Resource Frontiers and Regional Development: the Role of Refugee

Settlement in Tanzania

ALLEN ARMSTRONG Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

INTRODUCTION

Despite international concern devoted to the problems of overpopulation and land pressure. many underdeveloped countries are still faced with the converse problem - how to serve and utilise remote and backward regions whcrc underpopulation is a crucial factor constraining dcvelopmcnt.

Organiscd land scttlcment is one strategy employed by land-abundant nations worldwide to colonise resource frontiers and achieve various ends including agricultural CtpilflSiOll. land reform, relieving population prcssurc, regional economic dcvclopmcnt, geopolitical occupation of border territories and others (Chambers, 1969; Nelson, 1973; Van Raay, 19t;l). In rcccnt years, one type of scttlcmcnt - rural rcfugcc scttlcmcnts - has played a significant role in countries of Eastern, Central and Southern Africa not only in accommodating asylum-seekers but also in colonising new lands and in Stirlllllilting clcvclopmcnt

on the periphery. This article examines the nature of the resource frontier in one nation,

Tanzania, and the role and regional impact of planned rcfugcc scttlcmcnt in opening up this frontier. As a pioneer of planned refugee settlement, and with refugee scttlcmcnts which are among the largest in Africa, Tanzania has sought to exploit, with varying degrees of success, the development role of refugees in its own frontier.

THE RESOURCE FRONTIER AS A PROBLEM REGION

The dictionary definition of an internal frontier as - “the border or extreme edge of the settled or inhabited regions of a country” gives no insight into the dynamism or complexity of the processes by which a frontier is both defined and transformed.

More helpful is Higgins’ (1968, p. 179) definition as “an area of net immigration associated with the utilisation of new resources”, while Reboratti (1951, p. 191) describes a frontier as “a process of change which advances, a constant shifting and restructuring movcmcnt involving three interlocking elements - population, land and spatio-productive structure”. The frontier is thus not simply a line or even zone but a dynamic process of spatial interaction in which unoccupied resource-rich regions are incorporated into national economic space.

Far from a marginalised activity, the opening up of the resource frontier has played and continues to play a central role in the shaping of many modern

69

nations. Frederick Jackson Turner (1930) elevated the concept of the develop- ment of the frontier to potent symbol and myth as the moving force and unifying influence in the shaping of modern America. Economists and economic historians have postulated broader theories of the stimulating effects of frontier development for regions and nations where this occurs.

Worldwide. agricultural expansion is a major moving force with an estimated 4-5 million hectares opened up to new cultivation each year (Goering, 1978). Despite increasing population pressures. a substantial agricultural resource frontier remains of which Africa possesses one-quarter of estimated cultivable land resources presently unexploited. This land reserve, like the population of Africa, is very unevenly distributed. Africa contains some of the most densely populated rural areas in the world (such as Rwanda and Burundi, exceeding 200 persons per km’) as well as, south of the Sahel, some of the least (Botswana, Congo, Central African Republic, with under 4 per km’).

Tanzania exemplifies the severe regional imbalances in population and dcvciopmcnt bvhich chnrnctcrisc many African nations. Despite very rapid rates of p~~p~il~~ti~~r~ increase nati~~n~~lly, the Government of Tanzania has only very recently acknow4cdged this situation as unacceptable (cf. UN, 1981, 1988). Population redistribution. on the other hand, has been a continuing concern throughout its 30-year post-independent history.

klorc than 60% of Tanzania’s population is conccntratcd in less than 20% of it\ land ilrc;l. The basic pattern of heavy concentration in t~igtll~l~ld and coastal arcas with very spat-xc distribution in central and plateau arcas has persisted for 00 SCilVS (URT. lOSO; f;ig. I). The problems of regional and, ultimately, of Ilittit)~~ill CfCVCl~IpmCIlt iIrC corrcsponclitlgly multi-facctcd in nature. varying ilccortliI~g to the uncvcn ~~istr~t~~lti~)i~ ad Clyni~miCS of p~~pLlt~lti~~l1, ~nvironmcnt and cconctmic activity.

In very gcncraliscd tcrnis, ‘f’anzania’s ‘regional problem’ comprises the following type5 OC i1rCil 2nd ahsociatcd chractcristics:

Urhtr~ rc*,$cln.s - chxacteriscd by rapid growth and high immigration, land and housing shortage. pressure on urban services, unemployment, crime, pollution.

lligltlotrct high il~~nsity wgioru - agcing population and emigration, land fr~~gni~llt~iti~~i~, declining soil fertility and erosion.

Semi-urid mcdictrtl dcrrsiiy regiom - population pressure and emigration, unrcliablc rainfall and a?riculturc, food deficiency, dwindling pasture, serious deforestation ilnd cmcrglng water shortage.

f~c*riphi~roi rtwtlt~rr~l dcrrsiry wgkms - emigration, food insufficiency or deficit, dccltning cash cropping, poor communic~ltions.

iic~rlrorc~ lo)\* drtlsiry resource frothw - immigration and youthful population, food surplus, cnvironmcntal hazards and water deficiency, poor service and communication infrastructure.

The most extensive of the regional zones or classes listed above remains the rcsourcc frontier. A significant pcrccntrtgc (56%) of the national land area can bc classified. in broad terms, as rcsourcc frontier. This is the sparsely populated zone (with densities of Icss than 15 persons per sq. km) which extends over the rni~~n~b~~ woodland and bush zone of the central plateau, SE Tanzania and Masailand. Owing to tsctsc fly infestation, rcss fcrtilc and leached soils, low and unreliable rainfall. uncertain ground and surface water availability, remoteness and poor communication, this zone has generally been pcrccived as possessing low agricultural and dcvclopmcnt potential and has bocn rcscrved as national park, game and forest reserve (Mare, 19X3).

