Foreign land deals in Tanzania
An update and a critical view on the challenges of data
(re)production
Martina Locher & Emmanuel Sulle
LDPI
Working
Paper
31
Foreign land deals in Tanzania: An update and a critical view on the challenges of
data (re)production
by Martina Locher and Emmanuel Sulle
Published by:
The Land Deal Politics Initiative
www.iss.nl/ldpi
landpolitics@gmail.com
In collaboration with:
Institute for Development Studies
University of Sussex
Library Road
Brighton, BN1 9RE
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1273 606261
Fax: +44 1273 621202
E-mail: ids@ids.ac.uk
Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies (ICAS)
International Institute of Social Studies (ISS)
P.O. Box 29776
2502 LT The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 426 0664
Fax: +31 70 426 0799
E-mail: iss.icas@gmail.com
Website: www.ids.ac.uk
Website: www.iss.nl/icas
The Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS)
School of Government, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences
University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17
Bellville 7535, Cape Town
South Africa
Tel: +27 21 959 3733
Fax: +27 21 959 3732
E-mail: info@plaas.org.za
Website: www.plaas.org.za
The Polson Institute for Global Development
Department of Development Sociology
Cornell University
133 Warren Hall
Ithaca NY 14853
United States of America
Tel: +1 607 255-3163
Fax: +1 607 254-2896
E-mail: ta12@cornell.edu
Website: polson.cals.cornell.edu
©May 2013 – slightly revised version July 2013
All rights reserved. No part of
this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without
prior permission from the publisher and the author.
Copy editor and layout: Andrew Ennis
Series editor: Rebecca Pointer
Published with support from the UK Department for International Development (DfID), Atlantic Philanthropies,
Inter-Church Organization for Development Cooperation (ICCO), Ford Foundation and Miserior.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Abstract
In the absence of an easily available source of reliable up-to-date data on foreign land deals in
Tanzania, many reports have been published that attempt to provide an overview of these deals.
While providing this overview is challenging due to the dynamic and non-transparentnature of the
'land grab' phenomenon itself, it has become even more debatable due to certain questionable
methods of using and quoting existing data. This leads to several flaws including the ‘virtual
survival’ of cancelled land deals ‘on paper’. The consequences are an unnecessarily blurred
picture of the land deal situation in Tanzania, and thus an inadequate basis for related political
decisions or social actions and a misleading starting point for new research projects. In this paper
we illustrate some of the flaws in the use of data so far and give an updated and carefully
grounded overview of foreign land deals in Tanzania as of December 2012. Our compilation
illustrates that, unlike in the past few years, biofuel projects are no longer the priority of foreign
investors. Instead, they are focusing on the production of food crops such as rice, sugar and oil, as
well as forestry plantations. This overview does not claim to be complete, but it does provide a
traceable set of data, which can serve as a basis for further research as well as for much needed
policy debates and decisions.
Keywords: Agricultural land deals; Inadequate data; Methodological flaws; Biofuels; Tanzania
About the authors
Martina Locher is a PhD student and teaching associate at the Department of Geography,
University of Zürich. She completed her Master of Geography with a thesis on gender issues in an
integrated nature conservation and development project in Nepal, and worked as a coordinator in
an international research programme in Switzerland and in development projects with UNDP and
GTZ in Bangladesh. Her current PhD research aims at contributing to a more detailed
understanding of land acquisition procedures and the effects of transnational land deals for local
livelihoods in Tanzania. Her publications include: Co-authored with Steimann B & Upreti BR (2012)
‘Land grabbing, investment principles and plural legal orders of land use’, Journal of Legal
Pluralism; and: (2011) ‘How come others are selling our land? Customary land rights, rural
livelihoods and foreign land acquisition in the case of a UK-based forestry company in Tanzania’,
draft conference paper presented at the International Conference on Global Land Grabbing, IDS:
University of Sussex.
Emmanuel Sulle is a researcher at the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS)
at the University of the Western Cape in South Africa. He has a Master’s degree in Public Policy
from the University of Maryland. His research focuses on exploring viable agricultural business
models, land tenure and rural livelihoods. He is currently working on two major research projects
in Southern Africa examining the impacts of large-scale farming, and the institutional
arrangements pertaining to land deals. He has researched on biofuels, rural livelihoods and
agricultural business models in Tanzania. His related publications include: Hultman N, Sulle E,
Raming C & Sykora-Bodie S (2012) ‘Biofuels investment in Tanzania: Policy options for sustainable
business models’, Journal of Environment and Development; Vermeulen S, Sulle E and Fauveaud S
(2009) Biofuels in Africa: Growing Small-Scale Opportunities. IIED: London; and Sulle E and Nelson
F (2009) Biofuels, Land Access and Rural Livelihoods in Tanzania. IIED: London.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to our interview partners in Tanzania for sharing their information and time with
us during this study. We are thankful to Christopher W. Ramig, Seth Sykora-Bodie and Craig
Hatcher for proof-reading the earlier version of this paper. This article is partially based on work
conducted within the framework of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research NorthSouth (NCCR North-South): Research Partnerships for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change,
and funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), the Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation (SDC), and the University of Zurich. Finally, we want to thank the Land Deal
Politics Initiative (LDPI), and particularly Ruth Hall and Rebecca Pointer for their valuable support
to our working paper.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Acronyms
BRELA
CDM
DAO
DLNRO
DLO
DM
EAC
EIA
FAO
FSC
GIGA
IIED
ILC
KRC
LUP
LARRRI
MAFS
MoU
MEM
NAFCO
NGO
REPOA
RUBADA
SEKAB
TIC
TNRF
TSh/TZS
UNRISD
UK
USA
UNEP
WWF
Business Registrations and Licensing Agency (a Tanzanian
Government Executive Agency, with an online database on
registered companies)
Clean Developments Mechanism
District Agriculture Officer
District Land and Natural Resources Officer
District Land Officer
Development Market
Egyptian African Company
Environmental Investigation Agency
Food and Agriculture Organisation
Forest stewardship Council
German Institute of Global Areas Studies
International Institute for Environment and Development
International Land Coalition
Korean Rural Development Cooperation
Land Use Plans
Land Rights Research and Resources Institute
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
Memorandum of Understanding
Ministry of Energy and Minerals
National Agriculture and Food Corporation
Non-Government Organisation
Research on Poverty Alleviation
Rufiji Basin Development Cooperation
Svensk Etanolkemi AB
Tanzanian Investment Centre
Tanzanian Natural Resource Forum
Tanzanian Shilling
United nations Research Institute for social Development
United Kingdom
United States of America
United Nations Environment Programme
World Wildlife Fund
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Table of Contents
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Scope and purpose of this study ............................................................................. 2
2
The challenges of data collection on foreign land deals in Tanzania .......................................... 2
3
Flaws in the documentation and reproduction of data ............................................................. 3
3.1
Imprecise indication of status of projects and stage of land acquisitions ................. 3
3.2
Documentation of data: Aggregated and thus inaccurate ....................................... 4
3.3
Reproduction of data: Incomplete and inaccurate quotation .................................. 4
3.4
Misleading information: ‘Virtual survival of dead deals’ and deals reported twice in the
same compilation ................................................................................................................ 5
4
Land deals in Tanzania .............................................................................................................. 6
4.1
Basis for the updated information provided in the tables ....................................... 6
4.2
Information on foreign land deals in Tanzania ........................................................ 6
4.3
Information on domestic land deals in Tanzania ....................................................26
4.4
Information on land deals in Tanzania by investors with unclear origin..................28
4.5
Information on ceased and aborted land deal projects in Tanzania ........................29
4.6
Some observations on the situation of land deals in Tanzania................................36
5
Some considerations on the reproduction of data .................................................................. 37
6
References ............................................................................................................................. 38
6.1
Annotated list of references providing information about land deals in Tanzania...38
6.2
Other relevant references - partly annotated.........................................................42
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
1
Page |1
Introduction
Land acquisitions by foreign investors for agricultural purposes have increased rapidly in the last few years,
particularly in countries in the Global South. This recent phenomenon, often referred to as ‘land grabbing’
(for a definition of this term, see the International Land Coalition (ILC) 2011), is currently the subject of
intense research and debate (see for example the numerous special issues in the Journal of Peasant Studies
2011 & 2012; the conference papers of the LDPI Global Land Grabbing Conferences I & II in Sussex 2011 and
Cornell 2012; the Global Commercial Pressures on Land Research Project: Anseeuw et al. 2012a; several
reports by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED): e.g. Cotula et al. 2009;
Cotula & Vermeulen 2009; Cotula 2011; several reports by the Oakland Institute: e.g. Daniel & Mittal 2009;
Oakland Institute 2011a; 2011b).
Tanzania might be among the top ten countries worldwide in terms of the amount of land handed over to
foreign investors (Anseeuw et al. 2012b). Investors from all over the world have expressed their intention
to obtain long-term leases for several thousand hectares of land, or have already done so. The current rise
in interest in Tanzania's land and related concerns about its consequences for local people and the
environment are broadly discussed, not only among academia (e.g. Mwamila et al. 2009; Sosovele 2010;
Mshandete 2011; Oakland Institute 2011a; Locher 2011; Hultman et al. 2012; Neville & Dauvergne 2012;
Havnevik et al. 2012; Nelson et al. 2012) and advocacy groups (e.g. Haki Ardhi/LARRRI, TNRF, Oxfam,
ActionAid, WWF Tanzania, LHRC, LEAT, the platform Let's Talk Land), but recently also in Tanzanian political
circles. A private motion handed in by Member of Parliament Halima Mdee in November 2012 allegedly
caused a hot debate in Parliament (Luhwago 2012a). The motion asked that Parliament direct the
government to suspend the allocation of land to foreign investors. It further demanded the government to
collect and provide up-to-date information on the amount of land handed over to foreign investors. In the
view of Mdee, the government currently does not have such an overview on land deals. Proving Mdee’s
point, the Minister of Lands and Human Settlements Development declared that the government would
thoroughly assess the situation and provide the requested data by April 2013 (Luhwago 2012b). According
to media reports (Kiishweko 2012a& 2012b), the growing attention to land deals and recognition of related
concerns is further shown in the government's announcement of a government regulation establishing a
ceiling on the amount of land, which a single investor can acquire from 2013 forward.
While the policy debate on the potential positive and negative consequences of foreign (and domestic) land
acquisitions and their appropriateness and acceptability is going on globally, the question of reliable data
on the phenomenon remains. 'Land grabbing' by its nature is dynamic and thus difficult to grasp
continuously. Its exploration is further hindered by non-transparent practices on the part of the investors
and the reluctance of involved parties, often including the host governments, to share information (GRAIN
2010; Cotula 2011; Cotula 2012). Also in Tanzania, data is not easily available and often not clear-cut
(TNRF/REPOA/IIED 2012; Mwami & Kamata 2011; authors' experiences). However, as we argue in this
paper, researchers not only face challenges in getting data, but sometimes also apply slightly questionable
methods when documenting and reproducing existing data.
The resulting lack of clear data is reflected, for example, in the Land Matrix, the recent online global data
base provided by: the Centre for Development and Environment (CDE); the Centre de Coopèration
Internationale en Recherche Agronomique (CIRAD); the German Institute of Global Areas Studies (GIGA);
the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ); and the International Land Coalition (ILC) on the
Land Portal (www.landportal.info/landmatrix; see also Anseeuw et al. 2012b). Even among the data that
are classified as verified and reliable, we were able to find a land deal of a company that no longer exists
(Svensk Etanolkemi AB, SEKAB) and a land deal that is reported twice under two different names (AGRICA,
formerly InfEnergy Co. Ltd). We also noted the absence of deals which, according to our data, are active
(such as EcoEnergy Tanzania and The New Forests Company).
This misleading information is partly the result of a number of companies being driven out of business
(particularly biofuel investments) and also partly due to companies being sold to new owners (see also
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |2
LDPI Working Paper 31
chapter 4.6). However, it is also related to flaws in data documentation and reproduction. These flaws
contribute to a blurred picture of (part of) the land deal situation in Tanzania, and thus provide an
inadequate basis for related political decisions and social actions and a misleading starting point for new
research projects.
1.1
Scope and purpose of this study
This study has two aims, namely to stimulate consideration of appropriate data reproduction on the land
grabbing phenomenon and to contribute to a fuller picture of the recent land deal situation in Tanzania.
The focus lies on land leases by foreign investors with the purpose of agricultural production, be it for food
or biofuels, and on forestry plantations for timber and carbon credit trading. Deals for mineral extraction,
conservation, and tourism are not included. Like in the Land Matrix (Anseeuw et al. 2012b), deals below
200ha are not considered. Deals that involve exclusively domestic investors were not our initial focus;
however, as we received respective data during our recent fieldwork, we present some limited information
on domestic land deals as well.
In the following section we provide insights into the challenges of gaining information on land deals in
Tanzania, as experienced by ourselves and other authors. We then illustrate some of the flaws in the use of
data so far, with examples in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, we give an updated overview of foreign land deals in
Tanzania as of December 2012. The overview is based on a careful review of existing literature (for which
we also provide an annotated reference list in Chapter 6.2) and on our own fieldwork between 2009 and
2013. The overview does not claim to be complete, but provides a traceable set of data for active and
inactive or cancelled land deal projects. In doing so the overview serves as a transparent basis both for
future research1 and for much-needed policy debates and decisions. We conclude the study with some
thoughts regarding the overview on land deals in Tanzania in particular (in Chapter 4.6) and the relevance
of careful data reproduction in general (in Chapter 5).
2
The challenges of data collection on foreign land deals in Tanzania
Mdee’s parliamentary motion, implying that the government currently has no clear overview on such land
deals, mirrors the view held by the authors (field research by Sulle in 2008, 2009, 2011 & 2012 and by
Locher in 2010 & 2011) and by other researchers (Oakland Institute 2011:16; HAKIARDHI forthcoming). In
Tanzania, different institutions at different levels of government are involved in the land acquisition
process, but there is no coordinated storage or exchange of data. In some cases we may have experienced
limited cooperation on part of our interviewees. However, in many cases it appeared that officials were
willing to help, but they themselves did not have a full understanding of the situation. When asked for data,
representatives of national government offices either referred to each other or told us blankly that we
should contact district offices, as accurate information would be available only there. This situation might
be partly explained by a large gap in employment in the Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements
Development, as attested by the latest Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report (FAO 2012) and by
the fact that the ‘Central Land Registry still operates largely as a paper-based system’ (ibid.:76).
The land acquisition process is complex and lengthy, as non-citizens are not allowed to acquire land from
villages (which falls under the category of Village Land) directly. A non-citizen investor can either obtain
derivative land rights from the Tanzania Investment Centre (TIC) (which is rarely the case due to the limited
scope of the TIC land bank) or granted rights of occupancy by the Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements
1
The motivation for this study came during a workshop where Locher realised that other scholars starting a research project in
Tanzania had spent considerable time and resources to gain an understanding of the status of certain land investment projects in
Tanzania in order to choose their case studies. Locher could have provided most of this information based on her own fieldwork
and literature review. This unreasonable waste of academic resources and time on such a burning issue has motivated Locher and
Sulle to pursue this publication.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
Page |3
Development, usually after the land has been transferred from the category of Village Land to the category
of General Land (Makwarimba & Ngowi 2012; LEAT 2011; Isaksson & Sigte 2009; Sulle & Nelson 2009).
The complex process contributes to the challenges of gaining an up-to-date understanding of land deals in
the country. It can be assumed that the Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements Development has
relevant data on holders of derivative rights and rights of occupancy (although we could not access such
data). However, the long process for obtaining such titles does not seem to be documented in a central
institution. While the TIC is supposed to guide and support any investor in his or her land acquisition
process, it cannot oblige investors to approach them. It is thus not aware of all on-going investment
processes, as many investors seem to approach district or village authorities without contacting the TIC
beforehand. An example is the case of the New Forests Company, which allegedly became active in the
Kilolo District through the district's Member of Parliament (interviews with district land official and several
village leaders in 2011 by Locher). Yet, it would be important to know about investments in their early
stages — not only for the sake of having the whole picture, but also because it seems to be a common
practice among investors to start activities on their land before completing all the paperwork (interviews
with TIC and district land officials by Locher in 2010 & 2011; several examples of such projects, see Table 1).
BioShape in Kilwa for example went ahead with logging natural forest found in the land allocated to it
before securing a timber-harvesting license from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (Songela &
Maclean 2008; Sulle & Nelson 2009).
As a result of this lack of transparent and easily available data, many researchers addressing land grabbing
in Tanzania try to gain a first-hand understanding. However, not only is it challenging to collect data in this
area but also, as argued below, existing data are sometimes reproduced in questionable ways.
3
Flaws in the documentation and reproduction of data
Several flaws can be found in existing publications on land deals in Tanzania, both related to the
documentation of primary data and to their reproduction. While we can only speculate regarding the
reasons for these (at least for academic purposes) unusual practices2, this study mainly focuses on
identifying their implications. In the following we list different types of flaws as well as their potential
consequences and illustrate them with examples. Though we quote existing reports for the purpose of
illustrating our critical observations, we do not intend to criticise individual authors. Rather we seek to
demonstrate by example consequences of lax standards in reporting land deals that seem to have been
established over the last few years.
3.1
Imprecise indication of status of projects and stage of land acquisitions
The data that is provided is often not very specific in terms of the stage of a land acquisition project. Some
datasets do not even distinguish between announced plans and initiated or completed land deals (e.g. the
Land Matrix; GRAIN 2008), while others merely give indications such as ‘planned’, ‘signed’ or ‘implemented’
(e.g. in Görgen et al. 2009; Friis & Reenberg 2010). However, without a detailed description this
information is unhelpful in understanding the actual status of a project. For example, investors might ‘sign’
an expression of interest (e.g. in village meeting minutes) with village leaders and start to plant their crops
(‘implemented’), before having finalised the formal land acquisition process, thus not having any rights to
this land according to state law3.
2
The documented flaws and unusual practices might be partly ascribed to the challenges of getting information or related to the
non-transparent nature of the 'land grabbing' phenomenon itself (see Chapter 2). Another reason might be convenience, as it is
quite time-consuming to report details of the deals and data sources as precisely as we propose. Further, it might also be related to
the non-academic nature of many reports, which are mainly produced by representatives of NGOs or development agencies,
probably under considerable time pressure and with a significant preference for presenting their findings in pleasant readability.
These reports often have the advantage of being published quickly and reaching a broad audience — an important point in this fast
moving phenomenon (which in our opinion requires policy decisions urgently).
