NGOs take up land rights challenge for pastoralists

NGOs take up land rights challenge for pastoralists

BY GUARDIAN ON SUNDAY CORRESPONDENT

8th January 2012

Email

Print

Comments

Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) provides that everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others, and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her property.

At the national level, Article 24 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania (1977) stipulates that every person is entitled to own property and has a right to the protection of his property held in accordance with the law.

The primary legislation governing land ownership is the Land Act, No. 4 of 1999 and the Villages Act, No. 5 of 1999. Under the Land Act, there are several categories of land, including village land, administered at the grassroots level for which a certificate of title can be granted to the holder. On the other hand, in Tanzania the Land Acquisition Act of 1967 provides for the compulsory acquisition of lands for public purposes and in connection with housing schemes.

These laws mainly focus on unregistered land which is commonly known as customary land.

There are recent efforts conducted by various NGOs to acquire land certificates for villages. This was identified as a felt need through research that was carried out in 1997 by the Pastoralist Research and Development Project (PARDEP) and other stakeholders in Arusha region.

The research exercise uncovered various constraints and challenges.

“Among them is bureaucratic procedure in approving maps and issuing certificates, and lack of awareness on land rights issues among pastoral communities, which gives room for land grabbers to access more land in dubious ways,” said Mr. Shilinde Ngarula, an activist with the Legal and Human Rights Centre in Arusha, in an interview.

Lack of confidence among villagers is also a problem. Their leaders fail to use legal instruments to defend their land and demand rises particularly for building village registries. It is costly and requires office furnishing, purchasing of cabinets and stationery for registration and administration of customary rights of occupancy.

Other constraints were inadequate funding especially in the area of providing skills on issues pertaining to land laws and training of grassroots officials. Statutory conflicts particularly between land legislation and the Wildlife (Conservation) Act threaten the mandate of village authorities to govern resources efficiently. “We appeal to advocacy agencies to address and influence legislative bodies to settle the confusion,” the law activist noted.

Customary land rights are disregarded, especially when you don’t have title deeds or sometimes barely acknowledged user or occupancy rights.

All unregistered land (95 percent of the territory, and thus most rural land) is included in the state private domain and is presumably under state control. In practice, however, the land is run according to local rules, which are dynamic and reactive to change in the local economic and social context, largely transformed by public intervention.

Mr. David Igongo, a trader based in Arusha, explains that in some areas indigenous communities are still denied the right to own and use the land within their customary or traditional areas. Sometimes the land is arbitrarily seized, under the law that empowers the Tanzania Investment Center (TIC) to allocate land to investors without consulting villagers. He affirmed though that this usually applies to villages without title deeds to the land.

Mr. Saitoti Pamello, acting director of Association for Law and Advocacy on Pastoralists (ALAPA), another NGO working with indigenous people, observed that the government needs to provide indigenous people with title deeds to their land, so as to ensure the survival of the often marginalized communities.

Great achievements in securing village certificates have been registered, with about 200 villages having acquired the certificates.

Under the supervision of an NGO, Community Research and Development Services (CORDS) 99 villages secured land certificates (36 in Monduli, 31 in Longido, 20 in Arumeru and 12 in Kiteto district. The CORDS program is being implemented in 109 villages.

Issuing certificates of title will not end the problem, but at least it will reduce it to a certain level. Mr. Shilinde says that title deeds are issued after it is ascertained that there are no land conflicts in the village land involved, urging villagers to maintain the situation. With title deed documents, no one will come and encroach on the land, and if that were to happen, they will have documents to back their objection to land invasion.

“Title deeds will also help in solving and ending land conflicts. With the document, no one will be able to invade the land because it is legally identified as belonging to the communities,” he elaborated.

Pastoralist communities are the most affected, facing a number of development challenges. Land tenure insecurity surfaced as a major challenge since highly potential areas predominantly used for grazing have been allocated for other uses through various reforms influenced by conservationists and enacted by the Government. Thousands of acres in pastoralist areas were set aside for large scale farming, military camps, extended national parks, hunting blocks, game controlled areas and camp sites.

Due to this reason the communities cried to other stakeholders to halt further encroachment of their land. In response to community,

Experts has purposely addressed those challenges raised. The primary goal is to enhance security of resource tenure for the Maasai pastoral communities. The strategy has been to achieve this through securing certificate of village land as a prerequisite for legal ownership of land under the Village Land Act No. 5 of 1999 and to empower communities by raising awareness on pastoral land rights.

