, or farm.

Life is not bad. Past life, compared to now, is different. During the colonial period the workers were recruited by force. There was no humanity. We were known only as Africans. I remember the British, not the Germans. I worked on British farms in Karanga, to grow corn. They employed us for 21 TSh per month. We were working in the Mbeya region in Nachingweya District. I came to this area, in 1966, when it was just a Division. I came from an area west of Kilimanjaro. I came here because my brother was working here and I followed him. While at home, I fell sick. When I arrived here I worked as assistant Ward guard. When I retired, my pension was not sufficient so I

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

decided to farm. I sold what I got and sent money to my children. I was living in Loliondo but worked in this area. I found the Sonjo here, but because of livestock theft by the Maasai, they moved to Magarri, the neighbouring Village. The Sonjo were cultivating the land and I did too. Some children have started keeping livestock, maybe because they saw it as a new development (I17).

An informant reveals that non-Maasai people assumed leadership for a period of time:

We came to this area during the 1970s, due to poverty. Our cattle died because of the disease called nadontolo. We arrived to this place from Olosoito. We came here for cultivation activities. This area is good because it is cold and it supports farming. Nobody had livestock so people looked for alternative ways of life. When we arrived we found other people living here. We grew up in this area. We started cultivating and we got livestock. We have managed to feed families. When we got property, we married and now we have children. The Chairman of the Village was called Oledukurra. The leadership of that time gave plots to other tribes living in the Village. One elder was the Swahili who was called fundi (constructor of houses). He was from Burundi. He built houses and was welcomed, and as a result he was the first Swahili to become a leader. Later, after him, the Maasai have held the leadership to now (I19).

3.2.2.3. The appearance of farming

Here is the story of the development of farming by the first Maasai who practiced it:

During these times we only had livestock. Farming came with development. It was not there when I was born. I started farming in 1982, in Magaiduru and Sakala. The Swahili had started before. We don’t know when they started. Farming started in areas where the Swahili people were living and we learned from them how to do it. Previously, we only bought food and drank blood. I was the first Maasai to practice farming. I decided to do it because I was influenced by someone from Sakala. I started using a donkey to plough the land. Then I used cattle to plough, like I do until now. I started with maize and beans. We planted maize in January and beans in February on different plots. We were forced to that by hunger. The difficulty was that there was no tractor so sometimes we even used hoes or even sticks, or used machetes to clear the land (I7).

The Swahili had a Village settlement. There was a Village leadership and you would go there and ask where to cultivate. The leaders were Swahili. There were no Maasai among the leaders at that time. The Maasai were planning only for livestock grazing. Farming was managed by Swahili leaders. The rest of the community did not want the land to be tilled. They only wanted to do grazing, until they saw the importance of farming and started to farm too, until all land was cultivated (I7).

No, I was not put under any restriction to do farming and the rest of the Maasai did like me because hunger was gone. There was a very big hunger because there was no food and no milk. We could just pin the neck of a livestock for blood or kill it and were given only one piece of meat for the whole day. No, we did not have to reduce our herd at that time because there were other areas to graze. But now that all land is tilled, we reduce livestock. But very few reduced. Many still have many livestock because they do not see the reason to reduce (I7).

Before we began farming, there were plenty of areas to graze but we had few livestock. Now, livestock increases, farming increases, and grazing resources reduce, because when one

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

cultivates, one has capacity to buy cows. There is an increase of livestock in any family because they know what to do. They sell crops and buy livestock (I7).

A Sonjo elder witnessed these changes and gives us his version:

Maasai people started farming just recently, in 1999, during the year Nyerere had died. Women mostly started very small farms around their houses. But after 3 years, men engaged fully and trained their ox for cultivation. They were trained in cultivation and shown the interest of farming by Swahili people. They understood that cultivation produces food, which reduces the sale of livestock to buy food, and provides income to buy things like clothes. They discovered that cultivation is important even for keeping livestock. They started to cultivate corn but later also grew beans. They were using the ox-plow. Most Maasai cultivate more than 10 acres. They cultivate bigger farms than the Swahili. For example Olekoyeoodo (a wealthy man) is cultivating up to 40 acres. They cultivate more than the Swahili because they have capacity. They have cattle and a labour force because they have many children who work for them. And they sell cows to hire workers (I9).

A third story, by a Chagga migrant, complements these views:

First of all I am not born here. I came from Ngorongoro Conservation Area, and was moved here in 1977 at the time of the later prime minister of Nyerere. I was moved here because of conservation and there was no farm here. The Sonjo people were very good at growing millet, sweet potatoes, and cassava, during the beginning of farming. Cassava and millet was there when I came in 1977. I even adopted that and still do cassava today around my house. But in this place, there was just a little house with a small garden. Maasai people depended on livestock. But as days went by, people started to cultivate small places around their home. Then there was a very big drought. There was no food, so they did farming for food security. They went to Loliondo to buy corn flour from Somali doing business. These Somali people stopped here to sell things and they showed us how to do farming. They were bringing seeds from other places. Corn became like gold because if we had some, children from other families came and enjoyed it. This is how farming became established in the area. There were no tools to do much farming at the beginning. There were also a lot of wild animals and we had to use fires during the night to scare the animals. We used hoes or even sticks to dig. But farming spread fast because we had different people from different communities and people from around came here to buy corn (I12).

In 1979, one Sonjo had got donkeys to use for cultivation and in the 1980s there was a communal farm for the entire Village. So they asked the man with the donkeys to support the Village farm. In 1989, Maasai people started to use the ox plow. The former Chairperson [probably the person interviewed in I7] was the first one to use it, because he is also of Sonjo origin. He has a Sonjo cousin who assisted him to obtain donkeys. In 1990, the Maasai started to see that the ox plow is a very big deal, so if one had a farm and no ox plow, he would rent from others. In 1991, as people started to do more farming, we also established a grinding mill. There was no problem to get land for cultivation. I started to cultivate here where we are now (I12).

These stories show that the Sonjo and Somali people, who occupied leadership positions in the community for a period of time, initiated the development of farming. More investigation is required to identify the key triggers for development of farming, but whatever the triggers, it seems that Maasai people quickly recognized its benefits. In fact, farming has been practiced by Maasai people in that area for quite a long time, a process that is well documented (Box 2).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Box 2: The development of farming in Ngorongoro and Loliondo District (from McCabe 2003).15

McCabe (2003) shows that the adoption of farming by Maasai people in Northern Tanzania occurred during the 1950s:

“The first cultivators in Ngorongoro District were Kikuyu, WaArusha, and WaMeru women, married to Maasai men, who had taken residence among these groups following the emutai disasters. According to H. St. J. Grant (1954), Ngorongoro District officer from 1950 to 1954, cultivation remained very localized and restricted to a small number of immigrants – wives of Maasai men and a few families from outside the area – until the 1940s. At this time the cropped areas expanded significantly, as did the number of people engaged in that activity. Grant attributed this expansion to the practice of Maasai men adopting boys from agricultural groups, especially WaArusha. These boys helped herd livestock and, when they became adults, they typically married Maasai women and began to practice a mixed livelihood based on the raising of livestock and crops.

By the 1950s, Grant says, some Maasai had begun to hire outsiders to grow and tend small plots for them, and some were contemplating taking up cultivation themselves. An often- stated myth is that Maasai people subsist on a diet of milk, meat, and blood. While that may have been the cultural preference at some time in the past, it is clear that by the 1950s Maasai were consuming maize and exchanging livestock for maize with resident cultivators.” (McCabe 2003: 104).

“A small number of Maasai women began to plant small gardens (bustani) of a few square meters, consisting of maize and pumpkins during the 1950s. In many cases the garden area was expanded each year until it approached almost one acre in size, with the majority of the area being used to cultivate maize. When the garden has grown to this size it is considered a farm (shamba), and this was an important distinction in our analysis. This was the pattern for those who adopted farming early, but for many who began cultivating in the 1970s-1990s the garden stage was skipped altogether.

During the early 1960s, an outbreak of east coast fever killed a large number of cattle and many of the poorer Maasai families found themselves depending on the grain they produced. According to O'Malley (2000), enough Maasai had begun cultivating by the early 1960s for this period to constitute the first of three waves of farming by Maasai in the Loliondo Division of Ngorongoro District. Subsequent waves took place in the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s. Each phase was preceded by outbreaks of livestock disease, which impoverished many people and also undermined belief in livestock as a sustainable and dependable resource. By the early 1990s only a few families depended exclusively on livestock in the area north of the NCA” (McCabe 2003: 104).

3.2.2.4. Environmental changes

Environmental changes are similar to those encountered in Maasai land in general: increasing frequency of drought and a reduction of the natural resource base following population growth:

In the past there was good rain, but recently the rain comes for a very short period. For example, this year the rain fell only in April. This makes food production too difficult and small. Even grazing for livestock is reduced and livestock die before another rain comes. In the past there was

15 McCabe, J.T., 2003. Sustainability and Livelihood Diversification among the Maasai of Northern Tanzania, Human Organization, 62, 2: 100-111

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

rain in October and November, but you can see that it is dry now [we are in the last week of October]. The rain does not come at the right time because people have stopped praying and respecting God. God removes his blessing because of sin (I9).

During my childhood the environment was different. It was raining. The forest was very strong and people did not know what to do with the forest. Now people know what to do with it. They come from far away [to cut trees] (I7).

The area was full of all kinds of animals including buffalo and elephants. Animals reduced in number because of population increase. They disappeared because of hunting and the increasing number of livestock (I9).

The Maasai have come to see that some species of trees disappear, like iltarakwa, or irpirpili, only because of construction by other communities like the Sonjo, Chagga, Meru, which were backed by the government (I17).

3.2.2.5. Social changes

We did not investigate social changes in detail. Here are the changes in habitat noted by our informants:

Because of interaction and exposure [with other people and cultures], people have started to change the style of their houses and settlements. In the past, houses were constructed by women. Today, men are involved, especially when the construction involves costs. Men sell cows to buy what is necessary for house construction. One iron sheet costs about 20,000 TSh and the builder is paid no less than 300,000 TSh. That is a lot of money for pastoralists and only people with livestock or extra sources of income can afford [it]. A house of 10 iron sheets, with plaster, consumes 2 million [TSh] (I17). 3.2.3. Livelihood strategies

Life in Magaiduru faces the usual difficulties found in many Maasai settlements when population increases and the resource base available per household diminishes:

Population increases, as well as competition for resources. Land is small. Now we have a dispensary and a school. There were none before. Now we cultivate, but the resource is small. That makes life hard. We are affected by long droughts and livestock die. Sometimes food is not obtained in sufficient quantities. There is food scarcity. Many people suffer from hunger and become poor because all the livestock die (I6).

3.2.3.1. Pastoralism

In the past, during the rainy season livestock grazed in Magaiduru, where settlements are established, and then moved toward mountain areas, to the east, during the dry season. Today, only a few livestock can graze around settlements during the rainy season because of the development of farming, and access to former dry season grazing is constrained by a conflict with the Sonjo people (see Section 3.2.5.). Livestock now mostly graze in a great plain located west of Magaiduru, in between Magaiduru and Serengeti National Park, during the rainy season in order to avoid damage to crops, as farming is not allowed in that plain. Then the livestock travel farther away to Serengeti during the dry season, in the case of large herds, or come back to Magaiduru and graze in the Loliondo 1 forest, in the case of small herds.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

The plain where we bring livestock during the rainy season is part of Oloirien, Magaiduru, and Lopolun. Many people use that plain. Even people from here have land there. We don’t have to ask permission because it is a free grazing area. People with a hundred cows use that grass too. It is very broad and reaches the Serengeti. farming is not allowed there. This was decided because the highland has no grazing areas, so all communities said there should be no farming in that plain. The communities protect it because it is the only remaining land for grazing. The highlands are cultivated (I14).

Livestock stay in that plain from January through August and come back in September if there is a big drought. In December, the livestock move to the highlands because they depend on the forest. But there are not always enough resources up there during the dry season. It is okay if there was heavy rain. When that’s the case, the forest is not much used. But if the rain is low, then we bring the livestock to the forest. You can see them coming out of the forest right now (I14).

If people have a hundred cattle, they divide the herd in groups that they send to different places. If all the livestock come here, there are not enough resources so some have to stay in the plain. The weak animals may stay in the forest. The strong ones and the tough bulls may stay in the plain and even go near the park (I14).

Grazing, today, is thus determined by the agricultural calendar, as explained by a non-Maasai informant:

During the rainy season, we move livestock to lowland areas far away from the farms. Then we do farming and when the harvest is done, we return the livestock back for grazing on the farms and because they need to access water. In the lowland there is no water during the dry season. The water depends on rain so we move back to the highland to access water and farm residues. It was different in the past. When there was no farming, it was easy to manage grazing during the whole year because there was a wide range of grazing areas and people were free to move. But now farming activities have reduced grazing areas and, to avoid conflicts, we have to move livestock far away until the harvest (I17).

In spite of these constraints, access to pastoral resources does not seem to be a very strong limiting factor, at least for Maasai people who have social connections with other communities. We heard several times (see also section 3.2.2.) that people have more livestock now than in the past:

When I was young there were few livestock compared to now. We did not have enough livestock to divide between 2 boma. We had to put people together to have enough livestock. It changed because of population growth. People have many children and they struggle to have more livestock. They do farming and don’t have to sell livestock to buy food, while they can sell food to buy livestock. Also, we don’t have to slaughter livestock now and we don’t have to drink blood (I14).

Some households are still in economic difficulty, though. There seems to be significant economic inequalities indeed. A Maasai man from a poor family that has few livestock explains how he raises livestock and the difficulty that pastoralism faces today. Whether one shifted to agro-pastoralism early enough seems to be an important determinant of how much livestock one has today.

