Deal #1839

Tanzania
Created at
2013-02-15
Last update
2024-05-27
Last full update
2024-05-27

Names of communities / indigenous peoples affected

Name of community
Mngeta,
Mkangawalo,
Lukolongo

Consultation of local community

Community consultation
Not consulted
Comment on consultation of local community
Community members were instructed to move off the land at the beginning of the project. They state that the company only dealt with government officials, and little information came directly to the villagers.

How did the community react?

Community reaction
Mixed reaction
Comment on community reaction
Some of the community members abided by the eviction orders, while others did not.

Displacement of people

Displacement of people
Yes
Number of households actually displaced
80
Number of households displaced "only" from their agricultural fields
150
Comment on displacement of people
Mngeta, Mkangawalo, and Lukolongo communities were affected by the redevelopment of the farm. At least 230 household members were affected- 80 lost their homes and farming land, while only 150 lost their land.

Promised or received compensation

Promised compensation (e.g. for damages or resettlements)
KPL embarked on the process of removing villagers from the project area by preparing a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). The RAP stated: compensation payments for the loss of crops and fences; construction of new settlement areas and houses; and the provision of alternative farming plots. The resettlement and compensation process undertaken has been widely commended and the company is often regarded as a role model for agricultural investors. However, reports suggest that the compensation program is fraught with contention. The development of the project has had an inflationary effect on the local land market, which makes it highly difficult for locals to rent agricultural land today. As part of the resettlement plan for the 80 households, which lost both houses and farming land, KPL indicated that it would construct new residential houses and auxiliaries at new settlement sites. One critical issue is the location of the area, which was excised by KPL for the resettlement.
Received compensation (e.g. for damages or resettlements)
Villagers could either get new land (three acres only regardless of how much land they had before), cash compensation at market value or could secure land themselves and get paid TZS30000 per acre (this amount is below market value). Some villagers state that they received TZS10000 per acre only with no explanation. During the rainy season, the area usually floods making it a hazardous place for residence. With two small rooms (approximately 3.5m x 3.5m) separated by a narrow hall, the houses do not live up to the expectations created by KPL, and more importantly, to the everyday needs of the villagers. No villagers have received titles to the land or have any proof of ownership to the new houses. Some villagers state that they have not yet received their new housing.

Promised benefits for local communities

Promised benefits for local communities
Health, Education, Financial support, Other
Comment on promised benefits for local communities
KPL promised the three villages surrounding the farm an annual TZS 50 million ($29,000) community development fund. The money is divided among villages according to the population in each village, with the intent to support development projects decided upon by villagers themselves. Promised to build a manual well.

Materialized benefits for local communities

Materialized benefits for local communities
Education, Other
Comment on materialized benefits for local communities
The company built classrooms and houses for teachers as well as a manual well at the Mbasa primary school.