Various groups practice unique forms of pastoralism, ranging from the Maasai in Ngorongoro highlands and Longido plains nomadic cattle keepers to the Barbaig localised pastoralists. Depending on livestock for a significant level of income as well as social mobility is the key element in the pastoral mode of life.

NGOs point out that cattle keepers can move with their cattle because freedom of movement is enshrined in Article 17(1) of the Constitution of the United Republic, while mobility is an ecological necessity. “Mobile pastoralism is often the best way to manage dry environments sustainably, maximise livestock survival and productivity in harsh disequilibrium environments,” the advocacy official noted.

Due to seasonal movements of livestock under the transhumance system, seasonal grazing land has been labeled as no man’s land and legally or illegally alienated into larger plantations, mining caves or national parks, such as the Loliondo Game Controlled Area, Mkomazi Game Reserve, Serengeti National Park and Tarangire National Park.

The new Grazing Land and Food Resources Act of 2010 was a positive development towards pastoral land tenure in the country. The main objective of this law is to lay down clear mechanisms for the management and control of grazing lands and animal feed resources.

However, M2S has discovered that there is another challenge in the primary legislation governing land ownership. The problem is that the law appears to be too modern and ignorant of the type of pastoralist activity practiced in Tanzania. For instance, pastoralists generally keep large numbers of animals requiring huge portions of land for rotational grazing.

However, the new law requires grazing land to be demarcated and animals to be confined to one place depending on the land carrying capacity. Thus it becomes difficult to establish grazing lands within the limits of demarcated land.

UNDP studies say that mobile pastoral systems are more economically productive per land unit than the highly capitalized ranches in northern countries. “The main challenge is on how the law will address this situation, where pastoralists are forced by unavoidable circumstances such as drought to search for greener pasture lands,” Mr. Shilinde intoned.

LHRC efforts would continue being directed at working with its partners such as Community Research and Development Services (CORDS) to make sure that pastoral communities, like others across the country, regain their land rights, he added.

SOURCE: GUARDIAN ON SUNDAY

Ngorongoro Land row

Ngorongoro land row: Government forsakes small beleaguered community for revenue!

BY CORRESPONDENT

15th April 2010

Email

Print

Comments

I am writing from the small town of Loliondo in northern Tanzania. The British chose these cool, wet, windy hills for their headquarters in Maasailand. Avenues of trees lining the roads, and purple-flowering jacarandas around the government offices of what is now Ngorongoro District, are a testimony to their time here.

It is the Wednesday after Easter. Watchmen pull their blankets – the red Maasai shuka - around their shoulders. The morning is chilly. But politically Loliondo could not be hotter. In the past, the Maasai were renowned for their warrior force, the morans.

The age-sets still open and close to new spear-carriers. But today the formidable army of the Maasai is their women. After centuries of subjugation by their menfolk and by government, they have discovered themselves, building strong village groups numbering thousands of members. They are planning to march on Loliondo tomorrow, April 8, to show their displeasure with governments which have gradually stolen their land to increase state revenues from hunting and tourism.

The women have come together from village to village to make plans to travel into Loliondo to hand back their CCM cards – renouncing their membership of Chama Cha Mapinduzi, the party which has ruled the country continuously since 1977. They are protesting the July 2009 evictions and burning of homesteads in Loliondo Game Controlled Area - the north-western division of the district - and government plans to redraw the boundaries of village land and so exclude Maasai livestock from their traditional pastures.

In many countries, this symbolic surrender of party cards would seem a modest protest. But in Tanzania in an election year, it is seismic. The ruling party is not accustomed to being challenged. Word of the women's plans leaked out on Easter Monday ( April 5) after large meetings were held in the villages.

By evening mobile phone networks in Loliondo town were jammed with calls, as the District Commissioner (DC) Elias Wawa Lali came under pressure from Arusha and Dar es Salaam to act, and local civil society organisations (CSO) came under pressure to confess to supporting the women. The Member of Parliament Saning’o Kaika Telele has travelled back from Arusha, fearing his support will collapse ahead of party and national elections. The regional CCM chair and attendant security officers have also arrived.

The authorities' knee-jerk reaction is to hide, rather than discuss, the problem. This is embedded in CCM's genes, whether at national or local level. It seems akin to treason to question the party's authority, and Tanzanian democracy sometimes seems a facade maintained only for the international community.

