This daily reality unfolds where traditional gender roles intersect with the unique circumstances of pastoralist life. Pastoralist communities care for vast rangelands and sustain food systems built on generations of knowledge about livestock, mobility, and communal land use. Their contributions to food security and the environment are significant, albeit under-documented, yet opportunities to participate fully in economic and political life are often limited.

For women in these communities, the challenges are even greater: expectations around household and family responsibilities, limited access to education, remote locations, and minimal representation in decision-making all make it harder to have their voices heard. Together, these factors create a gap in access to justice that is shaped by culture and tradition as well as by structural obstacles.

External Pressures and Land Insecurity

Although it might not seem relevant, distance is a major barrier, as courts and administrative offices are far from rural pastoralist communities and costly to access. Legal systems are complex, operate in unfamiliar languages, and exclude women with limited literacy. Even when these barriers are overcome, patriarchal norms restrict women’s ability to assert claims. Harmful practices including early and forced marriage, widow disinheritance, and gender-based violence further limit access to justice. While dispute resolution prioritises social harmony, it often leaves women vulnerable and reinforces existing power imbalances rather than providing impartial protection.

These barriers are compounded by external pressures. Climate change, expanding conservation areas, commercial agriculture, and infrastructure development increasingly encroach on pastoralist grazing lands. As competition over land intensifies, disputes multiply. Despite their central role in managing households, food security, and livestock-related labour, women are rarely consulted (or compensated) in negotiations when land is lost. Their exclusion from land governance deepens economic insecurity and weakens their ability to claim their rights, reinforcing cycles of vulnerability.

Rights enshrined in global instruments or national laws have little meaning if women do not understand them, have limited access to them, or cannot safely exercise them in their own communities.

Rights enshrined in global instruments or national laws have little meaning if women do not understand them or cannot safely exercise them in their own communities.

For pastoralist women themselves, justice is understood far more broadly than legal redress alone. It is about being respected within the family, listened to by elders, and recognised by state authorities regardless of gender, ethnicity, literacy, or mobility. For them, justice means protection from violence, secure access to land and livestock, and the ability to participate in decisions that shape community futures. It also means accountability and knowing that harm will not be dismissed as a private matter or absorbed quietly in the name of tradition.

International norms support this vision. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms Indigenous Peoples’ rights to self-determination, land, and participation in decision-making, and explicitly recognises Indigenous women’s rights to equality and freedom from violence and discrimination. Yet the distance between international commitments and lived reality remains vast. Rights enshrined in global instruments or national laws have little meaning if women do not understand them, have limited access to them, or cannot safely exercise them in their own communities.

Grassroots Holistic Solutions: Pastoral Women’s Council

Bridging the justice gap requires approaches that are culturally grounded, locally led, gender-balanced, and attentive to the everyday realities of pastoralist life. This is where grassroots organisations play a critical role. The Pastoral Women’s Council (PWC) is an organisation representing more than 8,000 pastoralist women in northern Tanzania that demonstrates how access to justice can be strengthened from the ground up. Rather than treating women as passive beneficiaries, PWC operates on the premise that pastoralist women are rights-holders and agents of change. This initiative for access to justice, with a gender equity approach aimed at Indigenous Peoples, promotes:

Developing Voice and Agency: Through locally rooted dialogue and leadership training, women gain the confidence and skills to speak publicly, negotiate within households, and engage traditional leaders and government officials. This agency is evident in community-based action on land rights, where women facing displacement from tourism-related investments have helped shape more equitable outcomes through direct participation in multi-stakeholder dialogue. The women leaders have successfully challenged land dispossession, asserted inheritance rights, and intervened in cases of domestic violence, contributing to shifts in community perceptions about who has the authority to speak and to decide.

Leadership and Decision-Making: When women occupy decision-making positions, locally or nationally, issues affecting women and families are more likely to be raised, debated, and addressed. PWC’s work becomes particularly visible when women enter formal leadership spaces. Fifteen years ago, only three pastoralist women were elected as Village Chairs. Now that number is 18, with a further 1,400 such pastoralist women in decision making positions in village governing bodies. Alongside individual achievement, this increase in leadership equity signals a transformation in social norms and political inclusion.

Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Norms Change: Addressing gender-based violence requires both prevention and comprehensive responses. PWC works with women and men to challenge harmful norms that normalise abuse, while also strengthening referral pathways to health, legal, and protection services. Engaging men as allies is a deliberate strategy, recognising that lasting change depends on transforming collective attitudes, not simply supporting individual survivors.