In my life I had 50 cows but they decreased as days go. One of the issues is that before starting cultivation, we sold animals to buy maize and they kept decreasing, so now we don’t have many. The herd also decreased because of diseases. You can find grasses during the dry season but

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

there are also diseases like emboot and animals die just like that. We take animals mostly in the main forest area (Loliondo 1) during the dry season, and also in the Sonjo area. We use the forest mostly between October and September but it depends on the situation. If it rains earlier, the cows come back earlier (I10).

The Sonjo people also practice pastoralism. Here a Sonjo woman explains why she is interested in this activity:

I started pastoralism 3 years ago because I realised that in case of drought, livestock can support us to send children to school rather that depending on farming. I have 6 cows and 1 goat and 7 chickens. There is no problem for grazing because they go to the forest. There is also an area reserved for the dry season where I can bring livestock. It is communal land. My target is to have 20 to 30 cows. It is enough because I have to find a way to manage them. If I had more than 30 cows, the problem would be grazing and my health is not good so I would need someone stronger to help me. I could also have 20 to 30 goats (I11).

Regarding grazing patterns, there is a distinction between people with large herds, who take them far away to graze, even during the rainy season to avoid damage to crops, and those with small herds, who can keep them around their settlement and bring them to the forest during the dry season:

Yes, it is a challenge to find grasses today compared to before, because most places are cultivated. Before it was easy. Those who have a lot livestock do not keep them here. They bring them close to Serengeti and even inside the park. It is a challenge for them as anti-poacher patrols seize their livestock. You will not find these big herds here. Here you have people with 5 or 10 cows who put them inside the forest during the dry season (I10).

Without access to the great plain in Serengeti or close by, one could not raise large herds:

If every family here had 15 cows it would be quite enough because there are many people here so these cows would be too many already. And 50 goats and sheep is OK because they can go to the forest and don’t consume a lot (I15).

Raising livestock also requires setting some grazing land apart for weak animals, like calves, lactating cows, and sick animals that cannot travel long distances to access grazing areas:

Decisions, like setting a pasture apart for weak animals are made in Village meetings and also among neighbouring homes. When people have general meetings, they say that each settlement must have a place for weak animals. No, these places are not for all Magaiduru. They are only used by neighbours during the rainy season, but anybody can request to bring its weak animals during the dry season; even people from outside Magaiduru. This happens sometimes, when there is much grass, but otherwise people rarely come from far away (I10).

Farming limits the area available for grazing:

There was drought but pastures were plenty. There was no farming but now all the area is cultivated. There are changes in livestock keeping. The farm seems to affect livestock keeping. No areas are set aside for livestock grazing but the farms are provided with land (I9).

The only challenge is the growth of farming, which makes it difficult to find pastures. If we move all to the plain, it could cause “overgrazing” [I14 used the Maasai term iganye enkop, which means “that place is full”]. Everybody wants to till more land, so it will not support much

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

livestock. When there are many boma in one place and you cannot see big grass, that means that the place is full (I14).

But following the development of farming, motivation to have large herds decreases because the diet relies more on farm products:

Now even children don’t think that milk is food. Even if they drink a lot of it, they are not satisfied. Even cows do not produce as much milk as before (I7).

Young Sonjo people are interested in having just a small number of cows:

In my perspective, I don’t see a reason for having many animals because I just need to have one cow for milking and I would have no place to take them if I had more. So I need one good cow that produces lots of milk (I13).

There are significant differences in terms of how much livestock one family owns. To explain these differences is not always straightforward:

When one has few livestock, it is a challenge to have more. There is no straight answer about why some have few, but we believe that this is how the world is. You can try as much as you can to have some cows, but when you bring the cow from the market to the boma it dies after a few weeks. Some struggle and get nothing. Others do nothing and grow (I10).

Cattle are expensive, from 300,000 to 400,000 TSh (I7), but it seems that livestock can quite easily be obtained through exchanges with family members:

Cattle are obtained by working in families with many livestock, where you will be paid a calf per year. When the calf grows, it gives birth and you can exchange that small baby for a bull which, when sold after some years, will give you more than one calf. With these exchange strategies, livestock increases in number (I19).

In sum, there are two approaches to raising livestock in Magaiduru. There is an extensive model, where large herds (numbered in hundreds) are brought to the great plains of Serengeti and around to graze during both dry and rainy seasons, and there is a more intensive model, where a smaller number of livestock (a few tens of cattle and shoats) are travelled shorter distances or are kept around [the farming area and settlement], and brought to the forest during the dry season. The wealthiest households are those who adopt the first model. They also practice farming, which may indeed be the condition for maintaining such large herds, because it reduces destocking during the dry season and facilitates restocking after droughts.

3.2.3.2. Farming

Farming is important for both Maasai and non-Maasai people but there are significant differences in how much land people farm. These differences seem to be explained by economic rather than cultural variables:

There are people with 20 acres, but it goes from 3 to 20 acres per person, depending on the number of livestock, as these are sold to hire tractors and pay workers. People with few livestock cannot afford to cultivate big farms. They only have a few acres (I19).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

An old Maasai man whose family is said to be poor tells us how and why he adopted farming, and the problems he faces:

I do farming and raise livestock. I need farming to support kids to go to school. I was depending on livestock and then came to do farming too. I reached a point where livestock alone was not enough. Family increased and required food so I decided to be involved in farming. It was a very long time ago, many years ago when I was young, when I migrated from Serengeti. I first did a small piece of land and then expanded according to the demand and the family size. The main problem was the lack of tools. There were no hoes so I dug with a stick and could not do a big piece of land. Also those days had high rainfall, so sometimes the crops were destroyed by heavy rain and we needed to have crops resistant to rain. Farming was not producing enough. You could invest a lot of effort and rain destroyed it and if you had no livestock. Then there was no food and you had to ask another family for help, like having blood from one of their cows. But the land was free because there were few people and no one could tell us that we could not grow crops. We could expand as much as we could. Back then there was no need to visit the authorities and when we did farming on a piece of land, it was recognized that it was our place. Today, the big challenge is population growth and many people are involved. So if we did not get space for cultivation at that time, we could not get anymore now. We could not expand even if we have many children. No, I am not allowed to expand in that pasture here because it is for animals that are weak. They cannot go far away so it is a grazing area, reserved for weak animals like calves. About climate change and drought? Actually, that is the main problem because we don’t get crops when there is little rain (I10).

When talking about how much he produces, this informant provided some quite contradictory information. He may in fact hesitate to talk about the difficulties he faces because of poverty, so his story may be confused by mixing what he planned or hoped to do with what he actually did:

I cultivate 4.5 to 5 acres. I often grow maize, beans and sunflowers. Last year we planted about 24 packets of 2 kg for 5 acres of maize. One sack of 2kg costs 12,000. We planted 3.5 acres because we were missing money to pay for labour. We harvested only 10 bags and don’t have a single kernel of maize now. We need maize as food and also because it provides money to buy clothes and medicine for animals. One sack is worth 50,000 now, but 25,000 at harvest, for 100 kg. The harvest was bad because there was very little rain. In the case of a good harvest, we get 45 to 50 sacks. Each acre produces 15 sacks. It depends also on the kind of seeds. We planted 20 kg of beans on 1 acre. Last year we did not do the beans because maize is more resilient to the drought. During the last 2 years, beans did not grow well so we decided to abandon them. This year we can cultivate more. It depends on whether we have money to pay for labour. This is for me and my wife and 15 kids. Two sons are married. The first has 5 children and the second has 1 kid. They have their own farm but sometimes they come here to get food and we too can go to their farms to get food (I10).

To neglect weeding to earn money by working on other people’s farms is a typical situation for vulnerable peasant households, as happened to that same informant:

We don’t pay labour because we cultivate by ourselves and sometimes we fail because of lack of food. We have to search for food and leave the farm, so we cannot cultivate as we planned. Sometimes during the weeding period we go to other people’s farms to get money to buy food, so when we come back our farm is full of grasses. For sowing, we need support because we cannot meet the season if we do it alone. I also hire an ox to plow because we don’t have our

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

own. I pay 45,000 per acre for ploughing, and 40,000 per acre for seeding. It takes one day. Actually it includes weeding. We also need to look after animals so that they do not destroy our farm. We need to pay someone to look after the farm while we go away (I10).

A wealthy Maasai man who was the first to grow crops (see Section 3.2.2.3.) also describes his farming activities:

Almost all do farming but it is just small scale farming. We use tractors and ox plow. Nobody uses hoes. But we do manual weeding. We hire people or do the work ourselves, depending on capacity. Because of hunger and poverty, nobody stays home, even women. Before women did not farm. We hire both Maasai and Swahili people, because they all look for money (I7).

I cultivate 2 to 5 acres. I get 30 to 40 bags of corn on 5 acres. In a boma you need 40 to 50 bags to feed your family. Then you have no food problem during the whole year. This is for one house in the boma. You need ugali all the year round. Before we did not need ugali during the rainy season, but now there is not enough milk so we need more ugali. I also sell maize, 40,000 TSh per bag. When you get 30 bags you sell half and buy a cow, and then you sell the cow when you run out of maize, or you sell the baby it gave and keep the cow. With the money we earn from farming, we can also send children to school (I7).

These results show that if practiced at a significant scale, that is, on a few acres, farming provides not only food to the family, but also surplus that can be sold to pay for school fees and other expenses. Here is a Sonjo farmer’s view on how much a family can produce and needs to sustain itself:

For one family of 6 people that only depend on corn, you need 15 bags, but if there is alternative food you need 12-13 bags. For me, because I am alone, I use 1 bag per year, but because I sell to buy other necessities I need 5 bags. I have a small farm that is ¼ acre. I distributed other big farms to my children who are married at Wasso. I provide because I have no power to cultivate myself (I9).

You cannot compare harvest of old times and current times. Even the price of products was very low. There was no cultivation for business or benefit. It was just for food. Today people produce more than they need. They produce a surplus that they can sell to buy cows, goats, construct houses, and avoid selling cows. In the past we could harvest up to 12 bags of corn or 15 per acre because the soil was fertile. On some of the farms, the harvest has now started to diminish. In order to get many bags of corn, you need to invest much and work hard (I9).

Note that contrary to a frequent prejudice, Maasai people are involved in doing farm work themselves. They are organized in working gangs, although they also hire people:

The work is done by ourselves and hired workers. Some sell cows to hire people. In my case we do farming ourselves because we have an ox-plow. During the harvest, we hire people; but for weeding we call 10 or 20 people. We slaughter a cow and work together and finish in a go. And then we rotate to another person’s field (I14).

Another informant, from the Swahili communities, talks about the challenges faced by farmers:

To practice cultivation, the challenges are the pastoralists, and the capital. Most farmers are poor and they fail to rent tractors, even though they have farms. They till the land by hand using hoes, on the small pieces of land they manage to cultivate. They lack capital to cultivate big farms. The

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

cost for managing my five acres is 600,000 TSh. Cultivation [plowing] costs 250,000; weeding costs 250,000; and harvesting costs 100,000 (I17).

Here a Sonjo woman speaks about her farming activities, illustrating the ups and downs in the context of climate change:

I cultivate 3 acres and use thirteen 2 kg packets of corn. I harvest 42 to 45 bags. If I harvest 40 sacks, I will keep 20 and sell 20, at 50,000 when the price is high, and 38,000 at harvest time. With the income, I take children to school. I also use the money for health purposes because I have health issues that require much money. I pay hospital fees, and I improve the house. Last year I harvested 32 sacks because animals destroyed almost 1 acre. The year before I had almost nothing, just 2 sacks because there was no rain. Life was tough and we skipped lunch and made sure to have a strong dinner. We worked for other people to get food. The Chairman needed help for a wedding so I worked for him and got money. No, this does not happen often (I11).

I have 3 boys and 3 girls. One girl is married, and one boy finished secondary school. When I want to cultivate, the boy goes to the farm with his father and I stay to prepare food. I can be assisted by the girls. Weeding is done by the boys. But I helped before I had my health issues (I11).

One sack [of 100 kg] lasts 4 weeks to feed 6 persons, but I always have relatives who come and stay here. I have 6 children, my husband, and me. We are 8 in fact. We always eat some other food like rice, but it depends on the availability of money. We do also eat makande: a mix of maize and beans. I also plant 1 acre with beans. I sow 50 kg of beans and harvest about 8 to 10 sacks of 100 kg. One is for food, 1 for seed, and 6 are for sale. They are worth 150,000 TSh each if we sell late when the price is high. At harvest time, one sack is worth 100,000 to 120,000 TSh. I also cultivate sunflowers but I did not do it the 2 last years because of a shortage of rain (I11).

Another constraint is the decline of soil fertility, which justifies practicing fallow and using manure:

Farms that have been cultivated a long time are not so fertile now. After 5 years of cultivation on the same field, it could be left for 1 or 2 years, and then one can come back to cultivate it again. We have also started to use manure. Even those who do not have many animals do it. They buy manure. Even the Swahili do that. For example, we cultivated that land for 7 years and there was a big rain. The water washed the upper soil so we had to put manure. It is sold 10,000 TSh for 3 or more lorry loads. If the manure comes from far away, we use a lorry [to transport it]. If it comes from close, we use a cart (I14).