In town the witch-hunt for perpetrators began yesterday. Civil society organisations are accused of fomenting the protest, and threatened with closure of their programmes. The authorities are so little in touch with life in the villages that it is beyond their imaginings that women could spontaneously undertake such resistance.

In a way they are right. The women have been empowered by more than a decade of support and training by organisations such as Oxfam, ACORD, Pastoralist Women's Council (PWC) and – through its Ereto programme - DANIDA. But in fact the women are working alone. They have each contributed 300/- towards transport costs. They say it is men who have drawn up all past land agreements, and that now it is time women came to the forefront. Their leaders are fearless, articulate and determined.

There has been a frenzy of political and police activity to forestall the women. At 9pm last night, two police vehicles were sent to one of the nearer villages, Ololosokwan, where they found more than 400 women assembled. The police declared the gathering illegal and warned the women that they would be fired on if they moved towards town.

The MP held a midnight meeting with security officers and police in Loliondo. Unintimidated, women have today moved by truck and by foot along village pathways to try to come together near Wasso, 10 km from Loliondo.

A group of about sixty were spotted by police and arrested in mid-afternoon at Wasso airstrip, and brought to the police station in Loliondo. They were questioned for several hours – through an interpreter, since none of the police speaks Maasai.

They were repeatedly asked: 'Who helped organise you?' The police also intercepted 370 women from Ololosokwan in Olipiri village, where they have been held all afternoon to listen to the strictures of the DC. This evening the DC called ACORD, LADO, OXFAM GB and other CSOs in a vain request for vehicles to take the women back to Ololosokwan. Having eventually commandeered transport, he told the women that if they did not get into the vehicles, the police would beat them. The women are – of course - being denied rights of association guaranteed under the Tanzanian constitution.

Today is Karume Day, a holiday, and the women have decided to wait until tomorrow morning to bring their cards to the CCM office. Whether any will now make it seems uncertain. About 500 women are spending the night in the bush near Wasso, some with young children. This is a measure of the women's determination. The authorities may succeed tomorrow in blocking them from the CCM office in Loliondo, but they have done nothing to win back hearts and minds.

__________________________________________________________

Maasai women have already been active in defence of their land. In October 2009 a delegation made the two-day journey to State House in Dar es Salaam, where they camped for a day outside the gates demanding in vain to 'meet the President we elected', Jakaya Kikwete. Several of their leaders, including Kooya Timan from Ololosokwan, travelled to Gambia in 2009 to attend the 46th African and Human and People's Rights Session. (Others were prevented from boarding their flight from Dar es Salaam.)

The roots of this anger stretch back into colonial times. Maasai communities were moved from the Kenyan Rift Valley by the British early last century, then from the Serengeti in the 1950s to make way for the national park, and in 1974 from Ngorongoro Crater despite the promise that it was theirs 'in perpetuity'.

The current crisis has erupted from a confusion in rights and ownership stemming from the contradictions of village land acts and the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1974. Under the Act, the lands of all 19 villages in Loliondo Division were also designated a Game Controlled Area (GCA).

In 1992 President Mwinyi's government conceded the whole of this Game Controlled Area – almost 5000 sq km - to a member of the Emirati ruling family, Brigadier Mohamed Abdulrahim Al-Ali of Otterlo Business Corporation (OBC). OBC's purpose is game-hunting.

It has gradually asserted its control over a vast tract of land within the GCA belonging to eight villages, until in July 2009, police of the Tanzanian Field Force Unit burnt down 305 homes making about 3000 people homeless. People were beaten, one woman raped and one child was lost and is presumed dead. One man was shot in the face and has lost an eye.

The original agreement between the authorities and OBC states that 'The Brigadia will allow villagers to continue grazing livestock in the area under contract providing they do not harm the wildlife....' ('Brigadia atawaruhusu wanavijiji kunendelea kulisha mifugo yao katika eneo la Mkataba mradi tu wasifanye uhalifu wa aina yoyote.') This was paid no heed during the recent drought, when herders were prevented from taking their starving livestock onto what had been the community's dry season grazing reserve.

It cannot be disputed that some villages have drawn benefits from OBC, in the form of annual payments. Historically those purporting to be Maasai leaders have too readily signed away the rights of their communities. Even with OBC, communities failed to perceive the threat to their livelihoods, and to join together to face it. Until 2007, the villages whose land OBC occupied were each to be paid 3mn Shillings - though this was processed by the District Council and sometimes remained there.

