Connect with us

NGO WORK

Travel Conglomerate Lindblad Expeditions Acquires Thomson Safaris Despite Allegations Against the US Firm of Land Theft & Abuses Against the Maasai

Published

on

On April 30, 2024, US-based luxury safari operator Wineland-Thomson Adventures, which runs Thomson Safaris in Tanzania, was acquired for approximately US$30 million(link is external) by the adventure travel conglomerate Lindblad Expeditions. The acquisition came just weeks after the release of Capitalizing on Chaos, a report by the Oakland Institute that documents the ongoing resistance of Maasai communities to Thomson Safaris for alleged land theft and human rights abuses committed by the company’s agents in Tanzania. Announcing the deal, Sven-Olof Lindblad, CEO of Lindblad Expeditions, emphasized(link is external) the importance of being “stewards of the Wineland-Thomson brands and honoring the legacy of its founders.”

“The legacy Lindblad will continue is one of dispossession, violence, and greed. For years, Maasai villagers have reported suffering at the hands of Thomson Safaris. Despite the well-known harms caused by safari-tourism in Tanzania, Lindblad now seeks to further profit from the industry,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute.

Since 2006, the Mondorosi, Sukenya, and Soitsambu villages have been ensnared in a prolonged struggle against the company for the return of 10,000 acres of their land. In several court filings, local communities have accused Thomson Safaris of using its agents to beat and repress them while preventing their access to lands critical for grazing cattle. This struggle takes place in a context where the Tanzanian government announced a devastating new plan in January to forcibly evict 100,000 Maasai from the nearby Ngorongoro Conservation Area. Across the country, Tanzanian paramilitary wildlife rangers are responsible for killings, murders, torture, as well as massive cattle seizures to pressure the Maasai and other Indigenous communities to leave their ancestral land in order to expand the tourism industry.

Despite the international condemnation of the Tanzanian government’s land grabs and human rights abuses, Lindblad plans to(link is external) “further accelerate the growth of the Wineland-Thomson offerings and capitalize on the growing demand” for safaris. The deal and the firm’s expansion plans illustrate the growing corporatization of safari tourism in the name of conservation, which threatens local communities across Africa. Lindblad Expeditions is listed on the Nasdaq stock exchange and its shareholders include major asset management firms such as Ariel Investments, Fidelity, Blackrock, and Vanguard Group. In 2023, the firm reported(link is external) over US$569 million in revenue.

Lindblad Expeditions advertises itself(link is external) as a “leader in responsible travel and sustainability” and its subsidiary that it acquired Thomson Safaris through – Natural Habitat Adventures (Nat Hab) – is a self-proclaimed “world leader in conservation travel.”(link is external) Both companies have high-profile partnerships with National Geographic and WWF. Nat Hab boasts that(link is external) “when you travel with Nat Hab and WWF, you become an integral force for change in addressing the planet’s most pressing conservation challenges.”

However, WWF has been widely criticized for advancing a “fortress conservation” model1 and for turning a blind eye(link is external) to multiple cases of torture, rape, and murder of local communities committed by rangers in its conservation projects across several countries.2

Lindblad Expeditions claims(link is external) to be 100 percent carbon neutral as it “offsets” its emissions through South Pole – a firm which has also been embroiled in numerous scandals,3 most notably regarding its flagship Kariba REDD+ project in Zimbabwe.

“The growing involvement of large profit-driven conglomerates in the tourism sector is alarming for local communities whose livelihoods are jeopardized by the loss of their ancestral lands. If Lindblad and Nat Hab are truly as committed to responsible travel and sustainability as they advertise, they must immediately address the Maasai communities’ demand for the return of their land from Thomson Safaris,” concluded Mittal.

###


  1. Former U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, John Knox, said at the October 26, 2021 Congressional hearing that there’s enough evidence supporting the accusation that WWF had engaged in “fortress conservation.” Abulu, L. and Sutherland, L. “WWF distances itself from rights abuses at U.S. congressional hearing.” Mongabay, November 2, 2021. https://news.mongabay.com/2021/11/wwf-distances-itself-from-rights-abuses-at-u-s-congressional-hearing/(link is external).
  2. Nepal, Cameroon, the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo and India. A 2020 independent review(link is external) commissioned by WWF revealed that the agency knew for years that it was funding alleged human rights abusers but repeatedly failed to take timely action(link is external).The investigation found no evidence that WWF staff directed, participated in, or encouraged any abuses. During a subsequent US Congressional hearing in 2021(link is external), WWF came under fire for failing to meet its human rights obligations.
  3. An investigation by Follow the Money in 2023(link is external) revealed that over 60 percent of the carbon credits sold from the project by South Pole were fictious given they vastly overestimated the amount of deforestation prevented by the project. The failures of the Kariba project are indicative of serious legitimacy questions plaguing the broader carbon offset market. A 2023 investigation(link is external) found that over 90 percent of credits certified by Verra – the industry leading certification agency used by South Pole – were “phantom credits” that did not represent actual carbon reductions. Blake, H. “The Great Cash-for-Carbon Hustle.” The New Yorker, October 16, 2023. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/23/the-great-cash-for-carbon-hustle(link is external); Elgin, B., Marsh, A., and M. Haldevang. “Faulty Credits Tarnish Billion-Dollar Carbon Offset Seller.” Bloomberg, March 24, 2023. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-03-24/carbon-offset-seller-s-forest-protection-projects-questioned?leadSource=uverify%20wall(link is external).; Greenfield, P. and N. Chingono. “‘We don’t know where the money is going’: the ‘carbon cowboys’ making millions from credit schemes.” The Guardian, March 15, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/15/money-carbon-credits-zimbabwe-conservation-aoe(link is external).  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/23/the-great-cash-for-carbon-hustle(link is external); “BP and Spotify bought carbon credits at risk of link to forced Uyghur labour in China.” The Guardian, November 12, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/13/carbon-credits-at-risk-of-link-to-uyghur-forced-labour-bought-by-bp-and-spotify(link is external)