In spite of these problems, compared to old times, it seems that farming has increased in productivity and evolved from being mostly dedicated to subsistence to being increasingly dedicated to business, which reflects an increase of monetary needs:

We planted corn because it is easy to manage and is the main food. Our challenge was food. In a family with 10 children, 20 bags of corn are enough to feed the family from one harvest to another. One acre in the past was enough to feed the family, but now the corn of one acre is not enough because corn is used not only as food, but to fulfil other family requirements such as getting money to buy clothes, school uniforms, and requirements for school children. We also sell a surplus to buy livestock. In one acre we can get up to 12 bags recently, which is more than in the past. Much maize is obtained today because we are planting on time and do not spend much time with livestock like in the past. The seed varieties have also been improved. Hybrid seeds are sold in shops (I19).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Today, even a “bad harvest” contributes significantly to the economy of the household:

We have four acres. We mostly grow maize/corn and beans. We harvested 25 sacks of maize and 5 sacks of beans. It was not good, but it helps a lot, as my husband will not sell the livestock to buy food for the family. If the harvest had been good, we could have harvested up to 40 sacks of maize and 12 of beans. Our farm is very fertile so we always get a lot if it rains well. We use up to eighteen 2Kg packets [of corn] in our three acres and 20kg of beans in one acre for sowing.

There is thus increasing interest in cash crops:

Today there are changes. Some people have started to cultivate sunflowers, potatoes, and wheat. Both Maasai and Swahili do that. It is because of business. People want crops to do business. We take these crops to sell them at the market. It is good because if you do not get maize you can sell other crops and buy cows. That is a recent change. We saw that the Swahili are selling these crops in the market (I7).

We have recently realized that people have started to grow other products like potatoes and beans. These other things are easy to grow and they will support families for food before corn harvest (I19).

But farming expansion requires asking for land to the Village Council (see Section 3.2.4.2.). As almost all land has been allocated already, it is a challenge to find more land to cultivate:

Is very difficult to expand the farm because allocation of land to cultivation is finished, so you cannot get more unless you ask someone who does not cultivate it (I11).

However, several alternatives exist to access land: rental, buying, sharecropping, or using communal land that is dedicated to farming and which can, in theory, be used by anyone making a request:

The big activity here is farming and we tried to convince leaders to give us some land. There are 5 acres of farm land that belong to the whole Village, where all can rent land. But it is actually rented by those with big farms. It costs 40,000 per acre per year in that Village to rent land. For private land, it depends on the negotiation, but costs no less than 50,000. Yes, there is also sharecropping. If I have 2 acres, you can use 1 acre. The cost of weeding and seeding is for the one who cultivates, and we divide the production 50/50. Some land is sold by the Maasai because they have a lot, and it is bought by other groups. There are not many such cases, maybe 2 or 3 per year. The buyers are mostly from outside, from Sonjo or Wasso (I13).

In sum, farming has been adopted to satisfy growing needs for cash without having to sell livestock, and to produce maize, which has become increasingly popular in the Maasai diet. Farming is thus perceived as a way to maintain the pastoralist way of life, because otherwise livestock sales would exceed the reproduction rate of the herd (see also Research Scoping Report #1).

3.2.3.3. Collection of forest products

On the hill that dominates the town of Loliondo, there is a large forest, one of the biggest in the area. It provides a lot of resources to neighbouring communities, including Oloirien and Magaiduru, and is perceived as a reservoir of land for farming expansion:

The name is government forest, but we still access it for livestock, wood, social needs, spiritual issues like circumcision, and to collect species for rituals (I10).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

We have many medicines from our forest and they are even better than those from industry. We have osugoroi, enjani engashe, orper elong’o, and olamuriaki. They are very strong antibiotics. These medicines are used to treat many diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, urinary infection, malaria, and many othes. We also have medicines like oltulet, lolowaru, oleparmunyo, olorien, oloseiay, etc. These are used to control fever for both adults and children (I20).

Many people depend on this forest for firewood, timber, and because of that dependence, it has been destroyed for a long time, mostly to collect firewood and timber. It is also encroached by people who want to do farming. That is the second challenge (I6).

The Maasai have come to see that some species of trees disappear, like iltarakwa, or irpirpili, only because of construction by other communities like the Sonjo, Chagga, and Meru, who were backed by the government (I17).

Construction requires resources like timber. We hire a person to collect the resources we need in the forest. The cost for one foot of timber is 10,000 TSh (I17).

A few people do business by harvesting firewood in the forest but this activity is now regulated and apparently banned:

I was doing firewood business. I collected firewood and sold it to people from Wasso, and I bought food at Wasso with the money. Every lorry of firewood brought 50,000 TSh. I made four lorries and got 200,000 TSh. It took 2 weeks to collect enough wood to fill the 4 lorries. I divided the work. For each lorry, I had some people to fill it. We allocated each lorry to some people so there were 16 persons overall. I paid labour about 3,000 per day. Now it is 5,000 per day. But the Village Council [see Section 3.2.4.1] does not authorize that business. No, I don’t have other activities. And I have a leg problem so I cannot collect firewood. I will transfer that work to my son who will do that to overcome food insecurity (I11).

The forest is submitted to intense pressures:

We have invasion of the forest. People cut trees and clear the forests for establishing new farms and expanding existing ones (I18).

Several measures are being taken to protect the forest, by the community and with support from a project implemented by the Frankfort Zoological Society:

In order to minimize destruction, we are taxing the people who take firewood or timber at 40,000 TSh per tree. The aim is to minimize the number of people entering the forest. Since we put that mechanism, people cut fewer trees. But we insure that the people who are given a permit do not log beyond the permit. Loggers are local people. For outside people, there is no arrangement made yet. We give these permits to allow people to take wood for construction. It does not happen every day, so the forest is not destroyed. What is bad is when trees are cut for business. For firewood, the fee is 6,000 per lorry. Yes, there are trucks collecting firewood here. They bring it to schools, boarding schools, some of the hotels in Loliondo, and the hospital. We also want to promote cooking stoves that consume less firewood and insure that there are some security guards in the forest. The Frankfurt Zoological Society already helps to do that (I6).

The Frankfurt Zoological Society is helping to design the conservation strategy in the Village. It helps to protect the Sariani community forest. It helped with the demarcation of the forest and paid for scouts. It also has a community conservation bank, COCOBA: The community establishes

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

a group that mixes women and youth and others. Each contributes money that they put in an account and when there is enough, members can borrow and pay back with a small interest, and the fund grows. There is one group here and one in Oloirien. Here it is successful. The money circulates. It finances mostly cultivation, for tilling the farm, and the money is returned with interest. It also helps to buy livestock. At the end of the year, they compute the interest collected and distribute the benefit to members. The group also supports beekeeping. Besides the Frankfort Zoological Society, there are no other actors (I6).

Our colleagues from PALISEP explain the activities of the Frankfort Zoological Society (FZS):

FZS is long established and helped establish Serengeti and Ngorongoro. It still works in the Serengeti. It does research and supports government. It is a big company. It facilitates the writing of laws and policies, and trains game scouts. Now, it is campaigning for forest conservation in Loliondo, with the view that the Loliondo forest is part of the Serengeti ecosystem and that the existence of water sources in Serengeti depends on it. So FZS has certain projects in Loliondo, such as finding alternatives, like cookers that use less firewood, instead of continuing to use forest resources. It trains people. In the beginning people perceived this negatively but as FZS continues to train and raise awareness, the people who thought that it was a land grabber now see it differently. They see the COCOBA and other supports. FZS has worked in Loliondo for about 5 years. My comment is that the approach is good, but the purpose will create problems because if we add this highland to Serengeti, then people will have no power to manage the resources. Once the forest will be for the government, the people will lose power and it will be dangerous for the future of the community. People have been evicted from Serengeti which is for animals and tourists. They do not see the benefit. They worry and I worry and doubt that in the future we may not even be able to do farming. We could even be evicted because this happened in the Mau forest. The company working in Mau is IUCN. They recommended evicting people for the survival of that forest. We worry that in the future FZS may influence the government to evict people. And I don’t know if they consider really the livelihood of the people. They consider more the animals. This is my worry. In fact, there are already plans to relocate households established close to the forest (I8).

FZS and other organizations support research in the area:

Students and researchers are coming to do surveys, mainly to work on conservation and climate change issues. We had Loi Naiman and John Mgeri from Frankfurt Zoological Society; Steria Ndaga and Chuo Kikue from Frostburg, USA. They stayed 1 week here and did a questionnaire survey. It was in 2013. Also, in 2016, we had Joseph Matata, Grace Malley, and Fasco Chengura, from the University of Dar es Salaam. They just met the Village Assembly (I6).

3.2.3.4. Other activities

We find in Magaiduru young men who have difficulty accessing land and who have to develop other activities to make their living, although they may also do some farming. The group we interviewed is not Maasai and we believe that Maasai young men are not in a similar situation, although they may have difficulty accessing land too. Here are the alternative sources of income according to these young men:

As young people we do many kinds of work and activities. We work on other people’s farms doing cultivation to get earnings, and do other types of work. We are involved in carpentry, like making chairs. Of course we are flexible and do different things. If someone needs to take a cow or ferry maize, we are the ones doing that. We can also load the lorries. We are flexible but we

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

mostly do farm work. We work for anyone, Maasai people too. We may also look after their livestock, but they prefer to hire among themselves. If there is anything, we come, even to repair a broken car or move a car that is stuck during the rainy season. We depend on our parents’ farming and sometimes we rent land from other people who have land to do farming (I13).

To take petty jobs in times of duress seems to be a frequent practice among these young men:

When we run out of money and food, we can work for other people, like drill water for cows or carry water, or many other kinds of jobs (I10).

Livelihood depends also on other activities and sources of income that can be found outside. Many young men migrate seasonally or permanently to the small towns of Loliondo or Wasso to search for jobs or business opportunities:

So many youth of this Village are gone to look for other jobs, even outside the District and in Loliondo. We leave seasonally and come back for farm jobs. Those who migrate are mostly single. Once married, some of them move away because they need money for their family. Some migrate with their wives and establish themselves in Loliondo where they can do different activities. Some stay here. There are all cases. Young Maasai move seasonally as well (I13).

3.2.3.5. Social inequalities

A non-Maasai informant explains to us the causes of economic inequalities:

People differ economically depending on their individual efforts and resilience to hardship while working. People can agree to work even though they are paid less money, but others need big payment. Those who work for little payment become rich easily. Whether one is working hard determines the economic differences among people in the society. There are also different strategies. Some people can have strategies where they use little income to produce until it becomes big. One person may sell one big cow to buy two small ones while another one may lack that strategy. Others may use one cow to cultivate two acres and the product obtained is used to buy more cows. Another cause of differences is the misuse of available resources. One may sell a cow without buying one to replace the sold one. Another issue is alcohol. Some people spend more time to find alcohol and drink than to find resources or a job to increase the family income. The other thing is the lack of strategies. Many people are dealing with upcoming events without plans and strategies (I17).

Education has an important impact on economic inequalities as it gives access to well-paid jobs and earnings can be re-invested in pastoralism or farming. Our colleague from PALISEP tells us the story of two brothers (one of them is the key informant of I7) who achieved economic success and are leaders in the community:

This man [interviewed in I7] had success because he has a large number of livestock, maybe 600 cows and 200 goats and sheep, and a large farm with maybe 15 acres, here and in the nearest Village. His brother is also like him. He went to school and was a livestock veterinary officer. He was Chairman for 20 years and was linked to a tourist company called Ndorobo Safari. The two brothers were paid to escort tourists and make campsites. With the money they bought cows and with their veterinary skills they knew how to prevent diseases. Being a leader also presented opportunities to interact with other communities, and go to seminars and get knowledge. The veterinarian, during his studies, gave money to his brother to buy cows and he also bought for

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

himself. But the first had to sell cows to pay school fees while the other one, which we interviewed, did not sell his own cows, so now he has more than his brother. The veterinarian retired and is Ward Councillor (I8).

Different families have different attitudes toward education, which may be explained by, as well as explain, economic differences between households:

The capacity of children is very important in determining their success in school, but the perception [of whether school is useful] is also crucial. Some perceive that to pay school fees is wasting money and time. Others are willing but lack capacity. When we compare the past and current times, things have changed. Every person wishes to have a child in school, at least for primary education, but they fear to pay for secondary and higher education because they worry about having to reduce the number of livestock. They also fear the failure of their children at school, because it amounts to wasting cattle (I17).

Another factor determining economic inequalities is whether households have competitive or collaborative relationships. A Swahili informant explains several circumstances in which households may collaborate:

There are many circumstances that determine that one can be supported. If a person is your friend and his wife gives birth, you can give a cow to slaughter. People with wealth support poor people by giving them a cow to milk until their children grow and become capable of working. You can also ask a child, especially a male child, to care for your livestock whereby he is given cattle and those cattle are brought to the family of the boy as support. This is done to push up the poor relative. The boy is not considered just as a worker. Also, among Maasai, an old man can help a young person in order to obtain help from that person when he will be older, and a woman can call a child from her relatives to help in her home. The poor also can help the rich by helping them with a task. For instance, during ceremonies, a rich man might not have a fat sheep or cow to slaughter, so he is going to take one from the poor whose livestock are few but with a fat one. A rich man can also need help from the poor as sometimes a rich man might lack something that the poor man has. The rich can take from the poor with the promise of paying later. In order to be able to help each other, every person must guarantee unity among the members of the family and even with the general community. People must avoid things that cause differences in the family (I17).

But competitive behaviours are on the surge, which may explain rising inequalities:

People now are living independently. It is different from the past because in the past people did help each other. People helped the poor but currently people struggle on their own (I9).

3.2.3.6. Gender issues

Women have very limited power within their communities:

We have many challenges within our Village, but women are suffering the most. We have no areas to do farming. We don’t own livestock and have no recognition within the community. According to the Maasai community, women cannot have leadership in the Village. They are regarded as children and are not allowed even to stand in front of men. This is not good because we are human beings like men. We are not allowed to own property. My late husband owned about 300 cows but I didn’t have control of anything. This is how life goes everywhere in the Maasai community (I20).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

An important aspect of gender relationships is the gender division of labour. Here is some information from Maasai informants:

The strength of the family depends on the effort of the man. It is the duty of a man to increase the number of livestock, manage livestock to ensure that it gets access to pastures and water, and to control diseases. Women’s responsibilities include fetching water, firewood collection, grazing livestock, cleaning boma, cooking food for children, keeping the family clean, washing clothes, etc. (I19).