In this zone, the sheer lack of population presents a fundamental development

Resource Fronners and Regronal Development 71

- i -. ’ Mpanda Distrtct

\ \ ( I

/ \ /

\

0 km 200 .._.__1 \ -

MOJW frmtw zcms of low pcwlatm denshy O-49 persons per SWCY~ htlom&re

\ Motor mad5

. Maya urban centies

constraint in the form of a vicious circle. To eradicate tsetse, bush clearance is necessary but can only be effective if sufficient population remain to prevent regeneration. Essential social infrastructure, transport and marketing Facilities cannot be justified in the absence of a sufficient population threshold. Population settlement is only part of the solution since “it is not easy to support more people without considerable technical innovation, change in customary attitudes and capital outlay of a high order” (Thomas, in Berry, 1971, p. 18). Reclamation of Tanzania’s extensive resource frontier therefore requires not only population relocation on a sufficient scafe, but also substantial accompany- ing investment. Overcoming those two major obstacles could still lead to significant ecological risks, given the more fragile environment of the resource frontier.

The character of this resource frontier and the innovative approach adopted for its development can be illustrated by focusing on one major region, Rukwa and its largest district, Mpanda.

72 Allen Armstrong

RC’KW;\ REGION XND hlP.4NDi-i DISTRICT

Rukwa Region, with a land area of 68,635 sq. km and a population of 694,974 (1985) is. in man); ways. a model periphery region. Located on the eastern shore of Lake Tanganytka and along the Western Rift Valley, Rukwa lies between 7” and 9” south of the equator possessing a varied topography which includes extensive plateau and pockets of highland and low-lying lakeshore depressions. Less than 30% of its area is cultivated by a population which is the lowest of any region and heavily dependent on agriculture. Communication is very poor with no all-weather road existing and a single branch rail line only in seasonal use. A general lack of essential economic and social infrastructure prevails. Its urban structure is undeveloped, with only two relatively small settlements classified as municipalities.

Two factors illustrate Rukwa’s underdevelopment. Firstly, it has among the highest fertility and lowest mortality rates in the country and an average life expectancy (40) the lowest of any region - acknowledged indicators of inaccessibrlity to health, water and education services and poor economic development, including food production. Secondly, the widespread perception of the region as back\vard means that. for example, government staff are very reluctant to bc transferred to Rukwa and regard it as a form of punishment (Knuzcni. 19X4).

Although a rctntivcly thriving culture and economy existed prior to the advent of German inlp~rialisr~l in the ISSOs. the region became in~rcasir~gly marginal- iscd during the colonial period. serving no rccogniscd economic function other than a distant labour rcscrvc - involuting in near isolation from the dominant export production and ancillary food production regions. Rukwa remained dormant until the Iatc 1970s. As one study in 1977 (BRALUP) noted “owing to its rcmotcncss. pcriphcral l~N.Zilti~~Il and insignificance in terms of export crop production, the region has long been ncglcctcd and it has been common to charactcrisc it as backward”.

This neglect is ctcmonstratcd by the fact that the region was created as a separate unit only in 107J, by carving out and linking remote western districts of Mbeya and Tabora regions. Until recently, relatively little was researched or known of the arca.

The largest of Rukwa‘s three constituent districts is Mpanda, which covers the northern portion (66%) of Rukwa and represents an archetypai resource frontier. The district lies at the western edge, and is representative of, the vast unoccupied zone of central Tanzania. Covering an area of 45,843 sq. km, Mpanda is not only the largest district in Tanzania but actually exceeds 10 of the 20 mainland regions in size. Indeed, the district almost equals in extent the combined area of Rkvanda and Burundi, two neighbouring countries which have provided many of its recent settlers.

Vast tracts of Mpanda remain uninhabited, its mainly low-lying plateau covered by over 3 million hectares of tsetse-infested miombo woodland and virtually unused cxccpt for light localised and traditional uses such as hunting, honey and hccswax collection, timber extraction and charcoal burning.

Mpanda’s present population (19SS) of 256,487 (at an average density of less than 6 per sq. km) tends to bc heavily concentrated within a 25 mile radius of the district capital and railhcad Mpanda town, with villages strung out on the roads radiating from this hub, and further smaller concentrations around the margins of the district (Fig. 2). Much of the district is inaccessiblie during the rainy season and the main external transport link, the branch railway line, can operate for no more than seven months of each year due to rains. More than half of the district, mainly in the east and south, is gazetted for conservation purposes - including one National Park. and several Forest and Game Reserves.

Resource Fronrwrs and Rrg~onul Dedopmmi 73

c -- I -

---_A ‘. 4- .

\ . \ 7%

:/ l . I . @%/a/) . . ,--_ \

,’ -.

‘1 ‘>’ ’ 1_ :

I

\

-. 1

&.)am$---\, l! ‘_ .

6” \ ‘.# J

Refugee settlement

. Ragstefed wllage

/ Rood

# Rahuy

G N0t1a-d FOrk

\\\ Game - Forest Reservz

DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESOURCE FRONTIER

Rukwa’s poverty and underdevelopment is due not to an absolute lack of resources but rather to neglect, and a low population base.

Like many frontier areas, Mpanda has known boom and bust, albeit on a limited scale. The discovery of minerals (lead, copper, gold and silver) in post- war years led to a brief period of prosperity as commercial mining was dcvelopcd, the railway line constructed and a mining scttlcment flourished at Mpanda town. Less than a decade later, the withdrawal of the mining company in 1960 returned the district to reliance on traditional forms of primary extraction, backwardness and isolation.

The collapse of mining undermined the main and most promising plank in the local economy. The abrupt end to this brief period of economic activity provoked pessimistic assessments of the area’s potential and future. One report in 1971 related the views of local officials that “if agriculture does not improve, the town will die out” (BRALUP, 1971).