Recently payments rose to 25m/- per annum - and in the case of one village, Soit Sambu, 50m/-. As a PR initiative, cheques were released to 9 villages on August 15, 2009 at the DC's office with media in attendance. Ololosokwan and Maaloni were included, even though they had not signed any agreement with OBC. The OBC contract came to an end in December 2009. Though it has not been renewed, jets from Dubai continue to fly into OBC's airstrip.

Recognising its mistake in rousing the media with forcible evictions, the authorities have more recently resorted to arresting and charging 'encroachers' under the 2004 Environmental Management Act – to protect wealthy Arab hunters shooting wildlife. The irony is not lost on the Maasai who are in their present plight because they eschewed hunting and lived alongside the plains wildlife.

They are the conservators. Two worlds are in collision in Ngorongoro, an ancient herding community now pressing for the education of their children and the development of their communities, and the obscenely rich who look for new playthings. A Tanzanian governnment susceptible to financial incentives holds the ring.

Not far from the OBC 'park', a further 12,760 acres known as 'Sukenya' has been earmarked for a luxury hotel to be built by Massachusetts-based Thomson Safaris. During the last drought in 2009, villages around Sukenya and OBC were unable to access the grasslands of Sukenya and OBC, and lost 70 per cent of their cattle. 'That land is the greenest land, where there is grass and water,' Olmwalmui from Ololosokwan village told me. 'But the animals could not go there. They just died, died.'

The Wildlife Act of 2009 is close to implementation and sets a framework for demarcation of village lands and the game controlled area. But a game controlled area can only be formally established on land removed from the villages. And this land, like Serengeti, and like the land now defended by OBC and Thomson Safaris, would not be open to Maasai livestock. So the Maasai are threatened with a final expulsion that could leave them in village centres which would become little more than displaced camps.

Political efforts to address these wrongs are being thwarted by the lack of accountability and of genuinely democratic institutions in Tanzania. At least ten delegations have come to Loliondo to find the facts and report. The most significant of these was the parliamentary committee led by the Speaker, Samuel Sitta. Their report was to be tabled in Parliament on February 6, and civil society organisations supported eighteen leaders from the villages to attend. But the CCM caucus met the day before and blocked the tabling of the report.

Civil society players now feel that the political process has failed. Their legal efforts also received a setback on 30 March. A case against the DC's enforcement of evictions was dismissed in the district court in Loliondo, on instruction from the Director of Criminal Investigations who said the court did not have a mandate to hear the case. This will now be appealed to the High Court. Another constitutional case challenging the evictions has already been lodged in the High Court.

The government's support for OBC has created an unusual alliance of opposing interests. The myriad tour operators working out of Arusha stand to lose business. Permanent camps operating in the villages, such as Klein's Camp in Ololosokwan, are threatened: recently a tourist group from Klein's were watching a lion, only to see it shot by guests of OBC.

The arch-conservators of the Frankfurt Zoologocal Society, which has in the past supported evictions from the Ngorongoro highlands, is also firmly in the opposition camp. It seems possible that the Tanzanian authorities could kill the goose that lays the golden egg if they continue to grasp at every opportunity to increase their revenues from the northern plains. Maasailand without the Maasai would be a diminished attraction. The hunting of game does not sit happily alongside the ideals of ecotourism. Plans by Kempinski to establish a new luxury hotel within the Crater rim at Ngorongoro have attracted criticism from UNESCO.

Perhaps the best hope of the communities in Ngorongoro is a continued political campaign backed by continued pressure from the international community. EU and US delegations in Dar es Salaam, led by the Danes and Swedes, have visited Loliondo several times since the evictions have condemned government policy. But will they be prepared to sacrifice their relationship with the Tanzanian government, however intransigent and unwholesome, for the sake of one small beleaguered community?

SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN

Villagers: Investor cheated in land deal

 

Villagers: Investor cheated in land deal

By Gerald Kitabu

30th April 2012

More than 1,790 residents of Lutukira village, Mkongotema ward, in Songea rural district, Ruvuma Region have accused an investor of acquiring 50,000 hectares of fertile land in their village without following proper procedures.

They also accuse Songea district council for facilitating a controversial land deal and protecting Lutukira Mixed Farm Ltd for their own interests and want the government to intervene. The investor holds a 99-year lease on the land.

In an interview with The Guardian, the villagers and their leaders alleged that the whole process of acquiring the land was influenced by both the investor and the district authorities, adding that even the terms in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) were deliberately designed to favour the investor at the expense of the poor villagers.