My husband is the head of our family and he can assign any work to any person within our family. I am mostly responsible for preparing food for the family, collecting firewood, cleaning the house and also washing clothes for my husband and children. My husband looks after our livestock but is also assisted by my children. He is also responsible for our farm and plans for all other family issues including taking our kids to school (I21).

Here is the view of a Sonjo informant:

Farming was practiced by men, not young people. Young men were responsible for hunting and harvesting honey, as well as security issues. Women are supporting men in farming and also, nowadays, are responsible for grazing livestock. Women also take care of the family, including collecting firewood and food preparation (I16). 3.2.4. Governance

3.2.4.1. Village level institutions

The Village is governed by a Village Council and a Village Assembly. There are 25 members in the Village Council. They are elected through the local government election. If someone wants to be nominated, he must write a letter to the Village Office. The people who have sent such a request to be a member are presented during a General Assembly where they can be nominated or rejected (I12). A Sub-Village Chairman explains how representation is achieved in Village Councils:

In forming the Village Government, we do consider gender, and minorities. In a Village Council we have 7 women, of whom 3 represent minorities and 4 the majority (the Maasai). However, because the Council is obtained by vote, if no Swahili person is elected, this community will appoint one in order to ensure that the minority is represented. Normally, in a Village Council we elect 25 members but we have informal invitees that represent the youth, elders, traditional leaders, nurses, government officials in the Ward or Village, and sectors like education (the head teacher), or health (the nurse) (I18).

To insure transparency, the Council announces when there are funds from a project. It used to receive income from investors like OBC, but they have stopped giving money because of bad relationships between investors and Villages. Lack of funds is one of the main challenges (I18).

The Village Chairman and Sub-Village Chairmen (Magaiduru has two Sub-Villages: Magaiduru and Kisuyasuy) have much power in decision-making, for land allocation for instance (see next section). The Chairman divides the land and if there is a conflict, he settles. When there is a conflict between Sonjo and Maasai people, only the leaders can settle the dispute (I14). Here, a Sub-Village Chairman explains his responsibilities:

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

As an elected person I manage all activities or issues that I see as not good. One example is forest management. The challenges were that the forest resources were misused, sold, and cut without permission. I also call meetings to discuss development. For example the water project that was brought by the Village is implemented at the level of the Sub-Village. It is my responsibility to supervise and ensure that it is working well. I supervise the collection of contributions for Village or Sub-Village development projects. I listen to people’s problems and arrest people committing crimes. I am supposed to surrender them to the Executive of the Village for further action, including taking them to the police station in Wasso or Loliondo. I engage in dispute settlement especially relating to land, such as farm boundaries, and all conflicts including marriage conflicts (I18).

I involve people in all my activities, like leaders (mabalozi) and other influential men. I have a Committee of 3 people to work with me in the Sub-Village. It is the legal requirement. I am accountable to the people, but I report to the Village Council, by presenting events that are happening, in a list form. I explain what actions need to be taken, and whether they succeed or not. After I report to the Village Council, decisions are taken. When a decision is taken at the Village level, the implementation is taken to the Ward Development Committee (WDC), which is chaired by the Ward Councillor who represents the Ward in the District. The WDC then makes decisions and recommendations that are taken to the District Executive Director for decision. Matters from the Sub-Village end at the District level (I18).

When a person commits a crime or wrong doing, if he is proved guilty and it is the first time, he is warned or fined or both. In criminal actions like a threat to kill, I report to the Village Chairman who will investigate the crime. Some wrong doings like family conflicts need traditional measures. We normally involve elders. For example, we have conflicts that involve marriage. Theft can be settled traditionally or by legal action (I18).

There are mechanisms to control wrong doings by leaders:

If a leader commits wrong doing or misuses his power, he shall be informed of his wrong doings during a meeting and if he is doing worse, the community or people attending the meeting may send a written complaint to inform him or report to the police or to the District Director or District Commissioner. The leader can then be warned or stopped from working depending on the results of the investigation. If no action is taken and people are not satisfied, he can be voted against. A new election can be called 2 years before the normal election. A group of 62 Swahili women complained of being oppressed. They sent the written complain to the District Commissioner. But the investigator found that they wanted some land in the forest (I18).

Non-Maasai accuse the leadership institutions of being discriminatory or, at least, they complain that minority groups cannot have a voice in the current leadership system. This would be the case not only for land allocation (see next Section), but also for various other decisions, as explained by a group of non-Maasai young men:

We are not satisfied by the issue of distribution of plots for construction. People from other tribes [than the Maasai] need to go to the District and the police station to complain, but then there is a need for consent by the community to obtain changes. As we are a minority our requests are not met (I13).

Also, Frankfort [Zoological Society] runs a project and those who benefit are nominated by the leadership. No one knew they were coming, but they did bee keeping and a number of beehives

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

were set in the forest. There were only Maasai among the beneficiaries. For COCOBA [Community Conservation Fund], it is not fair because it has 99% Maasai membership and includes just a few people from other tribes who have connection with the leadership. Their actions did not really reach minority people (I13).

We started to complain and to discuss with the General Assembly but eventually it was finalised internally, that is, between the Executive and the Chairman. If we bring the issue to the District Commissioner and the police, they say that they need to come and discuss it here, but the minority cannot obtain its claim as the Assembly has a Maasai majority. And then the Village complains that we disturb the leadership. We have concerns about how Frankfurt conducts its project. It is unfair (I13).

In Sonjo communities, traditional leaders, called Becorni/Mwanamije, are responsible for many issues including coaching young people, taking care of water sources, insuring the security of the forest, and managing and controlling farming systems (I16). We did not investigate further the role of these leaders.

3.2.4.2. Land allocation for farming

In the past there was no individual property. Individual land allocation appeared just recently, when farming started. Before, land was not given to individuals because it was only used for pastoralism (I8).

According to the Chairman, people who want to be allocated land need to send their request and give their name to the Village Council. They are then approved at the Village Assembly, and the leadership of the Village goes with them to put a demarcation mark on the land that has been allocated. But land allocation stopped around 2005 “because there was no more space.” This probably means that all land suitable for cultivation and not critical for livestock had already been allocated, although allocation may still occur in special cases, to the detriment of critical communal resources, as explained by a Chagga migrant:

It is not easy to get land. It requires a very serious negotiation. You must have a very serious reason because, within the Village, it is cultivated almost everywhere. But if you have a very special reason, you may have land. You have to go to the Village Council and discuss it, with strong reasons. Then you go to the Ward Development Council. You discuss how much land you want, where there is available land, and why you deserve it (I12).

The land being allocated for farming is taken from the common land. There is still some common land, like the land here that is used for the weak animals. If someone has a special reason they can quickly decide to carve some land from there. Because of population demand, we will reach the time when people will cultivate that land. Also, some people have very much land and say it is for their livestock, but eventually they will cultivate it (I12).

We suspect that the community does not give equal rights to everybody, depending on whether one are Maasai or belong to other groups, or depending on whether one has been established for a long time or more recently, that is, depending on whether one is “resident,” a concept whose meaning remains unclear:

What is the definition of being resident? We have different communities but some cannot have much land because the leader tells them they are not resident. Some people say they are resident and have much land while others do not have much land (I12).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

The main criteria are that you need to be 18 years old and resident of the Village. That is, you need to be born here. If I stayed here 5 years, it depends on which community I am from. The land is divided in two sides with the pastoralists on one side and the others on the other side, who are never considered. So it is a misuse and the others [the non-Maasai] cannot do farming. (I13).

The most influential people in the community use their power to influence the process of land allocation in contested ways:

Basically the process is discussed in the Village Council, but practically the process is influenced by strong people with many cows. Maasai are praising people with much livestock so when these people with many cows say that the land is for their cows, other people cannot say no. Some people have much land and don’t even use it for farming. Definitively the land is divided according to the power. The relations between the leader and those having connections do matter. For example some have received 10 acres and if they don’t cultivate. They can even sell the land to people from outside the area, which is totally discriminating. Ninety-nine per cent of the leaders are Maasai and during the election they are a majority, so they determine the outcome. The Executive is on the minority side so he cannot influence the Village Council because he is alone. At the end, the Council votes, so the majority always decides.

If you are a leader you can influence people to be given more land by the Village Council. If you are poor you cannot (I8).

Some informants, however, have a more positive perception, although the person quoted below seems to refer to access to land to establish a settlement rather than for cultivation:

For land there is equal access. If one wants to build, you just seek a permit and any person can pay for it. No one is restricted to access that (I17).

Besides land being allocated by the Village Council, some land is also appropriated by specific households who assert their rights on it, principally at the top of the hills or above the area where one has been allocated private land. The status of this land is often ambiguous, but it seems, again, that the most influential or powerful people in the community are more successful in claiming their rights on such land. There is a progressive social acceptance that one can use that land privately, although this is not formally recognized by the community.

This land on top of the hills is communal, but people start to use their power to have it for their own animals. For example, this person, who has a leadership position, has a farm but he also has the land beside it. He says it is for his livestock and then he will do cultivation. So they start some kind of land grabbing because they have power. He is a leader and needs space and that will become his farm (I12).

Today, it seems that there is not much land left for allocation to individual households. A Sonjo woman states that land, even when used for pastoralism, is mostly already appropriated by individual families:

Areas that are not cultivated belong to individuals. They are conserving it for their heifers and cows. It is not a communal land system. When a place is allocated to farming, some use it for livestock instead of farming, so now it is their land and other people cannot do cultivation on it. But not all land belongs to individuals. There is land that is for everyone and where there is no cultivation (I11).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

A young non-Maasai man confirms the picture. The only remaining communal land would be the top of hills and the forest, although this informant may have forgotten to mention the place for weak animals in the bottom of the valley:

We have access to common land, but all good places are occupied by people with a lot of animals, like the place where the Chairman is living, where there is good grass. Even other Maasai cannot access it. It is the place where you see the road passing, on the other side [see picture, on right side of the fence]. But the bush above, at the top of the hill, is accessible to everybody. The forest of Loliondo 1 is also accessible to all (I13).

This quote above shows that beneficiaries of land allocation may in the end appropriate more land than what has been allocated to them by the Village Council. A Maasai woman also makes similar statements. She shows that land left to fallow after a cultivation belongs to the person that farms that land and is reserved for its animals, but that entire slices of the landscape are also considered private, belonging to the person who has settlement on that slice:

This land here [uncultivated, covered with grass] is for specific individuals. Last year it was cultivated and harvested so it belongs to that person that cultivated it. It is the same thing here down this mountain. The land belongs to that boma because its livestock goes there and you must have a place to pass your livestock. Yes, the top of mountains belong to specific boma too because they are located ahead of where the people from these boma cultivate. They cannot cultivate the mountain because of stones but it remains their land, used for their livestock. They can claim it (I14).

In sum, land is being privatized in Magaiduru, under the supervision of the Village Council. This is verified by the fact that land can be inherited, rented, and sold, in spite of the fact that it is not titled:

I am Sonjo and if my family has a big piece of land. It can give me a piece but not all families can do that. Some parents just chase us away. Yes, some people sell land and you can buy if you have money. There is no specific price. It depends on who sells and why. Some sell because of problems. Land is worth 600,000 to 700,000 per acre. But it depends also on the location. It depends on whether it is fertile, and on whether it is cultivated or pastoral land (I13).

These findings are consistent with the literature, which clarifies the process of land allocation at Village level (Box 3):

Box 3: Land allocation by Village Councils in Tanzania.

“In 1999, the Land Ordinance of 1923, the principal governing land law in Tanzania, was repealed and replaced by two pieces of legislation, the Land Act of 1999 and the Village Land Act of 1999. These new laws divided land into three categories: General Land, Reserve Land and Village Land. General Land is governed by the Land Act directly under the Commissioner for Lands. Reserve Land is managed under bodies set up for these areas (Forest Reserves, for example, are governed by the Forest Act of 2002); and Village Land is governed by the Village Land Act and is under the administration of Village Councils. These Councils have to administer land in accordance with customary law, which means any rule that is established by usage and accepted as custom by the community (Wily, 2003)” (Benjaminsen et al 2009).16

16 Benjaminsen, Tor A., Faustin P. Maganga and Jumanne Moshi Abdallah. 2009. The Kilosa Killings: Political Ecology of a Farmer–Herder Conflict in Tanzania. Development and Change 40(3): 423–445.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

3.2.4.3. Clans

The Maasai society is divided into clans. This may have implications for access to resources. We did not really investigate the issue as it would have required more time, but below is some information provided by our colleagues from PALISEP about the role of clan structures:

The Maasai community is divided into clans so it is easy to know all the families. There are 5 clans. They have different signs on their livestock, on ears and marks. Some have elected leaders and others have not. The most powerful are the Molel and the Laizer. Then there is the Mokessen, who are not so strong but not weak. The 2 others are the Lokumai and Iltarosero, who have few people (I8).

Decisions taken at clan scale are, for example, raising contributions to take a kid to school. When there is conflict between husband and wife, the divorce is a clan decision. If someone misuses livestock, then the clan takes a decision. For example, if a husband makes the wrong decision, the clan can say that this person does not own the livestock anymore. It is still his livestock but he cannot manage it in his way or he has to consult his children and wife. In the event that some land belongs to a clan and another person claims the land, the clan can rise to defend that person. Water resources are also divided according to clans, and heritage is only for persons from one’s clan (I8).