Original Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Violations against Kenya’s indigenous Ogiek condemned yet again by African Court

Published

on

Minority Rights Group welcomes today’s decision by the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in the case of Ogiek people v. Government of Kenya. The decision reiterates previous findings of more than a decade of unremedied violations against the indigenous Ogiek people, centred on forced evictions from their ancestral lands in the Mau forest.

The Court showed clear impatience concerning Kenya’s failure to implement two landmark rulings in favour of the indigenous Ogiek people: in a 2017 judgment, that their human rights had been violated by Kenya’s denial of access to their land, and in a 2022 judgment, which ordered Kenya to pay nearly 160 million Kenyan shillings (about 1.3 million USD) in compensation and to restitute their ancestral lands, enabling them to enjoy the human rights that have been denied them.

Despite tireless activism from the community and the historic nature of both judgments, Kenya has not implemented any part of either decision. The community remains socioeconomically marginalized as a result of their eviction and dispossession. Evictions have continued, notably in 2023 with 700 community members made homeless and their property destroyed, and in 2020 evicting about 600, destroying their homes in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Daniel Kobei, Executive Director of the Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program stated, ‘We have been at the African Court six times to fight for our rights to live on our lands as an indigenous people – rights which our government has denied us and continues to violate, compounding our plights and marginalization, despite clear orders from the African Court for our government to remedy the violations. This is the seventh time, and we were hopeful that the Court would be more strict to the government of Kenya in ensuring that a workable roadmap be followed in implementation of the two judgments.’

Image: The Ogiek delegation outside the African Court after the delivery of the decision. 4 December 2025.

Kenya has repeatedly justified the eviction of Ogiek as necessary for conservation, although the forest has seen significant harm since evictions began. Many in the community see a connection between their eviction and Kenya’s participation in lucrative carbon credit schemes.

‘The Court’s decision underscores the importance of timely and full implementation of measures imposed on a state which has been found to be in breach of their internationally agreed obligations. Kenya must now repay its debt to the indigenous Ogiek by restituting their land and making reparations, among other remedies ordered by the Court’, said Samuel Ade Ndasi, African Union Advocacy and Litigation Officer at Minority Rights Group.

The decision states, ‘the court orders the respondent state to immediately take all necessary steps, be they legislative or administrative or otherwise, to remedy all the violations established in the judgment on merits.’ The court also reaffirmed that no state can invoke domestic laws to justifiy a breach of international obligations.

Both of the original judgments were historic precedents, breaking new ground on the issue of restitution and compensation for collective violations experienced by indigenous peoples and confirming the vital role of indigenous peoples in safeguarding ecosystems, that states must respect and protect their land rights, that lands appropriated from them in the name of conservation without free, prior and informed consent must be returned, and their right to be the ultimate decision makers about what happens on their lands. Today’s decision adds to this tally of precedents as it is the first decision of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights concerning the record of a state in implementing a binding decision.

The case

In October 2009, the Kenyan government, through the Kenya Forestry Service, issued a 30-day eviction notice to the Ogiek and other settlers of the Mau Forest, demanding that they leave the forest. Concerned that this was a perpetuation of the historical land injustices already suffered, and having failed to resolve these injustices through repeated national litigation and advocacy efforts, the Ogiek decided to lodge a case against their government before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights with the assistance of Minority Rights Group, the Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program and the Centre for Minority Rights Development. The African Commission issued interim measures, which were flouted by the Government of Kenya and thereafter referred the case to the African Court based on the complementarity relationship between the African Commission and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and on the grounds that there was evidence of serious or massive human rights violations.

On 26 May 2017, after years of litigation, a failed attempt at amicable settlement and an oral hearing on the merits, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights rendered a merits judgment in favour of the Ogiek people. It held that the government had violated the Ogiek’s rights to communal ownership of their ancestral lands, to culture, development and use of natural resources, as well as to be free from discrimination and practise their religion or belief. On 23 June 2022, the Court rejected Kenya’s objections and set out the reparations owed for the violations established in the 2017 judgment.