One of the villagers Eligius Danda alleged that usually the MoU and the contracts are signed before the project kicks off, but surprisingly, the MoU was actually signed more than six months after the project had kicked off.

Danda who is also a senior lecturer of the Moshi University College of Co-operatives and Business Studies (MUCCoBS), further alleged that considering shortage of land and the fast growing population, the villagers had agreed to give the investor 25,000 hectares, but the investor reportedly backed by the district authorities pressed for allocation of 50,000 hectares.

“During the second meeting chaired by the divisional secretary, the villagers conducted an opinion poll with just a few backing the allocation of 50,000 hectares. Many instead proposed that the investor be allocated 25,000 hectares. But to our surprise, the district commissioner ignored our proposals, saying we must give the investor 50,000 hectares,” he said.

Isaack Geho, also a villager claimed that the investor used money to corrupt both district government officials and the villagers in order to get the land.

“He gave each participant 2,000 shillings, something which could be translated as bribery because even the elderly of up to 80 years and children who had never attended meetings for years were in attendance,” he said.

The village Executive Officer Kwinibert Muhoro claimed that the tactics used by the investor are what actually raised doubts among the villagers.

“We agreed that the investor should supply water from Lutukira River, but he instead decided to dig water well. The villagers wanted him to supply electricity, but he later on said he could not. Employment was mentioned in general terms and not specific. We wanted him to build a school and a hospital, but he opted for rehabilitation, while no specific number of jobs was mentioned in the MoU,” he said.

When contacted for comment, both the investor and the district authorities dismissed the allegations as baseless, saying the land deal followed all legal process and procedures including involvement of the villagers and the village council through meetings.

Jabiri Kilahama who is the Director of Lutukira Mixed Farm Ltd and his legal officer Dickson Ndunguru said the allegations were politically motivated. He said there were two conflicting groups, one backing the former village chairman while the second supported the current village chairman, each aspiring to win voters for the next elections season.

“Apart from following all the procedures, corporate social responsibilities were well explained to the villagers. We had meetings that involved the villagers. Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out with their participation and NEMC. We conducted land use plan for the investment area and there was nothing like dishing money to win the villagers.”

“Lutukira Mixed Farm and Montara Continental of Seychelles have formed a management company called Montara Land Company Ltd to implement the project but it is Lutukira Mixed Farm Ltd that has ownership of the land,” he said.

For his part, the District Commissioner Thomas Ole Sabaya said that the mandate to give an investor land was vested in the villagers themselves and not the district.

“I have no mandate to issue the village land. The investor acquired land in 1991; I was not in Songea by then. He stayed for many years without a title deed, when he got it and came to me, I directed him to go and agree with the villagers. So it is the villagers who gave him the land, not me,” he said.

For his part, Advocate Joseph Chiombola of Hakiardhi scoffed at the terms in the MoU saying there were many flaws. For example, the parties were not well defined, he pointed out.

He observed that the MoU seemed to have three parties, Lutukira Mixed Farm Ltd, Montara Continental of Seychelles and Montara Land Company which confused the villagers as they don’t know who actually they are dealing with.

“The promises by the investor are too general. For example, the investor says he will provide a tractor without specifying the model. It could be a power tiller or an old tractor,” he pointed out.

He also questioned the dispute mechanism clause, where the MoU says in case of any dispute the parties would not resort to a court of law, saying this left a lot to be desired, putting the villagers in a disadvantaged position.

SOURCE: THE GUARDIAN

http://www.ippmedia.com

Pastoralist should own grazing land by PINGOS Forum

 

Pastoralists should own grazing land - PINGOS Forum

By Guardian on sunday correspondent

13th May 2012

A non- governmental organization which stands for the rights of pastoralists in the country has appealed to the recently appointed constitutional review commission to work on reviewing a clause in the current Land Act to defend pastoralists and farmers in the country.

The Executive Director of the Arusha based PINGO’s Forum, Edward Porokwa said in an exclusive interview with The Guardian on Sunday early this week that “there are various inhuman acts which are frequently done to pastoralists as there is no specific law which defends their right to land ownership.’

Mr Porokwa is of the view that the current Land Act should be amended in order to give priority to indigenous people especially pastoralists their right ownership of the natural wealth in the country, despite that they do not have permanent places to stay.