A clan involves different grandfathers. There is the left and the right side in Maasai communities. The first grandfather had 2 wives. If each wife gives 5 boys, some are born on the right side in the boma, which is a circle with 2 sides. There can be 2 families from the same grandfather with two grandmothers and several boys who extend and make branches. They may lose the name of the grandfather and their branch becomes a different branch, but is still in the same clan. One clan can even have 2,000 people. Loita is about 40,000 people and there are 5 clans in total. You cannot marry the same clan except under special circumstances that have to be paid to clean the relationship, with a cow. (I8).

Things have changed compared to the past. Clans used to be more important than now. We had to respect people from our clan more than others. Now people consider friendship and shared interests more than the clan. But there is still competition about which clans have more livestock and more children in school. The Iltarosero has become more powerful than the Mokessen because they are taking the children to school and as they are few, they can organise themselves and solve problems like conflicts among clan members (I8). 3.2.5. The conflict with the Sonjo people

In the past, the Sonjo and Maasai people had a peaceful relationship, each providing access to resources to the other, which resulted in mutual benefits:

When there is no fighting, Maasai cows can go to the Sonjo area to graze because there are areas with stones where you cannot do farming, and the Sonjo did not do livestock at that time. On the other hand, the Maasai elders are responsible to provide some space to Sonjo people because when they cultivate, the Maasai would be given some food at harvest time. The deals involved elders and elder Councils. At this time authority was respected (I12).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Nevertheless, there have been conflicts between the two communities, as early as 1985, and then again in 1995 and 1999 (I12). It remains unclear when the worst events took place:

In 1999, the Sonjo started to expand farming very fast and then the Maasai said they should do it too. The fight between Maasai and Sonjo took place. I was in this place and the Sonjo started to shoot Maasai people to force them move away. They were Sonjo from other communities. Yes, some people died. I cannot remember how many died. They remained anonymous. This was in 1985. And again in 1995 (I12).

Some people died on both sides during the war. Maasai boma were burned by the Sonjo and reciprocally. The Sonjo killed with arrows and spears. They have no guns because if they did, the government would capture those using them. Sometimes they have guns but they use mostly spears and arrows. The last war was 2 years ago (I14).

One of the most economically successful Maasai in the community (Interviewed in I7), who has lot of livestock and farmland and whose son studies at University, was attacked, even though he is said to have a Sonjo mother. His car was burnt by Sonjo people from outside Magaiduru (PALISEP). Conflicts today occur with many neighbouring Villages, including Mgongo, Mageri, and Tinaga (I20). Both government authorities and elders were involved in trying to solve the conflict:

The Government, District Commissioner, and Security Committees tried to do conflict resolution. Each community had stolen cattle from the other so the authorities asked them to give the animals back. They played a very significant role to insure that the conflict would be solved. Elders played a role too. Children from Sonjo communities and from here were mixed together and a Sonjo kid received breast-feeding from a Maasai mother and conversely, to resolve the conflict. Those who were acting against peace were cast away (I12).

In between conflicts, the two communities cohabitate though, which can be explained by the fact they are mixed by intermarriage to some extent:

Yes, now the Sonjo and Maasai are living together here. Many Maasai here are originating from Sonjo if you see the background. After the fight many Sonjo migrated back to Sonjo or Loliondo to rescue themselves, and then they came back when things got better. When there are clashes, the Sonjo community runs away but it comes back when it is stable again (I12).

A Sonjo woman could marry a Maasai man and then the kids would be Maasai. But a Maasai would not allow his daughter to marry a Sonjo. The Sonjo community was very poor (I12).

The Sonjo remain a minority in Magaiduru (I12), probably in part because they have less access to land and resources. After the conflict, many Sonjo migrated to areas with infertile land:

The Sonjo community are regarded as minority. They were experiencing fights with the Maasai community. Because of the fights, they moved to unfertile land in Tinaga Digodigo and Mgongo Mageri (I16).

But through education they improve their status:

The Sonjo went to school and started helping other Sonjo with education and to do investments in town. So now they are equal with the Maasai (I12).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

3.2.6. The Sonjo/Maasai battleground in Kisuyasuy

Magaiduru is in fact constituted of two Sub-Villages: Magaiduru, and Kisuyasuy, where settlement is more recent. We conducted all interviews in Magaiduru but walked to the limit between the two Sub- Villages. There, one of our PALISEP teammates, who spent a year in Kisuyasuy during his childhood, explained to us the situation in that Sub-Village. Kisuyasuy borders the Sonjo community and their shared landscape can be analysed like a battleground where protagonists establish cultivated fields to occupy land instead of moving armies, although armed confrontation also plays a role.

Kisuyasuy used to be a temporary settlement. Maasai were there during the first months of rain, in November and December, because the place is very fertile and the grass grows fast. When the rains became heavy, they moved farther toward Sukenya in the Tarara Mountains, Losokonoy, and Esiteti, which is where the boundary passes now. During time of peace with the Sonjo, they go graze in Sonjo and the Sonjo come here. This is during very small periods of peace. Now we are in a time of peace from 2 or 3 years since the beacon was put in place. It is passing in the middle of the mountain in the centre (PALISEP).

Now people live there permanently, but are limited by the boundary with the Sonjo people. Maasai people build their boma. The Chairman has a house with his second wife, but some people have shifted there definitively. There are more than 10 boma. Each boma has about 3 families. There were also people from Oloirien (PALISEP).

Kisuyasuy was a place of war. The Maasai are established on the left. Maasai people all have a second wife there to take care of this place and show to the Sonjo that they occupy the land. The Sonjo are on the hill on the right side. The hill in the middle is Maasai, but some Sonjo are living at the top. Maasai established fields on this hill to stop the progression of the Sonjo. Before that, they used this land as pasture. The Sonjo do the same on their hill. Their boma are behind the hill, on the other side, but as there is peace now, they start to establish on this side, like you can see. In the past, the Maasai brought their livestock beyond these hills during the dry season. Now they cannot because it is occupied by the Sonjo, and much land is cultivated. So they bring their livestock to the great plain west from the Village, toward Serengeti. The plain is called Ang’atakeri, and is on the other side of the road. I know these things because I lived there during several months when I was a kid as my father brought his livestock here during the dry season (PALISEP). 3.2.7. Conclusion

Magaiduru is a very interesting case showing a transition from pastoralism to agro-pastoralism, and a shift from communal to individual property rights, in a context of growing population and land conflicts with neighbouring communities. Today, the economic situation of the Maasai people seems to be quite enviable because farming provides food and surplus that can be sold to buy livestock or pay school fees and other expenses, while much land is still available for grazing in a great plain located to the west of the Village and spreading until Serengeti, as well as in the Loliondo forest, up the hills. The land conflict with the Sonjo people is mitigated by the possibility of access to these vast pastoral resources. In the future, though, conservation efforts in the Loliondo forest and land grabbing by OBC around the Serengeti could reduce the availability of these pastoral resources, accentuating conflicts with the Sonjo people and causing poverty.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

3.3. Oloirien

We conducted interviews during one day in Oloirien, which is the neighbouring Village to Magaiduru. In fact, Magaiduru used to be a Sub-Village within Oloirien and the two entities have recently been constituted as two distinct Villages:

The Village was subdivided to facilitate the availability of social services. The Village Office was too far, especially for those bordering Serengeti. So the division would bring social services closer. The other reason is that the population was very high so we needed to have two different administrative systems (I23).

The two Villages are very similar in terms of livelihood strategies and governance structures. There are two big differences, though:

There is very little difference [between Oloirien and Magaiduru] because it was divided recently. The difference is that we are all Maasai in Oloirien, while not in Magaiduru. Also, Magaiduru is very small compared to Oloirien. In Oloirien, farming is not taking a big part of the land. On the other side of the road to Arusha, there is no cultivation and it is common land used for livestock. This area is a plain. A big part of it is dry because it reaches the border of Serengeti National Park (I23). 3.3.1. History

3.3.1.1. Settlement

An old man, possibly 110 years old, told us the history of his community, which is probably also the history of Magaiduru as the two Villages used to be one:

During the war between the Germans and the British, I was already born. I was a very young man but I remember. I was a young moran already circumcised. I was privileged because my father was old and I got stories about the fights between the Germans and the British. I am the only one remaining from the Nyangusi age set17 (I25).

I came here a very long time ago, from the Loita plain where we were chased by the Purko. Some went north and others came here. We went to the Sukenya plain but the Purko came again and killed a lot of people. Then we came here. There were no people here. It was regarded as National Park and no one was allowed to settle here. Sonjo communities were passing as hunters, but the Maasai chased them away. There was no tension then. The fights came later when the Sonjo started to settle down the hill but they were still not doing farming (I25).

At the time we came here, this area was a conservation area decided by colonists and settlement was not allowed. There was a fight between the British and the Germans who were defeated. White men settled in Wasso and organized our settlement here. Living with the British was good and peaceful because the British like livestock. There were 4 families here. These were the first 4 boma. But they were not permanent. We moved to other places and came back. We stayed 2 or 3 months and left and came back. We were the first to settle here. We were following grass and

17 This age set had its eunoto ceremony (passage from junior warrior to senior warrior status) in 1945 (https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=YhPVmpk89IYC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=Nyangusi+age+set+loita+maasai&source=bl&o ts=PHMKwtgsLO&sig=3JMspNNZj52vVpOVx1m6erAOx- 4&hl=fr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Nyangusi%20age%20set%20loita%20maasai&f=false).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

water and moved to Serengeti. There was no farming at all. In those days the boundaries of Serengeti were not there so we went far away, not like today. The park was small compared to today (I25).

Our main food was milk and blood. Livestock was bought by the British and we got money that way but there was a tax to pay. There were no diseases like today, but we suffered from malaria when we went to Serengeti. We used traditional medicine and the British gave us tablets. Loliondo was small with just a few British people. The British were very good (I25).

Farming was not here when we arrived and even if one had only 2 cows, there was a lot of grass and rain so they produced a lot of milk and we could survive. Cows were fat and big and if we slaughtered one, we could stay months without any food problem. Maize was introduced by people who were living close to Sonjo (I25).

All was led by traditional leaders. The main issues were divorce and family things. Leaders could refuse divorce and no one would object. They decided also where to graze. And they controlled the property of everybody. If they wanted a cow from someone, they asked and people could not say no because elders were given mandate to control the resources of the community. The British were using traditional leaders to rule but we could also refuse. The British said that all having livestock should pay a tax and the leaders resisted so it did not work (I25).

There was more respect for the leaders in the past. Also, now people don’t take care of livestock. A Maasai is a cow and a cow is a Maasai. But now people don’t care about that and don’t see pastoralism as the backbone of the Maasai community. For me it is a big challenge because one cannot be a Maasai without livestock. Now old men are not respected. People used to like to ask for stories and sit with old men. Now they don’t (I25).

Meleta was a strong traditional leader who was fair and famous, but the British government offered him a gun to protect the community against animals that killed livestock. Olendangoya was also very famous, and also Keriko Kurtut. They were age-set leaders but they also had their Council. Those days, things were straight and you could not compare to today (I25).

When there was a drought, people gathered and prayed and fortunately the rain came. Now they pray at the church. I don’t believe in that. In old times we sacrificed a cow and then the rain came, even in one day. Now people don’t do that. Also, people don’t use traditional healers today (I25).

In my lifetime, I can remember 3 severe droughts. One is from a story from my father: people ate donkeys, dogs, and grass. This drought completely finished all animals in Maasai land. I was born but I was a kid. Another one is when the British government brought the red corn flour. There was another one also when the British brought yellow flour (I25).

The Village Chairman also gave us his version, less detailed, of the history of Oloirien:

Settlement of this place started in 1959 when people were evicted from Serengeti. When they moved away from Serengeti, they divided themselves between those going to Ngorongoro crater, and others who came here. But the first settlement [before Serengeti] was in Kenya. There was no border. They passed to Mara, and Loita, before settling in Serengeti, and then were evicted, and moved here. They are Loita Maasai. Back then their activity was only pastoralism. There was no cultivation. Pastoralism was enjoyable because there was heavy rain, no farming, and no disturbance. The Sonjo came after the Maasai. They were hunters and first they came

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

here to hunt. They were from Mosoma, away from Serengeti. They came here to make hunting camps and eventually they stayed (I22).

According to what I remember, in 1978, the first primary school was established. By then, the establishment of the Village was done and the only activity was pastoralism. The Maasai were living in huts. There were no iron roof houses. During the 1980s, we started building grass roof houses, not exactly huts like before (I22).

3.3.1.2. The development of farming:

The same informants explain to us the early development of farming in Oloirien, revealing that projects and NGOs may have played a role:

Traditionally, Maasai people know how to do farming. They can make a small garden with a stick, but it would not be bigger than this house. The production could be eaten by any person. They divided the small harvest. Then, in 1994, there was a prolonged drought, which is when the Maasai started learning about farming. A former Member of Parliament, Lazaro Parkipuny, started to ask people to cultivate to control food insecurity. He brought the ox-plow and explained to people how to use it, through a project called KIPOC18 (I22)

Back then, Maasai communities were scared to go to school, up to 1999. Then they started to enroll in school and to have houses with iron sheets. They became concerned with school issues, enrolled boys and girls, and there was a project established by government that dealt with people who did not want to send children to school. Children were roaming around so the project had a mandate that if it met girls or boys, it could send them to school without family consent [NB: Robert Kamakia of PALISEP was sent to school that way]. The program also tried to educate elders to engage them in development projects. The program was called MEMKWA.19 There was also another program called MKEJA (I22). 3.3.2. Livelihood strategies

Like elsewhere in Maasai land, people in Oloirien suffer from prolonged drought and dwindling water resources:

We have prolonged drought. Every year we experience it. The rain is so much reduced compared to previous years, because of climate change and destruction of the environment. And there is also the issue of lack of water. There is no water here so people go a long distance to look for water (I22).

Livelihood strategies are the same as in Magaiduru, although all people here are Maasai:

In Oloirien, we are all agro-pastoralists. We are all Loita Maasai (I22).