3
This example highlights the challenges of presenting a complex phenomenon in a generalised way with summarised short text, as
is often done in reports with inventories of land deals included for the sake of providing at least some overview.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |4
LDPI Working Paper 31
One can argue that it is not relevant to distinguish between the different stages of a project when intending
to present the investors' interest in Tanzanian land. However, when it comes to implications of land deals it
makes a big difference whether the land deal was just announced and withdrawn before taking any action
on the ground or whether it is partly or fully realised. The precise information regarding the stage of a
project can also be relevant for future reports. However, it is often difficult to gain such specific information
(as highlighted in Chapter 2). While this first flaw is related to the content of the given dataset, the two
following issues focus instead on scholarly practices of data use.
3.2
Documentation of data: Aggregated and thus inaccurate
The most common and significant flaw is related to the documentation of data. While it is an established
standard in academic literature to clearly and precisely provide the sources for presented data, in literature
tackling the land grabbing phenomenon it seems to have become common practice to provide sources for
information regarding land deals in an aggregated and somewhat incomplete way. Information on different
land deals is usually presented by listing investors either in a table or in small paragraphs. The sources for
the data are then given as a whole for the total compilation, either at the bottom of the table or in the
methodology (or another similar) chapter. The sources usually comprise both empirical data collected by
the authors from several sources as well as data from other literature. An example of such a table is
provided in a (otherwise highly appreciated) publication by the Oakland Institute (2011a), where the
sources given at the bottom of the table include fieldwork, three government institutions and four earlier
publications (other examples are provided in Görgen et al. 2009; Mwamila et al. 2009; Sulle & Nelson 2009;
Songela & Maclean 2008; Kashaigili & Nzunda 2010). Finally, the recent publication by the FAO (2012)
provides a table with partially outdated information on the ‘status of recent investments’ with the
indication of sources as weak as follows: ‘Compiled by authors from various sources’ (FAO 2012:77).
The practice of giving sources only in an aggregated form has consequences. It makes the source of
information and details regarding individual land deals untraceable. As a result of this, it is difficult to judge
the data's quality. For example, looking at such a table, it is impossible to know whether information on a
given deal is recent and confirmed by the authors or whether it is based on other sources, which may be
older or considered less reliable. It is also not possible to follow up the development of a land deal project
by approaching the same source of information or to triangulate the data by deliberately choosing a
different source (as opposed to choosing it by chance, where there is the risk that one could approach the
same source again). Another potential consequence of this practice is described in the following section.
3.3
Reproduction of data: Incomplete and inaccurate quotation
Publications that rely on data from earlier compilations (as described above) often refer only to the authors
of that compilation and omit the primary data sources. Examples include publications from the GTZ
(Görgen et al. 2009), Kashaigili and Nzunda (2010) and the Oakland Institute (2011a). All of them rely to a
certain extent on the IIED report of Sulle and Nelson from 20094 and quote it accordingly, but they do not
acknowledge the original sources of data which Sulle and Nelson give in their compilation, namely own
fieldwork and information from three other publications, including Kamanga (2008). Also Sulle and Nelson
applied this practice: they quoted Kamanga (2008) and others in their table, but did not provide the latter's
sources of information. For readers of the above-mentioned later publications (such as the GTZ report), it
thus appears that Sulle and Nelson have collected all the given data, while it stems in fact from several
sources, including the sources used by Kamanga. Besides issues related to acknowledging intellectual
property, another consequence is that incorrect attribution could imply that certain data provided are
seemingly newer than they are. In the examples given above, the data are apparently from the 2009 IIED
publication, while some of them are in reality from the three 2008 reports, on which Sulle and Nelson rely
4
Görgen et al. (2009) do not explicitly refer to Sulle and Nelson (2009), but to Cotula et al. (2009), whose data for Tanzania are
based on the data published in Sulle and Nelson (2009).
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
Page |5
(Kamanga 2008; Songela & Maclean 2008; Kulindwa 2008). Such a time difference, though only one or two
years, is relevant in the fast moving land grabbing phenomenon.
Another consequence is related to the assumed quality of published sources. When giving the source of
information in a summarised way, it is difficult or impossible for the reader to judge the quality of the
underlying data. Later publications might quote sources that seem reliable (for example when quoting the
GTZ report by Görgen et al. 2009, which is to a large extent based on media articles), while they might be
based mainly on weak data. The reader is not provided the chance to judge for him or herself, unless he or
she is able and willing to scrutinise the quoted publications.
3.4
Misleading information: ‘Virtual survival of dead deals’ and deals reported twice in
the same compilation
As elaborated in chapter 2, it is difficult to grasp a dynamic and non-transparent phenomenon such as land
grabbing in an accurate way. To a certain degree, misleading data might be unavoidable. However, the
occurrence of such data might be aggravated by rough summary documentation of land deal projects in the
country. Some examples of misleading information, like continued reporting of ceased or aborted deals and
double reporting, are given in the following section.
The Oakland Institute publication (2011a:18) lists in its compilation the Korean investor KRC as having
acquired 15 000ha of land in Rufiji5 (in accordance with respective announcements in the media:
TanzaniaInvest 2009; Ng’wanakilala 2010; Rugonzibwa 2010). However, according to recent information
from a RUBADA6 official obtained by Sulle in January 2013, the project had been based on a Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) only, not involving land acquisition. The MoU expired in August 2012 before the
company began any operations aside from conducting a feasibility study. RUBADA is currently looking for a
new investor for this area (RUBADA official, personal communication by Sulle in 2013).
Friis and Reenberg (2010), Kaarhus et al. (2010) and FAO (2012) list the Dutch company BioShape, which
ceased its activities in Tanzania in 2009 and went bankrupt in 2010 (Chachage & Baha 2010; Valentino
2011). Of course, reporting the deal is very much justified, as there had been a land acquisition process and
implications on the ground are still very relevant. However, the way that the case is reported should not
pretend that the company is still active.
The Oakland Institute (2011a), probably referring to a figure obtained in Kaarhus et al. (2010), lists the
Swedish company EcoEnergy (formally SEKAB) as active in a land acquisition process for 200 000ha in Rufiji
District while according to indications from our sources (Rufiji District Natural Resources Officer
interviewed by Sulle in November 2012; company's manager interviewed by Locher in 2010; EcoEnergy
website in 2013), the company has been focusing on developing its land plots in Bagamoyo since around
2010, and there do not seem to be more plans for securing land in Rufiji District so far. In addition, news on
the United nations Research Institute for social Development (UNRISD) website in November 2011 stated
that ‘SEKAB has already planted 20 000ha in Tanzania’s coastal region and has plans to expand this to
400 000ha’ (Chinweze et al. 2011). The FAO publication of 2012 also mentions that SEKAB requested
250 000ha–500 000ha. This was after the company earlier named ‘SEKAB Bioenergy Tanzania Ltd’ had
ceased to exist and the activities had been handed over to EcoEnergy in October 2009. EcoEnergy founded
the new company ‘Bagamoyo EcoEnergy Ltd’ in 2010 (EcoEnergy website; BRELA). Further, according to our
sources (see above), the project has planted a maximum of around 8 000ha so far, if at all (not 20 000ha).
In Bagamoyo, the company has a maximum of about 8 000ha suitable for sugarcane plantation and the rest
of the 12 000ha will remain a buffer zone (district official interview by Sulle 2012).
5
In the Oakland Institute report (2011a) the KRC is named Korean Rural Development Cooperation, deviant from other sources that
name it Korean Rural Community Cooperation. The publication provides some detailed and more precise information about the
investor's plans in a separate box on page 21; however, the information in the table suggests that said land is already acquired.
6
RUBADA (Rufiji Basin Development Authority) is a statutory organ, established in 1975, that manages several plots of land in the
Rufiji Basin (Mwami and Kamata 2011:18).
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |6
LDPI Working Paper 31
There are deals reported twice under two different names: the Land Matrix reports the InfEnergy Company
Ltd as a separate company from AGRICA while the first is the earlier name for the latter (in both cases the
local subsidiary is Kilombero Plantations Limited). In principle, InfEnergy changed its business plan, and thus
its name, from oil palm for biodiesel production to rice production for local and international markets
(Chachage 2012). Further, a sorghum project in the coastal area is sometimes referred to as an investment
of the CAMS Group (e.g. Land Matrix 2012; Oakland Institute 2011a) and sometimes as a project of the
Tanzanian subsidiary CMC Agriculture Bio-energy Tanzania (Bengesi et al. 2009; Mwamila et al. 2009).
4
Land deals in Tanzania
4.1
Basis for the updated information provided in the tables
The basis of the following compilations is the annotated reference list (which can be found in Chapter 6.2).
The reference list documents the type of data and the sources of that data given in the literature. For our
compilations, to the best of our knowledge (see next section), we used primary data only. We define these
as data collected by an author or authors based on materials from involved government offices (e.g. table
on companies involved in biofuels by the Ministry of Energy and Minerals, provided in Kaarhus et al. 2010)
or information from interviews with involved government officials, local key persons or representatives of
the investing company, or direct observations in the field. Secondary data (data from reports quoting other
publications) are not included in our tables. As a consequence, for example, the well-known IIED
publication by Cotula et al. (2009) is not used for our compilations, as its information on Tanzania is fully
based on an unpublished study by Sulle, commissioned by IIED, which was soon after released by Sulle and
Nelson (2009) as an IIED report.
As mentioned in chapter 3.3, the compilations of data in other publications do not allow the reader to
distinguish the primary data from the secondary data easily (looking at the tables alone). In many cases it is
possible though to draw assumptions about the primary data from the chapters on methodology (e.g. by
considering the districts visited by authors). We generally also assumed that data from presented case
studies were primary data. Further, we tried to identify the original data by filling in our tables in
chronological order of publication dates (or dates of data collection), starting with the oldest publications.
We could thus see which information provided by a more recent publication was new and which
information seemed to be copied from an older source. However, we cannot fully guarantee that we
acknowledged all original (or reconfirmed) data as such, or that we did not consider some secondary data
as original data due to unclear indication.
In the last column of our tables, we give the precise source of data for each land deal. For detailed
information in the other columns, we usually give the source of information in a short version in brackets.
This is particularly interesting in the case of contradictions. With this procedure, though laborious and less
smooth to read, we make sure that the given information is traceable.
The stage of a land deal, if known, is indicated with the size of the land deal. Unfortunately, it is often only
vague or not available at all. Different from other compilations, we have included an additional column
with information on the earlier status of the land at question. In many cases clear information is absent; we
usually assumed it to be Village Land when the sources indicated that the land was acquired from villages.
However, this is not confirmed and detailed data on whether the land was used by individuals, commonly,
or kept as a reserve is often missing. The column ‘Status, business model, additional information’ provides
any further information, where suitable, in chronological order.
We have listed the land deals according to investors' names in alphabetical order. In cases of subsidiary and
sister companies or variable names of the investing company we refer to the main entry in the respective
place in the alphabet.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
4.2
Page |7
Information on foreign land deals in Tanzania7
Table 1: Deals by foreign investors and joint ventures by Tanzanians and foreigners
No.
1
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
30 Degree East
Partnership between
Mauritian (holding 90%)
and Tanzanian investor
(10%)
Formally known as Sun
Biofuels
owned by an investor
from the UK
sold to the new investor
probably in 2011
Location
(district)
Kisarawe
Product and
purpose
Jatropha for
vegetable oil
and biodiesel
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
8 211ha (derivative
right: Sulle & Nelson
2009, Oakland Institute
2011a)
Land status before
acquisition
Village lands
11 226ha (village
negotiations, Songela &
Maclean 2008)
11 villages (Theting &
Brekke 2010; Oakland
Institute 2011a)
8 000ha (FAO 2010;
Kashaigili & Nzunda
2010)
Muhaga village provided
1 500ha of their total
5 000ha to the company
(Theting & Brekke 2010)
9 000ha (granted, final
stage of acquisition,
Bengesi et al. 2009;
Mwamila et al. 2009)
9 000ha acquired (LEAT
2011)
Requested: 18 000ha
(Songela & Maclean
2008, FAO 2010,
Oakland Institute 2011a)
50 000ha (Bengesi et al.
2009, Mwamila et al.
2009)
from 10 villages (LEAT
2011)
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
The following information is for the earlier
company Sun Biofuels:
Songela & Maclean 2008 (field
visits in 2008)
Plan to create 5 000 jobs (Bengesi et al. 2009;
Songela & Maclean 2008)
Mwamila et al. 2009 (fieldwork
Jul/Aug 2009)
Compensation intended: just over 35 000TSh/ha
(Songela & Maclean 2008)
Sulle & Nelson 2009 (Sulle field
visit March 2009)
Kashaigili & Nzunda 2010: acquired
8 000ha of land at a lease of 99 years. Work
commenced on the clearing of land in June 2009
in preparation for planting. The company
planted the first 600ha of jatropha in November
2009.
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives)
FAO 2010 (source unclear)
Kaarhus et al. 2010 (data from
Ministry of Energy and Minerals,
July 2010)
Conflicts about compensation; salary above
minimum wage, but questionable working
conditions (Theting & Brekke 2010)
Kashaigili & Nzunda 2010
(fieldwork)
Procedures of land acquisition not adhered to,
manipulation; employment provided; access to
land and water resources denied (LEAT 2011)
Theting & Brekke 2010 (fieldwork,
probably in April 2010)
Started in 2009, land not all yet planted
(Oakland Institute 2011a)
LEAT 2011 (fieldwork in May/June
2011)
Jatropha plantation and envisioned out-grower
scheme. The latter wasn’t implemented until its
collapse in 2011 (HAKIARDHI forthcoming)
The company went bankrupt in early 2012. It has
laid off overnight about 750 workers and failed
to fulfil its socio-economic promises. The
Oakland Institute 2011a (fieldwork
in Dec 2010)
Carrington 2011 (media article in
The Observer)
7
Sources (for all tables): Fieldwork by the authors of this study (see column ‘Sources of information’) and several publications providing primary data (see column ‘Sources of information’ for short
indication and the annotated reference list in Chapter 6.2 for the detailed indication). Please note: Information is given as per December 2012, with the exception of some online sources (consulted in
early 2013) and interviews by Locher on CAMS Agri-Energy Tanzania, New Forests Company and Tanga Forests in February 2013. Numbering (first column) does not count every entry, but each
project (i.e. projects that were sold and/or changed their name are counted only once). Projects of the same company, located in different districts, are usually counted as one, with the exception of
the two projects of SEKAB Bioenergy Tanzania / Bagamoyo EcoEnergy Ltd (project in Bagamoyo ongoing, in Rufiji aborted).
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |8
No.
LDPI Working Paper 31
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
company was also reported to be in the process
of selling its properties to new investor (The
Guardian 2011)
The Guardian 2011
Havnevik et al. 2012 (fieldwork)
HAKIARDHI forthcoming
‘A British biodiesel company (...) The project was
suspended in 2011, and sold to a new owner
who is planning to continue with the
investment. There has arisen a lot of issues on
compensation for the loss of lands and assets on
that land.’ (Havnevik et al. 2012)
2
Africa Biofuel & Emission
Reduction Company
(Tanzania) Ltd
(Tanzanian, USA)
Africa Biofuel & Emission
Reduction (East Africa)
Ltd (ABEA)
www.africabiofuel.com
Joint venture between
TTT Wilma Biofuel and
Emission Reduction
Company, part of US
Wilma (World Institute
for Leadership and
Management in Africa)
Group and National
Investment Company Ltd
(NICO), Tanzania (Wilma
2006)
Managing Director
Christine Adamow
P.O. Box 14317, Kagera
Biharamulo
Croton
megalocarpus
(planned)
(Kaarhus et al.
2010)
For biofuels and
carbon credits
60 000ha (Kamanga
2008)
Planned:
20 000ha (Songela &
Maclean 2008)
Initial plan: plantation and collaboration with
independent growers (providing them with
education and technical support); but lack of
funds, not operational, probably abandoned
plans (Songela & Maclean 2008)
In 2008, the company won the World Bank
Development Marketplace Award, a competitive
grant program for innovative, early stage
development projects (DM 2008)
Acquisition under process, contracts expected in
2010 (Locher 2010a)
According to a government official, the company
was stopped by the Vice-President Office due to
a land-related issue (Locher 2010b)
TIC officials have no recent information about
this company (Sulle 2012)
The company's website's latest news is dated
Nov 2011; no clear information about status in
Tanzania (ABEA website)
Two mail requests in Nov and Dec 2012 to the
Managing Director (by Locher) were not replied.
Registered in BRELA as incorporated on 11 Aug
2006
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Kamanga 2008 (field research,
data from MEM, MAFS)
Songela & Maclean 2008 (probably
based on interviews with
government officials)
Kaarhus et al. 2010 (data from
Ministry of Energy and Minerals,
July 2010)
Locher 2010a (mail contact with
company's Managing Director
Christine Adamow 30 April 2010)
Locher 2010b (interview with
Commissioner of Ministry of
Energy and Minerals in July 2012)
Sulle 2012 (interview with TIC
officials, Dec 2012)
Development Marketplace (DM)
2008
Wilma 2006 (investor's brochure)
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
No.
3
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
AgriSol Energy Tanzania
Dar es Salaam
(Tanzanian, USA, Dubai)
Joint venture between
Serengeti Advisers Ltd
(Dar es Salaam) and the
AgriSol Energy LLC/group
(IOWA based)(company's
website; OI 2011b)
Location
(district)
Mpanda
(Baha 2011)
Kigoma,
Rukwa
(Oakland
Institute
2011a)
Product and
purpose
Corn, sorghum,
soybeans,
sugarcane,
poultry, cattle,
ethanol
(Oakland
Institute 2011a)
Key partner: Pharos
Global Agricultural Fund,
managed by Pharos
Financial Group, Dubaibased (OI 2011b)
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
acquisition still under
process (Oakland
Institute 2011a)
Land status before
acquisition
Village land
other?
