The Social, Economic and Cultural Impact of EACOP on Indigenous Peoples in Tanzania

Written on 10 December 2025. Posted in News

BY EDWARD POROKWA FOR INDIGENOUS DEBATES

The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), a 1,445-kilometre cross-border project, is designed to transport crude oil from Uganda's Lake Albert basin to the coast of Tanzania for international export. With a construction budget of US$3.5 billion and a planned capacity of 216,000 barrels per day, this project threatens the livelihoods of Indigenous communities, including the Maasai, Hadzabe, Akie, Barbaig, Sukuma, and Nyamwezi, across eight Tanzanian regions.

The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) traverses eight regions of Tanzania: Kagera, Geita, Shinyanga, Tabora, Singida, Manyara, Dodoma and Tanga. The most affected regions where Indigenous Peoples are found are Manyara, Tanga, Tabora and Dodoma. However, the Manyara region appears to be the one in which the pipeline has most extensively passed through pastoralist and hunter-gatherer areas, affecting the Maasai and Akie communities, particularly in Kiteto, Kilindi and Handeni Districts, where the pipeline has significant coverage. In Kiteto alone, it crosses some 138 kilometres. The Project will require access to over 4,000 hectares of land, with nearly 90% comprising the construction corridor for the export pipeline.

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

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

Community Consultation and Participation in EACOP

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

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

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

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

Impact of EACOP on Livelihoods

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

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

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

Lack of Compensation and Poor Working Conditions

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

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

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

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

Grave Injustice: Cultural Desecration in Sendeni Village

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

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

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

Unfulfilled Promises

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

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

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

Conclusions and Recommendations

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

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

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

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

Edward Porokwa is a lawyer and practising advocate in the Courts of Tanzania. He graduated in 1997 with a Bachelor of Laws (LLB, Honours) from the University of Dar es Salaam. He also has a Master's Degree in Business Administration (MBA) from ESAMI / Maastricht School of Management. He is currently the Executive Director of Pastoralists Indigenous NGOs Forum (PINGOs Forum), an umbrella organisation for Indigenous Peoples in Tanzania.

Cover photo: Meeting with a pastoralist community in Igunga. Photo: PINGO Forum

Tags: Indigenous Debates