18 Korongoro Integrated People’s Oriented to Conservation. More info on this project at https://books.google.ca/books?id=CAToCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=Korongoro+Integrated+People+Oriented+Cons ervation+KIPOC&source=bl&ots=e0JJ_9n0wf&sig=bYP3r0GtLH0wiyE8oXQgKSPbmdE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVurPry4zQAh XDPxQKHefCCvMQ6AEIJzAD#v=onepage&q=KIPOC&f=false and https://books.google.ca/books?id=PUwYrkiKZzwC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=Korongoro+Integrated+People+Oriented+Conse rvation+KIPOC&source=bl&ots=JYi8GpmXi2&sig=9IXyFOjVdwVcS1t0GT8pmhWbqFg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVurPry4zQAh XDPxQKHefCCvMQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=KIPOC&f=false 19 See http://www.mwemachildren.org/Mwema_Children/Memkwa_school.html

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Another difference with Magaiduru regarding livelihood concerns the gap between rich and poor, which is higher in Magaiduru:

A difference with Magaiduru is that the gap between rich and poor is big there compared to Oloirien. In Oloirien, all families are powerful and can contest decisions (I23).

3.3.2.1. Farming

Contrary to Magaiduru where some households do not have land to cultivate, farming can still expand in Oloirien and the Village Council can apparently satisfy all demands:

All have some land to farm in Oloirien because every year the Village government gives land to cultivate. In every age set, people are given land to till. Today, only the land located beyond the forest, in between the mountains, can be given [see Figure 5]. There is a plain that stretches far away between these mountains. But in maybe 5 or 10 years, there will be no more land to allocate for farming. People are prohibited to cultivate these areas that you see here because they are areas that we keep for livestock. Only the big plain [west from the Arusha road] will be available and it will cause problems because it is land for livestock (I24).

3.3.2.2. Pastoralism

Oloirien has more pastoral land than Magaiduru because its territory includes the great plain located between the highlands and Serengeti. This plain is also used by people from Magaiduru, as we have seen in Section 3.2, which makes sense since the two Villages used to be one. Although the plain is vast, there is a perception that its grazing resources are insufficient and are degrading:

There is a lack of pastoral resources and we are pushed to go away to Serengeti, where we are captured and have to pay fees. There is also competition for grazing resources with wild animals like wildebeest there. During the rainy season, wild animals move to that plain and use resources. They finish it and give diseases. That’s why we go to Serengeti. It starts to be a problem when you have 100 or more cattle. Beyond that there would not be enough pasture. Goats and sheep pose a big problem too because they can eat everything, even small grasses, so they completely clean the land to the root (I24).

There are 2 signs showing that a pasture has been overused: when there is no grass at all, and when the livestock becomes skinny. Yes, you can also look at the grasses themselves. You can see that they are scattered, weak and white. They change colour. No [he laughs], we don’t have rules for not using grass when it is overused because if you graze on poor grass your animals would be weak anyway. Grasses are the same as before but they are easy to finish because of overuse. The rain is not like it used to be. Normally at that month we should have received rain. There is also lack of water (I24).

Some restrictions are put in place to limit access to this plain, including against people living in Magaiduru:

It was the same Village, and people from Magaiduru bring their livestock there but now we put some restrictions. You need to request access but it is still very free, especially during the rainy season. It is not systematic, but you may ask permission from these families that live in the area where you want to settle, and they tell you if they can accommodate you and tell you where you can settle. One cannot just go and settle and bring disturbance where we graze our livestock. The

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

great plain is not divided, not at all, but not everywhere is it allowed to put a settlement. Some people there have a permanent settlement but they may need to leave if there is drought, and then come back. They are the ones who can decide where newcomers can settle, because they are the masters of the area. Otherwise people would just go and settle where they find water and would graze without asking the people who are already there. No, the Village Council is not involved, except if there is a misunderstanding (I23).

This plain is currently used exclusively for livestock and there is no plan to develop farming there:

No, I don’t think farming will develop there because even the climate is not good because we border the Serengeti. Even if people liked to cultivate, the soil is not suitable for this (I23).

Pastoral land around settlements that is not in the great plain or in the forest is communal land, reserved for weak animals that cannot travel far away. Or it is fallow land that belongs to the person that was allocated that land for cultivation, just like in Magaiduru, although people need to show proof that they actually cultivate the land once every few years if they are to keep it for their own livestock:

If someone is given 5 acres and cultivates 2, then only that person can bring their livestock to graze on the remaining 3 acres. If you have 10 acres and cultivate 5, the rest is for you. But if you fail to cultivate the land for 3 years, then it is given to another person (I24).

The grazing pattern during the dry season confirms the information obtained in Magaiduru:

This plain is mostly used during the rainy season. During the dry season, livestock sometimes move to Serengeti National Park, but they have to pay a lot of penalties: 10,000 per cow. Those with small herds do not migrate to the national park. They cannot attempt it because of the size of their herd. If they were caught, they may have all their livestock taken by anti-poachers and could not afford to pay the penalties. Another option is to go to the forest highlands. There is enough pasture there, but there are diseases. If cows stay all the time and eat green grass from inside the forest, they get diarrhoea (I23).

The individual appropriation of pastoral land that we observed in Magaiduru does not exist in Oloirien, or does not exist at such a significant scale as in Magaiduru:

To have a private pasture is totally not allowed in our Village. But it started very slowly. Some people fenced and said it was for their cows, so we came and disagreed and said it was not allowed. But someone can have land for farming, then stop doing farming, and then say it is for its weak animals. When this happens we say it is okay (I23).

According to our informant, people in Magaiduru privatize the land to stop encroachment by non- Maasai people:

There is another tribe in Magaiduru [the Sonjo] that is not allowed to expand cultivation. They [the Maasai] turn the land into private land to stop them from acquiring farm land (I23).

Concerning the role of the government, people complain that it prioritizes farming and does not support livestock:

The government used to promote livestock development by building infrastructure for dipping, and other animal health activities. Now the government no longer supports that and promotes farming instead. That’s why Maasai community direction is confused. They start to focus on

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

farming too. No one facilitates breeding, drugs, and dipping infrastructure now, and there are many livestock diseases (I22).

3.3.2.3. Conservation of the forest

Oloirien is committed to protect the forest but this seems to mostly be a strategy aimed at stopping encroachment by the Sonjo people who want to use the land to do farming, and by young Maasai people from Oloirien who are interested in practicing farming to increase their income:

We arranged settlements with the view of protecting the land, but because of population growth, people now penetrate the forest. The young generation wants to improve its lifestyle and does not want to respect our arrangement, so we observe drought and lack of water. People cultivate in the forest because of the conflict with the Sonjo. They want to protect the land from being taken by Sonjo people, by doing like them, that is, by cultivating too. That’s why the slope of that mountain is cultivated like you see. It is cultivated by Maasai people because otherwise the Sonjo would take it (I24).

Most people who would do cultivation are from within the Village but there are also people from neighbouring Villages. There was a clash between the Maasai and the Sonjo so the boundary is a boundary between the Sonjo and Maasai (I23).

Like in Magaiduru, the community is targeted by external actors who push a conservation agenda to protect the forest. Frankfort Zoological Society (FZS) demarcated the forest, put beacons, and “restricts people to do cultivation beyond these beacons.” As “there was a clash between Sonjo and Maasai people, this boundary is also a boundary between the two communities” (I23), which could explain the “interest” of Villagers for conservation and their partnership with FZS. But the demarcation also creates some division inside the Village:

There is a kind of conflict between restrictors and those who want to do farming, but we did sensitisation. We said there are places for farming that can be given by the Village Council, and that we will find places (I23).

Some informants are explicit that the conservation agenda was set outside and brought by communication campaigns:

The issue of conservation is not our idea. We have been trained. We have seen the necessity and that’s why we have started to protect. People enter the forest because they don’t understand the purpose of conservation. Many people come and cut trees and we want to involve all stakeholders in conservation. Loliondo 1 forest is managed by the government, but the government does not put money to protect it and the destruction affects us, so we ask for the forest to be managed by the community. The Sariani forest is a community forest (I22).

With these external supports, the community created institutions in charge of managing the Loliondo forest, which is owned by the government, and the Sariani forest, which belongs to the communities of 4 Villages. A local leader explains how the community forest is managed:

The initiative started with the community. We initiated that when we saw that the forest was cleared. The elders accused those who did cut and do business and then we saw the importance of formalizing the protection. So we went to the District Council. They organized meetings, did surveys to show the boundaries, and planted trees on the boundaries. They said that the farms

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

could stay, but not expand and the Village government appointed some people to form a Committee to protect the forest (I24).

Oloirien invited the nearest Villages to manage the forest jointly. They were brought to agree. Some people did not agree but the leadership agreed. Those who did not agree thought it was a Maasai strategy to refrain them from grabbing the land. The day after yesterday, there was a meeting with the Sonjo people and it showed that some like the forest and some don’t (I24).

The community forest was gazetted 3 years ago. It is managed by a Committee with people from 4 Villages: Oloirien, Magaiduru, x [a Village whose name was not recorded], and Mgongo, which is a Sonjo Village. Each Village appoints 2 persons to the Committee. Committee members are proposed and then agreed on by the General Assembly. They are mid-class age people, from 25 to 40. There are no women. They have been trained by the County Natural Resources Division. They have to manage the forest. They go around and arrest the people who cut trees or do charcoal without permission. They have authority to arrest. Now the government deals with these people for conservation issues. I don’t know how long they will stay. I don’t know if they have a budget (I24).

Yes, you can extract resources if you have a permit. To collect firewood, you need to go to the office of the Village government, in Magaiduru or Oloirien, depending on which side you go, and you pay a fee. The Chairman collects the fee and delivers the permits. Permits are only for people from outside. Residents can collect firewood but are not allowed to cut active trees. One must pass through the District Council to have the permit and then pass here too, to get a letter showing that both steps were respected. Those who harvest timber or firewood for hotels or institutions have this permit (I24).

Few people seek permits, but the destruction has slowed down a bit because the Committee arrests a lot of people. They are like police. They ask if you have the permit and you have to leave otherwise. They scare people who do illegal things. They bring them to the Village. They are employed by the Village. I am not sure but I think they are paid. Most of the forest belongs to Magaiduru and Oloirien. There are boundaries and each manages its area (I24).

Besides the Sariani Community Forest, there is also the Loliondo forest that belongs to the government. The Committee is in charge of managing both. The Loliondo forest was registered in 1959 by the colonial government but the Tanzanian government after independence was not committed to protect it and people assumed the forest was theirs. Then the government appeared and the community asked to set up a forest management institution that cooperates with the government. They cooperate by calling the District Council when people cut trees:

The Village government takes care of all forests. The District Commissioner came here and pushed to establish a Forest Committee. He said he would support it because he is very interested. He said it would be an example for other communities. Though there are 2 forests, the Village is given responsibility for both so the Committee takes care of both. When it sees destruction, it calls the District. The Loliondo forest belongs to the government but the Committee cooperates with them (I24).

In sum, forest conservation is engaged in Oloirien, but the main motivation seems to be fear that the land will be taken by Sonjo farmers. Section 3.4 about Enguserosambu will reveal similar logics.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

3.3.3. Governance

A member of the Village Council explains to us how the Village is organized, which confirms information obtained in Magaiduru and adds a few precise details:

The Village Council has 25 members, including the Village Executive Officer who is designated by the District. The 24 others are elected. We also have 3 Committees: on finance and planning, on security, and on environment and conservation. The Environment and Conservation Committee deals with land distribution.

To elect the 24 members, there are 2 processes. The political parties nominate their candidates, and then there is an election held between the 2 nominated candidates. Each comes with a list of Village Council members, and the nominated candidate that wins the election comes with all his members. The election is with 2 boxes and some people sit with the book. So you write the name of your candidate and sign that you voted (I23).

To constitute the Security Committee, we take the Sub-Village chairs plus the Village Executive plus the Village Chair. Other members are added considering their location. The Security Committee has 5 members that include 3 Chairs from Sub-Villages, 1 Executive, 1 Chairman, and 2 prominent men (I23).

For land allocation, written requests for land are sent to the Village Council, which nominates the names of those who are eligible according to accepted criteria. Then the Council brings the list of those nominated to the General Assembly, which decides where the land should be taken to give to each person. The population of the Village is about 400 adults, but about 150 come to the General Assembly. If you have 100 persons present, then you can make a decision (I23).

Yes, women vote. And there are 7 women in the Village Council; 4 out of 8 members in the Finance Committee; and 3 out of 7 in the Environment Committee (I23).

The Executive in the Council has no vote at all. He is just the secretary. He provides documents and agrees on issues to put in the agenda but he cannot influence anything. He cannot go against any decision and has to write the decision of the Council. He is managing the discussion. He reports to the District every 3 months and if the report says bad things, then the District can come (I23).

No, the parties do not reflect clans, but they reflect locations. One area will support one party and the other the other party (I23).

There are a lot of relations between the Council and traditional leaders like age-set leaders. First, the political candidate needs to visit the oloiboni for benediction. Also, they influence the community so they are involved in conflict resolution. It changes these days because of technology. We became Christian and are not so attached to oloiboni, so they play less of a role. But the age-set leaders are still very influential (I23).

Like in Magaiduru, Village institutions are in charge of allocating land for cultivation, following rules that seem similar:

Land allocation for farming following the current rules started in 1993. It was an easy decision because there was demand for land from many persons. In some areas there was a big pressure because one wanted all the land, so we had to settle the conflicts. We record the boundary and

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

size of the land that is given because if you don’t write, then you cannot settle conflicts. We store the records in the Village Office. Yes, the owner has a copy. Normally we divide according to family size but the limit is 4 acres, although in Kisuyasuy [part of Magaiduru], it is 2 acres. No, people do not have to pay a fee to get the land (I24).