4
planned to have
shareholders from Egypt
and Tanzania (El Agamy
2012)
Rufiji
Sugar cane for
sugar
processing
for domestic
and Egyptian
market (El
Agamy 2012)
Sources of information
The company plans to operate plantations in the
proposed area of which it has signed a MoU with
the Mpanda District Council (OI 2011b)
Oakland Institute 2011a and
2011b (field visit Dec 2010, phone
interviews 2011, company's
documents)
The company also plans to develop an outgrower scheme in which farmers will have
access to quality agricultural inputs (fertiliser,
seeds etc.) (Baha 2011; OI 2011b)
350 000ha (Baha 2011)
AgriSol Energy Tanzania owns 25% shares and it
has teamed up with the Serengeti Advisors to
ensure the company access the land from the
Mpanda District Council (Baha 2011)
6 895ha (DAO 2012)
Requested:
10 000ha
Available:
8 000ha (RUBADA 2012)
Baha 2011 (field visits in Mpanda,
Rukwa region, interviews with
members and leaders of the
village government in Mpanda)
Ruhiye 2012 (field visit June 2011)
To-date the land acquisition has not been
finalised and the company’s dealing has been
widely debated in the Tanzanian Parliament as
well as international land human rights arenas
(Ruhiye 2012)
http://agrisolenergy.com/
http://agrisolenergy.com/
our_projects.html
Agro-Forest Plantations
Ltd
(Egyptian)
Status, business model, additional information
requested:
325 117ha
(Oakland Institute
2011a/b)
Planned to develop in
2012:
10 000ha in Lugufu and
3 250ha in Basanza
Village (Baha 2011)
Page |9
Village Land (Mohoro,
Chumbi A, B, C and Ruma
Villages)
Registered under TIC 1 Dec 2011; will start
December 2014 (DAO 2012)
DAO 2012 (Document by District
Agricultural Officer received by
Sulle in Dec 2012)
Construction of sugar plant scheduled for 2014
(Msonsa 2012; El Agamy 2012)
RUBADA 2012 (document by
RUBADA received by Sulle in Dec
2012)
Promise improved roads, construction of a
health centre and schools (Msonsa 2012)
El Agamy 2012 (Zawya article)
P.O. Box
20618 DSM
project of Egyptian
African Company (EAC)
‘The firm plantations will cover about 500ha
with the capacity of producing over 157 000T of
sugarcane annually. At the same time people
from the seven surrounding villages are being
trained on sugarcane growing’ (project
coordinator Mr Kiondo Mahanyu in Msonsa
2012)
Msonsa 2012 (The Citizen article)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |10
No.
5
LDPI Working Paper 31
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Arkadia Ltd
(Italian)
Location
(district)
Mkinga
Product and
purpose
Jatropha
Box 5468, Tanga
Arkadia Limited
159 Rochester Road
Burham
Rochester
ME1 3SF
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
approved by the District:
500ha (Sulle 2012)
Land status before
acquisition
Village land with little
direct use (Sulle 2012)
registered at Ministry:
25 000ha (Sulle 2012)
‘barren land’ (Locher 2011)
Planned in 2010:
25 000ha (Locher 2010)
Sources of information
Mkinga district asked investor to pay for seven
village land use plans; after the planning, the
seven villages wanted to give only totally
9 000ha to Arkadia and some other area to
another interested investor; Arkadia seemed to
lose interest (Locher 2010)
Locher 2010 (interview with
Catherine Makudi, National Land
Use Planning Commission, Aug
2010)
Document of Arkadia from Dec 2008 (Locher
2011b) states:
— intention of leasing 69 000ha
— initially planning to use 25 000ha–35 000ha
— villages allegedly authorised 75 000ha
— Arkadia ready to start as soon as necessary
authorisation is provided
— promise of 4 000 long term contract
employees and social infrastructure
Allegedly agreed by
villages in 2008:
75 000ha (Locher 2011b)
www.rkdia.co.uk/
(no indication of the land
deal project in Tanzania)
Status, business model, additional information
The project remains controversial as the district
officials were unaware on what basis the
company secured the 25 000ha it registered at
the Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements
Development (Sulle 2012)
6
Bagamoyo EcoEnergy Ltd
also known as EcoEnergy
Tanzania Ltd
(Swedish)
Complex ownership, since
Oct 2009:
EcoEnergy Bagamoyo Ltd
is 100% owned by Agro
EcoEnergy Tanzania
which in turn is owned
93.5% by EcoEnergy
Africa AB, 5% by
Tanzanian Petroleum
Development Company
(TPDC) and 1.5% by
Community Finance
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Bagamoyo
Sugar cane
for sugar,
ethanol; and
electricity, all
for domestic
market
(EcoEnergy
2012)
200ha (Songela &
Maclean 2008)
22 500ha(granted by
TIC; Sulle & Nelson
2009)
22 000ha + 500ha
(Bengesi et al. 2009,
Oakland Institute 2011)
22 000ha (+ 500ha) or
22 240ha?
(Mwamila et al. 2009:8&
33)
8 000ha(derivative
rights, Locher 2009)
Zanzibar People’s Ranch
(RAZABA/TIC, gov.)
(Sulle & Nelson 2009;
Locher 2009)
200ha for cane seed
production leased from
prisons (in 2008, Songela &
Maclean)
14 households and a
number of pastoralists
displaced and
compensated (Songela &
Maclean)
Some people using and
living on the land
Registered in BRELA database in Sep 2007
The company changed its name and ownership.
Note: The first part of the information is for
SEKAB Bioenergy Tanzania
22000ha granted by TIC, derivative rights under
process (Sulle & Nelson 2009); but according to
Manager Bergfors until Nov 2009 derivative
rights had been provided for only 8000ha
(Locher 2009)
Earlier vision (Locher 2010):
— Out-growers in block farm model: envisaged
6000ha
In 2009 funding problems, but during 2010 new
investors found to continue project in Bagamoyo
(Locher 2010; company's website)
SEKAB BioEnergy Tanzania has not yet started
Locher 2011a (interview with
Catherine Makudi, National Land
Use Planning Commission, Jan
2011)
Locher 2011b (interview with
George Joseph Miringay, Town
Planner Mkinga, May 2011; insight
in document by Arkadia to district,
dated Dec 2008)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the
District Land and Natural
Resources Officer, Dec 2012)
Songela & Maclean 2008 (field
visits in 2008)
Sulle & Nelson 2009 (personal
interviews with company officials
in Dar es Salaam and Bagamoyo,
March 2009)
Locher 2009 & 2010 (meetings
with Managing Director Bergfors
Nov 2009 & Jul 2010)
FAO 2010 (source unclear)
Mwamila et al. 2009 (fieldwork
Jul/Aug 2009)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
No.
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Corporation Ltd (CFC).
EcoEnergy Africa AB is
owned by
EcoDevelopment in
Europe AB, a minority
owner in SEKAB. TPDC is
100% owned by
Government of Tanzania.
CFC is owned by three
Tanzanians.
(company's website)
Name before ownership
change in Oct 2009:
SEKAB Bioenergy
Tanzania; owned by
Swedish Ethanol
Chemistry AB (SEKAB)
Anders Bergfors,
Managing Director
www.ecoenergy.co.tz/
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
22 000ha + 200ha
(allocated by central
gov. in 2008 and by
Kigongoni Prison,
respectively, Chachage
2010)
20 000ha (FAO 2010)
Acquired:
24 000ha
Developed: 200ha
(HAKIARDHI
forthcoming)
Requested:
24 500ha (Kaarhus et al.
2010)
Planned
28 000ha
Suitable 8 000ha only
(Sulle 2012)
Land status before
acquisition
(EcoEnergy website 2012,
undated African
Development Bank (AfDB)
report)
P a g e | 11
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
the real production despite the acquired land;
Seed cane farm planted and a reservoir for
irrigation water constructed (Kashaigili &
Nzunda 2010)
Security and Cooperatives)
Chachage 2010 (based on SEKAB
BioEnergy Tanzania report 2008
and a Research on Poverty
Alleviation (REPOA) study of
Opportuna Kweka 2010, among
others)
Seed cane farm at the prison planted, plan to
move onto the ranch in 2011; plans to employ
15 000 workers (Oakland Institute 2011)
Sulle 2012: Feasibility study indicates that the
company has only
8 000ha suitable for cane production, the
additional 2 000ha are under dispute between
Matipwili and Fukayosi villages which originally
gave land to the company; The company further
plans to obtain
10 000ha for out-growers scheme in villages of
Kiwangwa, Mwavi, Kitame and Biga
Kaarhus et al. 2010 (data from
Ministry of Energy and Minerals,
July 2010)
HAKIARDHI forthcoming: Officially offered
RAZABA ranch in 2008 by the GoT with 99 years
lease; new model for land deal: ‘equity in
exchange for land’ (see also company's
statement below); planned 7800ha sugar
plantation and 3 000ha out-growers. Also
undertaking research on drip irrigation on 200ha
in Bagamoyo prison farm.
Sulle 2012 (interview with the
DLNRO Nov 2012)
Company's website (accessed 30.01.2013):
Envisaged business model:
— Own farm (planned
7 800ha or 8 000ha)
— out-growers' programme to be fully realised
by 2018 (app.
3 000ha, estimated to directly involve
approximately 1 500 families)
— sugar cane processing plant for flexible
production of ethanol/sugar plus cogeneration
of electric power (to be used by end 2014)
Kashaigili & Nzunda 2010
(fieldwork)
Oakland Institute 2011a (fieldwork
in Dec 2010)
HAKIARDHI forthcoming
Company's website:
www.ecoenergy.co.tz/
www.ecoenergy.co.tz/faq/projectfaq/ (accessed 30.01.2013)
Available on website: AfDB
Executive Summary of the
Resettlement Action Plan, no date,
probably Sep 2009
‘Under the current agreement, EcoEnergy will
obtain a 99 year lease and free access to the
land from the Government of Tanzania in
exchange for a 25% ownership interest in the
project company and a membership of the
board of directors (...) the Tanzanian
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |12
No.
LDPI Working Paper 31
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
government together with local communities
become a 25% long term shareholder of the
company in exchange for the land.’
Bagamoyo EcoEnergy Ltd registered in BRELA as
incorporated in Oct 2010
(EcoEnergy Tanzania Ltd not registered in
BRELA)
7
Bio Shape (Tanzania) Ltd
(Dutch)
Kilwa
Jatropha
34 736ha (Songela &
Maclean 2008)
For biodiesel
Box 20787 Lindi
planned for
export to
Europe
34 000ha
(Sulle & Nelson 2009)
37 000ha (FAO 2010)
81 000ha (LEAT 2011)
Planned:
81 000ha (Songela &
Maclean 2008, FAO
2010)
80 000ha (Bengesi et al.
2009)
82 000ha (Sulle &
Nelson 2009)
Mostly uncultivated village
lands
with tropical forest.
See also comment regarding land dispute under
Shanta Estates Ltd
Probably new owner (see last comment); the
following information is about the initial project
and owner:
Gordon-Maclean et al. 2008
In one village, the land
allocated to the company
contained a rare tropical
rainforest (GordonMaclean et al. 2008)
Land from four villages,
small part occupied; in
Mavuji village total
17 000ha provided,
formerly
communal and reserved
land (LEAT 2011)
Status 2008 (Songela & Maclean): 800
employees (mostly casual); saw mill established,
logging; plan: 10 000 employees
Bengesi et al. 2009: 400ha pilot farm planted,
with 300 employees. Integrity of Environmental
Investigation Agency assessment (EIA)
questionable.
Chachage & Baha 2010: ceased activities, no
further information; total size acquired unclear.
Land acquisition procedure somehow adhered
to, but with limited participation of locals;
employment and support in social services
infrastructure provided, but denied access to
land and water resources, conflicts related to
employment conditions (LEAT 2011)
Collapsed/bankrupt from the end of 2009;
developed a nursery and cleared only an area of
70(76?)ha for trial plantation
(had envisioned to operate Jatropha plantations
and out-grower scheme in future) (Sulle 2011)
Faced court case for failing to pay more than 90
workers with an arrears of TZS200 million
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Songela & Maclean 2008 (field
visits in 2008)
Kaarhus et al. 2010 (data from
Ministry of Energy and Minerals,
July 2010)
Sulle & Nelson 2009 (field visit)
LEAT 2011 (fieldwork in May/June
2011)
Sulle 2011 (field visits and
interviews with villagers and
district officials, August 2011)
FAO 2010 (source unclear)
Media reports:
Simbeye 2010 (Daily News)
Simbeye 2011 (Daily News)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives)
Chachage & Baha 2010 (fieldwork
in May/June 2010)
Valentino 2011 (media article)
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
No.
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
P a g e | 13
Sources of information
(Simbeye, 2011)
The Company was suspected to have a hidden
agenda of logging timber instead of growing
Jatropha (Simbeye 2010)
8
Bio-energy Tanzania Ltd
(Tanzanian and Canadian)
Bagamoyo
Jatropha
16 000ha (surveying)
Village lands (Vigwaza
Kidogozero villages)
Requested:
30 000ha
earlier name (but same
owners):
Trinity Consultants
Bioenergy Tz Ltd
(Mwamila et al, Bengesi
et al. 2009; Kashaigili &
Nzunda 2010; Oakland
Institute 2011a)
‘Despite the long list of doubtful practices in the
Bioshape project, a number of new investors
from the Netherlands, the UK, the US and Italy
have expressed interest in taking over its
business. 'Their names cannot be disclosed at
this point, because we have not signed an
agreement with any of the parties yet,' says
Hanneke Lamers, attorney at Boels Zanders, the
legal firm which is in charge of Bioshape
bankruptcy.’ (Valentino 2011)
Company has not yet started the real production
despite the acquired land, busy surveying and to
be granted land after process is complete.
(Kashaigili & Nzunda 2010)
Location: Vigwaza Kidogozero
But still facing land conflict as the original village
was divided into two villages, and now the new
village does not accept its land being taken by
the investor (Sulle 2012)
CAMS Agri-Energy
Tanzania Ltd
Part of CAMS Group,
British;
(= CMC Agriculture Bioenergy Tanzania
= CMC AgriBioenergy)
www.camsglobal.com/afr
ica/
Chairman and CEO:
George Joannou
Bagamoyo
(Mwamila et
al. 2009;
Locher
2010a)
see also
additional
entries for
Handeni and
Rufiji
Sweet/
white sorghum
stalk for
ethanol, grain
as food crop
plan to export
biofuel (Locher
2011
25 000ha (approved,
Mwamila et al. 2009;
Bengesi et al. 2009)
45 000ha (investor's
announcement at
Reuters 2008; Oakland
Institute 2011a)
208 000ha (assigned by
local communities, but
company withdraw, see
comment at the right;
Locher 2011)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives,
fieldwork)
Kashaigili & Nzunda 2010
(fieldwork)
Oakland Institute 2011 (fieldwork
Dec 2010)
Allocated
4 500ha (Sulle 2012)
9
Mwamila et al. (2009)
Village land
Others?
Sulle 2012 (interview with the
DLNRO, Nov 2012)
Reuters 2008 (company's
announcement of plans)
Joannou, the company's chairman and CEO,
announced it had acquired 45 000ha of land in
Handeni and Bagamoyo (Reuters 2008).
Mwamila et al. 2009:9 (field work
Jul/Aug 2008)
Request for land
(25 000ha) approved (Mwamila et al. 2009;
Bengesi et al. 2009)
Asked to do land use plans (Locher 2010a;
Locher 2011; Mwamila et al. 2009; Bengesi et al.
2009)
CAMS Agri-Energy Tanzania Ltd registered at
BRELA as incorporated in Feb 2007, but not
known to and not registered at the TIC (Locher
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives)
Locher 2010a (interview with
Catherine Makudi, National Land
Use Planning Commission, Aug
2010)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |14
No.
LDPI Working Paper 31
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
18 000ha (planning to
acquire in 2011, in other
area than earlier
targeted land; Locher
2011)
none (Locher 2013)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
2010b)
Locher 2010b (interview with TIC
official, Aug 2010)
According to the CEO, the company had been
assigned
208 000ha in Handeni and Bagamoyo (planning
to produce 250 Million litres of ethanol and
120mW of power, together with Spanish
Abengoa Bioenergy). Due to the financial crisis,
the plans were reduced to smaller plants, aiming
to produce 20 Million litres on 18 000ha. The
new plot was planned to be acquired in another
area than the earlier assigned land (at the coast,
district unclear) (Locher 2011).
Produce 240 million litres of ethanol a year from
sweet sorghum (Oakland Institute 2011a, exact
sources unclear)
‘In 2009, CAMS acquired exclusive rights for
proprietary Advanced Solid State Fermentation
(ASSF) technology to produce ethanol and
power from Sweet Sorghum. An African pilot
project in Tanzania is in its early stages. CAMS is
negotiating long-lease of 20 000ha of
agricultural land in the Coastal Region to grow
sweet sorghum...’ (company's website)
According to the CEO in February 2013, the
company was still in the planning stage in
Tanzania (not producing); it focused on its
sorghum pilot projects in Uganda and Kenya,
where it applies an out-grower model, which is
planned to be applied in Tanzania as well. (In
Uganda, around
4 000ha of sorghum are planted, whereas
around 160ha of the land belongs to the
company, the rest belongs to out-growers.)
According to the CEO some districts at the
coastal line had offered land, but the company
refused it due to their preference for an outgrower model (Locher 2013)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Locher 2011 and 2013 (skype
contact with CEO Joannou, Jan
2011 and Feb 2013)
Oakland Institute 2011a (several
sources, exact source unclear,
maybe company's own
announcement, see Reuters 2008)
Company's website:
www.camsglobal.com/renewableenergy/ (accessed 31.01.2013)
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
No.
10
11
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
EcoCarbon
(French)
Location
(district)
Bagamoyo
Product and
purpose
Jatropha
(planned only)
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Requested: 75 000ha
Land status before
acquisition
Mwalima et al. (2009): not given land yet
Mwamila et al. 2009 (fieldwork
Jul/Aug 2009)
Enviro-Fuel Technologies
T
The company planned to extend the production
of jatropha in many regions including Bagamoyo
but it has never materialised this goal in
Bagamoyo (Sulle 2012)
No further details are available from TIC (Sulle
2012) and web searches
www.envirofuelslp.com
P.O Box 42355, DSM
Eurotech
(Korean)
‘undecided’
(Kaarhus et
al. 2010)
Tel +255 784 751 622
13
Sources of information
The company mainly depended on buying
jatropha seeds, it used to collect them from outgrowers in the regions of Manyara, Arusha, and
Singida (Sulle & Nelson 2009)
probably subsidiary of
EnviroFuels LLC
(American)
12
Status, business model, additional information
formerly
Diligent (Tanzania) Ltd
(Dutch)
Biofuels
Eurovistaa Trading Co.
Ltd.
(Indian)
(www.eurovistaa.com/div
ersification.html)
accessed 13.01.2013)
named Euro Vista by OI
2011a
Rufiji
Planning to
grow
100 000ha of
castor oil and
Jatropha for
biodiesel
(Kamanga 2008)
Maize
(OI 2011a)
Planned: 10 000ha
(Kamanga 2008)
Sorghum and
Cotton
(DAO 2012)
requested: 6 000ha
P a g e | 15
Sulle and Nelson 2009 (field visits)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the
DLNRO, Nov 2012)
Kamanga 2008 (field research,
data from MEM, MAFS)
Registered at BRELA as incorporated in Sep 2006
Sulle 2012 (meeting with TIC
officer Sept 2012)
Planning to invest more than
US$20 million (Kamanga 2008)
Kamanga 2008 (field interviews)
Kaarhus et al. 2010 (data from
Ministry of Energy and Minerals,
July 2010)
Acquired: 6 000ha (OI
2011a)
Acquired:
5 992ha
DAO)
Village land (Mkongo
South & Kilimani) (DAO
2012)
Came to grow cotton but have been growing
maize since 2006 (OI 2011a)
Oakland Institute 2011a (fieldwork
Dec 2010, data from RUBADA, and
several other sources)
Registered No. 3287 at TIC (DAO 2012)
RUBADA 2012 (document by
RUBADA received by Sulle in Dec
2012)
DAO 2012 (document by DAO
received by Sulle in Dec 2012)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |16
LDPI Working Paper 31
No.