Unfortunately, as it then appeared, the prospects for agricultural development

were considered very unpromsing. “Settlement has been discouraged by the rugged terrain, thick bush and tsetse” in addition to wild animals and low levels of agricultural technology (Conyers. 1972, p. 5). The rural population of the district, consisting mainly of the Wabende tribe. not only depended heavily on hunting and gathering for their livelihood, but also lived in inaccessible scattered homesteads and were seen as relatively conservative, ‘*. . steeped in traditional ways and lacking dynamism; Muslim or pagan by religion, the men often having several wives, children seldom receiving education and clinging strongly to an Arab culture” (BRALUP, 1971, p. 23). Throughout the region the population was seen as operating at a low level of self-sufficiency, with low average per capita incomes, small farms and limited livestock holding. and poor social service provision.

A World Bank report offered little hope for the area, noting it “comprises woodland with little known economic development potential apart from tobacco cultivation and cattle rangeland. which is severely restricted by tsetse fly . . . Other than the exploitation of a few trees of high value such as mningn, tobacco production and the collection of honey and beeswax offer the best possibilities” (IBRD, 1970, p. 56).

In the context of thcsc discouraging pcrccptions, the drastic reassessment of the arca’s resource potential which then occurred over the next decade was all the more remarkable. Various factors intcrvcned to provoke a much more positive pcrccption of Rukwa and its rcsourccs.

Firstly, growing population prcssurcs in more dcnscly populated regions to both north and south, along with the cmcrgcncc of food deficits in certain ncighbouring regions, wcrc helping to change the regional context in which Rukwa opcratcd. Rukwa’s location, hitherto considcrcd marginal, began to he pcrccivcd as strategic in both inter-regional and international terms. Rukwa not only lies bctwccn clusters of dcnsc population and economic development of Mbcya and Rungwc to the south and Lake Victoria regions but also scrvcs as the land route linking Zambia with Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda in the north, in an era when Tanzania and its ncighbours hilvc actively begun to pursue regional integration.

Secondly, research conducted for regional planning purposes helped provide more solid scientific evidence of the regional environment and document more accurately not only the substantial fisheries. woodland, game and mineral rcsourccs which were known but also its agricultural potential which had been less widely perceived.

Thirdly, successful scttlcmcnt of refugees and, to a lcsscr extent, of others such as peasant tobacco farmers and pastoralists from neighbouring regions provided a practical demonstration that development was possible.

As a result, a regional plan produced in 1978 (BRALUP, 1978) highlighted the region’s ability to perform two major roles in contributing to national development:

(1) as a region of food surplus to supply food to deficit regions; (2) as a region of immigration for the resettlement of population from regions

of land shortage. Five years later, the region’s Water Master Plan went further on its claims:

“Rukwa Region rcprescnts perhaps one of the greatest remaining agricultural potentials in Africa” (Norconsult, 1952). It recognised that, as far as settlement and agricultural dcvelopmcnt were conccrncd, Rukwa Region appeared to be one of the most suitable arcas in Tanzania from the view of land resources. In recent research, the potential of the mionzbo woodland zone was reassessed - it is now considered as having suitable soils of moderate or high potential, sufficient reliable rainfall for agriculture and suitability for human settlement and cultivation (Mascarenhas, 1984).

Rrsource Fronners and Rrgtonai Derelopmmt 75

LAND COLONISATION AND SETTLEMENT IN XIPANDA

Notwithstanding the external perceptions of the area’s resource potential. the second, and more sustained phase (the first was the brief flourishing of mining in post-year years) in the exploitation of the resource frontier of Mpanda District has now been underway for almost two decades, with experiments commencing as far back as the early 1960s.

With the exception of ongoing Government development efforts of limited impact and the selective provision of water supply during the 1980s through Norwegian assistance, organised land settlement has been the main, indeed almost sole, vehicle of regional development as well as Land ~olonisation in Mpanda District. The 1970s witnessed a transformation in population and settlement in the district as a result of three types of land settlement:

(a) Between 1972 and 1975, as part of the nationwide villagisation campaign to concentrate rural population, 94% of Rukwa’s population were resettled into 300 development villages (63 in Mpanda). Resettlement was hugely confined to the local movement of people from their scattered homesteads into new villages concentrated along the main roads or into areas where there was at least an access road.

(b) Two tobacco complexes {at Inyonga and Nsimbo), consisting of approxi- mately 2-t villages and ~7.000 pcoplc were cstablishod from 1972 under a World Bank schcmc designed to promote peasant tobacco production.

(c) Four planned rcfugcc settlements involving the immigration of approxi- mately 90,000 rcfugecs, the two major schemes commencing in 1973 and 1978, respectively.

The first two categories essentially involved a relocation of existing population with some new emigrants attracted. The rcfugcc schcmcs, on the other hand. not only introduced a large lnbour force but were also accompanied by significant investment. In one case, Mwesc, a related land scttlcmcnt of up to 3,000 farmers from ovcrpopulatcd Kilin~~lnj~lro District was also dcvctopcd alongside that for the Rwandcsc rcfugccs.

KJlUrnJ

XlWW! Katumho hlishamo

I’N- IW Kelly WI 50 20(H) 18’1’

I& - 197 1 Rwandec X0 3?(H) 64~8 ’ : IY73- 1Y7X f3urund1 ‘Mlil -1X.ow M.235 xt

lY78- IYXS Burundi tosft SO,fHX1 34,873 16

‘Only a fccw Kcnyan famlltcs rcmam III Katuma In hlwcsc, current popul~ttxm con&t\ of local immigrants and naturalized Tanznni:lns ;I\ well w rrfugccs.

t A further 4x v~ll;~ge\ are now being crsated. Soiulrrcr: Armstrong (lYS7).

