Over the past year, momentum has been building in Tanzania for the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). This 1,443 km-long pipeline will transport oil from the west of Uganda (Hoima district) to export facilities on Tanzania’s Indian Ocean coast in Tanga region. In December 2023, the project – a partnership between the governments of Uganda and Tanzania (through their national oil companies UNOC and TPDC), Chinese oil and gas company CNOOC, and French energy giant TotalEnergies (as the majority shareholder) – entered its main construction phase. This followed a prolonged period of challenges in securing foreign investment and acquiring the nearly 13,000 acres of land needed for the project across Uganda and Tanzania.
Most of this land acquisition occurred in Tanzania, where a 1,147 km-long underground pipeline (requiring over 9,000 acres of land) is being built. Additional land has been set aside for infrastructure supporting the pipeline’s construction and operation, including worker camps, access roads, and a marine storage terminal. A total of 231 villages and 9,904 households across northern Tanzania are thereby affected (see map below), mostly in rural areas where communities typically rely on small-scale agriculture and livestock farming as their main source of income. Land is a critical resource in these predominantly agro-pastoral communities, not only supporting people’s livelihoods and economic activities but also playing a vital role in socio-cultural life. Reduced access to land and land-based resources can therefore profoundly impact these communities.
Some of the most prominent cases of communities’ land loss in Tanzania, sometimes even associated with severe human rights abuses and persistent conflicts, stem from the acquisition of land to facilitate investment deemed to be of public benefit. These include public infrastructure projects such as railroads or energy systems, but also commercial ventures like EACOP. Several studies have consistently argued that the specific frameworks set up for land acquisition in such projects are inadequate, inequitable, and disadvantageous to affected persons in the long term. This contrasts sharply with the wider benefits and development goals these investments claim to deliver.
As land becomes an increasingly pressured asset, central to both local communities and national development, this briefing offers a reflection on the impacts versus benefits experienced by agro-pastoral communities affected by compulsory land acquisition in Tanzania in the context of EACOP. While endorsed as a strategic economic project driving Tanzania’s development, EACOP has also been criticized for contributing to human rights violations and environmental harm.
The EACOP land acquisition framework in Tanzania
In Tanzania, all land is considered a public good and held by the President as trustee on behalf of all citizens. Tanzania’s legal framework grants the President the authority to acquire land for public purposes without the willing approval of land rights-holders, provided that full, fair, and prompt compensation is given to those affected. The country’s land acts detail the specifics of both the acquisition and compensation processes. Through this mechanism of compulsory land acquisition, the government can facilitate and authorise the appropriation of land for investments it deems beneficial to the country and its citizens.
In the case of EACOP, EACOP Ltd (i.e. the special purpose company of EACOP shareholders) was responsible for executing the land acquisition and compensation process in accordance with Tanzania’s legal framework for compulsory land acquisition. It acts on behalf of the government of Tanzania, which retains ownership of the acquired land. In addition to national requirements, EACOP Ltd. claims to have complied with the highest international standards for land acquisition as outlined by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 5. To meet this standard, the EACOP consortium reports exceeding national requirements where needed, ensuring compensations at full replacement value, establishing additional livelihood support programmes, and implementing a dedicated plan for Vulnerable Ethnic Groups Self-identifying as Indigenous Peoples. The project also set up a grievance management procedure to offer access to remediation for those adversely affected by EACOP.
As of September 2024, EACOP reports to have compensated 9,827 out of 9,904 affected households in Tanzania. The acquisition process, which concluded its first phases of land delineation, asset survey, and valuation between 2018 and 2020, is now 99% finished. In January 2024, TotalEnergies announced an independent assessment of its entire land acquisition programme in Uganda and Tanzania. To date, assessment results have not been made public.
Experiences from agro-pastoral communities
In 2023-2024, IPIS partnered with Tanzanian civil society organisations HakiArdhi and KINNAPA Development Programme, as part of our “Voices from Tanzania” series, to document the impact of EACOP land acquisition on affected communities in Kiteto district (Manyara region) and Kilindi district (Tanga region; see map above). Both districts are home to agro-pastoral communities which include a mix of ethnic groups. Maasai pastoralists form the dominant ethnicity in the studied villages. This makes cattle herding, often on communally owned lands, the primary livelihood in the area. In Kiteto and Kilindi districts, land was acquired for EACOP’s main camps, pipe yards, and the pipeline corridor. The acquired lands had been used predominantly for livestock grazing, farming, tree crops and as residential areas. At the time of the study (August – September 2023), all affected persons in the area had received monetary compensation. They were, however, still awaiting additional support such as food packages, livelihood support programmes, and replacement housing. EACOP constructions had not yet started.