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
14
FELISA (Farming for
Energy for better
Livelihoods in Southern
Africa)
(Tanzanian/Belgian)
Kigoma
Oil palm
4 258ha (but some of it
under land dispute in
court; Songela &
Maclean 2008)
for biodiesel
and/or edible
oil
for local market
Box
Kigoma
8
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
General land
Plantation
status in 2008 (Songela & Maclean):
nursery (42 000 seedlings); 150ha plantation,
990 farmers organised, using processing
equipment; plan: 5 000ha own plantation and
5 000ha planted by out-growers; production of
palm oil expected by end of 2009; initial idea:
biodiesel for regional energy supply, but due to
high price for crude oil decision to sell the latter
instead in local market
Sulle & Nelson 2009 (Sulle field
work 2008/09)
small part occupied (LEAT
2011)
4 258haacquired
(Kaarhus et al. 2010)
100ha +
4 258haacquired (LEAT
2011)
Land dispute in court over extra 350ha obtained
from 2 villages; no EIA assesment done (Sulle &
Nelson 2009)
requested: around
5 000ha (Songela &
Maclean 2008; Kaarhus
et al. 2010)
15
16
FJS African Starch
Development Co. Ltd
(American)
P.O. Box 34634 DSM
Green Resources Ltd
subsidiary of
Green Resources SA
(Norwegian)
8
Rufiji
Mufindi
Cassava
for starch
production
Forest
plantation
www.greenresources.no
Timber (pine,
eucalyp-tus,
teak), saw logs,
poles
www.greenresources.no/
Plantations.aspx
energy
production
Financially supported by
the International Finance
Corporation (IFC), World
Bank Group
carbon credits
timber sale
Requested: 5 000ha
(RUBADA 2012)
20 434ha(‘titled’,compa
ny's website, entry
undated, seems to be
from 2009)
Village lands: Nyambili &
Nyambunda village
Village Land
Land acquisition procedures adhered to, with
limited participation of locals; employment
provided; access to land and water resources
denied (LEAT 2011)
Unknown (DAO 2012)
Requested: 10ha for factory at Bungu and
2 500ha for back up farm at Nyambili &
Nyambunda village (RUBADA 2012)
Plantations: Idete and Mapanda, trial planting
initiated in Kitete and Masagati; Industrial
operations at Sao Hill Industries Ltd. (sister
company) in Mafinga (Mufindi district);
Community forest program; Objectives are
‘carbon storage and to harvest forestry products
for sawn timber, utility poles and renewable
energy. There is a potential for a future pulp mill
or a pellet factory...’ (company's website)
Took over government saw mill in Mufindi in the
1990s; a nearby government plantation also
provides timber to Green Resources for
processing (Locher 2010)
Songela and Maclean 2008 (field
visits in 2008)
Kaarhus et al. 2010 (data from
Ministry of Energy and Minerals,
July 2010)
LEAT 2011 (fieldwork in May/June
2011)
DAO 2012 (document of DAO,
received by Sulle in Dec 2012)
RUBADA 2012 (document received
by Sulle in Dec 2012)
Locher 2010 (interview with
Nicodemus Luvanga, Branch
Manager Dar es Salaam, Aug 2010)
Chachage 2010 (based on several
other studies and company
documents)
UNEP Risoe Centre 2013 (CDM/JI
Pipeline Analysis and Database,
Jan 2013)
www.cdmpipeline.org
IFC no date (announcement of
While Songela and Maclean state that the company has acquired 4 258ha (in 2008), they write that the company has 4658ha own plantation land. We assume it is a writing mistake.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
No.
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Green Resources SA is
also active in
Mozambique, Uganda,
Sudan
Other (former)
subsidiaries in Tanzania
(see entry for Lindi
Forests Ltdin this table
and entries for Tanga
Forests Ltd in Table 4)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
mainly
domestic, some
export (around
8%–10%) to
Kenya
Mauritius,
Dubai, Ethiopia,
Eritrea,
Seychelles
(Locher 2010)
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
P a g e | 17
Sources of information
support to company)
Idete: 2 130ha planted until 2009; ‘Out of the
14176ha titled area, 9 010ha are plantable, with
3 498ha set aside for conservation and 1668ha
for other uses. (...) The forest is seeking CDM
certification [...] Pre-evaluation for the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) has taken place’
(company's website, entry undated, seems to be
from 2009)
Company's website:
www.greenresources.no/Plantatio
ns.aspx (accessed 30.01.2013)
Mapanda: 2 476ha planted until 2009;
‘Mapanda Forest covers 6 258ha (...)
3536ha is plantable, with 753ha set aside for
conservation and 1948ha for other uses. (...)
FSC certification (...) on 8 August 2008 and
voluntary carbon standard (VCS) certification
was achieved on 17 July 2009.’ (company's
website, entry undated, seems to be from 2009)
‘(...) at least 10% of the revenues will go to
community development and environmental
protection’ (company's website)
‘The new plantations and improvements will
help it create 500 permanent jobs and 5 000
seasonal positions by 2011’ (IFC no date)
In 2000, the company's afforestation project
was certified by the Sociètè Gènèrale de
Surveillance(SGS), the leading global
certification and inspection company, and sold
the first options on carbon credits (company's
website, in Chachage 2010)
‘Reforestation at the Idete Forest Project’
submitted as CDM project, in Jan 2013 at
validation (UNEP Risoe 2013)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |18
No.
LDPI Working Paper 31
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
Green Resources Ltd
(Norwegian)
Kilombero
Forest
plantation
Approved:
12 161ha
(Sulle 2012)
Village lands (uncultivated)
Uchindile Forest: until 2009 around 3160ha
planted (company's website)
Sulle 2012 (interview and phone
communication with the District
Land Officer, Nov 2012)
subsidiary of
Green Resources SA, see
also entry for Green
Resources Ltd in Mufindi
soft wood for
timber and
carbon credit
Total area ’12 121ha, of which 7252ha of the
land are plantable, and 1 700ha are set aside for
conservation, with 3161ha for other uses. (...)
The objective (...) is growing trees for carbon
sequestration and to harvest forest products for
sawn timber, transmission poles and renewable
energy. (...) FSC certification was attained on 8
August 2008 and VCS certification was achieved
on 17 July 2009. The trees (...) are mainly pinus
patula and eucalyptus saligna.’ (company's
website, entry undated, but seems to be from
2009)
12 121ha(‘titled’,compa
ny's website, entry
undated, but seems to
be from 2009)
10 000ha additional
request, approved by
the District Council,
awaiting the Land
Commissioner’s
approval (Sulle 2012)
Company's website:
www.greenresources.no/Plantatio
ns.aspx (accessed 30.01.2013)
The whole area is planted with soft wood trees.
The company uses a plantation business model
(Sulle 2012)
17
InfEnergy Co. Ltd
New name, see:
Kilombero Plantations
Limited (KPL)
Kagera Sugar Plantation
(Indian/Tanzanian)
member of the Super
Group of Companies
www.superdolltz.com/Kagera-Sugar.html
Kilombero
Misenyi
Sugar
(50km from
Bukoba, on
the way to
Uganda)
for both local
market and
exports
7 000ha (Miller Estate)
Formally a private estate,
but nationalised during the
Ujamaa period and
became property of Sugar
Development Corporation
(SDC) until recent
privatisation in 2000s
(Sulle 2013)
In 2001 the estate was privatised by the
Government of Tanzania and became member
of the Super Group of Companies — the current
owner (Sulle, 2010)
‘Kagera Sugar Limited (...) was offered for
privatisation by the Government of Tanzania in
December 2001. Since then, KSL became
another member in the Super Group of
Companies’ (company's website)
In addition to the plantation, out-growers work
for the company on 300ha; they own most of
the land through customary law and few have
title deeds (Mlingwa 2010)
The Company lies along the Kagera River Basin
thus enjoy easy access to water for irrigation of
its plantation (Sulle 2013)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Mlingwa 2010 (a document
obtained by Sulle April 2010)
Sulle 2010 (personal
communication with Chairman of
Tanzania sugarcane growers
association Dr Mlingwa in April
2010)
Sulle 2013 (Kazinja
personalcommunication. Jan 2013)
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
P a g e | 19
No.
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
18
KCY Mpanga Co.Ltd
(Kilimo cha Yesu)
(Switzerland)
Kilombero
Rice
3 000ha
in Mpanga village
(Mwami & Kamata 2011)
village land, unused
(Locher 2013)
Advancing tractor services to peasants; kind of
share-cropping arrangement between the
company and neighboring villagers (Mwami and
Kamata 2011)
Mwami and Kamata 2011
(fieldwork in May/June 2011)
(support for
local small
farmers)
P.O. Box 156 Mlimba /
Mpanga
supported by the Swiss
association
Verein HST (Hilfe zur
Selbsthilfe in Tanzania)
Hermann Graser
Stalden 25
5724 Dürrenäsch
www.mpanga.ch/de/inde
x.html
263ha
= 650 acre, of which
around 500acre usable
for agriculture;
no title deeds despite
efforts to get them, but
agreement with
Ngalimila village, paying
annual lease of
5 000Tsh/acre (Locher
2013)
Land in Mpanga village,
granted to the company by
Ngalimila village in 2008
(Mwami & Kamata 2011)
KCY Mpanga acquired land with plan to cultivate
rice for the purpose of supporting the church
and the NGO's activities with its profit
Company manager and
president of association:
Bruno Wicki
brunowicki@yahoo.de
19
Kilimanjaro aloe vera
plantation Ltd (British)
Own by British farmer
Peter Burland
Formally known as
Kikuletwa Farm, in TPC
area, Moshi town
http://kili-aloevera.com/
(but website seems to be
for sale on 29.09.2012)
Moshi
Aloe vera (for
juice)
400ha
(Mwamila et al. in 2009;
Bengesi et al. 2009)
(1 000 acre, Songela &
Maclean 2008)
KCY Mpanga registered in Tanzania as company
by mistake (in 2004), currently in the process of
registering as NGO. Its activities focus on
support to small farmers (rent of tractors, microcredits, storage facilities etc.). Financially
supported by the religious association Verein
HST.
Locher 2013 (mail contact with
company manager Bruno Wicki in
Dec 2012 and Jan 2013)
Former settler’s
plantation?
In 2004, having suffered a total loss, KCY
Mpanga decided to sublease the land at cost
price to local farmers on a yearly basis; the land
is subleased after being ploughed and planted
with rice, KCY Mpanga also organises the
protection of the harvest from birds and
animals; the lease in 2012 was
170 000TSh/acre (payable in two rates before
and after the harvest)
Status 2008 (Songela & Maclean):
Initial plan of planting jatropha for biodiesel
dismissed, replacing planted jatropha with aloe
vera for juice production
Songela & Maclean 2008 (field
visits in 2008)
Operational (for jatropha, Bengesi et al. 2009)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives)
In 2012, the company´s website seems to be for
sale
Mwamila et al. 2009 (fieldwork
Jul/Aug 2009)
Further information:
Trade search machine:
www.tradetag.com/8d/8d89f70c7
9e73a10-company.html(accessed
on 20.09.2012)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |20
LDPI Working Paper 31
No.
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
20
Kilombero Plantations
Limited (KPL)
(British/Tanzanian)
Kilombero
Rice
5 818ha (on progress,
Bengesi et al. 2009;
Mwamila et al. 2009,
Gordon-Maclean et al.
2009; Oakland Institute
2011a)
Former government farm
('Mngeta farm' located in
Mngeta village), formerly
belonging to Korea
Tanzania Company
(KOTACO) and then to
RUBADA (Chachage 2010;
Mwani & Kamata 2011).
Under the earlier ownership of InfEnergy KPL
‘established an oil palm nursery and plans to
plant 7 500ha to oil palm’ (AAC 2008)
Gordon-Maclean et al. 2009
(probably based on Songela &
Maclean 2008)
EIA assessmentin progress (Bengesi et al. 2009)
Sulle 2008 (interview with Carter
Colman – then Director for
InfEnergy)
Subsidiary of AGRICA Ltd
www.agrica.com/html/pr
oject1.html
Joint venture with Rufiji
Basin Development
Authority (RUBADA)
(Chachage 2010; The
Citizen 2009)
for domestic
market, mainly
Dar es Salaam
earlier also oil
palm (AAC
2008; Chachage
2012)
5 819ha
(Sulle 2012)
land partly occupied, see
next column
Conflicts with local people using the land about
resettlement and delayed/owing compensation
(Chachage 2010)
AAC 2008 (annual report of the
project funder)
KPL was earlier a
subsidiary of InfEnergy
Co. Ltd (AAC 2008; on the
renaming see Chachage
2012)
After KOTACO phased out peasant farmers
reoccupied the land formerly alienated from
them. When the new investor came the villagers
resisted to vacate and only moved when an
arrangement was concluded; each household
was promised a three acre farm and a house
built at the company’s expenses; in 2011, 3
000ha of land was planted with rice, production
highly mechanised (Mwami & Kamata 2011)
AGRICA Ltd funded by the
Norwegian government´s
Norfund, private African
Agricultural Capital (AAC)
investment fund and
Capricorn Investment
Group (company's
website)
Kilombero Plantations was earlier a joint venture
between RUBADA and North Korea from the late
1980s until 1994. When the North Koreans left,
‘squatters’ moved onto the land. RUBADA has
given all the ‘squatter’ families three acres and
is building them houses in lieu of the land
needed for the investment (Oakland Institute
2011a)
Mwami & Kamata 2011 (fieldwork
in May/June 2011)
AGRICA UK Limited 145
Kensignton Church St.
London W8 7LP
Company’s website: In 2010, AGRICA was
awarded National Strategic Investor Status by
the Tanzania Government; now the leading rice
producer in East Africa; in 2011 a showcase
project in the World Economic Forum’s
Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of
Tanzania; active with rice production;
introduced System for Rice Intensification (SRI)
for 250 families in 2011, expected to have 4 300
farmers families included in the SRI project by
2016
Sulle 2012 (interview with District
Land Officer, Nov 2012)
AGRICA manager is
former TFCG-boss
Carter Coleman
Land Deal Politics Initiative
about 8 000ha acquired
(company's website)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives)
Chachage 2010 (based on village
documents, interview with
company staff and several other
sources)
Oakland Institute 2011a (fieldwork
Dec 2010, data from RUBADA)
Chachage 2012 (blog entry about
renaming of InfEnergy to AGRICA)
Company's website:
www.agrica.com/html/backgroun
d.htmland
www.agrica.com/html/project2.ht
ml (accessed 31.01.2013)
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
P a g e | 21
No.
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
21
Kilombero Sugar
Company Limited
(South African, British,
Tanzanian)
Kilombero
Sugar
8 000ha (Mlingwa 2010)
former state estate
Chachage 2010 (field visit Aug
2010)
for food,
domestic
market
(company's
website)
additional land
acquisition from several
villages under process,
status unclear,
(Chachage 2010, Locher
2010)
village land (acquisition
on-going in 2010) (Sulle
2010)
In addition to the company's plantation, outgrowers plant sugar on 12 000ha (individual
property, but mostly held without title deeds,
Mlingwa 2010)
55 percent shares held by
Illovo Sugar Ltd, South
Africa, 20% by ED&F Man,
the London-based
commodities group, and
25% by the Government
of Tanzania (Illovo Sugar
Limited 2010:26 in
Chachage 2010:16).
9 272.54ha requested
(Chachage 2010)
28 500ha leased
(Mwami & Kamata 2011)
(Illovo Sugar Ltd is
subsidiary of Associated
British Foods and has also
plantations in Malawi,
Swaziland, Mozambique
and Zambia)
PO Box 50, Kidatu,
Tanzania
023 262 6011
023 262 6188 fax
www.illovosugar.com/
www.illovo.co.za/Home.a
spx
Locher 2010 (interview with Mr.
Kami, National Land Use Planning
Commission, Aug 2010)
Wanted to expand, supported five villages for
village land use plans in March 2010, only two
villages have agreed to give land (Locher 2010)
Mlingwa 2010 (a document
obtained by Sulle April 2010)
Several conflicts (also at court) regarding
planned/established expansion of company
(Chachage 2010)
Company uses irrigation system; Illovo Sugar
Ltdinherited a long standing land conflict with
the surrounding villages which dates back to the
Kilombero Sugar Company's establishment in
the 1960s; villagers from Msolwa station, Selous
Game Reserve, Gombala and Nyange invaded
around 1 976ha. Illovo Sugar Ltdrequested
compensation from the government for the lost
land. The government agreed to compensate
the company by allocating land in Lwipa; the
company refused, arguing that it was too far
from their plant. It instead demanded about
6000ha to establish another plant in Lwipa. The
government refused their request; the company
won a case against the government in court;
problem still unsolved (Mwami & Kamata 2011)
‘ABB and Kilombero Sugar Company work with
UNDP to manage rural electrification in
Tanzania’ (UN Business, no date)
Sulle 2010 (personal
communication with Chairman of
Tanzania sugarcane growers
association Dr Mlingwa in April
2010)
Mwami & Kamata 2011 (fieldwork
in May and June 2011)
Company's website:
www.illovosugar.co.za (accessed
30.01.2013)
UN Business, no date (information
about collaboration with UNDP)
DailyNews 2012
(www.dailynews.co.tz/index.php/
dailynews/1271-blunders-in-sugarcane-project-are-economicsaboteurs)
Construction of the Illovo Distillers Tanzania Ltd
ethanol distillery next to Kilombero’s K2 factory
going on in 2012 (text and pictures on
company's website)
22
Kilombero Valley Teak
Company
Kilombero,
Ulanga
Teak
4 748ha in operation
(Sulle 2012)
According to a newspaper article in Jan 2012,
the company has closed due to unsolved land
issues and moved its business to Mali
(DailyNews 2012)
‘...aim of creating a viable hardwood
reforestation project with teak plantations
Jew et al. 2009 (fieldwork)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |22
No.