Mpanda District has also been the focus for considerable spontaneous settlement. Some Zaircan refugees have settled in small numbers along the Lake Tanganyika coastal villages. Far more significant has been the steady influx of Sukuma pastoratists into the east and down the Rukwa Valley. As land pressure and drought has encroached onto their transitional pastures in Tabora, Shinyanga and Mwanza regions, they have moved south in search of new grazing lands in those unoccupied areas where tsetse is less virulent.

Further large-scale land settlement has been mooted in the wake of this experience and in the context of the sizeable resource frontier which still remains. Discussions between Governments of Tanzania and Rwanda have raised the possibility of settling up to 1 million citizens from overpopulated

76 .-lllm Armstron,~

Rwanda in western Tanzania (Rukwa, blbeya and Tabora Regions). It is estimated that. in the near future. Rukwa would be able to accept at least 300,000, who would colonise areas of underpopulation set aside for resettlement in Inyonga area of eastern Mpanda District (Norconsult. 1982). Political considerations have. for the moment. slowed further progress on this plan. The resettlement of Tanzanians living in highland high-density zones or of further refugee influxes from neighbouring countries of central Africa are further possibilities.

CHARACTER OF ORGANISED REFUGEE SETTLEXIENT

Organised rural settlement of refugees is one of the three durable solutions to the problem of refugees advocated by UNHCR (voluntary repatriation and third country resettlement are the two others), Rural settlements are distinguishable from temporary holding camps in which the refugees have all their needs externally supplied. With settlement, the intention is to transform the refugee population into self-supporting, primarily agricultural communities, thereby reducing both dcpendcncc on the part of refugees and the continual drain on national and intcrnationnl assistance which refugee support entails. Settlement rcprcsents a second phase of rcfugcc assistance following the initial, emergency phase.

First dcvclopcd in Africa in 1961, cxtcnsive unoccupied arcas and sparse p~>pulations found in many African countries of asylum have cnsurcd that the concept and practice of rural scttlcmcnts for rcfugccs hnvc continued to bc favoiircd. Rcfugcc scttlcmcnt continues to bc a predominantly African strategy - of over 200 scttlcmcnts cstnblishcd worldwide to date with a population cxcccding I million. more than 80% arc found in Africa (UNHCR, ISUS).

Four necessary, though not sufficient conditions, must exist to enable rural scttlcmcnt of rcfugccs to proceed: - a significant rcfugcc community without rcasonablc prospect of early

repatriation; - cstcnsivc arcas of contiguous, cultivable land more than 50 km from the

international border (following OAU agreement); - the iissurancc of international assistance to fund scttlcment; - the co-operation of host government (and host population) to allow and offer

positive support for scttlcmcnt. Land availability is usually crucial. Faced with large numbers of refugees, land- deficient African nations such as Malawi, Swaziland, Djibouti have resorted to establishing rcfugce holding camps. Land-abundant nations such as Zambia, Botswana, Sudan and Zaire, on the other hand, have found no difficulty in encouraging rural settlement.

Although the primary objectives of rural settlement of refugees are a combination of self-sufficiency alongside control and protection, their develop- mcnt potential has long been apprcciatcd. The zonal approach to refugee settlcmcnt promoted in the 1960s sought to integrate new settlement projects into a wider dcvclopmcnt initiative benefiting surrounding areas, but was seldom put into practice (Betts, 1984). In the 19SOs, the concept of assistance provided under ICARA II (International Conference on Assistance to Refugees in Africa) programmes was intended to broaden the focus of refugee assistance to include the often poor communities in which they are frequently located (German, 1976).

Organ&d scttlcmcnt of refugees forms a central plank in the positive framework which Tanzania has evolved towards dealing with its sizeable refugee problem. This framework includes an open-door policy of accepting refugees

Resource Fronaers and Regional Development 77

(from up to 10 counties) in the first emergency phase. Organised settlement represents the second phase of se@ufficiency from which Tanzania hopes to benefit as much as do the refugee settlers. In the third phase of local inregrution, established refugees may be offered Tanzanian citizenship or, where circum- stances permit, supported to repatriate voluntarily.

In 1964. the Government “welcomed Rwandese refugees in a spirit of sympathy for their plight”, to Mwese settlement in Mpanda and “. . . has also seen that, as settlers in a sparsely populated region, the refugees could be useful in terms of the country’s future economic development” (UNHCR, 19S8, p. 125). This concept of mutual benefit was further developed in the 1970s and 1980s with larger refugee populations to support. Former President Nyerere (1951, p. 15) saw refugee settlements as “dealing with refugees’ special needs and at the same time uplifting the productive capacity and social provision for all of the people living nearby”.

As a result, Tanzania has consistently accommodated a far higher proportion of its refugee population in organised settlements than most African countries (over 70% compared with less than 20% for all African refugees). After experimenting with assistance programmes to support spontaneous refugee scttlcrs in Kigoma region, adjoining Mpanda, the Government has recently restated its official policy in favour of organised schemes.

/ I

I I

I I I

I

u UGANDA

I I .-0 \ ___ _ - . I I

IL.’ \ -. KENYA . .

. I

__--

0 \,

’ - s, M&F Llkuyu IM) \ . 0

\ I -. - Rutamba (Mlo

\ - \ \ O Mprto(M)

I ZAMBIA \ oMotekwe(Ml,- ,

Natlonallty af refugee settlers

0 - Burundi K- Kenyu

R - Rwanda S- South Afnca

M- Mammbqw V- Vor0Js

U- ugando 0 km 200

Dakawa olS) (6

mngwe(S~ 3

Car es Salwm

OMuhukuru (Ml _’

r _ t . - _ c f

c MOZAMBIQUE

l Ckymqar town 0 Ana af 5pntaneoJsly settled refugees

Fig. 3. Refugee serrlemenl and transit camps m Tanzania.