However, he says there are some clauses which do not defend the rights of pastoralists when it comes to land transfer to other users, where traditional users in particular cattle herders are subjected to mass eviction, which he described as abuse of human rights and contrary to UN Habitat conventions.

He noted that issues that touch pastoralists in the country are repudiated by government authorities at a certain level in decision making, the most affected ethnic groups being those living in bushes and feeding on wild fruits and meat from livestock or bush animals.

According to him, little attention is given to affected ethnic groups, mostly found in Arusha, Manyara and Singida. These groups are not given special attention when it comes to land ownership.

He further noted that the Village Land Act of 1999 and policies of the land ownership introduced recently do not empower pastoralists in the sense that the laws do not provide them with safety whenever they need it as citizens.

The livestock policy set out in 2006 talks about products or commodities but doesn’t talk about better life for pastoralists, He said, amazed to see that this is contrary to government policy which requires better meat, hides and skins, where the benefits are enjoyed by pastoralists who tender the livestock on which the country relies for meat and milk.

“This is contrary to the constitution of other countries such as Kenya and Uganda which go into details about land ownership of people in their respective counties,” he ,noting further that in Tanzania pastoralists are subjected to humiliations and denial of rights to ownership.

Way back in 2006, the government issued an eviction order on pastoral communities residing in Usangu basin especially at Ihefu valley in Mbarali district, Mbeya region, a measure which One Porokwa says was inhuman and affected many innocent people.

The eviction of pastoralists from Usangu and elsewhere has always been executed violently without due regard and respect to human rights and land rights of livestock owners.

It is amazing to note that the victims of evictions have not been compensated. The government through the Ministrry of Livestock Development admitted to have committed a mistake by not providing alternative land for evictees. It was thus officially announced that evicted pastoralists were to move to Lindi and Coast regions.

The inbuilt societal stereotypes and negative perceptions over pastoralists in the country have often been the basis of policies. Laws and orders directly affect the majority pastoral communities and the wellbeing of their mode of livelihood.

Some of the basic perceptions characterize them as destructive of environment, sources of animal disease, and enemies of wildlife heritage, practicing an economically unreliable, even wasteful mode of livelihood.

Worse enough, there are attitudes that have been dogmatized in mainstream policies which are being applied without being challenged even when they stand in sharp contrast with scientific evidence.

SOURCE: GUARDIAN ON SUNDAY

http://www.ippmedia.com

Uwekezaji Toka Ughaibuni Unamnufaiha Nani?

http://www.mwananchi.co.tz/magazines/32-makala-ya-siasa/15649-uwekezaji-toka-ughaibuni-unamnufaisha-nani.html

JOINT STAKE HOLDERS SUBMISSION ON PASTORALISM AND HUNTER-GATHERERS IN TANZANIA

http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session12/TZ/JS4-JointSubmission4-eng.pdf

Prof. Dzodzi Tsikata mwenye miwani na Tisheti nyeupe kulia akiwa katika Tenti la HAKIARDHI siku ya Kongamano la Jinsia lilofanyika Sept 13 hadi 16 Dar es salaam, waliopo kushoto ni baadhi ya wafanyakazi wa HAKIARDHI. Mezani ni baadhi ya Machapiho ya HAKIARDHI

THE POLITICS OF INVESTMENT IN LARGE SCALE AGRICULTURAL VENTURES

http://www.hakiardhi.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=100&itemid=80