LDPI Working Paper 31
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
(multinational/Finish)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
for timber
export
owned by Global
Environment Fund (GEF,
funded by development
finance institutions from
North America, Europe,
and Africa) and Finnfund
(mainly Finish
government)
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
28 159ha leased (Jew
2009)
28 000ha (Mwami &
Kamata 2011)
28 800hain 2011
(company's website)
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
arranged in a mosaic between natural forests
and other natural vegetation (...) presently
undergoing certification from the Forestry
Stewardship Scheme (FSC) and ISO 14001" (Jew
et al. 2009)
Mwami & Kamata 2011 (fieldwork
in May/June 2011)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the
Kilombero District Land Officer,
Nov 2012)
7 000ha planted with teak; the first harvest of
24ha is expected in 2013. The remaining 20
000ha support large areas of indigenous
Miombo woodland rich in biodiversity (Mwami
& Kamata 2011)
Company's website (accessed
30.01.2013)
www.kvtc-tz.com/home
‘An area of 8 200ha has been established since
1993 and new plantings have been carried out
annually. 2011 was the last year of planting new
areas and the company has now reached full
rotation size’,
20 000ha are kept for protection and
management of native forests and wetlands
(company's website)
23
Korean Rural Community
Cooperation (KRC)
(South Korean,
collaboration with
RUBADA)
Rufiji
Rice for
domestic and
export market
15 000ha (Oakland
Institute 2011a; Daily
News & RUBADA 2012)
100 000ha
(Tanzania Invest 2009)
(named Korean Rural
Development
Cooperation by OI 2011a)
Planned: 50 000ha
(under acquisition
process, Oakland
Institute 2011a)
Village land (Mkongo Block
and Ikwiriri Block),
identified by RUBADA and
marketed as potential
investment area
‘The Kilombero Valley Teak Company Ltd. (KVTC)
has donated a total of 40m/- to Kilombero and
Ulanga districts for development.’
(company's website, dated 2009)
In 2010, the company planned to invest more
than US$50 Million; 5 000ha will be utilised as a
demonstration of irrigation rice farm jointly
owned by KRC and RUBADA. The next 5 000ha
will be for smallholders and 5 000ha for small
industries and the Export Processing Zone (EPZ)
(http://dailynews.co.tz/business/?n=12480)
Half of the total land (50 000ha) planned to be
for smallholders (Oakland Institute 2011a)
food processing complex to be set up for export
to Korea (TanzaniaInvest 2009)
24
Lindi Forests Ltd
subsidiary of
Green Resources SA
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Lindi
13 000ha (company's
website)
Around 600ha planted until 2009 (company's
website)
TanzaniaInvest 2009 (investment
website)
Rugonzibwa 2010 (government
newspaper ‘Daily News’ article)
Oakland Institute 2011a (fieldwork
Dec 2010, data from RUBADA)
RUBADA 2012 (document by
RUBADA obtained by Sulle in Dec
2012)
Sulle 2013 (mail contact with
RUBADA official in Jan 2013)
Company's website:
www.greenresources.no/Plantatio
ns.aspx (accessed 30.01.2013)
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
No.
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
(Norwegian), see also
entry for Green Resources
Ltd in this table
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
P a g e | 23
Sources of information
‘Of the total 13000ha, about 5 000ha are
plantable, 7 900ha are to be set aside for
conservation, due to the large areas of natural
forest, and 100ha are for other uses. The
objective of Lindi is to establish a high value teak
plantation for furniture as well providing wood
for pulp production and renewable energy.’
(company's website)
Locher 2013 (interview with
former Plantation Operations
Manager of Tanga Forest, Feb
2013)
Not active, probably closing down (Locher 2013)
25
26
27
Lukulilo Farm Holdings
P.O. Box 7995 DSM
(UK-based)
Mufindi Paper Mills
(Indian)
Nava Bharat Africa
Resources PVT Ltd
(NBAR)
(Indian)
P.O. Box 939 DSM
Pharos Financial Group
(private company UAE) Pharos Miro Agriculture
Fund
www.pharosfund.com/in
dex.html
Rufiji
Paddy
8 002ha (DAO 2012)
5 000ha (RUBADA 2012)
Kilombero
Mkuranga
Soft wood
for paper
production
Palm oil
(planned)
Sugarcane
(earlier plan)
Rice
Village land
(Ndundunyikanza,Nyaminy
wili, Kipugira and Kipo
villages)
Registered in BRELA database as incorporated in
Dec 2005
Land Use Plans (LUP) ready (RUBADA 2012)
Registered under TIC 10/11/2011, will start
November 2014 (DAO 2012)
DAO 2012 (document by the DAO
received by Sulle in Dec 2012)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the
District Land Officer, DLO, in Nov
2012)
Approved by the District
Council 10 000ha
Village lands, awaiting land
transfer procedures
The company aims to use plantation model
Requested 15 000ha
Requested: 10 000ha
Village Land
The company’s proposal to grow sugarcane was
rejected by the Kiwanga and Ndundutawa
villages. The investor currently aims to grow
palm oil in the district and efforts are underway
to secure other land. The investor already paid
facilitation fees
Not registered in BRELA database
Allocated: none
planned: 50 000ha (Bakr
2010)
RUBADA 2012 (document by
RUBADA received by Sulle in Dec
2012)
RUBADA 2012 (document by
RUBADA received by Sulle in Dec
2012)
Bakr 2010 (Reuters article)
Probably funding the
AgriSol Energy Tanzania
investment, see respective
entry
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |24
LDPI Working Paper 31
No.
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
28
Rufiji Sugar Plant
(foreign, origin unclear)
(RUBADA 2012)
P.O. Box 15737 DSM
Rufiji
Sugar Cane
12 132ha (status
unclear) (DAO 2012)
Village Land (Tawi,
Nyamwage and Utunge
Villages)
Registered under TIC 9/5/2012, will start May
2015 (DAO 2012)
DAO 2012 (document by DAO
received by Sulle in Dec 2012)
SAP Agriculture Ltd
(Turkish)
Rufiji
29
for food
purposes
We assume that this
company is identical with
Safe Production Ltd, see
respective entry in Table 4
30
Shanta Estates Ltd
(Kenyan with Indian
origin)
Paddy and
maize
Bagamoyo
Jatropha
5 000ha in Nyamwage
village (Mwami &
Kamata 2011)
Village land
5 000ha of Nyamwage
and Ikwiriri villages
(Kweka 2012)
14 500ha
(village agreement,
acquisition on Progress,
Bengesi et al. 2009,
Mwamila et al. 2009)
Villagers have complained a lot about the
company’s land acquisition and the force used
to authorise its land acquisition (Sulle 2009 field
visits; Kweka 2012)
The company farmed 500ha–600ha until 2006,
no activities since then; according to village
council of Nyamwage and company
representative in Rufiji the land has been passed
on to another company called Majani ya Chai
(Mwami & Kamata 2011)
Village land
Not registered in BRELA database
Agreement with villagers of Kibindu, Mihuga,
Matipwili, Mkange, Miyono signed (Mwamila et
al. 2009)
Investor wants to expand (Locher 2010a)
TIC: no information about this investor (Locher
2010b)
Among the total area the company owns
2 000ha fall on the same villages that have also
given land to EcoEnergy. Shanta Estates Ltd
claim to own right of occupancy against the
agreement made by the Ministry of Lands and
EcoEnergy (Sulle 2012)
RUBADA 2012 (document by
RUBADA received by Sulle in Dec
2012)
Sulle & Nelson 2009 (field visits
2008 and 2009)
Mwami & Kamata 2011 (fieldwork
in May/June 2011)
Kweka 2012 (field work in 2012)
Sulle 2012 (field visits, interview
with the Village Chairman)
Mwamila et al. 2009:8 (field work
in 2008)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives,
fieldwork)
Locher 2010a (interview with Catherine Makudi, National Land Use
Planning Commission, Aug 2010)
Locher 2010b (interview with TIC
officials, Aug 2010)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the
DLNRO, Nov 2012)
Sun Biofuels
31
Changed its owner and
name to30 Degree East,
see entry in this table
SyEnergy Agriproduction
(Indian)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Kisarawe
Jatropha
Kilombero
Rice for both
local and
Requested:
30 000ha
Village land (Melala
Village)
Envision to use plantation business model
Sulle 2012 (interview with the
DLO, Nov 2012)
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
No.
32
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
The New Forests
Company (NFC)
UK, South Africa
(also Uganda,
Mozambique)
www.newforests.net/
P a g e | 25
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
Kilolo
international
markets
Tree plantation
(pine,
eucalyptus)
about 6 000ha
(gazetted, Chachage &
Baha 2010)
Village land (mostly
belonging to individuals,
partly reserve village land)
Chachage & Baha 2010:
Promotional meetings by the investor in 2006 in
11 villages, about 6 000ha land available for the
investor in six villages; land acquisition process
still on-going; conflicts about:
— land in Kidabaga village that has been
transferred to the company apparently without
the affected people's awareness and consent
(involved people from Kidabaga and neighbour
village Kiwalamo)
— amount and outstanding payment of
compensation to village council and affected
villagers in Kidabaga (and Kiwalamo)
Chachage & Baha 2010 (fieldwork
in May/June 2010)
(office
Iringa)
for timber
products and
carbon
compensation
4 800ha (transferred in
Aug 2009 in five villages
Isele, Ukwega,
Ipalamwa, Magome, no
granted rights titles until
April 2011) and 1 175ha
(transferred in Kising'a
and Isele, probably in
2010) (Locher 2011)
further acquisition
planned (Locher 2013)
Requested: 30 000ha
(Chachage & Baha 2010)
Locher 2011:
land (use) rights of villagers of Kidabaga and
Kiwalamo affected by the land deal confirmed in
Sep 2010; as the land had been transferred to
general land already, affected villagers were
urged to sign their agreement to get
compensation; compensation payment until
April 2011 still pending
Locher 2010 (interview with
Catherine Makudi, National Land
Use Planning Commission, Aug
2010)
Locher 2011 (fieldwork in Aug
2010, Jan and May 2011,
interviews with district officials,
local leaders and villagers)
Locher 2013 (mail contact with
DLO in Feb 2013)
Company's website:
www.newforests.net/index.php/h
md_article/tanzania (accessed
30.01.2013)
Additional land acquisitions from individuals
going on in several villages (Isele, Kising'a,
Ukwega, Ipalamwa, Magome), compensation
partly paid, partly pending until April 2011
First plantations and tree nursery established in
2009 in Kidabaga (Locher 2011)
By the end of March 2011, over 1 500ha planted
to pine and eucalypt (company's website)
Not known at National Land Use Planning
Commission (Locher 2010)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |26
LDPI Working Paper 31
No.
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
33
TPC Ltd
(CIEL Agro-Industry,
Mauritius and Group
Quartier Français,
Reunion Island)
Moshi Rural
Sugar
15 800ha
Land status before
acquisition
probably all
sales on
domestic
market
34
probably identical with:
Vitagrain
(Singaporean) (OI 2011a)
4.3
Rufiji
(Rufiji basin)
Rice
Sources of information
The company took over the plantation from
earlier owner in 2000
Company's website:
www.cielgroup.com/agro/sugar_t
anzania.aspx (accessed
31.01.2013)
7 700ha under cultivation
Has employed about 2 200 people on
permanent basis and 900 seasonal labourers (all
info company’s website)
www.cielgroup.com/agro
/sugar_tanzania.aspx
Trinity Consultants
Bioenergy Tanzania Ltd
New name, see:
Bio-energy Tanzania Ltd
Vita Grain Ltd / GK Farm
Ltd
(origin unclear) (RUBADA
2012)
Status, business model, additional information
15 000ha requested
RUBADA (OI 2011a)
Request in progress with RUBADA (OI 2011a)
13 000ha available
(RUBADA 2012)
Muyuyu, Mtundu A & B
(RUBADA 2012)
LUPs ready and MoUs were finalised. Investor
requested to start immediately (RUBADA 2012)
30 000ha requested (OI
2011a)
Oakland Institute 2011a (fieldwork
Dec 2010, data from RUBADA and
several other sources)
RUBADA 2012
(document by RUBADA received
by Sulle in Dec 2012)
Information on domestic land deals in Tanzania
As a by-product of our recent data collection, we provide a small compilation of domestic land deals. Land acquisitions by national investors were not our main
focus initially, so this collection is far from exhaustive. Nevertheless, we would like to provide the information we obtained as a starting point for further research,
as we believe that it will be important to pay more attention to this aspect of the 'land grab' phenomenon in future.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
P a g e | 27
Table 2: Compilation of domestic land deals
No.
35
Investor (nationality, contact
details)
Donesta Ltd
Kamanga (2008) and Bengesi
et al. (2009) refer to the
company as Donester, but it
seems to be identical to
Donesta Ltd
Location
(district)
Kongwa
(Bengesi et al,
2009)
Product and
purpose
Jatropha and
sunflower
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
2 000ha (Songela &
Maclean 2008; Bengesi
et al. 2009)
Land status before
acquisition
For biodiesel
Dodoma
(Manchari)
(Kamanga
2008)
For export to
Europe
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
Status 2008 (Songela & Maclean): 200ha planted
with sunflower, 100 000 jatropha seedlings (in
Songela & Maclean mentioned as one company
together with Savannah Biofuels Ltd)
Songela & Maclean 2008
200ha already planted (Bengesi et al. 2009)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives)
Initially led by the late Tanzanian retired
agricultural officer (Sulle 2012)
According to the Kongwa District Forest Officer,
the company is no longer in operation. However,
it might be just doing sunflower plantation using
the same name or another name (Sulle 2012)
36
37
ECO Green Fuels Tanzania
Ltd
(Tanzanian)
JKT Tanzania
Morogoro(Mi
kese)
Meru
500ha
Jatropha and
staff training
384ha (950 acres)
Village land with little
direct use
Military farms for
development activities
Project leader JKT:
Tel +255 717 043 355
38
Kapunga Rice Project
(Tanzanian)
Mbarali
Rice/Jatropha
50 000ha (Kamanga
2008, Oakland Institute
2011a)
5 500ha acquired,
5 500ha developed
(HAKIARDHI
forthcoming)
NAFCO farm
In 2006 it was sold to
Export Trading Co. Ltd
(Chachage & Mbunda
2009)
Donesta registered in BRELA as incorporated in
Dec 2006
Tree planting for the production of clean and
sustainable charcoal. It was an initiative of
TATEDO (Sulle 2012)
Kamanga 2008 (field research, data
from MEM, MAFS)
Sulle 2012 (personal
communication with the Kongwa
District Forest Officer)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives)
The Military aimed to develope small jatropha
farms on their land and use some of these farms
for training purposes among its staff. The farms
are as follows:
Ojoro 100 acres (is now in Meru District),
Mgambo 100 acres, Chita 100 acres, Maramba
100 acres, Mlale 50 acres, Ruvu 500 acres
(Kamanga 2008)
Attempted to replant rice with Jatropha in food
producing area but President directed not to do
so (Chachage & Mbunda 2009)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the
DLNRO, Nov 2012)
Kamanga 2008 (data from the
MEM)
Sulle 2009 (interviews with the JKT
agricultural officials at JKT
headquarters in Dar es Salaam,
February 2009)
Kamanga 2008 (data from MEM)
Chachage & Mbunda 2009 (field
visits 2009 in Kilimanjaro,
Morogoro and many other regions)
Oakland Institute 2011a (data from
several sources, maybe TIC or
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |28
No.
LDPI Working Paper 31
Investor (nationality, contact
details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
HAKIARDHI forthcoming
39
40
Kilombero Farms Company
Ltd
(earlier Canadian and
Tanzanian, now only
Tanzanian)
Mtibwa Sugar Estate Ltd
(Tanzanian)
Kilombero
(Mofu area)
Mvomero
Rice for
domestic
market
405ha started acquiring
in 1999, derivatives
rights ready by 2001
(Sulle 2012)
Village lands
Sugar for local
market and
export
7 000ha (Miller Estate,
plus 11 000ha by outgrowers)
Previously owned by the
State
member of the Super Group
of Companies
41
42
www.superdolltz.com/Mtibwa-Sugar.html
National Service
(JKT)
(Tanzanian)
Savannah Biofuels Ltd
(Tanzanian)
Dodoma
(Bengesi et al.
2009)
Jatropha
700ha
Jatropha and
sunflower
5 000ha (Bengesi et al.
2009)
For biodiesel,
for export to
Europe
43
4.4
Tanzania Green
(Tanzanian)
Jatropha
‘Villagers consulted claimed that the Canadian
investor had abandoned the venture leaving
behind his Tanzanian partners who were
struggling to maintain it’ (Chachage 2010:23)
Chachage 2010
Sugar Industries Limited (TSIL), which is owned
by a consortium of Tanzanian businesspersons
from Turiani (undated document, author
unclear).
Mlingwa 2010 (field experience)
‘Part of the sugar produced is exported to the
EU under the Sugar Protocol while the remaining
is sold locally.’ (company's website)
Operational
Status 2008 (Songela & Maclean):
200ha planted with sunflower, 100 000 jatropha
seedlings (in Songela & Maclean mentioned as
one company together with Donesta Ltd)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the DLO)
undated document, author unclear
(http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILE
S/faculties/jur/2011/a.k.n.kamuzor
a/05_c5.pdf)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives)
Songela & Maclean 2008
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives)
Registered in BRELA as incorporated on 18 Dec
2006
200ha
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food
Security and Cooperatives)
Information on land deals in Tanzania by investors with unclear origin
Even after extensive research we still find many deals with unclear information about the investors' background. These are provided in this separate list.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
P a g e | 29
Table 3: Deals with unclear information about investor’s background
No.
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status
before acquisition
Status, business model, additional information
Sources of information
44
CHAWAGWA
(origin unclear)
Kisarawe
Jatropha
200ha
Village Land
Looking for partners to start (Bengesi et al. 2009).
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives)
45
Euro Mine Export Ltd
(origin unclear)
Morogoro(Mi
kese)
Jatropha
The company only got a building site and its recent
status is unknown (Sulle 2012).
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives)
46
Oxman Tanzania Ltd
(origin unclear)
Rufiji
(rice, but not
growing)
914ha
Registered in BRELA as incorporated in July 2006.
Not growing anything on the land acquired.
Sulle 2012 (meeting with DLNRO Nov 2012)
Oakland Institute 2011a (fieldwork Dec 2010,
data from RUBADA and several other sources).
47
RUBANA farm
(origin unclear)
Mwanza
Jatropha
400ha
48
Rural upgrade fund
(origin unclear)
Kilwa
Jatropha
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives).
Not known by the district land and agricultural
officials (Sulle 2012).
49
SYNERGY Tanzania Ltd
(origin unclear)
Rufiji
Sugar cane
20 000ha
Plan to create 5 000 new employments.
50
Tanzania Biodiesel Plant
Ltd (origin unclear)
Bagamoyo
Oil palm
16 000ha (district
approval in 2008,
Mwamila et al. 2009;
derivative right titles
underway, Bengesi et
al. 2009 and Oakland
Institute 2011a)
In 2008: no survey yet, TIC decision pendent;
villages: Mandera, Kilemera, Mihunga (Mwamila et
al. 2009)
Until Nov 2012 the President was yet to approve
the transfer of villages lands to general lands (Sulle
2012).
