Researchers propose ways of resolving disputes related to natural resources

Dar es Salaam. Involving local communities fully in managing and benefiting from natural resources on their lands could be the key to resolving constant conflicts around natural resource use in Tanzania, experts said yesterday.

The call was made during a public lecture hosted at the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM), as part of the 8th Voice of Social Sciences International Conference organised by the College of Social Sciences (CoSS).

The three-day conference is themed “Africa in the age of uncertainties; Risks, Resilience and Future Prospects”.

Conflicts over natural resources in Tanzania are neither new nor rare, experts argued. They often stem from competing interests between conservation, local livelihoods, and economic development.

In recent years, disputes, like those at the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, have highlighted the need for local communities to be at the heart of resource management.

As such, scholars from the Aga Khan University (AKU) and UDSM are advocating for a change in approach—one that ensures communities are not only involved but are also beneficiaries of these resources.

The Director of the Climate and Environmental Research Centre at AKU, Dr Emmanuel Sulle, pointed out as he gave the public lecture yesterday that conflicts around resources have deep historical roots.

“This goes back to colonial times when regulations limited local access to forests, wildlife and farming land," he said.

“The legacy of these laws is still felt today, as policies often prioritise state control over local rights, leading to recurrent disputes.”

The bottom of the issue lies in land management policies that, while evolving, still grant significant authority to central governments, often at the expense of community involvement.

According to Dr Sulle, who is also the Principal of AKU’s Arusha Campus, recent efforts to include communities in conservation have been promising but remain insufficient.

“Including communities in conservation has proven effective in some areas, but we need broader policy support for meaningful change,” he added.

Veteran scholar Prof Issa Shivji echoed this, stating that true conservation cannot succeed without the participation of local communities.

“Forests, wildlife, and other resources are in their current state largely because of the communities who managed them long before formal conservation efforts began,” he noted.

“Yet, Tanzania, like many countries, still pursues ‘fortress conservation,’ which excludes the people who have protected these resources for generations.”

The challenges around Ngorongoro are just one example of how conservation policies can sometimes alienate communities if not well communicated to the native owners.

Similar tensions are seen in conflicts between pastoralists and farmers, police and communities in mining areas, and wildlife officers and villagers. Experts agree that these conflicts stem partly from a lack of communication and education on the importance of resource conservation.

In African countries such as Namibia, however, models of community-based conservation have shown that empowering local populations to manage wildlife and forests leads to better outcomes for both conservation and community welfare.

Namibia’s communal conservancies, where communities manage wildlife and benefit from tourism revenue, are often cited as successful examples. By seeing conservation as a source of income, communities have an incentive to protect these resources, a model that could inspire policies in Tanzania.

Historically, Tanzania has made some strides toward community engagement. The Wildlife Policy of 1998 introduced provisions for communities to participate in conservation and benefit directly from the resources within their lands.

However, external pressures and the complexity of land laws have limited its impact.

“Even though land laws offer a democratic space for land governance, where community consent is required, these policies are often influenced by external interests,” Dr Sulle observed.

He explained that the liberalisation period of the 1990s, intended to boost the economy, saw an uptick in land-based conflicts.

“Farmers, pastoralists, and investors were all vying for control over prime land. National parks and villages struggled to find a balance,” he said.

The rise in large-scale agricultural investments has also brought mixed results for local communities, as benefits are unevenly distributed.

Prof Shivji suggested that these discussions should be transparent and inclusive.

“Local communities must be involved in decision-making if we are to resolve these conflicts. It’s time we move away from top-down approaches that ignore the people who have the deepest connection to these lands,” he said.

Several studies have highlighted how economic benefits, such as those from wildlife tourism, can be directed to local communities. In Kenya’s Maasai Mara, for instance, the distribution of tourism revenue among local Maasai communities has fostered a sense of ownership over conservation efforts.

Tanzanian policymakers could take inspiration from these practices to ensure that communities benefit from wildlife tourism, which has the potential to be a significant source of income.

By adopting models that promote community engagement and transparent land governance, Tanzania could pave the way for a more sustainable and harmonious relationship between its people and natural resources.