Legal Literacy and Paralegal Support: Many pastoralist women are unaware of the rights afforded to them by law or how these intersect with customary practices. PWC’s Women’s Rights and Leadership Forums (WRLFs) translate legal concepts into local languages and real-life scenarios, enabling women to understand land laws, marriage regulations, and protections against gender-based violence. Knowledge thus becomes a tool of empowerment, reducing reliance on male intermediaries and increasing women’s confidence in asserting their claims. To further decentralise access to justice, PWC trains community-based paralegals, often women from the communities themselves, who provide basic legal guidance, mediate disputes, and connect survivors of violence to formal institutions. In areas where lawyers and courts are distant, these paralegals serve as trusted entry points into the justice system. Their presence helps demystify legal processes and ensures that women are not navigating them alone.

Land Rights and Economic Empowerment: Land and economic security are essential to women’s access to justice. Without secure land rights, women’s bargaining power remains limited. PWC thus supports marginalised women to obtain Certificates of Customary Rights of Occupancy, formalising land claims while addressing gender-based exclusion. Via Village Community Banks (VICOBA), women build savings, access loans, and develop financial literacy, later progressing to formal microfinance through partners such as Engishon Microfinance Ltd. Economic independence thus reduces vulnerability to exploitation and strengthens women’s capacity to challenge injustice.

Justice as Collective Transformation

By way of example, in 2025, Vaileth Elias and Sarah Oltetia were elected as councillors, roles traditionally dominated by men. In a recent PWC “Local to Local Dialog” training session, Vaileth shared her experience: “I received training at a very early stage [in my leadership journey] and have seen great benefits from it. This gave me the courage to run for leadership alongside four men. It was a tense time and even the men seemed confused. Eventually, I was announced the winner by a large margin.”  This gaining of confidence and agency was confirmed by Sarah: “I now know how to call a meeting, whom to invite, and how to train people so that they clearly understand what I am communicating”. She continued, “Where I am today, serving as a Councillor, is truly because of the education I received through PWC.”

Despite their proven impact and scalable models, organisations such as Pastoral Women’s Council face significant structural barriers, particularly in mobilising financial and technical resources. Global climate, conservation, and land-rights funding rarely reaches Indigenous and local women-led organisations directly, undermining sustainability and limiting institutional growth. If equitable access to justice for Indigenous pastoralist women is a genuine priority, funding architectures must change. Direct, long-term, gender-responsive financing is not charity: it is a strategic investment in effective, sustainable, locally legitimate justice systems.

In conclusion, the experience of pastoralist women in Tanzania challenges narrow definitions of justice. Laws and courts matter but they are insufficient without cultural legitimacy, economic security, and women’s leadership. Justice emerges when women can speak, communities recognise their authority, and institutions respond to lived realities. The work of PWC, and the solidarity expressed by its members and allies, demonstrates that integrated approaches, combining legal literacy, leadership development, economic empowerment, and community advocacy, can address the root causes of injustice. Equitable access to justice is ultimately about power: who holds it, who shares it, and who can claim it.

The post Cultural Barriers in Indigenous Pastoralist Women and Girls’ Access to Justice in Tanzania appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

PINGO’s Forum conducted field research using a mixed-methods approach, including Key Informant Interviews with community leaders, Focus Group Discussions to gather collective perspectives, and Direct Community Engagement through open dialogues with affected individuals. Special emphasis was placed on inclusivity, ensuring the participation of women, youth, and marginalised groups in order to capture diverse voices and experiences.

The study captured responses from three principal regions: Manyara (35%), Dodoma (33%) and Tanga (31%), reflecting a broadly balanced participation across the surveyed areas. Variations in regional representation may reflect differing levels of access during data collection. In some communities, EACOP’s reportedly strong local engagement may have influenced cooperation with external researchers, while security constraints linked to the project limited our ability to reach certain zones. These dynamics highlight the challenges of ensuring fully inclusive participation in high-stakes development contexts.

Community Consultation and Participation in EACOP

The study recorded a notable gender disparity: 69% male and 27% female respondents. The remaining respondents either did not specify their gender or identified differently. This imbalance may reflect broader societal and cultural barriers to women’s participation in consultations, and occupational biases in project-affected roles (for example, land negotiations are often male-dominated).