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives)
Sulle 2012 (interviews with district land and
agricultural officials, Nov 2012).
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives).
Mwamila et al. 2009:8
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives,
fieldwork)
Oakland Institute 2011a (fieldwork Dec 2010,
data from several other sources)
Requested: 25 000ha
Sulle 2012 (interview with the DLNRO, Nov
2012s)
4.5
Information on ceased and aborted land deal projects in Tanzania
For this compilation, where possible, we give the reason for the termination or abortion of the project in the column ‘Development, cessation, additional
information’. We have included projects which have been inactive for some time or for which we have clear indication of termination. But of course we cannot be
sure whether some of these projects will be taken up in the future. Land deal projects whose status as active or inactive is uncertain are not included here, but in
the Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |30
LDPI Working Paper 31
Table 4: Land deal projects that have ceased or been aborted
No.
51
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Africa Green Oils Ltd
(Norwegian)
Location
(district)
Rufiji
Product and
purpose
Oil palms
(Mwamila et
al. 2009, OI
2011a, other
sources)
Box 34463
Dar es Salaam
www.africagreenoils.com/
(accessed 12.01.2013, the
website is inactive)
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
860ha (acquired, Sulle
& Nelson 2009,
Mwamila et al. 2009)
Land status before
acquisition
Village land
30 000ha (Bengesi et
al. 2009)
5 000ha (Oakland
Institute 2011a,
company's website,
accessed by Locher in
Aug 2010, see also
WRM 2010)
www.cdrex.com/africagreen-oil-limited204887.html
(accessed on 20.09.2012)
Planned: 20 000ha by
2020 (company's
website, accessed by
Locher in Aug 2010,
see also WRM 2010)
Development, cessation, additional information
Sources of information
Planted 360ha of oil palm; investor financing land use
plans in seven villages: Nyamatanga, Ruaruka A,
Nyanjati, Ruaruka B, Nyamisati, Mangwi, Rungurungu
(Mwamila et al. 2009; Sulle & Nelson 2009)
Mwamila et al. 2009 (fieldwork in 2008)
Of total 860ha acquired, 500ha in Ruaruka A and 360ha
in Nyamatanga (Mwamila et al. 2009)
BengeSJ et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives)
Operational (Bengesi et al. 2009)
Mwami & Kamata 2011 (fieldwork in
May/June 2011)
According to the company's website, it has ‘already
acquired 5 000ha and planted 435ha by 31st May
2009’ (quoted by WRM 2010)
Oakland Institute 2011a (fieldwork Dec 2010,
data from RUBADA and several other sources).
Company will leave the area if they cannot acquire
more land (Oakland Institute 2011a)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the DLNRO, Nov
2012)
Company wanted to abandon the existing plantation
and requested other land at the Rufiji river banks
instead, district decision pending (Mwami and Kamata
2011)
Sulle 2013 (personal communication with the
DAO, Jan. 2013)
Recent information from the district officials indicate
that the company failed to convince communities that
resisted giving uptheir land and it is no longer active in
the area (Sulle 2012 & 2013)
52
Biodiesel East African Ltd
(Kenyan)
Bahi
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Proposed
Jatropha
Proposed: 10 000ha
Village lands
Sulle & Nelson 2009 (Sulle interview with
District Land Official in Rufiji, March 2009)
On 12.01.2013, the company's website (which was
active earlier, see also WRM 2010) is inactive and for
sale
The company is no longer active in the district. Initially,
it went straight to the villages to mobilise land; given
poor estimation capacities, villages intended to give
more land than what they would remain with. This
prompted the District Council to form a team of
councillors for investigation. The team advised the
company to take a reasonable amount of land (500ha),
but the company disappeared (Sulle 2012)
Company's (inactive) website:
www.africagreenoils.com/ (accessed
12.01.2013)
WRM 2010 (quoting the company's website)
Baruani Mshale 2009
(fieldwork June–Sep 2009, data not included
in this table, see annotatedreference list 6.2)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the DLO, Nov 2012)
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
No.
53
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
BioMassive
(Swedish)
Location
(district)
Lindi Rural
http://biomassive.andrew
macpherson.za.net/
(accessed 28.01.2013)
Product and
purpose
Jatropha,
Pongamia
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
7 500ha (offered,
Bengesi et al. 2009:52)
for biofuels
Planned: 50 000ha
(Songela & Maclean
2008; Bengesi et al.
2009; Locher 2010)
P a g e | 31
Land status before
acquisition
‘leased from
communities’
(Songela &
Maclean 2008:17)
Development, cessation, additional information
Sources of information
Planed employment for over 4 000 people (company's
website) or for 3 200 people (Bengesi et al. 2009),
actually employed five persons in 2009 (Bengesi et al.
2009)
Songela & Maclean 2008 (probably based on
interviews with government officials)
Village lands
(HAKIARDH
forthcoming)
‘In Lindi District only four people have accepted
compensation from BioMassive Tanzania Ltd. while the
other six have declined the offer for the reason that
the amount is uneconomical.’ (Bengesi et al. 2009:vii)
‘Established nursery but the investor absconded and
handled over all operations to the Lindi local
government authority’ (Bengesi et al. 2009:38)
Did not pay for the lease; still trying to raise funds (FAO
2012)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (fieldwork, data from
Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and
Cooperatives)
Locher 2010 (interview with Catherine
Makudi, National Land Use Planning
Commission, Aug 2010)
FAO 2012 (sources unclear)
HAKIARDHI forthcoming (fieldwork,
interviews)
Sulle 2012 (interview withDLNRO)
The company stopped its operation partly due to the
global financial crisis and villages’ resistance to offer
their land for investment. At the moment, there are no
signs of the investor reviving his investment plans
(HAKIARDHI forthcoming).
54
Boleyn International (T)
Ltd
Mr Jerry Liu
www.alibaba.com/membe
r/tz105433176.html
Mkinga
district
The company's website seems to be inactive since
2007.
Proposed land deal in Mkinga district, status unclear
(Locher 2010)
The company's proposal for land acquisition was
rejected by the Mkinga District Council; after the
controversial land deal between the district council,
ministry and the Arkadia (see above), the district
council didn’t want to enter into another agreement
related to land matters; Further, district officials
rejected most of the investment proposal as
insufficient (Sulle 2012).
Locher 2010 (interview with Catherine
Makudi, National Land Use Planning
Commission, Aug 2010)
Sulle 2012 (interview with DLNRO)
Registered in BRELA database as incorporated in 2000
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |32
No.
55
56
LDPI Working Paper 31
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
CAMS Agri-Energy
Tanzania Ltd
(see entry for the company
in Bagamoyo)
Location
(district)
Handeni
(Oakland
Institute
2011a)
Product and
purpose
Sweet / white
sorghum
CAMS Agri-Energy
Tanzania Ltd
(see entry for the company
in Bagamoyo)
Rufiji
(Locher
2010)
Sweet / white
sorghum
Clean Power Tanzania Ltd.
(origin unclear)
Bagamoyo
Oil palm
Jatropha for
biofuels
subsidiary of D1 Oils Plc
(UK), Newcastle
carbon
credits
new name since March
2012: NEOS Resources plc
(planned, not
realised)
www.neosplc.com
57
(see also entry Donesta Ltd
in Table 2)
J&J Group (Pty) Ltd (South
African)
Pretoria
www.jandjgroup.co.za/abo
ut.aspx
Land status before
acquisition
Development, cessation, additional information
Sources of information
The company is no longer active in the district: it sent
the proposal for investment in land, but did not make
any follow-up (Sulle 2012)
Oakland Institute 2011a (several sources,
exact source unclear)
By Nov 2012, district officials were not aware of the
company’s status (Sulle 2012)
According to the CEO in Feb 2013, the company has
hydro-plant projects in Rufiji, not agricultural
investment (Locher 2013)
D1 Oils Tanzania Ltd
(established in 2003)
Donester
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Bagamoyo
(Banyibabyi
) (Kamanga
2008)
Tabora
(Kaliua)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Jatropha
3 500ha (not realised,
Mwamila et al. 2009;
acquisition in
progress, Bengesi et
al. 2009)
Village land
Mwamila et al. (2009): investor withdrew plans after
realising high costs of surveying for LUPs; involved
village: Visezi
The company is no longer active in the district; no LUPs
were done (Sulle 2012)
Songela & Maclean 2008: The company planned to
have biofuels purification station in every district.
However, it abandoned its plans in Tanzania immature
Website of new company does not mention Tanzania,
but focuses on Asia
March 2012 (investor website):
Announcement of new name (from D1 Oils plc to NEOS
Resources plc) to reflect the Company’s focus on the
processing of nonedible oil-seed complexes and to
distinguish the Company with its new operations from
the Company with its previous operations
At the moment, the company is not active in
Bagamoyo (Sulle 2012)
No information about the status, no information on the
company's website regarding any investment in
Tanzania
Probably identical with JCJ Co. Ltd, see respective entry
Sulle 2012 (interview with District Land
Surveyor, Dec 2012)
Locher 2010 (interview with Catherine
Makudi, National Land Use Planning
Commission, Aug 2010)
Sulle 2012 (interview with DAO, DLNRO, Dec
2012)
Locher 2013 (Skype contact with CEO
Joannou, Feb 2013)
Mwamila et al. 2009 (fieldwork Jul/Aug 2009)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives,
fieldwork?)
Sulle 2012 (interview with DLNRO)
Songela & Maclean 2008 (interviews with
government officials in Ministries, TIC,
National Biofuels Task Force (NBTF), Kisarawe,
Kilwa and Meru districts, with representatives
of local communities, directors of companies
and others)
Investor's website:
www.neosplc.com/2012/03/15/change-ofname-to-neos-resources-plc/ (accessed
31.01.2013)
Kamanga 2008 (field research, data from
MEM, MAFS)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the DLNRO)
Kaarhus et al. 2010 (data from Ministry of
Energy and Minerals, July 2010)
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
No.
58
59
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
JCJ Co. Ltd
(Tanzania/foreign, origin
unknown)
Kitomondo LTD
(Italian, Tanzanian)
(Kaarhus et al. 2009)
Location
(district)
Mwanza,
Mara,
Shinyanga,
Tabora
Bagamoyo
(Makurang
e farm)
Product and
purpose
Jatropha
Jatropha
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
2 000ha (Kamanga
2008; Bengesi et al.
2009)
0754 387 505
S. L. P 34037 Bagamoyo
Kitomondo.rem@gmx.com
60
Safe Production
Ltd(Turkish)
Land status before
acquisition
P a g e | 33
Development, cessation, additional information
Sources of information
No clear information about the status; the company
might never have been active on the ground
Sulle 2008 (interview with the Company’s cofounder)
Probably identical with J&J Group (Pty) Ltd, see
respective entry
Songela & Maclean 2008
Operational (Bengesi et al. 2009)
By November 2012, the company was not known to
the District Land and Natural Resources Officer (Sulle
2012)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives)
Kamanga 2008 (data from MEM)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives)
Kaarhus et al. 2010 (data from Ministry of
Energy and Minerals, July 2010)
Rufiji
Maize, Rice
3 500ha
The company appears to have ceased production after
only growing on 600ha since 2005 (OI 2011a)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the DLNRO, Nov
2012)
Oakland Institute 2011a (fieldwork Dec 2010,
data from RUBADA and several other sources)
requested: 3 500ha
We assume that this
company is identical with
SAP Agriculture Ltd, see
respective entry in Table 1
Savannah Biofuels Ltd
(see entry for Savannah
Biofuels Ltd in Dodoma,
Table 2)
Savannah Biofuels Ltd
(see entry for Savannah
Biofuels Ltd in Dodoma,
Table 2)
Not registered in BRELA database
Handeni
(Bengesi et
al. 2009)
Kongwa
(Bengesi et
al. 2009)
Not active at the moment, but company’s agent sent
application to the district in 2009/2010 which
remained unprocessed until Dec 2012 (Sulle 2012)
Not active in Kongwa (Sulle 2012)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the Handeni District
Land Surveyor, Dec 2012)
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives)
Sulle 2012 (personal communication with the
District Forest Officer, Dec 2012)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |34
LDPI Working Paper 31
No.
Investor (nationality,
contact details)
Location
(district)
Product and
purpose
Acquired land and
planned total size (ha)
Land status before
acquisition
Development, cessation, additional information
Sources of information
61
SEKAB Bioenergy Tanzania
(Swedish)
Rufiji
Sugar cane
100 000ha (acquisition
under process, Bengesi
et al. 2009)
Village land
In 2009 funding problems, planned to continue maybe
later (Locher 2010)
Sulle & Nelson 2009 (field visit)
for sugar,
ethanol
(Locher 2009)
Project sold to new owner
Agro EcoEnergy Tanzania
in Oct 2009, see entry for
Bagamoyo EcoEnergy Ltd
in Table 1
No more information about continued activities in
Rufiji (see also www.ecoenergy.co.tz/)
Planned: 250 000ha–
500 000ha (Sulle &
Nelson 2009)
SEKAB Bioenergy Tanzania registered in BRELA at 1 Feb
2007
Handeni
Soft wood
(planned)
200 000ha (FAO 2010)
Acquired: None
Proposed areas
were village lands
Requested: 3 000ha
subsidiary of
Green Resources SA, see
also entries for Green
Resources Ltd in Table 1
and for Tanga Forests Ltd
in Pangani in this table
Tanga Forest(s) Ltd.
(Norwegian)
62
subsidiary of
Green Resources SA,see
also entries for Green
Resources Ltd in Table 1
and for Tanga Forests Ltd
in Pangani in this table
Tanga Forest(s) Ltd.
The company requested 3 000ha but the District
Council approved only 500ha. Then the company
disappeared, even though it already planted some
trees in Mazingara Village.
‘In 2008, 536ha of new forest were established,
including the first planting in the Handeni region’
(company's website)
Mkinga
Pangani
subsidiary of
Green Resources SA
(Norwegian), see also
entry for Green Resources
Ltd in Table 1
Soft wood
(planned)
Forest
plantations
soft and hard
wood
none
7 500ha (Plantation
Operations Manager,
Locher 2013)
9 500ha (company's
website)
For all land, national
approval was pending
until the closure of the
company (Locher
2013)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Bengesi et al. 2009 (data from Ministry of
Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives)
Kaarhus et al. 2010 (data from Ministry of
Energy and Minerals, July 2010)
400 000ha (Kaarhus et
al. 2010)
Tanga Forest(s) Ltd.
(Norwegian)
Locher 2010 (meeting with Managing Director
Bergfors July 2010)
Village reserve
land (no
individual land)
FAO 2010 (source unclear)
Sulle 2012 (interview with Handeni District
Land Surveyor, Dec 2012)
Company's website:
www.greenresources.no/Plantations.aspx(acc
essed 30.01.2013)
Aimed to establish tree plantation; the plans ended up
at the proposal stage (Sulle 2012)
Sulle 2012 (interview with the DLNRO, Dec
2012)
‘There is large potential for establishing forest in
Tanga, but the land acquisition process is slow. (...)
Green Resources is in the process of obtaining
additional land in the (...) districts of Handeni, Klindi
and Makinga’ (company's website, entry undated, but
seems to be from 2009)
Land acquisitions in Kwakibuyu, Meka, Mseko (new
village, split from Meka), Mtango, Mtonga, Stahabu;
surveys complete, waiting for approval by Land
Commissioner.
Company's website:
www.greenresources.no/Plantations.aspx
(accessed 30.01.2013)
Langoni also provided land, but apparently not its own
village land: Mtonga and Mseko accuse Langoni of
having provided their villages' land to the company.
According to the district land officer, this view was also
supported by the Ministry of Lands in 2010, but not
accepted by Langoni; further investigation was
pending.
Disputes regarding the land deal related to the new
Locher 2011 (field visit and interviews with
Plantation Operations Manager Isaya
Mnangwone, DLOs Pangani and village leaders
in Feb and Apr 2011)
Locher 2013 (interviews with former
Plantation Operations Manager and former
Town Planner Pangani in Feb 2013)
Company's website:
www.greenresources.no/Plantations.aspx
(accessed 16.02.2013)
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
P a g e | 35
village boundaries between Meka and Mseko;
Complaints regarding dubious land survey and size of
given land in Kwakibuyu.
In all villages negotiated compensation in kind, not
cash (village office, class rooms, dispensary etc.); many
parts of compensation provided already; Plantation
started in Mtonga and Kwakibuyu; nursery in Langoni.
In early 2011 the plantations in Kwakibuyu were
abandoned, according to the company mainly due to
bad soil conditions
(all above information by Locher 2011).
In July 2012, Green Resources closed down Tanga
Forest due to poor tree performance, ecological
reasons and probably also due to the conflicts around
the land deals; all plantations and facilities were
handed over to the district; in Feb 2013, the land was
under process of being transferred back to become
village land again (Locher 2013).
‘The 1 340ha Tanga Forest plantation is (...) currently
spread over 9 500ha in Pangani district (...). Out of this
area, an estimated 6 000ha is plantable, with 2 500ha
set aside for conservation and 1 000ha for research
and other uses. (...) the land acquisition process is
slow. (...) The aim (...) is to sequestrate carbon to partly
finance planting, and to harvest wood for pulp
production, renewable energy and to grow high-quality
hardwoods...’ (company's website in Feb 2013, entry
undated, but seems to be from 2009)
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |36
4.6
LDPI Working Paper 31
Some observations on the situation of land deals in Tanzania
Based on our experiences and the above compilations we make the following observations. Also after
extensive literature review, online research, and our own investigations, the number of non-transparent
projects remains high. For many projects it is still not possible to say whether they are only announced
intentions (that might have been withdrawn already) or whether they are about to be realised in the near
future. However, we believe that the vast majority of projects established on the ground could be covered
in our compilation (with perhaps a few small exceptions).
Media reports are a good starting point for research, but taken alone they provide a distorted picture in
two ways. They might miss out on several deals, particularly smaller deals, and may also miss those deals,
which create fewer conflicts and consequently draw less public attention. On the other hand, media articles
often report the stated intentions of investors as if they were established land deals. The same applies to
investors' websites. However, such announcements do not necessarily materialise in the announced time.
Examples are the CAMS Agri-Energy Tanzania Ltd that had to reduce its plans for 208 000ha, announced in
the media in 2008 (Reuters 2008), to 18 000ha or even less (a plan which also has not been realised up to
date) and the investment plans of Saudi Arabian investors, published in Reuters 2009 (Karam 2009), which
so far seem to remain just an intention. Media reports might further have a tendency to round up figures
on land sizes (Friis & Reenberg 2009).