Some people want to sell their land but it is restricted by Village regulation (I24). There is also pressure from people from neighbouring Villages who are looking for land, but their demands are rejected:

Yes, some people want to sell their land, but it is restricted by Village regulation. Yes, many people from outside demand land too, but they are denied. We lack places where to give them land. They are people from Wasso. Our Village used to be one with Wasso (I24). 3.3.4. Conflicts

Like in Magaiduru, people in Oloirien are in conflict with neighbouring Sonjo communities:

Another big problem is boundaries. Population grows and there are conflicts between pastoralists and agro-pastoralists. There are conflicts and clashes some years (I22).

Conflicts occur both within Oloirien and between Oloirien and other communities, but the main conflict is external, between one Village and another, because each Village says it is its land. One Village [the Sonjo] says it is for cultivation, and the other one [the Maasai] says it is for livestock. Traditionally, there were conflicts between Sonjo and Maasai people because of raids and cattle thievery. Since 1995, the Sonjo started to push the Maasai away for land (I20).

Another important conflict is with the investment company OBC (see Section 3.1).

Now a big challenge is investments. There is a company from Dubai [OBC]. When they came in 1992, there was no formal agreement with the Village and it affects us today. They settled and the community has no control on the land. They took part of the land of this Village. The challenge now is that this OBC Company wants to cut off about 1,500 square kilometers for hunting purposes and we don’t agree because we were moved from Serengeti and now our land is taken again and we don’t know what to do. This land is pure pastoralist area.20 Due to population growth, there is pressure on land. We have now 5 Villages. Population grows very quickly. We don’t see the reason for cutting off those 1,500 square kilometers. It will be the end of our life (I22).

According to our colleagues from PALISEP, the wildlife law of 2009 makes it possible to turn this land into a game controlled area only used for hunting by tourists and for farming. Maasai people would then have no land for grazing. The fact that this conflict was not mentioned in Magaiduru could be explained by the fact that we did not investigate that issue specifically, and informants may have been hesitant to discuss it. Or, Magaiduru may simply not significantly use the land in the area controlled by OBC, which seems to be under the jurisdiction of Oloirien since the two Villages were separated. Magaiduru, in the East, neighbours the Sonjo people and is mostly preoccupied by its conflict with this group. Oloirien, in the West, neighbours OBC and has jurisdiction on land in the same plain where OBC is established, and

20 More information: https://ejatlas.org/conflict/loliondo-land-vs-tourism-conflict-tanzania ; file:///C:/Users/ICAN/Downloads/PRESS%20RELEASE%20ON%20THE%20TANZANIA%20CIVIL%20SOCIETY%20ORGANIZATIONS% 20(CSOs)%20POSITION%20ON%20ONGOING%20AVAAZ%20CAMPAIGN%20ON%20STOP%20SERENGETI%20SELL%20OFF.pdf ; http://www.ntz.info/gen/n01526.html

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate is mostly concerned by this conflict. But as both Villages use pastoral resources in the plain and compete with Sonjo people to access farming land, both conflicts will impact them. 3.4. Enguserosambu

Enguserosambu is located on the road linking Loliondo to Narok, close to the Kenyan border. It is populated by Loita Maasai pastoralists and agro-pastoralists with a few recent non-Maasai settlers. It is famous in Loliondo District because the community has been given management rights over a forest. PALISEP was involved in supporting the community to set up forest management institutions and plans.

We conducted only two interviews in Enguserosambu: one with a group of elders, to discuss the history of the Village and various livelihood and governance issues, and one with the executive of the Village Council, to discuss management of the forest. The next two sections present the results of these two interviews, edited for clarity. They show the great contrasts between the views of elders owning a lot of livestock and young educated people interested in diversifying their livelihood strategies. 3.4.1. History, livelihood, and governance according to a group of elders

I came here from the Loita plain with my family, when I was young. I was a moran by then. I am of the Maka age set. When we came here, there was no farming and there were many animals: rhino, elephants, and so many buffaloes. The forest was much larger. But this big hill was like that already, all denuded. It was not a forest. And there was no savannah here. It was grassland and forest, like now (I28).

We used fire to refresh herbs in pastures. We agreed on where to fire and the grass was so abundant that we had to cut the grass next to the boma to not damage the settlement. No, we don’t do fire now because people are so many and there is not enough grass so we cannot burn it. We stopped burning because in 1995 there was a very dangerous fire. The fire went far away and destroyed houses and vegetation so the community met and decided not to burn anymore. Population grew and people did not have enough grass to burn. That was decided at a community meeting, because there was not enough grass for livestock (I28).

Regarding decision-making, by then the community respected the leaders and all was serious issues. When something was decided, it remained. Now, meetings can decide things but there is no implementation. In the past, the decisions of traditional leaders had to be implemented. People now do not pray traditionally and don’t go to the oloiboni. They don’t join activities like before and they are all looking after money. Before, people supported you to build a new boma, but now, if you call someone, he asks for money. Everybody is after money. And there is the issue of discipline. Before, when a young man was asked by the elders to go somewhere, he may need to travel 200 km and still would go, but now he would find a lot of excuses (I28).

The system worked with a collaboration of age-set leaders and elders. For all issues, the elders decided how things are done. Also, all requirements had to be directed to the age-set leaders who would bring the concern to the elders and other age-set leaders. Regarding divorce for example, the cases were taken to traditional leaders and when elders made a decision, it had to be applied. Before, if they found a young man taking cows to a place reserved for young animals, the elders would make him pay a penalty like buying Maasai shukas for them. And if there was no discipline at all, one would have to give up a heifer for blessing. Now this is not practiced and the land is managed by government rules (I28).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Today, the elders are still involved in decisions, but the system is polluted somehow because young people are also involved. For example, the young people make decisions and then involve the elders to explain why some resolutions have to be made. So they decide many things and just report to the elders. Nowadays young people are conscious with time and are hurrying things. There is no specific way that they take the power, but the elders are not well organized. There are 2 elders out of 25 persons in the Village Council. And the forest trust is a very new thing, so we don’t know how to be involved in it. We meet sometimes between elders, but not so much and our advice is not that much listened to (I28).

Here are a few examples. That area is for young calves, and before we did not allow it to be grazed during the rainy season so that it was kept for the dry season. But this year, young men started to put young cows before it was dry and we could not stop that. Also, there is a boma that is in the middle of where livestock pass to access water, in a livestock corridor. If we say to remove the boma, the young man will corrupt a few elders and people will not come to the meeting. Also, they can go to the District Council, which decides where to put farming, and the elders are not involved, so there is cultivation where it is good for livestock. Then they say this is a government decision (I28).

Farming started in 1985. Pastureland above these fields is used by all [not just by those who own these farms] and we are careful that farming does not go up because this land is for dry season grazing. No, people do not try so much to exclude others from grazing in these areas. Some take land for farming and do not cultivate it and say it is for their livestock, but the elders try to control the situation (I28).

During the cultivation period cows destroy farms, but still we have a few people with 200 cows. They graze here, but during the cultivation period they go far away to avoid conflict. They go to Serengeti or to the forest, but recently the forest trustees told them not to go, saying it destroys the forest. The negotiation is still going on. They negotiate to have some space to put their boma in the community forest. This one is a big issue because the livestock does not have a place to graze. No, they don’t want any cows there. Even goats and sheep cannot go (I28).

Pastoralism is no longer possible so we turn to be farmers, but it is not a good livelihood option because cows are the Maasai activity. It is especially difficult when there are these droughts. The Maasai culture is going to be destroyed, whereas it was helpful to control the community. Our way of life is going to be different with impacts on livelihood. When we talk about livelihood, we talk about discipline, cooperation, dignity, and if all those are not recognized it will affect us (I28). 3.4.2. Management of the forest according to the Village Council Executive

We are 11,700 people, but I do not know the area of our Village because it was just recently divided (I27).

For conservation, the main thing is that Oloirien has a District forest while here, it is a purely community managed forest. We decide what to do in the forest. Conservation is for everybody, while, when it is a government forest, people can do anything. When it is managed by the community, then it is conserved. If people who graze cows in the forest see people logging, they can give information on that. We make by laws in collaboration with both traditional leaders and the government. If things happen, people have a penalty according to these regulations (I27).

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

We have a land use plan where a place for farming has been identified, as well as a place for conservation, so there is an area for cultivation but it is limited and there is a lot of demand. There is not enough land to address all demands, but to mitigate that problem we give only 2 or 3 acres. That was before and now we give 1 or 2 acres. Also, there is an increase of demand. In all age sets, when they grow up, they need a place to farm. If we give much, then there won’t be enough for the next generation (I27).

So many were involved to make the land use plan! But the leader was the Department of Natural Resources at the District Council, traditional leaders and community members who helped to identify areas, and PALISEP and OXFAM. PALISEP even helped to draft the bylaws and to organize meetings (I27).

There is a procedure for revision of the land use plan, but it did not take place yet. For example, if we need flexibility, we gather stakeholders to obtain technical advice to do the right things, and we see with the broader community how to make it work. We meet with the Village Council and the community votes to agree or not on the revised plan. Also, if they refuse the plan, another technical team will try to propose an amendment. There is a need for an amendment in the near future mainly because the previous plan was not clear about where livestock infrastructure like dip crushes should be. The government wants this to be done and we don’t know where to put the dips. Also, we discovered some minerals within the community forest and this was not considered during the planning process. There are other issues like that of women in this community. They ask for land, and there is high population growth. There are also people with disability, like the albinos. Previous plans did not decide where to accommodate these. It gave large spaces to pastoralism and we need now to accommodate women and people with specific needs (I27).

Women are not participating that much in the development process, but we can find a few women in the Village Council, and in the Community Trust. Also, women start to do economic generating activities like COCOBA. But I agree that basically they still have very limited influence in a pastoral community. A few are demanding land. Some ask for plots for construction (I27).

The sources of income are forest resources. The biggest is timber. Its harvesting is very well organized in the community. If one builds a house, he can send a request to the Village Council and then goes to the Village Trust. A fee has to be paid to the Village Council. The money serves to supports costs like transportation. There is also a beekeeping activity, but it does not generate much honey. Also there are minerals: spessartite. Many people come to demand it but we have stopped its collection, because of environmental destruction, until a procedure is in place so that the community can benefit. No, there is no delivery of authorisation for commercial logging (I27).

Conflicts between those preferring pastoralism and those preferring farming are there, but they are not so big. Livestock can eat crops on someone’s farm; some do cultivation in cow corridors, which are the places where the cows pass to access water or salt. But it does not raise much concern (I27).

People from outside cannot ask for land here, it is not possible. But some people from different communities come here and stay here. After 5 years they can ask for land and obtain it. Most of them come to do labour on farms, and others to build houses as Maasai are not familiar with this. They may stay a long time and do business, and as business grows, they help the community with some services. They sell sugar and when they request land, the entire community decides if they can get some. Even a government worker like me can come and settle here. But you must

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

stay for years and people must see that you support them. There are a number of people who are not Maasai. Some are from Wairak (I27).

Regarding the challenges faced by the community, there is the issue of conflicts between communities that do conservation and neighbouring communities that do farming. Our neighbours see our area as empty land so they try to encroach in the forest and it is becoming a big challenge. The issue was brought to the District and even at national level because there has been conflict for a while. If you do farming, it is clear that you [use] the land. So even people from here want to do farming instead of conservation to show that the land belongs to them. The neighbouring community of Kisangiro is pure Sonjo. There is also Tinaga and Mgongo. There are some misunderstandings with Maasai neighbours too, like the Sukenya community, but that’s because Thomson Safaris acquired some land there by making a deal with Sukenya while the land was part of Enguserosambu. To answer these challenges needs a serious commitment of the government, to put demarcation between the two Villages. Other challenges are that conservation does not have a big return. Serengeti has millions but our area is not much publicized. Also, the community trustees are not equipped with much knowledge about how to advertise (I27). 3.4.3. Discussion

During these two interviews, we did not discuss farming, which is an important activity in the community. An informant we picked up in our car during our trip provides a complement of information:

Farming is practiced by Maasai people. Men do the work. They hire non-Maasai for weeding. We get 20 sacks per family on 2-3 acres. Each sack is 100 kg of grain. A family cannot do more. Village government decides land allocation. It gives priority to those without a cow (I26).

Enguserosambu exemplifies the transition from pastoralism, the way of life preferred by elders, to agro- pastoralism, which is preferred by the young generation. This creates tensions between generation, with the new generation taking power over the old by being more represented in non-customary Village institutions like the Village Council and the organization in charge of managing the forest. Some land is available for the expansion of both pastoralism and farming, which could reduce tensions, but to the detriment of the forest, which people are eager to clear or use more intensively. We can wonder, in this context, how long the forest can resist pressures, and whether conservation makes any sense at all for the local community. If the forest cannot generate significant income, which could be achieved by developing tourism, or by cash transfers through a payment for an ecosystem services scheme, tensions may arise. Moreover, Neighbouring Sonjo people perceive the forest as an unused space and the Maasai may be willing to farm in the forest themselves, rather than just conserve it, to state more clearly to Sonjo people that this land is theirs, like they did in Magaiduru. 3.5. Conclusion

Magaiduru, Oloirien and Enguserosambu exemplify the transition from pastoralism to agro-pastoralism that has been taking place in the Loliondo area, among the Maasai community, for several decades. This transition may be rendered necessary by the high density of population, the limited access to large pastoral areas in Serengeti and surroundings, and the increasing frequency of drought, which renders pure pastoralism increasingly challenging. In Magaiduru, it enables increasing the number of livestock. Changes in consumption habits, like the shift from the traditional milk/blood/meat diet to a more

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate diversified diet, from traditional habitats to modern houses, and other expenses for health and education, may also have contributed to the development of farming activities. Farming reduces the need to sell livestock as people can produce food instead of buying it, and can sell food to buy more livestock and cover other expenses. Using draft animals and the ox-plow, they can produce more food than they need and sell a surplus, except for years of severe drought.