Our fact-finding study found that only 23% of respondents were consulted during EACOP’s planning or implementation, while 30% explicitly stated that they were excluded. Engagement was largely limited to community meetings (18%), with minimal individual or household-level participation (household surveys 4%; interviews 1%). 

These findings reveal systemic flaws in the consultation process that fail to meet FPIC standards—especially for marginalised groups with low literacy and limited project awareness.

These findings reveal systemic flaws in the consultation process that fail to meet FPIC standards—especially for marginalised groups with low literacy and limited project awareness.

The quality of inclusion was rated poorly: 22% described consultations as “not inclusive at all” and only 1% rated them “very inclusive”. Critically, just 4% believed their feedback influenced project decisions, 25% said their views were ignored, and 30% remained uncertain. Major barriers to meaningful participation included language difficulties (25%), a lack of access to information (18%), and limited community representation (6%); some respondents described consultations as performative, characterising them as “collective gatherings that were not inclusive”. 

These findings reveal systemic flaws in the consultation process that fail to meet FPIC standards—especially for marginalised groups with low literacy (52% with no formal education) and limited project awareness (32% initially unaware of EACOP). Community members reported that they felt they had no power to decide whether the project should proceed.

Impact of EACOP on Livelihoods

Our study reveals that 43% of participants experienced negative livelihood impacts from EACOP, predominantly through loss of grazing land (34%) and displacement (13%). Exhumations of graves have caused profound cultural disruption: “We were shocked — this has never happened on Maasai land!” said Lukas Sonyo, whose father’s grave was dug up for the pipeline. Promised funds for proper reburial rituals were not forthcoming, leaving families to mourn with diminished, culturally inappropriate ceremonies. The severity of impact was notable: 29% described the effects as significant, 5% as moderate and 1% as severe — impacts that disproportionately affected pastoralist households.

Compensation systems have failed to match these impacts, with only 23% receiving any redress and 27% confirming they had received none. Among the few who were compensated, satisfaction was deeply divided: a mere 9% considered compensation adequate, whilst 5% deemed it inadequate and another 9% were uncertain — a division that underscores the confusion and dissatisfaction among even those who reported payments. High non-response rates likely conceal additional uncompensated cases thus weakening the transparency of redress processes.

When combined with the 38% non-responses, these figures paint a picture of systemic redress failures, particularly for land-dependent groups (69% of respondents) whose cultural-economic ties to territory defy conventional valuation methods. 43% of families lost grazing land, whilst only 9% feel they received fair compensation. Crucially, all surveyed communities reported that EACOP’s promised social programmes had not materialised.

Lack of Compensation and Poor Working Conditions

The study reveals significant shortcomings in EACOP’s local employment initiatives, with 34% of respondents confirming no job opportunities had been created for community members, whilst 36% stated that no one in their household had been employed by the project or its contractors. Accessibility remains a major concern, as 21% reported exclusionary hiring practices, and 12% were unsure if opportunities were equally available. Furthermore, 21% viewed local employment benefits as unfair, and 14% remained uncertain. The absence of capacity-building programmes (34% confirmed no training initiatives) only exacerbates these issues.

In Gorimba village, a youth representative involved in EACOP issues reported that overtime wages agreed in contracts were not being honoured. He stated: “Before starting work, we agreed on a specific amount of money for a set time, for example, from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. However, at the end of the agreed time, if there is leftover work, they tell us to finish it and promise to compensate us for overtime. But they never pay us for the extra time.”

The study reveals significant shortcomings in EACOP’s local employment initiatives, with 34% of respondents confirming no job opportunities had been created for community members, whilst 36% stated that no one in their household had been employed by the project or its contractors.

The study reveals significant shortcomings in EACOP’s local employment initiatives, with 34% of respondents confirming no job opportunities had been created for community members.

Othman, a 25-year-old from Kitwai B village, discovered an online training opportunity advertised by EACOP. Due to poor network connectivity, he travelled approximately 20km to climb a baobab tree to access the courses, later travelling 75km to Orkesumet to continue his studies safely.

Despite completing all nine modules with an impressive 98% average and being announced as selected for a three-month course at VETA Moshi during an EACOP quarterly engagement workshop in Arusha, Othman was ultimately not selected for unknown and seemingly biased reasons. This decision contradicted EACOP’s signed plan, which prioritises employment opportunities for affected Indigenous communities.