By far most of the grievances recorded in both studies centered on the land valuation and compensation process. Affected persons, for example, questioned the valuation of crops and regretted the exclusion of certain items of socio-cultural value (such as the Osojo, Orupande and Ngiloriti trees) in the valuation process. While compensation amounts were not always considered unfair, many affected persons were shocked by the low amount of compensation they received relative to the size of the land they lost and the economic and social benefits it provided them. In both districts, affected persons indicated that the compensation was insufficient for them to acquire or access new land elsewhere. Maasai pastoralists, in particular, worried about replacing communal grazing land, as EACOP’s land acquisition further increased the scarcity of available and affordable land in the area. Many affected persons expressed concerns about how to sustain their livelihood activities and secure sufficient food to feed their families.
It is worth noting that the experiences from the villages studied by HakiArdhi and KINNAPA echo those of many other Tanzanian communities along the pipeline route. These grievances challenge the adequacy of Tanzanian compensation rates to ensure full replacement value in reality, or – in line with the ambition of IFC Performance Standard 5 – restore or even improve the living standards and livelihoods of those affected. These experiences contrast with official statements praising EACOP’s compensation model and compliance, but are in line with known shortcomings of compulsory land acquisition processes.
The Kilindi and Kiteto case studies point to further shortcomings in the EACOP land acquisition process. Many grievances seemingly stem from people’s lack of opportunity to understand, verify, challenge or negotiate the land acquisition process. Affected individuals report that they had little to no chance to ask questions or participate in a meaningful way in the process. Some, for instance, lamented the limited advance notice for valuation visits or consultation meetings, which limited or excluded their participation. Others regretted that compensation outcomes were non-negotiable, and the criteria used were difficult for them to comprehend, let alone verify. Another reported issue was that consultations were generally limited to directly affected persons, ignoring the communal aspect of land and the communal impacts of a project like EACOP. Moreover, it seems that local government bodies, including those with a mandate in land matters, were insufficiently involved to assist or represent those affected in their communities. Respondents who participated in EACOP meetings described them as rushed and top-down, with little room for questions and discussion. Others shared their frustration with trying to lodge grievances or contact EACOP staff, stating that their efforts were largely unsuccessful or without satisfactory results. Several people indicated that it was made clear to them that they could not question or criticize the land acquisition process, as compulsory land acquisition cannot be contested.
Overall, both case studies clearly reveal the disconcertingly limited understanding that most affected persons and their local representatives have of the land acquisition process, procedures used, their rights, and the overall impacts the EACOP project would impart upon their communities. As a result, neither the affected persons, nor their traditional leaders or local authorities seemed sufficiently informed or in a position to adequately represent or defend their rights, let alone to participate on an equal footing with EACOP staff. This is especially concerning in a highly unequal, top-down process such as compulsory land acquisition.
Community experiences recorded in KINNAPA’s and HakiArdhi’s case studies starkly contrast with EACOP Ltd’s reports of an extensive, open and transparent stakeholder consultation and engagement campaign, with claimed to focus specifically on the free, prior and informed consent of ethnic groups, such as the Maasai. These case studies once again highlight known issues with compulsory land acquisition. They confirm the importance of community engagement, information disclosure and decision-making processes in (compulsory) land acquisition, and the negative impact when these processes fail to be sufficiently inclusive, participatory, or responsive to the real-life needs and context of affected communities.
The public benefits: promises and reality
Like other strategic economic projects, EACOP is claimed to significantly boost Tanzania’s annual tax revenue and generate local employment. In March 2024, Tanzania reported approximately 11 million US$ in tax revenue from the pipeline project, with much higher amounts expected annually over the next 25 years. For comparison, Tanzania has agreed to contributing approximately 308 million US$ as capital to EACOP Ltd, of which 289.78 million had been paid by March 2024. Additionally, over 5,000 youth are said to be already employed by EACOP along the pipeline route in Tanzania. While many more local employment or income-generating opportunities are promised, most will probably be limited to EACOP’s two-to-three-year construction phase. Pending construction, the anticipated positive socio-economic impacts of EACOP employment and related business opportunities are eagerly awaited in Kilinidi and Kiteto districts. At present, there seems to be some optimism about the livelihood support programmes and trainings offered by EACOP, although it is too soon to assess their long-term impacts or whether they will adequately compensate for the socio-economic and cultural losses experienced by affected communities.
As seen in other economic sectors in the country, neither taxation, corporate social initiatives nor local content regulation as currently implemented automatically guarantee that affected communities will reap lasting, positive impacts. More targeted efforts are needed to ensure that those carrying most of the burden will indeed receive a fair share of the benefits. Revising the principles of compulsory land acquisition to make the process less top-down, more transparent and more beneficial, especially to those most affected seems essential for ensuring equitable outcomes.
Further reading
This briefing was produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of the editorial is the sole responsibility of IPIS and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.