Since 1962, 13 organised refugee settlement schemes. in addition to a number of holding camps. have been established in Tanzania accommodating, at their peak, a population of approximatefy 2~0.~ {Fig. 3). The main refugee groups have been Rwandese, Burundis and Mozambicans. The refugee influx deter- mines numbers to be settled, but the size of individual settlements has shown a tendency to increase over time, with later Burundi settlements all established with populations exceeding 30,000 (Armstrong, 1987).

Over 7,500 sq. km of rural land have been provided for this purpose to date. All settlement sites offered have involved colonisation of the resource frontier in remote, underpopulated districts either on or beyond the extreme margins of existing land occupancy (Fig. 3). The majority have been in areas of environment difficuIty - several occupying portions of former forest reserves. fndividuaf settlements are generally located in the broad zone proximate to the refugees’ homeland (though, under OAU agreement, more than 50 km from the border) and, in most cases. concentrated in a few regions and districts where the local administrations have experience of refugee settlement.

In harnessing refugees to the task of developing its resource frontier, Tanzania is following a well-established theme of the rural development poficy it has pursued since independence. Refugee settlements, like the village settlement schemes promoted in the 1960s; and widespread viflagisation in the 1970s. clearly ~~cnlonstr~Itc that “the idea of cst~lblistling new ~~gricuftlir~~f villages has been a corncrstonc of Tanzania’s dcvcfopmcnt policy” (Cliffc, 1972, p. 217).

In gcnernf. rcfugcc scttfcment proceeds fikc other organiscd land settfcment schcmcs. External assistance is fimitctf to an cstablishmcnt phase of bctwecn 4 and 6 years. During this time, following the transfer of the scttfcrs, farming plots arc aflocatcd (r~~~~gir~g from I.5 to, more rcccntfy, 5 hcctarcs per family), with tools, seeds and sornc comnwnity scrviccs provided and the settlers fcft vvith the work of building homes, cfcaring land and growing their own food. Food rations arc suppficd on a diminishing scafc over the first two years until self-sufficiency is attained. Rcfugcc h&our is also mobifiscd to assist with the development of infr~Istructurc for the individual villages in the settlement. Once external assistance ceases, the scttlcmcnt is ‘handed over’ and focal regional and district authorities assume responsibility for its continued operation, similar in most rcspccts to other local communities.

Rcfugcc settlement carries many ~~dvantages over other types of Iand scttlcmcnt. From the view of the host country, perhaps the two major ones are:

(a) A “captive” and initially mobile labour force. Refugees, with very restricted rights, arc given no option except that of rural settlement in locations determined by Government, even when they oppose it or are unsuited to it by dint of their urban backgrounds. In the case of Burundi and Mozambican refugees, the fabour force has proved extrcmcly productive.

(b) Refugee settlement attracts international financial and technical assist- ance on a scafe not avaifabfc for other settfcment/resetttement programmes. This enables not only rapid development, but a high standard of facility and service provision and support for agricultural development.

POSITIVE fi%fPACT OF REFUGEE SETTLEMENT IN MPANDA DISTRICT

In terms of refugee numbers, proportion of local population, and size of settlements, Mpanda district has been the area of Tanzania most affected by organiscd refugee settlement. Assessment of its impact in this district thus enables broader concfusions to be drawn regarding the effectiveness of refugee settlement as a strategy of regional development. The benefits and costs of settfemcnt for the district are examined in turn in the two following sections.

Resource Frontrrrs and Regtonal Development 79

Firstly, the most obvious impact has been simply in terms of population. In Mpanda district, the net impact of refugee influx has helped to rapidly quadruple its population - which rose from 65,000 in 1967 to over a quarter of a million within 20 years. Primarily because of planned immigration, the growth rate of Rukwa. the region with the lowest population. has exceeded all other mainland regions during the past two intercensal periods (1967-1988). For comparison, the rate of growth of Mpanda town’s population outstripped Tanzania’s fast- growing major city, Dar es Salaam, which grew at 7.8% between 1967 and 1978 and 4.8% between 1978 and 1988. As a result, Mpanda district is in the unusual position of having almost half its population consisting of refugees. Nationally, the proportion of aliens does not exceed 3%.

Table At. Popttlattorr total unct composttiott

1957 IY67 1978 19x3 1988

lY.57 I ‘)07 1Y7X I ‘)S3 I 08X

Mp;wcl,t town - 201.1 13,Wl ZX,tHW) 51.013

This substantial influx of settlers has also led to two further significant changes:

(a) Population distribution - the establishment of refugee settlement at and beyond the existing margins of settlement has helped transform the spatial pattern of settlement in the district. Despite moderate land potential and population pressure in neighbouring regions, the miombo woodland zone has otherwise proved remarkabIy resistant to settlement. By channelling not only a considerable refugee labour force, accompanied by significant capital investment and technical assistance, the margins of settlement have been pushed back and more favourable population-land ratios achieved. While the siting of Katumba, the largest scheme, 40 km east of Mpanda town merely pushed back the existing margins and shifted the district’s ccntre of gravity eastward, the three smaller settlements - Katuma, Mwese and Mishamo - have been located as enclaves in the unoccupied bush of northern and western Mpanda.

(b) Urban development - Mpanda town has received a much needed stimulus and doubled in size in the mid-1970s and again between 1978 and 1983. Very few refugees live in the town, being required by law to remain resident in the settlements, but their economic impact has been a key factor in the rapid growth of the district centrc. Around the large market in Katumba an embryo town is clearly in formation.