Many deals with the purpose of producing biofuels (mainly jatropha), announced around 2005–2008 and
reported in 2008 and 2009, did not materialise so far. Besides seven projects which we list as ceased or not
realised at all, we list 25 biofuel projects as (potentially) active. However, the majority of them are reported
as having problems with funding or with the land acquisition process, or there is only little information
available even from the district officials, which might indicate that they are not active yet or anymore. The
global financial crisis of 2008–2009 and a poor understanding of energy feed-stocks, among many other
reasons, have driven a number of companies such as BioShape Tanzania Ltd and Sun Biofuels out of the
business (Sulle & Nelson unpublished)9. It further seems that there have not been many recent interests in
this sector in the last few years. The decreased interest can be ascribed to the limited economic viability of
some envisioned biofuel crops and also to a lack of policy, institutional, and legal frameworks in Tanzania
(Hultman et al. 2012; Sulle & Nelson unpublished).
Land acquisitions for the purpose of food production, particularly rice, sugar and oil, are now being planned
and are beginning to materialise. It remains to be seen whether this boom is more effective and longerlasting than the previous biofuels boom.
Forestry plantations play a considerable role in terms of approved land deals and planted area. As observed
during our own data collection (Sulle 2012; Locher 2011), apart from the production of soft and hard wood,
investors in forestry plantations target additional income from carbon sequestration, so far mainly on the
voluntary market, but also with the aim of getting registered under the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM), a climate change mitigation measure developed by the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC). This corresponds to the analysis by Deininger et al (2011), (see also Cotula 2012)
on the rise of forestry plantations globally. However, the largest forest investor in Tanzania so far, Green
Resources AS, has closed one of its subsidiaries (see Tanga Forests Ltd in Table 4) and might withdraw some
of its other investment plans. Hence, the relevance of this sector in Tanzania remains uncertain.
Based on our tables, the following rough numbers on the extent of land deals in Tanzania can be given:
Foreign land deals, whether announced, ongoing or concluded land deal processes (Table 1) amount to a
total area of around 1 000 000ha. However, of this amount, only around 200 000ha can be considered as
9
It must be noted that ceased land deals do not remain without negative consequences on local level.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
P a g e | 37
fairly confirmed (reported by at least two different sources) and being under process. Fairly confirmed, but
just announced are deals with an area of 350 000ha (of which 325 000ha are from the announced AgriSol
Energy deal). Information on the remaining 450 000ha is either based on one source only, or there are
conflicting sources. The table on domestic deals (Table 2) lists land deals with around 20 000ha.
Investments with unclear origin (Table 3) amount to around 37 000ha (of which most are based on rather
vague data sources). Our Table 4 on ceased or aborted deals lists twelve projects (whereas projects of the
same company in different districts are counted only once) with a total of around 300 000ha. Of these,
nearly half had been under process already; the others were just ‘intended’. In addition to these, there are
temporarily ceased projects that have been sold to other investors, which are included in Table 1 as ongoing land deals.
As stated earlier, it was not our original aim to focus on domestic land deals. That is one reason for Table 2
on domestic deals being rather short. The other reason is that we included only deals above 200ha in our
compilation, and the size of purely domestic deals tends to be much smaller than for deals involving
transnational investors (for a list showing domestic deals, see Mwamila et al. 2009; Bengesi et al. 2009).
Chachage and Mbunda 2009 provide a detailed overview of the Tanzanians owning the former National
Agricultural and Food Corporation (NAFCO) farms, and other land portions accumulated by local elites.
Whilst the total area of land under domestic investors is considerably little compared to the area requested
by international investors, in our view, this phenomenon deserves more public and academic attention in
the near future.
5
Some considerations on the reproduction of data
In this study, we presented a number of issues related to the documentation and reproduction of data on
land deals in Tanzania, which in our view is partly imprecise and inadequate. While acknowledging the
challenges of representing a phenomenon as non-transparent and dynamic as global land grabbing, we
propose a more specific and rigorous documentation of data, which allows the tracking of the primary
sources of all the information given in compilations of land deals. We also propose to pay more attention to
acquiring detailed information on the stage of land deals in future — information that is currently often
vague or not available at all in compilations on land deals. We consider such information as helpful in
better understanding the processes of land acquisitions and the related behaviour of investors and in
interpreting contradictory indications for a specific project. Further, data on the earlier status of the land at
question (in terms of property rights and usage) is important if one wants to understand the decision
making process and the potential consequences at local level in a specific case. It would help to gain an
overview on the patterns of land use change in Tanzania induced by land acquisitions.
Besides considerations regarding data (re)production, we provided a compilation of data on the acquisition
of land, mainly by foreign investors in Tanzania for (broadly defined) agricultural purposes. The presented
tables are based on a careful literature review and on own empirical data. The overview does not claim to
be complete, but it provides a traceable set of data on both active and inactive or cancelled land deal
projects.
We hope that with our study we can make a contribution to a transparent basis for the much needed policy
debates and decisions in Tanzania. Our data might also serve as a point of reference for the Tanzanian
government's intention of providing an overview on foreign land deals by April 2013. Further, we believe
that our compilation of traceable, carefully collected and reviewed data and the commented reference list
provide a helpful starting point for future research projects in Tanzania.
Finally, we hope that our proposal for a more precise documentation of data sources will be taken up by
other authors for future publications. This could help in representing the global phenomenon of 'land grabs'
even more credibly and in using the resources of involved researchers and activists more effectively in
order to tackle the urgent concerns related to large-scale land deals.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |38
LDPI Working Paper 31
References
6
6.1
Annotated list of references providing information about land deals in Tanzania
1.
ActionAid (2009) Implication of biofuels production on food security in Tanzania. ActionAid Tanzania: Dar es
Salaam.
This publication is identical to Bengesi et al. 2009, for more information see respective reference.
2. African Agricultural Capital Limited (2008) Annual report and financial statements for the year ended 30 June
2008. Integral Media. Accessed on 30 January 2013 at:www.aac.co.ke/news/AAC_Annual_Report_08.pdf
Information about Kilombero Plantations Ltd.
3. Bozmoski A and Hultman N (2010) ‘Evidence from Central Tanzania participant perceptions of risk and
benefit in carbon forestry’, The Journal of Environment and Development 19(1)4–27.
Anonymous way of presenting their case studies in Morogoro and Dodoma.
4. Baha B (2011) The politics of investment in large scale agricultural ventures:Case of Mpanda Rukwa,
Tanzania.
Field visits and interviews with company’s management and stakeholders in Dar es Salaam
5. Bakr A (2010) ‘Gulf sovereign funds show interest in farmland fund’, Reuters, 21 January. Accessed on 31
January 2013 at: www.pharosfund.com/pdfs/Reuters%20-%20Jan%2010.pdf
Media article on Pharos Fund's plans.
6. Bengesi KMK, Msuya CP, Mwakalobo ABS and Salanga R (2009)Implication of biofuels production on food
security in Tanzania. Sokoine University of Agriculture: Morogoro.
Field visits to Rufiji (SEKAB), Kisarawe (SunBiofuels), Bagamoyo (SEKAB), Lindi (BioMassive), Kilwa
(BioShape), and Arusha (Diligent and KAKUTE) and Meru: Table on ‘biofuels companies operating in
Tanzania’, source: Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives.
This publication is identical to ActionAid 2009.
7. Carrington D (2011) ‘UK firm's failed biofuel dream wrecks lives of Tanzania villagers’,The Observer, 29
October. Accessed on 30 October 2011 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/30/africapoor-west-biofuel-betrayal
8. Chachage C and Mbunda R (2009) The state of the then NAFCO, NARCO and Absentee Landlords’
farms/ranches in Tanzania. Land Rights Research and Resource Institute: Dar es Salaam.
Field work in Morogoro, Manyara, Kilimanjaro and Coastal Regions.
9. Chachage C (2010) Land acquisition and accumulation in Tanzania: The case of Morogoro, Iringa and Pwani
regions. PELUM: Tanzania
Exploratory field visit to Kilombero district in Aug 2010, documentary research (gov data, media,
websites); data on Kilombero Plantations Ltd, Kilombero Sugar Company Ltd, Kilombero Farms Company
Lt, Green Resources (Iringa), SEKAB BioEnergy (Tanzania) Ltd (but not Bioshape, although mentioned in
methodology chapter).
10. Chachage C (2012) ‘Land Acquisitions and the Politics of Renaming: Renaming Companies and Dealing in
Land: From Infenergy to Agrica’, Udadisi blog, Monday, August. Accessed 31 January 2013 at:
www.udadisi.blogspot.ch/2012/08/land-acquisitions-and-politics-of.html
11. Chachage C and Baha B (2010) Accumulation by Land Dispossession and Labour Devaluation in Tanzania: The
case of biofuel and forestry investments in Kilwa and Kilolo. Land Rights Research and Resources Institute
(LARRRI/HAKIARDHI) and Oxfam: Dar es Salaam.
Short field visit (May and June 2010), data about Bioshape and New Forests Company.
12. Cotula L, Vermeulen S, Leonard R and Keeley J (2009) ‘Land grab or development opportunity’,Agricultural
investment and international land deals in Africa. IIED, FAO & IFAD: London/Rome.
For Tanzania: same data as in Sulle and Nelson (2009).
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
P a g e | 39
13. Development Marketplace (DM) (2008) Producing biofuel from indigenous non-edible nuts. Accessed on 28
January 2013 at:http://wbi.worldbank.org/developmentmarketplace/idea/producing-biofuel-indigenousnon-edible-nuts
14. El Agamy M (2012) ‘Egyptian African company to build USD200m sugar plant in Tanzania’, Zawya, 8 July
2012.
Accessed
on
30
January
2013
www.zawya.com/story/Egyptian_African_Company_to_build_USD200m_sugar_plant_in_TanzaniaZAWYA20120708084821/
at:
15. Friis C and Reenberg A (2010) ‘Land grab in Africa: Emerging land system drivers in a tele-connected
world’,GLP Report No.1. GLP-IPO: Copenhagen.
ILC blog screening (Aug 2008 until April 2010) ‘Triangulation’, with data from von Braun/Meinzen-Dick
2009 (IFPRI), Görgen et al, GTZ (2009), GRAIN 2008 (mostly media articles).
Chapter on uncertainties of media data.
16. Gordon-Maclean A, Laizer J, Harrison PJ, and Shemdoe R (2008) Biofuel Industry Study, Tanzania. World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF): Tanzania & Sweden.
17. Görgen M, Rudloff B, Simons J, Üllenberg A, Väth S &Wimmer L (2009) ‘Foreign direct investment (FDI) in
land in developing countries’,Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Federal Ministry For
Economic Cooperation and Development, Division 45: Tyskland.
Data from Grain 2008; von Braun & Meinzen-Dick 200; Cotula et al. 2009 (own field studies in Mali,
Madagascar, Laos, Cambodia, not Tanzania).
18. HAKIARDHI (forthcoming) Assessment of bioenergy sector in Tanzania: A critical inquiry into the threats,
benefits and opportunities to small scale producers and sustainable environmental management.
19. Havnevik K, Salomonsson L, Abdallah J and Engström L (2012) ‘Large scale agro investment in Tanzania:
Impact on small holder land access and food security’, poster presented at International Workshop on LargeScale Land Acquisitions,at German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA), Hamburg, Germany, on 11
May 2012. accessed on 8 January 2013 at:
www.landgrab.de/images/stories/upload_documents/giga_workshop/poster_engstrm-moshi.pdf
Fieldwork on SunBiofuels (explorative, for case study to be conducted later).
20. International Finance Corporation (IFC)(no date)Supporting Sustainable Forestry in Tanzania. Accessed on 31
January 2013 at: www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/region__ext_content/regions/subsaharan+africa/news/green_resources_investment
21. Jew E, Mansell H, Boddam-Whetham L, Dures S, Seward A, Alexander BE, Hall N, Steer MD and Fanning E
(2009) ‘Social surveys in the Kilombero Valley: A preliminary report’,Frontier Tanzania Environmental Report
122. The Society for Environmental Exploration: UK.
Fieldwork (in 2007?), contracted by the Kilombero Valley Teak Company (KVTC) for scientific study as
part of the undergoing certification from the Forestry Stewardship Scheme (FSC) and ISO 14001.
22. Kaarhus R, Haug R, Hella JP and Makindara JR (2010) ‘Agro-investment in Africa: Impact on land and
livelihoods in Mozambique and Tanzania’, Noragric Report No. 53, Department of International Environment
and Development Studies. Noragric Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB): Aas.
Data on SunBiofuels based on investor's website, media reports and fieldwork, mainly interviews with
government officials; for table on ‘companies involved in biofuels’. Ministry of Energy and Minerals, July
2010, for land acquired and requested (in ha) Sulle & Nelson (2009).
23. Kamanga C (2008) The Agrofuel industry in Tanzania: A critical enquiry into challenges and opportunities.
Land Rights Research and Resources Institute (LARRRI), Joint Oxfam Livelihood Initiative for Tanzania (Jolit):
Dar es Salaam.
Sources for table: data from the MEM.
24. Karam S (2009) ‘Saudi investors eye leasing Tanzanian farmland’, Reuters, 15 April 2009. Accessed on 31
January 2013 at: www.reuters.com/article/2009/04/15/tanzania-saudi-farmlandidAFLF5136420090415?feedType=RSS&feedName=tanzaniaNews
Announcement of Saudi interest in 500 000ha of farmland in Tanzania.
25. Kashaigili JJ and Nzunda A(2010)‘Impact of bio-fuels on human development: a case study of Bagamoyo and
Kisarawe Districts in Tanzania’. Ingeniería Sin Fronteras ApD. SUA: Morogoro.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |40
LDPI Working Paper 31
Case studies on SunBiofuels Tanzania ltd., SEKAB BioEnergy Tanzania and Trinity Consultants Bio-energy,
Tanzania: Based on field survey in five selected villages (Matipwili, Milo and Kidomole villages in
Bagamoyo District and Palaka and Marumba villages in Kisarawe District); sources for table on Status of
bio-fuels investments in Tanzania: Kamanga (2008); Mwamila et al. (2009); Sulle/Nelson (2009) and
fieldwork.
26. Kulindwa K (2008) ‘Feasibility of large-scale biofuel production in Tanzania: Introduction’, presentation at the
biofuels conference organised by the universities of Dar es Salaam, Ardhi and Sokoine, held on 1 December
2008 in Dar es Salaam.
Kulindwa's information (in 2009 quoted by Sulle and Nelson in their publication) was fully included in
the publication of Mwamila et al. 2009 (to which he was co-author).
27. Kusiluka et al (2011) ‘The negative impact of land acquisition on indigenous communities’ livelihood and
environment in Tanzania’, Habitat International 35:66–73.
Fieldwork on peripheral urban land acquisition around Uluguru Mountains in Morogoro, carried out
between April and September 2008, government surveying and allocating urban peripheral lands.
28. Kweka O (2012) ‘On whose interest is the state Intervention in biofuel investment in Tanzania? Crosscultural’, Communication, 8(1):80-85.
Field work on the analysis of the village’s minutes in districts of Rufiji, Kisarawe, Bagamoyo and Kilwa
where biofuels companies obtained and some were still obtaining land.
29. Land Matrix: online global data base provided by the CDE, CIRAD, GIGA, GIZ and ILC on the Land Portal.
Accessed on 31 January at: www.landportal.info/landmatrix
30. Lawyers' Environmental Action Team (LEAT) (2011) Land acquisitions for agribusiness in Tanzania: Prospects
and
challenges.
Accessed
on
31
January
2013
at:
http://letstalklandtanzania.com/s/download/reports/Land%20Acquisition%20for%20Agribusiness%20by%20
LEAT%202011.pdf
Fieldwork in Kilwa district (Mavuji village, on Bioshape company), Kisarawe district (Mtamba,
Sunbiofuels), Kigoma rural district (Mahembe, Felisa) and Njombe district (Ujindile, four tea and a tree
company).
31. Locher M (2011) 'How come others are selling our land?: Customary land rights, rural livelihoods and foreign
land acquisition in the case of a UK-based forestry company in Tanzania’, draft conference paper presented
at the International Conference on Global Land Grabbing, at the Institute of Development Studies, University
of Sussex, Brighton, UK, 06.-08.04.2011. Accessed on 30 January 2013 at: www.geo.uzh.ch/~mlocher/
Fieldwork about the New Forests Company in Kilolo district in Aug 2010, Jan and May 2011, interviews
with district officials, local leaders and villagers.
32. Locher M and Müller-Böker U (forthcoming) Foreign investors in rural areas in the Global South:
Expectations, practices, and frustrations — Two European forestry companies in Tanzania.
Fieldwork about the New Forests Company in Kilolo district and Tanga Forests Ltd. in Pangani district in
Aug 2010, Jan-May 2011, interviews with district officials, local leaders and villagers and companies'
staff.
33. Martin M, Mwakaje AG and Eklund M (2009)‘Biofuel development initiatives in Tanzania: Development
activities, scales of production, and conditions for implementation and utilization’,Cleaner Production
17:S69–S76
Reviewed literature on biofuels initiatives in Tanzania.
34. Mlingwa G (2010) Brief note on outgrower schemes in Tanzania, 9 April. Dar es Salam.
35. Mshale B (2009) In search for the silver bullet: Mitigating climate change through oil-palm
agroforestry.Accessed on 28 January 2013: http://snrecmitigation.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/in-searchfor-the-silver-bullet-mitigating-climate-change-through-oil-palm-agroforestry/
Data about Africa Green Oils Ltd; According to the author's statement, the article is based on fieldwork
between June-Sep 2009, the article though is dated April 22, 2009. The information was not included in
our table due to this inconsistency.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
P a g e | 41
36. Mshandete A (2011) ‘Biofuels in Tanzania: Status, opportunities and challenges’, review paper for Journal of
Applied Biosciences 40:2677–2705.
Provides relevant literature in liquid biofuels by assessing policies and strategies in place, business
models, feed-stocks as well as socio-economic and environmental issues associated to biofuels.
37. Msonsa F (2012) ‘Rufiji to host $200m sugar plant’, The Citizen, 28 May 2012. Accessed on 30 January 2013
at: http://thecitizen.co.tz/business/13-local-business/22709-rufiji-to-host-200m-sugar-plant.html
38. Mwami A and Kamata N (2011) ‘Land grabbing in a post investment period and popular reaction in the Rufiji
River Basin’, A Research report. HakiArdhi: Dar es Salaam.
Fieldwork in Rufiji and Kilombero districts in May and June 2011; existing literature including media.