Grave Injustice: Cultural Desecration in Sendeni Village

Lukas Sonyo, a 52-year-old man from Sendeni village in Handeni, experienced one of EACOP’s most profound cultural violations. When the pipeline route was planned in 2021, it was discovered that it would pass through the grave of his father, who had passed away in January 2013. The family, unwilling to accept the exhumation—a practice unheard of in Maasai culture—requested that the route be diverted. EACOP refused, insisting instead on traditional reburial rituals. Lukas expressed their shock: “We were shocked because we have never experienced, witnessed, or heard of anything like this on Maasai land.””

EACOP compensated the extended family with 1.8 million Tanzanian shillings—grossly inadequate for a household that included two surviving wives and four married sons with their families, totalling over 20 members. The company’s support has been limited to 10kg of rice, 10kg of maize, and 3 litres of cooking oil per month, ignoring the family’s size and cultural needs.

Although EACOP pledged to cover the costs of proper reburial ceremonies, involving slaughtering a bull and anointing the deceased with its oil, they defaulted, forcing the family to use a goat instead—a profound cultural compromise.

Unfulfilled Promises

Kitwai B was recognised as the only village affected in Simanjiro District and participated in the signing of an agreement on 28 October 2021. However, after the village chairperson filed a complaint on 25 June 2024 regarding compensation issues and the loss of 6km of grazing land, EACOP’s response on 11 November 2024 stated: “There is currently no verified basis for recognising Kitwai B as being affected by the project”, even whilst continuing to invite their representatives to engagement workshops. Another case involves a church in Tanga that was affected by EACOP’s activities. Compensation was provided but it was unfairly awarded to a single individual rather than the church community. Similarly, compensation for Aulo Oo Nkishu—a shared communal space (100m to 200m compound next to a boma, used as an animal holding area and shared among families within the boma)—also went to only one person. These actions highlight unclear and unfair compensation practices by EACOP.

The pipeline passes just 351 steps from Sandawe ancestral land—a site of profound cultural and historical significance near a sacred rock inscribed in 1914 with the Sandawe phrase “Mokolo wa nkwe” (“Greet them”). Despite this proximity to their heritage, the Sandawe people have been systematically excluded from project consultations. This exclusion underscores a broader pattern of neglect in which Indigenous voices and ancestral traditions are erased in the name of progress.

“We see all the project plans and activities happening but we are not aware of what is going on with the Social Investment Programme. Will they implement it after the project is done? How can we be sure they will follow through?”

“We are not aware of what is going on with the Social Investment Programme. Will they implement it after the project is done? How can we be sure they will follow through?”

In a signed plan dated 16 September 2023, EACOP outlined its commitment to implement a Social Investment Programme for vulnerable ethnic groups. And yet 100% of the communities that PINGO’s Forum engaged with have raised concerns about unfulfilled promises under this programme. The study found severely limited community awareness and benefit from EACOP’s social investment programmes, with only 12% of respondents aware of any initiatives and 36% confirming that no benefits had reached their communities. Critically, 34% stated that these programmes had failed to address their most pressing needs such as schools, healthcare, and water access. One community member from Gisambalang village in Hanang District stated: “We see all the project plans and activities happening but we are not aware of what is going on with the Social Investment Programme. Will they implement it after the project is done? How can we be sure they will follow through?”

Conclusions and Recommendations

This research demonstrates EACOP’s systematic failure to respect Indigenous rights, to implement meaningful consultation processes, and to deliver the promised benefits to affected communities. The project’s approach contravenes international standards for Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and has caused—and continues to cause—irreparable harm to Indigenous cultures and livelihoods.

These findings call for an immediate suspension of pipeline operations until proper FPIC has been secured from all affected Indigenous communities, together with an independent compensation review conducted with full Indigenous participation that audits past payments and identifies equitable remedies. 

The voices of Tanzania’s Indigenous Peoples must be heard and their rights respected; continuing on the current trajectory risks not progress but the systematic erasure of cultures that have stewarded these lands for generations.

Continuing on the current trajectory risks not progress, but the systematic erasure of cultures that have stewarded these lands for generations.

All EACOP staff and contractors must undertake mandatory Indigenous rights training, and transparent government oversight mechanisms should be established with Indigenous representation to ensure accountability. Finally, the commitments set out in the Social Investment Programme must be honoured with clear, time-bound implementation plans and independent monitoring.

The voices of Tanzania’s Indigenous Peoples must be heard and their rights respected; continuing on the current trajectory risks not progress but the systematic erasure of cultures that have stewarded these lands for generations.