Secondly, dramatic increases in agricultural production have followed closely in the wake of refugee settfement. The combination of a large ‘captive’ labour

force, high productivity by the settlers, and external assistance (for improved service provision - inputs and marketing - and extension) have meant not only has self-sufficiency been attained within 2-3 years of settlement but significant marketable surpluses of food and cash crops have followed rapidly. For the first half of the 1980s. the two major refugee settlements in the district (with less than half the population) regularly produced SO-90% of Mpanda’s marketable agricultural surplus. The refugees’ contribution was, in turn, a significant factor in the emergence of remote Rukwa region as a major food producer in the late 1970s and 19SOs. Other immediate benefits included the channelling of a considerable volume of the settlement’s surplus crops in 19W1985 to neighbour- ing food-deficit regions.

Thirdly, rcfugcc settlement on this scale has provided a major stimulus to both district and regional economy in various ways. The boom in agriculture helped rcvitalisc Mpanda town and district institutions such as the railway, agricultural marketing and supplies organisations such as crop authorities and co-operatives and local trade in gcncral. The largest settlement, Katumba, has developed as a major rural growth pole. For example. the largest weekly markets in the district and possibly region take place in the scttlemcnt, attracting people from an extensive hinterland and involving commerce in a surprisingly wide variety of products. Commercial activity there is also significant, while a number of successful refugee entrepreneurs have emerged. Refugees have also widened significantly the district’s tax revenue base, previously described as very weak.

Services and facilities provided for the rcfugecs also serve local people. People living close to settlements USC health scrviccs, primary schools, maize mills and transport. Some improvement of roads was carried out to assist settlement projects and certain facilities have been established for the benefit of both refugees and citizens, namely a Vocational Training Centrc, a secondary school and upgrading of the District Hospital.

A fourth positive impact has been the demonstration effect which refugees and refugee settlement have exerted on the surrounding area. At the level of the individual, the Hutu settlers arc widely admired for their farming ability and industriousness. Local villagers appear to be influenced both by how the refugees follow agricultural advice (in terms of land preparation, planting times and techniques) as well as the amount they can produce, stimulating local

Resource Fronners and Regronal Development 81

Table 4. Vdlage level facdiries

No. of Pnmary Health Commumty Maize Gram wllages schools centre Dispensary centre Shop mill store

Katumba 27 23 I 5 9 22 12 7 Mishamo 16 16 I 4 16 16 16 16 Mwese 3 3 I - - ? 3 1 Remamder of

Mpanda district’ 51 53 J 26 3 30 26 29

l Includes facilities in Mpanda urban wards. Note that the above table elves no indication of quality Universally. faclhties m the refugee settlements are larger. newer and of permanent construction. Services are also better supphed.

Source: Armstrong and Garry (1988).

farmers to produce more (Armstrong and Garry. 1988). Refugees are also considered to possess good business skills and acumen. District officials point to an increase in the district’s revenues and have also taken steps, for example, in agricultural extension and regulation (for example setting minimum crop acreages for each farmer), heavily influenced by the positive refugee example.

At national level, the effectiveness of refugee settlement has helped “show that such areas can be developed given the effort and the willpower” (Norconsult, 1982). As well as creating some of the material conditions enabling further investment in the district, refugee settlement has also helped overcome a credibility barrier by showing development agencies that such unpromising and unconducive remote areas cannot only be opened up but also made productive. Indirectly also the settlers’ contribution to Rukwa’s cmcrgcnce as a major food producer has clearly helped move the hitherto ncglcctcd region into the national and govcrnmcnt consciousness and attract resources (such as for road-building, crop storage and others) as an early result.

Finally, refugee scttlcmcnt in Mpanda has occurred without negative displaccmcnt cffccts and with limited opportunity costs. In effect, no land was alienated from existing users, no labour was transferred from other sectors, while funding and technical assistance required for scttlcmcnt tapped external resources not available for other development work in Tanzania. On the contrary, compared with the alternative of supporting refugees in camps over an extended period, settlement has provided a cheaper and infinitely more cost- effective strategy.

DEFICIENCIES OF REFUGEE SETTLEMENT IN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Despite the generally positive impact which refugee settlement has exerted, it is increasingly clear that certain deficiencies and lost opportunities associated with this development strategy, as it has been practised to date, have undermined many of the intended benefits both for Mpanda district and for Tanzania.

Firstly, a range of direct negative impacts have been identified in Mpanda district. Relatively intensive land settlement carries environmental con- sequences, despite an increasing sophistication in settlement design which, in later settlements, allocated much larger farming plots and established forest reserves and buffer zones within settlements. In addition to the initial clearance of forest, concern has been growing at declining soil fertility and especially, the rate of deforestation within settlements as a result of rapid population increase, removal of fuelwood and building material and field clearance. The success of tobacco farming as the refugees’ major cash crop, with its considerable demands on timber for fire-curing, is a particular culprit. Wildlife resources have also

suffered both from farmers’ needs to protect crops and, reputedly, from the alleged involvement of refugees in both smaIf-scale and organised commerciaf poaching.

Several political and security issues have also slightfy tarnished the image of refugee settlement. Mpanda’s District Commissioner reported a considerable increase in illicit trading of food crops and consumer items and in smuggling, particularly of gold and ivorv to Burundi. Large refugee communities are also hotbeds of political opposkon in exile. Recent guerilla raids on Burundi allegedly launched by refugees from Mpanda have caused government em- barrassment at a time when it is strongly promoting regional political and economic co-operation. Political complications may also arise from such a high concentration of foreign nationals in one district, even if most become naturalised citizens. Yet. at present. local resentment of refugees and their privileges is surprisingly limited.

