…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… 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%). These findings reveal systemic flaws in the consultation process that fail to meet FPIC standards—especially for marginalised groups with low literacy and limited project awareness. 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.

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.

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.” 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...

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…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…