In Kilosa, central Tanzania, local peace committees have helped rebuild peaceful relations between pastoralist and farming communities after decades of violent conflict. Their experience shows how inclusive, community-based committees can prevent everyday disputes over land, water, and livestock from escalating. It also raises a difficult question: Can these mechanisms remain effective if the economic conditions supporting them disappear?
Kilosa was once notorious for clashes between Parakuyo pastoralists and Kaguru and Sagara farmers. The most traumatic incident occurred on December 8, 2000, when Parakuyo pastoralists killed 38 farmers near Rudewa Mbuyuni village. The ‘Kilosa killings’ followed years of tension over grazing land, water access, and crop damage. Confusing land laws, the expansion of farming into traditional grazing areas, and ineffective government intervention contributed to the escalation.
The massacre deepened mistrust between the communities. Government attempts to impose order by force failed to create lasting peace. In 2009, the district government confiscated and transported pastoralists’ livestock and tried to remove them from contested areas. After the operation ended, pastoralists returned and disputes resumed. Violence erupted again in 2015, when dozens of pastoralists’ homes were burned and three people were killed.
Against this background, the situation observed by researchers of the Collaborative Research Centre ‘Rural Future Africa’ between 2021 and 2023 was remarkably different. Parakuyos grazed cattle on harvested fields, farmers and pastoralists traded in the same markets, and young people from both communities socialized together. Conflicts had declined, and disputes over grazing, water, and land rarely led to direct violence. One reason for that was the growing presence of churches which fostered shared values across communities and contributed to a decline in inter-group hostility.
A Shared Mechanism for Resolving Conflict
Joint peace committees were a major factor in this transformation. Local leaders and district authorities began establishing them in 2004 after recognising the need for a mechanism that could bring farmers and pastoralists together. Instead of treating one group as the source of the problem, the committees created a shared forum for dialogue, mediation, and practical rule-setting.
A committee generally has six members, with three representatives elected by each community. Its leadership is deliberately balanced: If the chairperson is a pastoralist, the secretary should be a farmer, and vice versa. Equal representation gives the committees legitimacy. Decisions are negotiated by people who understand the livelihoods and concerns of both groups rather than imposed by outsiders unfamiliar with local conditions. Over time, the committees have become recognised institutions whose rulings are generally accepted.
Their work begins with prevention. The committees define where cattle may graze and crops may be cultivated. Pastoralists must keep livestock out of designated farming areas, while farmers may not cultivate land reserved for pastoral use. These reciprocal rules reduce the uncertainty and competing claims that once allowed minor incidents to become broader confrontations.
When rules are broken, the committees bring the parties together, assess the damage, and determine compensation. Many cases involve cattle entering fields and destroying crops. Livestock owners must compensate farmers according to the extent of the loss. In Mbwade village, farmers reported 18 such cases between January and March 2023. All were resolved through fines ranging from Tshs 5,000 (US $2) to Tshs 40,000 (US $16).
Not every ruling is accepted immediately, and persistent offenders sometimes refuse to pay. Unresolved cases may still be referred to the police. Nevertheless, the committees settle most routine disputes without involving the formal justice system or provoking retaliation. Compensation has become an alternative to revenge.
From Trespassing to Economic Exchange
The committees do more than resolve individual incidents. They have helped farmers and pastoralists establish arrangements that make their livelihoods more complementary.
During the dry season, pastoralists need additional fodder, while farmers have maize stalks and other crop residues after harvesting. Under the new system, cattle may not enter fields before the harvest is completed in July. Representatives of both communities then negotiate prices for crop residues and access to harvested land. Pastoralists may pay farmers between TShs 50,000 (US $20) and TShs 100,000 (US $40) per hectare for a season.
What was once regarded as trespassing has become a regulated economic exchange. Farmers earn additional income, pastoralists secure fodder, and both sides gain an interest in maintaining peaceful relations. The committees provide the institutional framework that makes these agreements credible and helps resolve resulting disputes.
Economic Change Supports Local Peace
The committees’ recent success was supported by an economic intervention that offered pastoralists income beyond subsistence activities. In 2018, the construction of Tanzania’s Standard Gauge Railway through Parakuyo pastoral land created paid employment, around Tshs 400,000 (US$ 160) per month. Young Parakuyo morans (warriors) in particular, traditionally the age-set most associated with defence of livestock and in the past with violence, had taken up paid work as security guards on the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR).
Salaries from railway security and construction-related jobs gave pastoralist households additional income. They could pay for access to harvested fields and compensate farmers when cattle caused damage. Employment also stimulated trade, encouraged new businesses, and increased contact between communities. Some pastoralists hired people from neighbouring groups to herd their cattle, while women gained opportunities in commerce and railway-related work.
However, railway construction also created new problems. The line divided grazing areas, while additional income enabled some pastoralists to enlarge their herds, increasing environmental pressure.
More importantly, railway employment is temporary. When construction in Kilosa ended in 2025, many Parakuyo moved to the next section of the project to work as security guards. Once railway construction ends entirely, these jobs are likely to disappear. Pastoralists may then lose the additional income needed to rent harvested fields and compensate farmers for crop damage. The economic agreements supporting the current peace could become harder to maintain.
Kilosa’s experience therefore offers both encouragement and warning. Peace committees can transform conflict by creating trusted forums in which communities establish reciprocal rules, assess damage and negotiate compensation. Their legitimacy comes from equal representation, local knowledge and shared responsibility.
Yet effective local peace institutions also require sustainable economic conditions and long-term support. Kilosa’s achievement is not that disputes have disappeared. Rather, they are increasingly addressed through dialogue, shared rules and restitution instead of fear, force and retaliation.
Keywords: Tanzania, Kilosa, farmer, pastoralist, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, herder, agriculture
Lucy Massoiis Senior Lecturer on Gender & Governance and Director of Internationalization & Convocation at Mzumbe University, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Conrad Schetteris Director of the Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies and Professor for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Bonn, Germany
Venance Shillingiis Associated Professor in Strategic Management at the School of Public Administration & Management (SOPAM) of Mzumbe University, Morogoro, Tanzania.