The development of farming accentuates conflicts with neighbouring Sonjo communities, for whom farming is the main livelihood strategy since they ceased to practice hunting and gathering a long time ago. Most land suitable for cultivation has already been allocated for farming in the three Maasai communities we visited. Future expansion of farming can still be done but to the detriment of critical resources for livestock, that is, by farming on land that is currently grazed by weak animals during the dry season. Maasai and Sonjo communities compete to appropriate the remaining land suitable for cultivation. They establish new cultivated plots as markers of their presence on the territory. Deadly conflicts have occurred repeatedly between these communities over the last decades.

The development of farming also increases pressure on forestland, which is fertile and located in areas with more rainfall, on hilltops. The two largest forests in Oloirien/Magaiduru and Enguserosambu are being conserved through schemes that involve communities. But one can wonder whether these communities benefit from conserving these forests given the high demand for land to expand farms and pastures. Community leaders support conservation, but mostly because they perceive it as a way to secure the rights of their community to forestland that would otherwise be cleared by neighbours. They may also perceive that they have to collaborate with the government if they are to reap some benefits from conservation efforts that will anyway happen.

Given these conflicts between communities and between land uses, as well as internal tensions within these communities, the development of farming is concomitant with a shift from communal to individual tenure. Village-level institutions distribute land to individual households, a process that contrasts with what happened in certain Group Ranches in Kenya like Maji Moto (see Research Scoping Report #3).21 In the Maasai communities of Loliondo, individual land allocation is more flexible than in Kenyan Group Ranches since allocation is done little by little, following individual needs and demands. It is done every year, and not once and for all, as when Group Ranches decide to proceed to subdivision. Abuses do occur and social inequalities have increased in Tanzania too, but they do not seem to be as acute as is the case in Maji Moto for instance, where powerful actors operating at a higher scale than the Village control land allocation and make illegal land deals with outsiders. The fact that Village level institutions, whose leaders live with and know their constituents, drive the process in Loliondo makes it possible to better balance various land uses (farming, pastoralism, and conservation) and the interests of diverse social groups, although minority groups have little influence on decisions.

During this allocation process, land is not titled. Use rights, not property rights, are allocated, as is also the case in certain group ranches in Kenya like [Ol’Kiramatian (see Research Scoping Report #1). If the land is not used, the Village authorities can take it back and allocate it to another household. Land rights

21 Group Ranches in Kenya are subdivided into Villages that seem to be akin to what Tanzanians also call Villages. Group Ranches thus cover broader geographical areas than Tanzanian Villages. Tanzanian or Kenyan Villages can more easily be qualified as being a community than Group Ranches, which may encompass several communities.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate may be ambiguous and may quickly evolve to property rights though, as shown by the fact that land sales do occur.

Today, vast communal grazing resources are still available in spite of the development of farming, the privatization of land, and the conservation of forests in the highlands. These resources are located in the great plain west from the highlands, toward Serengeti. But they are on the verge of being appropriated by OBC, a hunting safari company with a very bad record in terms of human rights abuse. If OBC succeeds in appropriating that land, conflicts with neighbouring Sonjo people and pressure on forestland will mechanically increase.

In sum, Loita Maasai communities in Loliondo District seem to be trapped in between three bundles of pressures: (1) pressures from the Sonjo community, which searches for land to cultivate; (2) pressure from conservation organizations like the Frankfort Zoological Society, which pushes for conserving forest ecosystems as part of its efforts to protect the Serengeti; and (3) pressures from investors, first of all OBC, which may appropriate the last large tract of pastoral land that pastoralists are still using. For all these issues, negotiations will be necessary if peace is to be maintained. Experience shows that negotiation can be successful when it involves neighbouring communities with similar levels of power and types of concerns (see forthcoming Research Scoping Report #5). When more powerful actors, such as the state, large NGOs, and big investors are involved, negotiation is more challenging, because global politics and Western “science,” rather than local knowledge and a direct dialogue among the most concerned stakeholders, become the main determinants of the outcomes.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Appendix 1: Future research

Overview

The conclusions in this report are derived from a small number of interviews (28) in only 3 communities. They are hypotheses to be tested by future research. To achieve this, additional research scoping studies could be conducted in other communities. The PALISEP team participated in the exercise and is thus trained in the basic principles of the methodology. It could conduct more research scoping studies by itself and produce similar reports to verify whether the processes we observed are a particular case or reflect the general situation. It could also collect qualitative information across sites and across stakeholders to follow in real time the development of land and resource conflicts and to understand more thoroughly their drivers at the scale of the whole Ngorongoro District (or, more restrictively, the Loliondo Division), and to understand how key stakeholders and key components of the landscape interact.

I-CAN could also support PALISEP in the collection of quantitative data over the next few years. We could train enumerators recruited in communities in interview techniques and equip them with tablets. They could be sent short questionnaires to pass to a random sample of households in their community, and they could directly email the results for processing. They could also use the data on their own, and we could train them to better use and process these data. Results would also be sent back to them after processing by the I-CAN team. PALISEP would coordinate these activities.

Questionnaires could be elaborated any time during the implementation of I-CAN and PALISEP activities, as soon as any hot issues or questions emerge. For now, we propose below a few suggestions of topics to be addressed and possible outlines for questionnaires. Topic 1: Equity in land allocation

This questionnaire is aimed at evaluating whether land allocation is made in an equitable way in communities, and whether some mechanisms are in place to avoid abuse.

• Did you receive land from the Village Council? • Why did you request land? • What are the criteria of eligibility to obtain land? • What criteria did you meet? Which criteria you did not? • How many acres did you request? • Which year did you request that land? • How many acres did you obtain? • Which year did you obtain that land? • Why did you not obtain all the land you asked for (if that is the case)? • What is the maximum acreage you could have requested? • For what purpose did you request land? • Is that the way you actually use it? • How will you use that land in the future? • Do you have a document attesting that this land is yours? What type of document? • Are there beacons on your land? What type of beacons?

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

• Did you sell some of this land? • Are you allowed to sell some? • Did you rent some of this land? • Are you allowed to rent some? • Did some people ever receive more land than what is normally the limit? • Why? What happened? Tell us the story. • Did anybody dispute your right to this land? • Who? Why? What happened? Tell us the story. • Do you think that something should be changed in the land allocation process? Explain. • Do you think the process of land allocation is fair? Explain. • Are some people in a better position to obtain land from the Village Council? Why? Explain. • Are some people excluded from obtaining land from the Village Council? Why? Explain. • Did you also obtain land by other ways than asking the Village Council? • Explain how you proceeded. • Why did you use that other way to obtain land? • Can you make claims on the land adjacent to the one you obtained? Why? • Do other people do that? Why? • In that community, what are all the ways people can use to have land that is their own? o Make a list. Consider both legal and illegal approaches. o Indicate the type of land involved in each approach. o Indicate for each approach the extent to which it is legal. o Indicate for each approach the extent to which it is socially accepted. o Does this social acceptance increase or decrease with time? o Indicate for each approach if it creates conflict. Explain the conflicts. o Indicate which approaches you think are better and why. • Any additional comments? Please say whatever you think is relevant. We will note all. • Do you have any question to ask us? We will be happy to answer. • Please add anything you consider is important to say. Topic 2: Community participation in forest management

This questionnaire is aimed at evaluating the extent to which community participation in forest management is genuine, as well as determining the motivation of local people for conservation.

• What are the last important decisions taken by the community forest association? • Was the community satisfied with these decisions? Why? Explain. • Were you satisfied with these decisions? Why? Explain. • Have you been involved in community decisions regarding the management of the forest? • How were you involved? • Do you think you have a voice when these decisions are taken? • Why? Explain. • If you could make decision on your own, for the interest of the whole community, what would you decide? How would you manage the forest? o How much space would you dedicate to conservation and tourism?

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

o How much space would you dedicate to pastoralism? o How much space would you dedicate to farming? • Why is there a difference between what you would have decided and what the forest management institution decided? • Who most influences the decisions? Which persons? Which organizations? Why? • If the community is not satisfied by a decision, what can it do? o How can it influence the leaders to make them change their mind? o How can it sanction the leaders? • To whom are the leaders accountable, downwardly, and upwardly? • Do you think they are more accountable downwardly or upwardly? • What are the benefits of the forest for your community, today? • How could these benefits be increased? • What are the advantages of having a forest for your community, in the long term? • How could these long-term advantages be increased? • How best could the land under the forest be used, in the long term? • Why then doesn’t the community adopt this land use? • Who most wants the forest to be conserved? • Who defends that conservation vision in your community? • Why do they defend that vision? What is their advantage? • Who defends the other visions? Why? • Are there more people defending the conservation vision or the other visions in your community? • Which vision do women/men defend? Why is it different? • Which vision do old/young people defend? Why is it different? • Which vision do rich/poor people defend? Why is it different? • Which vision do leaders/ordinary people defend? Why is it different? • Are there debates between people defending these different visions? • Where do these debates take place? • What determines the outcome? • What should be done to give more space to the other visions? • Any additional comments? Please say whatever you think is relevant. We will note all. • Do you have any question to ask us? We will be happy to answer. • Please add anything you consider is important to say. Topic 3: Interactions between key stakeholders and landscape components

This questionnaire is aimed at understanding the coalitions and convergence of interests among stakeholders, and at evaluating the risks of conflict escalation.

• What are the key decisions or commitments taken recently, regarding resource management and land uses, by: o Sonjo people, o Maasai people, o OBC,

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

o Other investors, o Frankfort Zoological Society, o Other conservation projects, o County government, o National government. • What are the consequences of these decisions for each type of landscape? o For the forest, o For farm land, o For grazing land on the plain, o For hunting areas, o For Serengeti? • What are the consequences of these decisions on: o Maasai livelihood? o Sonjo livelihood? o Farming? o Pastoralism? o Wildlife? o Conflicts between Sonjo and Maasai? o Conflicts between farmers and herders? o Conflicts between communities and investors? • What actions did the government take to mitigate negative impacts? • Are there coalitions between stakeholders? Describe, explain. Tell the history of how these coalitions were constituted. • Within communities, are there groups of people taking different sides? Do the conflicts have impacts on community cohesion? Explain. • If you compare now and before the Frankfurt Zoological Society (FZS) came to work in the area, do you think that the risk of conflicts between communities increased? Or decreased? Explain. • Same question for conflicts within communities. • If you compare now and before the OBC came to work in the area, do you think that the risk of conflicts between communities increased? Or decreased? Explain. • Same question for conflicts within communities. • What were the key strategies to solve conflicts between Maasai and Sonjo people, or similar type of conflicts between pastoralism and farming, before the presence of OBC or FZS? Explain. • What is the impact of the presence of OBC and FZS on these strategies and their efficacy? • Please add anything you consider is important to say.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Appendix 2: Figures

Maji Moto

Naroosura

Ol’Kiramatian

Loliondo

Figure 1: Location of study site (Loliondo). Ol’Kiramatian, Naroosura, and Maji Moto, where we conducted similar research scoping studies, are also displayed.

Figure 2: Aerial view of study sites. Forest cover is visible in dark green

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Figure 3: Aerial view of Magaiduru and Oloirien. We can clearly distinguish cultivated land, pastoral land, and the forest. In the upper right corner of the view, on the east side of the forest, is Kisuyasuy, a Sub-Village that is part of Magaiduru and marks the frontier with Sonjo territory.

Figure 4: Magaiduru. From the background to the foreground, we can see the Loliondo forest, used for grazing during the dry season; settlements on the forest edge that progressively encroach on it but may be relocated; communal pastoral land used for weak animals during the dry season, in the bottom of the valley; settlements surrounded by a mosaic of cultivated fields and fallow land used for grazing.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Figure 5: Oloirien. The landscape is similar to that of Magaiduru, but there is more communal pastoral land. In between the two mountains in the background is a valley where farming expansion is still possible. The forest on these mountains is the Sariani Community Forest. It marks the border between Maasai and Sonjo territory.

Figure 6: Aerial view of Enguserosambu. We can clearly distinguish the forest, cultivated fields, and pastures, and the artificial lake that provides water to livestock.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Figure 7: Enguserosambu. From the background to the foreground, we distinguish hilltops used for grazing; cultivated fields; settlements; livestock watering in an artificial lake.

Figure 8: Forest patches in proximity to Enguserosambu. The land is a mosaic of forest and pastures. In the past, pastoralists ignited fires before the arrival of the first rain to have more fresh grasses. The landscape was probably in large part shaped by these fires.

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

Appendix 3: List of interviews

Preliminary notes during meetings and travels

I1: Notes on the road, various people

I2: Meeting with PALISEP team

I3: Meeting at District office

I4: Pre-meeting with various stakeholders

I5: Stakeholder meeting at PALISEP office

Magaiduru Village

I6: Village Executives

I7: Wealthy man in his sixties

I8: Discussion with PALISEP team

I9: Sonjo elder

I10: Person with low income

I11: Woman, not Maasai

I12: Old man

I13: Young men gathering at the gasoline station

I14: Old woman

I15: Old man

I16: A Sonjo person

I17: Old man from the “Swahili” community

I18: Sub-Village leader

I19: Man with middle income

I20: Group of women

I21: Group of women

Oloirien

I22: Group of men

I23: Member of the Village Council

I24: Local leader

Draft for internal use – Do not circulate

I25: very old man, possibly 100 years old

Enguserosambu

I26: Various people met on the road,

I27: Member of the Village Council

I28: Group of elders