Secondly, the extremely low development status of both district and region and a depressed national economy from the mid-1970s onwards greatly reduced both the initial and sustained economic benefits arising both from the investment programmc (amounting to US%S million for the four settlements) and subsequent settlement opcrntion. Indeed, by the timo of Mishamo’s develop- ment, the necessity to import virtually all supplies from Dar cs Salaam or abroad meant very fittle rcvcnut‘ flokvcd into the district. The great majority of sottlemcnt staff wcrc rccruitcd from outside the region. Some income earned through salarics, crop salts and some local purchases. such as timber, did undoubtedly rccirculatc into the Mpanda economy, but this was only a fraction of the amounts which wcrc transfcrrcd to the main regional centrc of Kigoma, Dar es Salaam and abroad, in~fLiding Burundi. Moreover, once the cstahfish- mcnt phase is complctc. responsibility for the scttlcment is passed to the host country which is faced with providing staff and meeting maintenance and running costs of facifitics cstablishcd (Mongclta, 1989).

Thirdly, despite their impressive productivity, it can bc argued that the fuff potential of the rcfugecs was not cxploitcd due to constraints, in~ll~ding legal restrictions placed upon them which hindcrcd the positive bcncfits which might hnvc been anticipated from their settlcmont. Under the 1965 Rcfugce Control Act, strict limitations arc placed on the rights of refugees to travel and obtain empfoyrnent. Close control exerted over the refugee ~ol~lnltlnity may have cncouragcd, to sonic extent, corruption and exploitation. Despite some formal and informal channels through which their collective views could bc expressed and a system of viltagc government at local level within the settlements, rcfugccs wcrc targcly excluded from the decision-making affecting their scttfcment and community. The refugees also suffered from taxation without representation.

Refugee attitudes, partly due to the ways in which settlement schemes arc established and run, were not necessarily conducive to their development. Many of the refugees appear to have been reluctant settlers and, despite the material gains and favourablc conditions they enjoyed, the great majority remain strongly committed to returning to Burundi or Rwanda at the first opportunity, and also give strong support to clandestine political movcmcnts (which, of course, is in violation of their refugee status). In addition, the favourable treatment the settlers received and the way in which development proceeded may have fostered a degree of dependency. The emphasis on the physical aspects of settlement development as opposed to human resource and community dcvelopmcnt may have encouraged this further (Gasarase, 1984). This com- bination of circumstances mav well have hindered not only their full engagement in a range of economic acti;ity but also their closer integr~~tion into the host economy. It probably accounts for the organisational and economic failure of

Resource Fronaers and Regional Developmmr 83

key institutions, such as settlement agricultural co-operatives and village co- operatives, under their control.

The fourth set of difficulties arises from the isolation refugee settlements suffer in relation to the surrounding areas and communities (Kibreab, 1983). Three types of isolation can be identified in the case of Mpanda’s settlements - geographical, social and administrative.

(a) Geographical. Three of Mpanda’s district’s four settlements were located in extremely remote areas, only seasonally accessible over poor dirt roads. None had any existing population within a radius of 40 km. Mishamo’s was perhaps an extreme case - the absence of any local community to utilise the settlement’s facilities and poor transport links to neighbouring centres meant it remained a virtual enclave. This physical isolation has discouraged contact between the settlements and the rest of the district, and cut them off from potential supplies and markets. It is probably this isolation which has discouraged further spontaneous settlement by local people to make use of facilities, although this was explicitly planned only in the case of Mwese. The largest settlement, Katumba, which lies only 40 km east of the district centre and has two vital railway halts, has suffered much less in this regard.

(b) Social isoluriotl otd privilege. Former President Nyerere (1951, p. 12) once remarked that these settlements need “special help if the refugees are to reestablish their lives, but they must not bc given a privileged position”. In terms of the provision of social facilities and rclatcd scrviccs, there is little doubt that refugee communities have rcccivcd privilcgcs compared with local people. Given the economic adversity prevailing in Tanzania over the past 15 years, this contrast has bccomc cvcn more marked. Ncvcrthclcss, strong arguments have been made to justify what appears to bc exccssivc positive discrimination in favour of the rcfugccs.

(c) Adtt~it~is~rarive isolctrion. Rcfugcc scttlcmcnts arc unique institutional creations. During the scttlcmcnt’s cstablishmcnt phase. they operated as autonomous projects under a Tripartite Agreement (involving Government, UNHCR and implementing agency). After handovcr, while district and region assume responsibility for devclopmcntal functions, the Ministry of Home Affairs and its local reprcscntativc continue to excrcisc authority over the settlement community establishment. This combination of minimal local involvement at the beginning and joint central and local responsibility in later phases may serve the interests of security and protection but confuse and impede those of dcvclop- ment. Involvement of region and district authorities remains ambivalent while, in any case, their minimal development resources normally have higher priorities than the well provisioned refugee settlements. The management of the scttlcment after handover is thus beset by problems, which the return of external assistance (as in the case of Katumba, in order to provide additional facilities for the rapidly increasing population) further undermines.

Fifth, the difficult& of sustaining the impetus of early settlement dcvelop- ment may mean that the bcncfits to the district are short-lived. The mass repatriation of 55,000 Mozambiquan refugees from settlements in southern Tanzania in 1975-1976, whcrc they had temporarily provided a similar boost to the local area, provides an example of how transitory refugee settlements can be. Apart from repatriation, the slackening of development momentum of those settlcmcnts where refugees remain is due to at least two factors:

(a) The withdrawal of external funding and technical assistance following completion of the establishment phase makes more problematic the supply of, for example, agricultural inputs or external transport, on which high farming output has partly depended. Not only is the settlement thenceforth reliant on the very limited resources of local authorities (mainly district), but neglect or even asset-stripping can occur.

s-i Allen Armwong

(b) Problems of settlement expansion such as population growth, fragmen- tation of holdings, declining soil fertility, deforestation, breakdown of facilities and services.

Finally. the approach represented by the settlement scheme model stimulates regional development incidentally rather than deliberately. The need to respond quickly to an emergency situation undoubtedly focuses attention on the immediate and prime objective of refugee settlement rather than on secondary and wider objectives such as maximising linkages with local communities and economy. Settlement implementation, under time constraints, often encourages investment and service provision which is geared to physical inputs and effective project completion, rather than broader considerations of regional development and integration.