Mazimio 14 juu ya Hatma ya Ardhi na Mchakato wa Katiba Mpya Tanzania

Mazimio 14 juu ya Hatma ya Ardhi Tanzania na Mchakato wa Katiba Mpya.
Ni siku ya nne na ya mwisho la Kongamano la 10 la Jinsia lililofanyika katika viwanja vya Mtandao wa Jinsia eneo la Mabibo Jijini Dar es salaam. Kongamano limeandaliwa na Mtandao wa Jinsia Tanzania (TGNP) likishirikiana na Mashirika yanayotetea Haki za wanawake, haki za binandamu, rasilimali na makundi maalum (FemAct) na kuhudhuiwa na washiriki zaidi 3,500 kutoka pande zote za Tanzania yaani Bara na Visiwani. Mada kuu ikiwa ni Jinsia, Democrasia na Maendeleo: Ardhi, Nguvu Kazi na maisha endelevu.
Katika Kongamano hili mada kuu iligawanywa katika warsha Nane, Warsha namba moja ikiwa ni Mapambano katika usimamizi na matumizi ya maliasili katika muktadha wa ‘Uporaji wa Ardhi’ na washa ya pili ni Mapambano kuhusu upatikanaji wa katiba zenye maslahi ya wananchi Afrika, tatu ilihuusu Jinsia na Utu:Siasa za Chaguo na mapambano  dhidi ya ukatili wa kijinsia kazini – sekta rasmi na zisizo rasmi, Nne ni Siasa za biashara, misaada na madeni, tano ni Hakia ya huduma Bora inayozingatia mahitaji ya kijinsia: Elimu, Sita ilijadili Haki ya huduma bora inayozingatia mahitaji ya kijinsia: Afya ya Uzazi, warsha ya saba ilijikita katika Mapambano ya kupata Uongozi wezeshaji, Demokrasia na Siasa shirikishi:wanawake na Ushiriki kwenye Siasa, na Warsha namba Nane ililenga zaidi Haki ya huduma Bora inayozingatia mahitaji ya kijinsia:Maji na Nishati.
Warsha zote zilijadiliwa kwa siku zote nne na washiriki waliweza kugawanyika kulingana na maeneo yao na muktadha mzima wa kongamano. Lengo la mgawanyiko wa warsha ni kuwawezesha washiriki waweze kushiriki kikamilifu katika maeneo wanayoyapenda ili mwisho wa Kongamano waweze kuwa na tamko la pamoja juu ya nini wanaazimia kufanya na namna ya kutekeleza.
Katika Warsha namba moja na ambayo makala haya inachambua zaidi ni mada kuu ikiwa ni Mapambano katika usimamizi na matumizi ya maliasili katika muktadha wa ‘Uporaji wa Ardhi’. Taasisi ya HAKIARDHI ilipewa jukumu la kuratibu warsha hiyo kwa siku zote za Kongamano. Warsha hii pamoja na kuwa ilibeba muktadha mzima wa Kongamano iliweza kuibuwa masuala mbalimbali ya Ardhi kuanzia utawala wa ardhi, uwekezaji na hofu ya wananchi wengi juu ya uwepo wa sheria za ardhi za sasa kuonekana kutomlinda zaidi mwananchi wa kawaida na mwishoe washiriki waliazimia kwa pamoja juu ya mambo mbalimbali ya kuzingatiwa ili kuweza kuwa na katika mpya inayojali haki sawa katika kupata na kutumia raisilimali ardhi.
Suala la utawala wa ardhi lilijadiliwa kwa mapana zaidi na washiriki kuibuwa mambo mbalimabli ambazo ni kikwazo kabisa katika utawala wa ardhi. Mjadala ulianza baada ya uwasilishwaji uliofanywa na Afisa Ardhi Mteule Bi Grace kutoka Wizara ya Ardhi Nyumba na Maendeleo ya Makazi aliyezungumzia swala la ardhi kwa mapana zaidi ambapo kwa upande wake alibainisha kuwa sheria za ardhi zilizopo ni nzuri na zinalinda haki za wenyeji japo utekelezaji unakuwa vinginevyo kutokana watendaji wabovu na rushwa iliyo kithiri.
Akichangia katika mada Bi. Mercelina kutoka Morogoro alibainisha kuwa tatizo ni mahakama zetu zinazo shughulikia keshi za Ardhi kwani kesi huchukuwa muda mrefu na uwezo wa mkulima mdogo au mfugaji kupata haki ni ngumu sana na wenye uwezo (wawekezaji) ndio wanaoshinda na sio kwasababu wanahaki bali kwasababu wanapesa.