39. Mwamila B, Kulindwa K, Kibazohi O, Majamba H, Mlinga H, Charlz D, Chijoriga M, Temu A, John G, Temu RPC,
Maliondo S, Nchimbi-Msola S, Mvena Z, Matovelo and Lupala, J (2009)‘Feasibility of large-scale biofuel
production in Tanzania’,field work July/Aug 2008. Songela/Maclean: Dar es Salaam.
40. Ng’wanakilala F, (2010) ‘South Korea to farm Tanzania site in early 2011’, Reuters, 11 November 2010.
Accessed on 31 January 2013 at:http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/17666
Announcement of KRC project
41. Oakland Institute (2011a) Understanding land investment deals in Africa: Country report: Tanzania. The
Oakland Institute: Oakland.
Field work in Dec 2010: Sun Biofuels, EcoEnergy, Rufiji, Arusha, Longido, Diligent; sources for table: own
fieldwork, TIC, Min. of Agriculture, RUBADA, Kaarhus et al. 2010, ActionAid 2009, Sulle/Nelson 2009.
42. Oakland Institute (2011b) ‘Understanding land investment deals in Africa: Agrisol Energy and Pharos Global
Agriculture Fund's Land Deal in Tanzania’,Land Deal Brief, June 2011. The Oakland Institute: Oakland.
Accessed 31 January 2013 at: www.oaklandinstitute.org/land-deal-brief-agrisol-energy-and-pharos-globalagriculture-fund%E2%80%99s-land-deal-tanzania
Meetings and interviews on Agrisol Energy with ‘involved individuals’ 2011.
43. Rufiji Basin Development Authority (RUBADA)(unpublished) Document handed over to Sulle in December
2012.
44. Reuters (2008) ‘Firm eyes sorghum ethanol plant’, Reuters, 19 September. Accessed 29 January 2013
at:http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKLJ5231720080919
45. Rugonzibwa P (2010) ‘Tanzania, South Korea set to expand co-operation’, Daily News, 17 August 2010.
Accessed 31 January at:http://dailynews.co.tz/business/?n=12480
Announcement of KRC project
46. Ruhiye R (2012) Suspension of allocation of huge chunks of land to investors for an in-depth evaluation of
land bank. Accessed 31 January 2013 at: http://letstalklandtanzania.com/s/tag/agrisol-energy/#.UQg7LbTxuM
Reports the parliament debate on land allocation issues and provides references to previous reports.
47. Simbeye F (2011) ‘High court blocks Bioshape property auctioning by Yono’,Daily News Tanzania, 26 March.
Accessed 25 October 2012 at:http://in2eastafrica.net/high-court-blocks-Bioshape-property%e2%80%99sauctioning-by-yono/
48. Simbeye F (2010) ‘This Dutch firm is cheating on biofuel (1)’,Daily news Tanzania.Accessed 2 May 2013 at
www.dailynews.co.tz/feature/?n=14623&cat=feature
49. Songela F and Maclean A (2008) Scoping exercise (Situation Analysis) on the biofuels industry within and
outside Tanzania. WWF Tanzania Programme Office, Energy for Sustainable Development: Dar es Salaam.
Interviews with government officials in Ministries, TIC, NBTF, Kisarawe, Kilwa, Meru and other selected
districts, with representatives of local communities, directors of companies, NGOs etc.; other sources:
Envirocare 2007, GTZ 2005, RLDC 2007.
50. Sulle E and Nelson F (unpublished) ‘Biofuels investment and community land tenure in Tanzania: An updated
assessment.’ Tanzania Natural Resource Forum, Arusha: Tanzania.
Fieldwork; Chachage and Baha; media reports.
51. Sulle E and Nelson F (2009) Biofuels, land access and rural livelihoods in Tanzania. IIED, IIED: London.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |42
LDPI Working Paper 31
Field work in between October 2008 and March 2009; other sources: Kamanga 2008, Songela/Maclean
2008, Kulindwa 2008.
52. TanzaniaInvest (2009) ‘South Korean KRC acquires 100 000ha in Tanzania’,TanzaniaInvest, 09 October 2009.
Accessed 31v January 2013 at: www.tanzaniainvest.com/agriculture/tanzania-agriculture-news/346-southkorean-krc-acquired-100000-hectares-of-land-in-tanzania
Announcement of KRC project.
53. The Guardian Tanzania (2011) ‘Investor suspends jatropha project’, The Gaurdian Tanzania, 17 October
2011. Accessed 18 October 2011 at www.ippmedia.com/frontend/functions/print_article.php?l=34481
54. Theting HA and Brekke B (2010) Land investments or land grab? A critical view from Tanzania and
Mozambique. Spire: Oslo.
Field work on SunBiofuels in Kisarawe, probably in April 2010.
55. UN Business (no date)ABB and Kilombero sugar company work with UNDP to manage rural electrification in
Tanzania. Accessed 30 January 2013 at: http://business.un.org/en/documents/1432
56. United Nations Environmental Programme Risoe Centre (2013) CDM Pipeline spreadsheet at UNEP Risoe
CDM/JI Pipeline Analysis and Database, Jan 2013. Accessed 30 January 2013 at:
http://cdmpipeline.org/publications/CDMPipeline.xlsx
57. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (2012) Trends and impacts of foreign investment in
developing country agriculture: Evidence from case studies, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. FAO: Rome.
Sources for the information in table on page 77 unclear.
58. ______________ (2010) ‘Bioenergy and food security’, inI Maltsoglou and Y Khwaja (ed), BESF Analysis for
Tanzania. Accesed 20 October 2012 at: www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1544e/i1544e.pdf
Sources for the information in table on page 37 unclear; study gives estimates of available land for the
production of different crops both for food or energy/biofuels.
59. Valentino S (2011) ‘Tanzania Biofuel Project’s Barren Promise’, Inter Press Service (IPS), 9 March 2011.
Accessed 30 January 2013 at: www.ipsnews.net/2011/03/tanzania-biofuel-projects-barren-promise/
Media article about BioShape.
60. World Institute for Leadership and Management in Africa (WILMA) (2006) ‘Africa Biofuel and Emission
Reduction Company (Tanzania) Ltd 2008: The Biharamulo Biofuel Project’,Brochure, Accessed 28 January
2013 at: www.jatropha.pro/PDF%20bestanden/Croton%20biofuelbrochure.pdf
Investor's information about planned project of Africa Biofuel and Emission Reduction Company
(Tanzania) Ltd.
61. World Rainforest Movement (WRM) (2010) ‘Oil palm in Africa: Tanzania’, Blog Posted onWebpress.com,
August 10, 2010. Accessed 28 January 2013 at: http://oilpalminafrica.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/oil-palmin-tanzania/#_ftn10
Information about Africa Green Oils Ltd quoting their (now inactive) website.
6.2
Other relevant references - partly annotated
62. Alden Wily L (2011) ‘Customary land tenure in the Modern World’ inRights to resources in crisis: Reviewing
the fate of customary tenure in Africa, Brief 1 of 5.
The brief provides the up-to-date analysis of the customary land tenure in Sub-Saharan Africa
63. __________ (2003) ‘Community-based land tenure management: Questions and answers about Tanzania's
new Village Land Act, 1999’IIED Issue pape,r no. 120. International Institute for Environment and
Development: London.
64. Anseeuw W, Alden Wily L, Cotula L and Taylor M (2012a) Land rights and the rush for land: Findings of the
Global Commercial Pressures on Land Research Project. International Land Coalition: Rome. Accessed on 5
January 2013 at: www.landcoalition.org/cplstudies
65. Anseeuw W, Boche M, Breu T, Giger M, Lay J, Messerli P and Nolte K (2012b) Transnational land deals for
agriculture in the Global South. Analytical report based on the Land Matrix database. Centre for
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
P a g e | 43
Development and Environment (CDE), Centre de Coopèration Internationale en Recherche Agronomique
(CIRAD), German Institute of Global Areas Studies (GIGA): Bern, Montpellier, Hamburg. Accessed on 24 May
2013 at: http://landportal.info/landmatrix/media/img/analytical-report.pdf
66. Arezki, R, Deininger K and Selod H (2011) ‘What Drives the Global “Land Rush”?’, policy Research Working
Paper forThe World Bank Development Group Agriculture and Rural Development Team. World Bank:
Washington.
67. Business Registrations and Licensing Agency (BRELA) ‘A Tanzanian Government Executive Agency, with an
online database on registered companies. Accessed 31 January 2013 at www.brelatz.org/?section=companies&page=search
68. Chinweze C, Abiola-Oloke G, Kennedy-Echetebu CH and Jideani C (2011) ‘Biofuels and food security: Green
economy
in
Sub-Saharan
Africa’,
UNRISD.
Accessed
on
7
January
2013
at:
www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/newsview.nsf/%28httpNews%29/D3DDEAB7AC94EDABC125794B00486826
?OpenDocument
69. Cotula L (2012) 'The international political economy of the Global Land Rush: A Critical Appraisal of Trends,
Scale, Geography and Drivers', Journal of Peasant Studies 39(3- 4): 649–680.
70. Cotula L (2011) Land deals in Africa: What is in the contracts? International Institute for Environment and
Development: London. Accessed on 24 May 2013 at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/12568IIED.pdf
71. Cotula L and Vermeulen S (2009) ‘Land grabs’ in Africa: Can the deals work for development?’,IIED Briefing,
September 2009. International Institute for Environment and Development: London. Accessed May 1 2013
at: http://pubs.iied.org/17069IIED.html
72. Daniel S and Mittal A (2009) The great land grab: Rush for world's farmland threatens food security for the
poor. The Oakland Institute: Oakland.
73. Deininger and Byerlee (2011)Rising global interest in farmland: Can it yield sustainable and equitable
benefits?World Bank: Washington, DC
74. Grain (2010) World Bank report on land grabbing: beyond the smoke and mirrors.
The report questions the World Bank publication (Deininger & Byerlee 2011) which refers to data from
media sources while the WB should have the capacity to get information from government sources as
well as corporations.
75. Hultman NE, Sulle EB, Ramig CW and Sykora-Bodie S (2012) ‘Biofuels investments in Tanzania: Policy options
and sustainable business models’,The Journal of Environment Development, Vol. 21(3)339–361.
76. Hundsbaek Pedersen R (2010) ‘Tanzania's land law reform: The implementation challenge’,DIIS Working
Paper, 37. Danish Institute for International Studies: Copenhagen.
77. Ihucha A (2010) ‘United front to fight renewal of Emirates hunting contract’,The East African, 16–22 August
2010:3. Accessed 25 October 2012 at:
www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/United+front+to+fight+renewal+of+Emirates+hunting+contract//2558/976818/-/item/1/-/jpybnn/-/index.html
78. International Land Coalition (ILC) Commercial Pressures on Land Portal. Accessed 31 January 2013 at
www.commercialpressuresonland.org
79. International Land Coalition (ILC) (2011) ‘Securing land access for the poor in times of intensified natural
resources competition’, Tirana Declaration endorsed by the ILC Assembly of Members on 27 May 2011.
Accessed 31 January 2013 at: www.landcoalition.org/about-us/aom2011/tirana-declaration
80. Isaksson R and Sigte I (2009) Allocation of Tanzanian village land to foreign investors: Conformity to
Tanzania’s Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. Umea Universitet: Umea.
Accessed 30 January 2013 at: www.jus.umu.se/digitalAssets/52/52924_ida-sigte-rebecka-isaksson-ht09.pdf
81. Jumbe CBL, Msiska FBM and Madjera M (2009) ‘Biofuels development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Are the policies
conducive?’, Energy Policy, 37:4980–4986.
82. Kiishweko O (2012a) ‘Investors to acquire limited land’Daily News, 28 November 2012. Accessed 5 January
2013 at: www.dailynews.co.tz/index.php/local-news/12080-investors-to-acquire-limited-land
83. Kiishweko O (2012b) ‘Curbing Tanzania’s “Land Grabbing Race”’, Inter Press Service News Agency (IPS), 19
December 2012. Accessed 5 January 2012 at: www.ipsnews.net/2012/12/curbing-tanzanias-land-grabbingrace/ also published under the title:‘Tanzania takes major step towards curbing land '”grabs”’,The Guardian,
Land Deal Politics Initiative
P a g e |44
LDPI Working Paper 31
21 December 2012. Accessed 5 January 2013 at: www.guardian.co.uk/globaldevelopment/2012/dec/21/tanzania-major-step-curbing-land-grabs
Reported the government restriction to plant jatropha in Mbarali.
84. LDPI Global Land Grabbing Conference I in Sussex (2011) Information and conference papers available at:
www.futureagricultures.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1547&Itemid=978)
85. LDPI Global Land Grabbing Conference II in Cornell (2012) Information and conference papers available at:
www.cornell-landproject.org/
86. Let's talk land Tanzania (Website). Accessed 5 January 2013 at:
http://letstalklandtanzania.com/s/downloads/legal-land-administration/
87. Luhwago R (2012a) 'Land motion sparks hot debate in House', The Guardian 09 November 2012. Accessed
on 5 January 2013 at: www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=47812
88. Luhwago R (2012b) 'Govt ready to survey land in foreigners“hands”', The Guardian, 10 November 2012.
Accessed on 5 January 2013 at: www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=47847
89. Makwarimba M and Ngowi P (2012) Making Land Investment Work for Tanzania: Scoping Assessment for
Multi-stakeholder Dialogue Initiative, Final Draft, Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF), International
Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA). Accessed on 24
May 2013 at:
www.tzdpg.or.tz/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&file=uploads/media/DRAFT_Final_Report_Scoping_A
ssessment_111209v1.pdf&t=1458744062&hash=f08abb396581eb10209b461d87b6a746b7eb4733
90. Massay G (2012) ‘Energy and food demands drivers of land grabs: A case of Rufiji River Basin in Tanzania’, a
paper presented at CEFA ONLUS International Conference on Land, a common good. Natural resource
management, agricultural policies and cooperation in the area of land grabbing, Bologna, 26-27 October
2012.
91. Nelson F, Sulle E and Lekaita E (2012) ‘Land grabbing and political transformation in Tanzania’, paper
presented at The International Conference on Global Land Grabbing II, October 17–19 2012. Organized by
the Land Deals Politics Initiative (LDPI) and hosted by the Department and Development Sociology: Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY.
92. Neville KJ and Dauvergne P (2012) ‘Biofuels and the politics of mapmaking’, Political Geography 31(5):279–
289. Accessed 1 May 2013 at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629812000406
93. Oxfam International (2008) ‘Another inconvenient truth: How biofuel policies are deepening poverty and
accelerating climate change’, Oxfam Briefing Paper. Bailey, written by Robert, Oxford.
94. Sosovele H (2010) ‘Policy challenges related to biofuel development in Tanzania’, inAfrica Spectrum,
45(1)117–129.
95. Tanzania Natural Resource Forum (TNRF) (2012) ‘Understanding land and investments in Tanzania’,InfoBrief,
March 2012.Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA) and International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED) (2012). Accessed 4 January 2013 at: www.tnrf.org/node/22899
96. Tanzania Investment Centre, (2007) Tanzania Investment Guide 2008 and Beyond. Tanzania Investment
Centre: Dar es Salaam.
97. United Republic of Tanzania (2007) ‘The Land Use Planning Act 2007’, The United Republic of Tanzania.The
United Republic of Tanzania: Dar es Salaam.
98. United Republic of Tanzania (2001) ‘Village Land Regulations (L.N. No. 86 of 2001)’, The United Republic of
Tanzania, 9 March 2011. The United Republic of Tanzania: Dar es Salaam. Accessed 1 May 2013 at:
http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/tan28349.pdf
99. United Republic of Tanzania (1999a) ‘Land Act (No. 4 of 1999)’, Republic of Tanzania, 9 March 2011. The
United Republic of Tanzania: Dar es Salaam.Accessed 1 May 2013 at:
http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/tan23795.pdf
100.
United Republic of Tanzania (1999b) ‘Village Land Act (No. 5 of 1999)’, United Republic of Tanzania.
Dar es Salaam.
101.
World Bank (2011) ‘What drives the global “Land Rush”?’, Policy Research Working Paper, No 5864.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
Foreign land deals in Tanzania
P a g e | 45
Their source of information seems to be Deininger and Byerlee 2011; World Bank’s personnel personal
communications. The paper is relevant for insights on policy aspects and the extent of investments in
large-scale agricultural deals.
Land Deal Politics Initiative
LDPI Working Paper Series
A convergence of factors has been driving a revaluation of land by
powerful economic and political actors. This is occurring across the
world, but especially in the global South. As a result, we see unfolding
worldwide a dramatic rise in the extent of cross-border, transnational
corporation-driven and, in some cases, foreign government-driven,
large-scale land deals. The phrase ‘global land grab’ has become a
catch-all phrase to describe this explosion of (trans)national
commercial land transactions revolving around the production and
sale of food and biofuels, conservation and mining activities.
The Land Deal Politics Initiative launched in 2010 as an ‘engaged
research’ initiative, taking the side of the rural poor, but based on solid
evidence and detailed, field-based research. The LDPI promotes indepth and systematic enquiry to inform deeper, meaningful and
productive debates about the global trends and local manifestations.
The LDPI aims for a broad framework encompassing the political
economy, political ecology and political sociology of land deals centred
on food, biofuels, minerals and conservation. Working within the
broad analytical lenses of these three fields, the LDPI uses as a general
framework the four key questions in agrarian political economy: (i)
who owns what? (ii) who does what? (iii) who gets what? and (iv) what
do they do with the surplus wealth created? Two additional key
questions highlight political dynamics between groups and social
classes: ‘what do they do to each other?’, and ‘how do changes in
politics get shaped by dynamic ecologies, and vice versa?’ The LDPI
network explores a range of big picture questions through detailed indepth case studies in several sites globally, focusing on the politics of
land deals.
Abstract
In the absence of an easily available source of reliable up-to-date data on
foreign land deals in Tanzania, many reports have been published that
attempt to provide an overview of these deals. While providing this
overview is challenging due to the dynamic and non-transparentnature of
the 'land grab' phenomenon itself, it has become even more debatable due
to certain questionable methods of using and quoting existing data. This
leads to several flaws including the "virtual survival" of cancelled land deals
"on paper". The consequences are an unnecessarily blurred picture of the
land deal situation in Tanzania, and thus an inadequate basis for related
political decisions or social actions and a misleading starting point for new
research projects. In this paper we illustrate some of the flaws in the use of
data so far and give an updated and carefully grounded overview of foreign
land deals in Tanzania as of December 2012. Our compilation illustrates
that, unlike in the past few years, biofuel projects are no longer the priority
of foreign investors. Instead, they are focusing on the production of food
crops such as rice, sugar and oil, as well as forestry plantations. The
overview does not claim to be complete, but it does provide a traceable set
of data, which can serve as a basis for further research as well as for much
needed policy debates and decisions.
ldpi@iss.nl
View publication stats