A broader and more considered approach would almost certainly involve more selective strengthening of district and regional structures (ranging from personnel to infrastructure support in sectors such as health, agricultural extension, supplies and marketing, and others) which would benefit not only the rcfugec enclave but also the surrounding communities. Development proposals are now under consideration which would seek to assist the development of Mpanda District and bridge gaps between refugee settlements and the rest of the district. Future settlement projects aimed at opening up the resource frontier increasingly may feel the need to build these considerations into projects rather than nddrcss them after settlement is completed.

REFERENCES

I~Rr\I.UI’(Bureau for Resource A\hessment and Land U\e Planrung). “Economic Report of Tdbora Region”. Rcw.lrch Report 33. Univcrxiry of Dar e\ Salaam. 1971.

BRAl.lJP (Bureau for Rrwurce A\w\\mcnt and Land Use Planning). “Busellnc Report for the Intrgratcd Dcvclopmcnt of Rukwa Regton”. Unlverslry of Dar es Salaam, lY7H.

C‘h.lmbcr\. R , .Szrrlzn~~nr Sclrrmes m Tropical A/ma. Routledge and Kecgan Paul, London, lY6Y

Chrl\rcnwn. H . Rc/lrgtw ~trtI Pwwers. United Nations Rrwarch Institute for Soclat Development, Gensva.

Cl,lrk. J. and Kosmxkl. L. (Editors). Redrrrnhunon o/ Popttku~ron m Afrtca. Heinemann, London, IYQ.

C‘l.lrk. I. . /~‘t*/lcp*t”) !rr fh~ferrr uncl Shrherrt Africa. three paper series. Refugee Potlcy Group. Washington.

lYS7.

GL13.1r;lw. C.. “The Trlpartltc Approach to Resertlemcnt and Intcgrarlon of Rural Rcfugces In Tanrama”. Rcw.lrch Rcporr 71, Scandxnavian Insure for Afrxan Studirs. Uppsala. 1984

Ciocrtng. ‘I‘. . A,~rwrlr~rrrrl Lrmd Srr~lrn~rnr World Bank. Washingron. lY78

Gorm.ln. R “Bc)ond ICARA II: lmplcmenring Refugee-Related Development Aw\tance”. Irrr. 3\lrgrofwn I((? 20(Z). x3-ZYH. iY7h

tllcCln\. B , Erorronrrc Drvelopmenr. Consrable. London, 196X . .

IBRD. “Flue-Cured Tobacco Project in Tanzania”. Report PA42, Dar es Salaam. 1970.

Kalzman. hl . Cl~rcs nnd Frontrers irr Rra:il. Harvard Unlvcr\lty Press, Cambrldgc. Mass., 1977.

K.iuxni. A.. “Increasing Agricullural Producllon and Producrlwty in Rukua Rcgwn”, Institute of Resource A\ws\mcnt. Research Report 61.

Klhrcah. Ci.. “Rcfltxtwns on African Refugees: a Crlllcal Analyslc of some haw Assumptions.” Scandinnwan Insrlrurc for African SluJ1c5. Upp\dla

hl.tiro. P . “Pc,pul.lrion Dlstrthulwn and Dcnslty”. 1978 Po~~&t~on Crnsrcr o/ Tun:urt~u. 91-l 10 Bureau of St.~t~\t~c\. D.lr 13 Salaam. lYS3.

Resource Frontiers and Regional Devefopmenr 85

hfascarenhas. A . Arfns of Rukwa. Clark Unwerstty, 1984.

Moore. J.. “Populatron Dtstribution and Denstty”. m The Popularton of Tunxma, Egero. B. and Henm, R.

(Editors). Census Vol. 6, Bureau of Stat&x pp. 38-55.

hfongella. S , “The Integratton of Refugees in Mpanda Dtstrtct”. Rev. Refugee Issues I. 31-42. 1989

Kelson. >I.. The Derelopmenr of Tropical Lands. Johns Hopktns Press. Balttmore. 1973

Nobel. P. (Edttor). “Refugees and Development rn Afrtca”. Semrnar Proceedmys. p. 19. Scandmavtan

Instttute for Afrrcun Affairs. Uppsala.

Norconsult, Rufcwa Water Musrer Plun. Norconsult, Oslo, 1982.

Nyerere. J.. Inaugural Speech. in rln Anuiwng r\ccount uf rhe Conference on Afrrrun Refugee Problems, Ertkksen. L er al. (Edttors). Scandrnavtan Instttote for African Affairs. Uppsala. 1981

Reborattr. C., “%ligration and the Agricultural Frontier”. tn Why People ,Move. Bolan, J. (EdItor). pp 29% 316. Unesco Press. Pans. IYSI

Turner. F.J.. i?e Frorrrrer in r(mrrrcwr t-hsf0r.y. New York, 19X

UN. Poprdarfon Polrc,v Comprr~d~n Department of Internatronal Economtc and SowI Aff~trsiUNFPA. Kew York. 1981

UN. “C,rse Studies in Internatlon~l Poputation Policy”, Department of lnternation~l Economic and Soctat Affairs. P~~pulat~on Pohcy Paper. No. 22, New York, 1988.

UNHCR. “Rural Settlement: Rtghts and Wrongs”. Rapport 46. pp. I-2. 1988.

URT (Unrted Republtc of Tanzania). ‘&I988 Populatron Census: Prehmnwy Report ” Bureau of Statwcs. Dar cz Sala,tm. IO&Y.

V.m Rwy. tl . “L,rnd Settlcmcnt and Regwnal Development in the Tropics”. Dtscuwon Paper. Instttute for Social Stud~cs. The H.rguc. IOSI.