The post The Social, Economic and Cultural Impact of EACOP on Indigenous Peoples in Tanzania appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

The Ujamaa Community Resource Team (UCRT) addresses these challenges by supporting communities to secure Certificates of Village Land (CVLs) and communal Certificates of Customary Right of Occupancy (CCROs), which are crucial steps in land tenure security. CVLs are obtained once neighbouring villages have reached agreement on their respective outer boundaries and sometimes require the resolution of existing conflicts. After completing a land-use plan, areas for common use, such as grazing, hunting, and gathering, are titled with a CCRO.

These legal tools provide Indigenous communities with the means to control and manage their lands sustainably. By promoting connectivity and traditional land-use practices, such as rotational grazing, the Ujamaa Community Resource Team helps communities adapt to climate change impacts such as severe droughts, which are increasingly common in northern Tanzania’s arid regions.

Strengthening governance for sustainable resource management

Securing land rights is just the beginning. Effective resource management requires accountable governance institutions that integrate customary practices with formal legal frameworks. The Ujamaa Community Resource Team advocates for transparent and equitable governance structures that empower communities to make collective decisions about their land and resources. This approach not only ensures sustainable management of natural resources but also supports the preservation of cultural practices and traditional knowledge.

UCRT’s efforts include facilitating Participatory Village Land-Use Plans (PVLUPs) and Joint Village Land-Use Plans (JVLUPs) in order to promote coordinated management of shared resources. These plans enhance the connectivity of rangelands, enabling both livestock and wildlife to move freely across the landscape. This is crucial for maintaining ecological balance and resilience against climate impacts.

The capacity-building approach not only improves climate resilience but also increases food security and reduces poverty by diversifying income sources through entrepreneurship.

The capacity-building approach not only improves climate resilience but also increases food security and reduces poverty.

Furthermore, one of the Ujamaa Community Resource Team’s core objectives is to build community capacity for responsible environmental stewardship. By promoting practices such as sustainable rangeland management and integrating scientific knowledge with traditional approaches, UCRT helps communities create healthier ecosystems that are more resilient to climate change. For instance, in the Longido district, they are working with communities to improve the management of over 400,000 hectares of rangelands, benefiting both the environment and local livelihoods.

Through these initiatives, UCRT empowers communities to take proactive steps in adapting to climate variability, such as developing strategies for water conservation and soil erosion control. This capacity-building approach not only enhances climate resilience but also improves food security and reduces poverty by diversifying income sources through nature-based enterprises such as eco-tourism and carbon projects, which are developed in alliance with external actors.

Promoting Inclusive Governance and Social Equity

Equitable resource management is crucial for sustainable development. Accordingly, UCRT places a strong emphasis on empowering marginalized groups, women, and youth. Through the Women’s Rights and Leadership Forums (WRLFs), UCRT’s inclusive approach fosters social influence, economic empowerment, skills development opportunities, strengthened community institutions and fair governance of resources.

By ensuring that all community members have a voice in decision-making processes, UCRT aims to create governance systems that are not only effective but also just. This inclusive model supports the broader goal of achieving equitable land rights and resource management, which are essential for building resilient communities capable of withstanding the impacts of climate change.

By collaborating with national networks such as PINGOs Forum and Tanzania Land Alliance, UCRT amplifies the voices of Indigenous communities and lobbies for policy changes that reflect their needs and priorities.

By collaborating with national networks such as PINGOs Forum and Tanzania Land Alliance, UCRT amplifies the voices of Indigenous communities and lobbies for policy changes that reflect their needs and priorities.

UCRT’s work in securing land rights and promoting sustainable resource management is vital for the resilience of Indigenous communities in Tanzania. By linking land tenure security with climate resilience, UCRT provides a model of how Indigenous-led conservation can support both human and environmental well-being. As the challenges of climate change and land alienation intensify, the need for such community-driven approaches becomes ever more critical.

UCRT’s advocacy efforts are amplified at the national level through its collaboration with national organizations such as PINGOs Forum and Tanzania Land Alliance. They also extend beyond Tanzania’s borders: its members are engaged in international platforms such as the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These engagements aim to share best practices on community-based Indigenous climate resilience strategies, influence policy at multiple levels and ensure that Indigenous perspectives are included in global climate governance discussions.

The post A Pathway to Climate Resilience for Indigenous Communities in Tanzania appeared first on Debates Indígenas.