Naye Mwenyekiti wa Serikali ya Kijiji cha Arash kutoka Loliondo Ngorogoro Bwana Kyaro Ormins alibainisha kuwa tatizo ni uroho wa baadhi ya viongozi wa serikali kupenda fedha kuliko watanzania wanaowatumikia huku akitoa mfano wa uwepo wa mwekezaji wa Ortello Bussines Corperation(OBC) kutoka Falme za Kiarabu anayependelewa zaidi Loliondo kuliko wananchi wenyeji. Pia mwenyekiti huyo aliweka wazi pia mchakato wa Mipango ya Matumizi Bora ya Ardhi ulioandaliwa kutoka Wizara ya Ardhi bila kuwashirikisha wananchi wa eneo hilo kama inavyo tamkwa katika sheria ya Mipango ya Matumizi Bora ya Ardhi namba 6 ya mwaka 2007 juu ya ushiriki kamilifu wa wananchi na wadau wote katika mchakato.
Bi. Anna Oloshiro kutoka Kilosa Morogoro alibainisha pia kuwa sheria za Ardhi sio nzuri kwani Rais amepewa mamlaka makubwa katika ardhi kuwa yeye ndiye mwenye Milki ya Hatma juu ya Ardhi na hii hutumika sana kuwanyang’anya ardhi watu wenye kipato duni. Umilki wa Hatma aliopewa Rais na matumizi ya neno ‘Manufaa ya Umma’ imewaathiri sana wafugaji.Je umma ni nini?kama sio kisingizio cha upokonyaji wa Ardhi kama inavyowatokea wafugaji kuhamishwa hamishwa? Alihoji Anna Oloshiro.
Baada ya mjadala uliochukuwa siku mbili mfululizo ilifika siku ya tatu ambapo wana warsha na Kongamano wote wanatakiwa kuwa na maazimio ya nini kifanyika na namna gani kifanyike na nani atahusika.
Kwa upande wa Warsha ya Ardhi juu ya Mapambano katika usimamizi na matumizi ya maliasili katika muktadha wa ‘Uporaji wa Ardhi’ ambapo iliratibiwa na HAKIARDHI wana warsha waliazimia mambo 14 ambayo ni ya msingi kabisa UMMA wa Watanzania kupitia vyombo vya habari unapaswa kujuwa ili hatua ziweze kuchukuliwa. Mazimio hayo yalisomwa mbele ya Washiriki wa Kongamano na Godfrey Massay (Afisa Programu) kutoka HAKIARDHI. Mazimio hayo ni: Kwanza Ardhi liwe suala la Kikatiba na Katiba mpya ieleze bayana juu ya Mamlaka katika Ardhi na maamuzi yatakayofanyika yawe yanazingatia utaratibu utakao tambuliwa na Katiba.
Pili, masuala ya wananchi yapewe kipaumbele katika uwekezaji kwenye Adhi. Hili lilijitokeza mara kwa mara kutokana hali halisi ya uwekezaji katika nchi yetu ya wawekezaji kupewa kipaumbele kuliko wenyeji.
Tatu, Serikali iwashiikishe wananchi katika utungaji wa sera na sheria zinazohusu usimamizi wa rasilimali. Nne, Serikali iwe na mkakati dhabiti na sawia katika utoaji wa elimu kwa umma juu ya masuala mbalimabali ya upatikanaji, utumiaji na umiliki wa rasilimali.
Tano, Vyomba vya usimamizi wa ardhi kuanzia ngazi ya kijiji, wilaya, hadi taifa vizingatie zaidi sheria na kanuni katika utekelezaji. Sita, Asasi za Kiraia ziimarishe na kuendeleza elimu ya Haki za Ardhi kuanzia ngazi Kijiji. Saba, Kuwa na mkakati dhabiti na utekelezaji wa Mpango wa Matumizi Bora ya Ardhi na hasa uwashirikishe wanachi wa maeneo husika (participatory approach) na sio mfumo wa kutoka Wizarani kwenda kijijini (Top down uproach). Tisa, Wazalishaji wadogowadogo wawe muhimili mkubwa katika mapinduzi ya Kijani (Kilimo Kwanza). Kumi, Wanawake waungane katika kudai haki zao kupinga unyanyasaji. Kumi na moja, serikali ichukuwe jukumu la kuwaajibisha watendaji wanao enda kinyume na sheria badala ya kuwaacha waendelee kuboronga. Kumi na mbili, Mahakama na Mabaraza ya ardhi zizingatie zaidi sheria na uhalisia pamoja na kutoa maamuzi ya haki na za wakati badala ya kuangalia maslahi ya wenye pesa zaidi.
Kumi na tatu, Rais wa Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania atoe tamko juu ya mgogoro wa Loliondo. Suala la loliondo limekuwepo kwa muda mrefu sana na tume nyingi zimeanzishwa bila kuwa na mrejesho wowote kwa wananchi.
Pamoja na maazimio hayo yaliyosomwa mbele ya washiriki wa Kongamano pia lilitolewa suala la maandamano nchi nzima pale ambapo masuala magumu ya ardhi yasipotolewa maamuzi na serikali basi wananchi na wanaharakati kwa ujumla waandamane kudai usuwa katika rasilimali.
 Imeandaliwa
Na; Valentin Ngorisa