Source: minorityrights.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Climate wash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights

Published

on

Climate wash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights reveals how the Bank is appropriating climate commitments made at the Conference of the Parties (COP) to justify its multibillion-dollar initiative to “formalize” land tenure across the Global South. While the Bank claims that it is necessary “to access land for climate action,” Climatewash uncovers that its true aim is to open lands to agribusiness, mining of “transition minerals,” and false solutions like carbon credits – fueling dispossession and environmental destruction. Alongside plans to spend US$10 billion on land programs, the World Bank has also pledged to double its agribusiness investments to US$9 billion annually by 2030.

This report details how the Bank’s land programs and policy prescriptions to governments dismantle collective land tenure systems and promote individual titling and land markets as the norm, paving the way for private investment and corporate takeover. These reforms, often financed through loans taken by governments, force countries into debt while pushing a “structural transformation” that displaces smallholder farmers, undermines food sovereignty, and prioritizes industrial agriculture and extractive industries.

Drawing on a thorough analysis of World Bank programs from around the world, including case studies from Indonesia, Malawi, Madagascar, the Philippines, and Argentina, Climatewash documents how the Bank’s interventions are already displacing communities and entrenching land inequality. The report debunks the Bank’s climate action rhetoric. It details how the Bank’s efforts to consolidate land for industrial agriculture, mining, and carbon offsetting directly contradict the recommendations of the IPCC, which emphasizes the protection of lands from conversion and overexploitation and promotes practices such as agroecology as crucial climate solutions.

Read full report: Climatewash: The World Bank’s Fresh Offensive on Land Rights

Source: The Oakland Institute

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Africa’s Land Is Not Empty: New Report Debunks the Myth of “Unused Land” and Calls for a Just Future for the Continent’s Farmland

Published

on

A new report challenges one of the most persistent and harmful myths shaping Africa’s development agenda — the idea that the continent holds vast expanses of “unused” or “underutilised” land waiting to be transformed into industrial farms or carbon markets.

Titled Land Availability and Land-Use Changes in Africa (2025), the study exposes how this colonial-era narrative continues to justify large-scale land acquisitions, displacements, and ecological destruction in the name of progress.

Drawing on extensive literature reviews, satellite data, and interviews with farmers in Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, the report systematically dismantles five false assumptions that underpin the “land abundance” narrative:

  1. That Africa has vast quantities of unused arable land available for cultivation

  2. That modern technology can solve Africa’s food crisis

  3. That smallholder farmers are unproductive and incapable of feeding the continent

  4. That markets and higher yields automatically improve food access and nutrition

  5. That industrial agriculture will generate millions of decent jobs

Each of these claims, the report finds, is deeply flawed. Much of the land labelled as “vacant” is, in reality, used for grazing, shifting cultivation, foraging, or sacred and ecological purposes. These multifunctional landscapes sustain millions of people and are far from empty.

The study also shows that Africa’s food systems are already dominated by small-scale farmers, who produce up to 80% of the continent’s food on 80% of its farmland. Rather than being inefficient, their agroecological practices are more resilient, locally adapted, and socially rooted than the industrial models promoted by external donors and corporations.

Meanwhile, the promise that industrial agriculture will lift millions out of poverty has not materialised. Mechanisation and land consolidation have displaced labour, while dependency on imported seeds and fertilisers has trapped farmers in cycles of debt and dependency.

A Continent Under Pressure

Beyond these myths, the report reveals a growing land squeeze as multiple global agendas compete for Africa’s territory: the expansion of mining for critical minerals, large-scale carbon-offset schemes, deforestation for timber and commodities, rapid urbanisation, and population growth.

Between 2010 and 2020, Africa lost more than 3.9 million hectares of forest annually — the highest deforestation rate in the world. Grasslands, vital carbon sinks and grazing ecosystems, are disappearing at similar speed.

Powerful actors — from African governments and Gulf states to Chinese investors, multinational agribusinesses, and climate-finance institutions — are driving this race for land through opaque deals that sideline local communities and ignore customary tenure rights.

A Call for a New Vision

The report calls for a radical shift away from high-tech, market-driven, land-intensive models toward people-centred, ecologically grounded alternatives. Its key policy recommendations include:

  • Promoting agroecology as a pathway for food sovereignty, ecological regeneration, and rural livelihoods.

  • Reducing pressure on land by improving agroecological productivity, cutting food waste, and prioritising equitable distribution.

  • Rejecting carbon market schemes that commodify land and displace communities.

  • Legally recognising customary land rights, particularly for women and Indigenous peoples.

  • Upholding the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for all land-based investments.

This report makes it clear: Africa’s land is not “empty” — it is lived on, worked on, and cared for. The future of African land must not be dictated by global capital or outdated development theories, but shaped by the people who depend on it.

Download the Report

Read the full report Land Availability and Land-Use Changes in Africa (2025) to explore the evidence and policy recommendations in detail.

Source: Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter