Natural resource governance in Mozambique’s Cahora- Bassa-Mágoè landscape

Key issues and recommendations for enhancing effective, inclusive and equitable governance

Barbara Nakangu, Stela Malola and Maria Matediane

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE, 2021

The designation of geographical entities in this report, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or other participating organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or other participating organisations.

IUCN is pleased to acknowledge the support of its Framework Partners who provide core funding: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland; Government of France and the French Development Agency (AFD); the Ministry of Environment, Republic of Korea; the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad); the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida); the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the United States Department of State.

Published by: IUCN, Washington, DC, United States

Copyright: © 2021 IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: Nakangu, B., Malola, S. and Matediane, M. (2021). Natural resource governance in Mozambique’s Cahora–Bassa–Mágoè Landscape: Key issues and recommendations for enhancing effective, inclusive and equitable governance. Washington, DC: IUCN.

Cover photo: Stela Malola

Layout by: Alix Kashdan

Available from: IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature Global Programme on Governance and Rights Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland, Switzerland [email protected] www.iucn.org/resources/publications

Acronyms

AAAJC Association of Legal Support and Counselling to Communities (Associação de Apoio e Assistência Jurídica às Comunidades) ADPP Aid for the Development of People for People (Ajuda de Desenvolvimento de Povo para Povo) ADVZ Zambezi Valley Development Agency ARA-Zambezi Regional Water Agency of Zambezi CBRNM Community Based Natural Resources Management CCP Community Consultative Platform CESC Civil Society Learning and Training Center CSO Civil Society Organisation GDP Gross Domestic Product EDN National Development Strategy EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EITI Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative FPIC Free prior and informed consent HCB Hydro Electric company INE National Institute of Statistics IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LOLE Law of Local State Bodies MOU Memorandum of Agreement MSD Multi Stakeholder Dialogue MSMEs Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NRGF Natural Resource Governance Framework NRMC Natural Resources Management Committees OSF Open Society Foundations PEDPT Tete Province Strategic Development Plan PES Payment for Ecosystem Services PWYP Publish What You Pay SAGCOT Southern Africa Green Growth Corridor SDAE District government representative for economic activities UNDP United Nations Development Programme

1

Acknowledgments

The authors of the report acknowledge Open Society Foundations (OSF) for funding this study. In addition, we acknowledge the IUCN team that facilitated the study: Saruchera Davison, the Regional Coordinator of the Water Programme in East and Southern African; Mauricio Xerinda, the Country Representative of the Mozambique programme; and Maria Ana Borges, the Manager of Global Water for Landscapes. Finally, we acknowledge the team from Aid for the Development of People for People (Ajuda de Desenvolvimento de Povo para Povo – ADPP) in Mozambique and the various leaders of Tete province and the districts of Mágoè, Cahora Bassa and Marara, who participated in this study.

2

Executive Summary

SUSTAIN-Africa

This report analyses the governance context of the Cahora-Bassa-Mágoè landscape in Mozambique. The analysis aims to strengthen inclusive and equitable governance through the SUSTAIN-Africa programme. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme is funded by the Dutch Government and is implemented by IUCN and ADPP with the goal of enhancing the consideration of achieving inclusive and equitable private sector-led development in mining, fisheries and agriculture to benefit small-holder farmers.

This analysis

This analysis is based on the Natural Resource Governance Framework (NRGF), an IUCN knowledge product for undertaking comprehensive natural resources governance assessments and action ( Springer et al., 2021). The NRGF centres local stakeholders, especially rights holders in decisions on natural resources management to positively impact the security and resilience of disadvantaged peoples’ livelihoods and rights. The analysis drew primarily from a desk review of both scholarly and grey literature, including project documents, to assess the extent to which they reflect and consider rights and equity issues. It also included interviews with IUCN and ADPP coordinators of the first phase of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme, as well as field interviews with local leaders who benefited both directly and indirectly from the programme.

The analysis shows how to consolidate and scale up the achievements of the first phase of the SUSTAIN programme by strengthening the landscape approach that the programme deployed. Achievements included enhancing the livelihood and resilience strategies of over 2,000 people through improved management of water, fisheries and forest resources. The interventions included strengthening the organisation of farmer groups and developing skills, tools and experiences in SMART agriculture, water resources management and market value chains. The programme further promoted a framework for regular sharing of lessons and experiences, as well as lobbying for policies and programmes through landscape and national-level platforms.

SUSTAIN and Mozambique

The report shows that achieving inclusive, equitable and effective decision-making requires certain enabling conditions in the given governance context, and enabling these conditions is in turn shaped by the balance of local power relations. Mozambique’s policy and legal landscape provides a favourable framework for establishing conditions for effective natural resources governance. However, the country faces implementation challenges that programmes like SUSTAIN-Africa can help address. SUSTAIN can use existing governance structures to facilitate inclusive discussions around implementation and accountability issues. These decisions catalyse and enhance the scale of restoration and sustainability of conservation achievements.

NRGF principles: strengths

: In particular, the report finds that Mozambique’s governance context includes institutions and processes that can achieve inclusive participation in all sectors such as land, fisheries and

3 forestry (Principle 1). These institutions include natural resources management committees, customary institutions and district councils, all of which are devolved and accessible to a majority of stakeholders (Principle 4). Hence, these institutions can be used to explore various decisions on local entrepreneurship that also boost and sustain natural resources

: The governance context is clear around the structures and processes that differentiated categories of people can use to claim tenure rights (Principle 2) – including drawing on customary systems to claim those rights (Principle 3). Hence, the existing context provides a frame through which to enhance inclusion and equity among the marginalised or vulnerable.

: Mozambique’s governance systems are broad enough to accommodate possible exclusions. For example, gender-based and inter-generational rights that are often obscured in customary institutions can be claimed through statutory structures. These various frameworks allow the coordination and mobilisation of a shared landscape vision among different stakeholders.

: The governance framework creates detailed and explicit guidelines for benefit sharing in the different sectors, with examples of exemplar cases in the landscapes. This foundation provides a basis to address the key barrier to most local entrepreneurship: access to capital.

: The governance systems provide clear frameworks for accountability (Principle 8), the rule of law (Principle 9) and grievance mechanisms (Principle 10). It enables and ensures the coordination of responsible development.

NRGF principles: opportunities

: SUSTAIN-Africa should strengthen support to mandated institutions (e.g. natural resources management committees, district councils) where possible, and strengthen the capacity of local communities to use these institutions to participate in decision-making. Most of the local institutions were not established with broad input, and the decision-making on natural resources management has limited input from broader society. These institutions have historically prioritised coordinating central government programmes over enabling inclusive decision-making. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme should enhance the regular use of existing structures to enable broader societal participation in shaping the landscape management approaches, implementation and budgets that it supports. This strategy will demonstrate and catalyse confidence of local people to demand a say in the management of other public and NGO programmes. This will include enhancing their capacity to shape the costs and benefits from anticipated investments in ways that also secure and sustain their lives and natural resources.

: The programme should support participatory mapping of various rights-holders based on use, access and ownership of resources. Categorisation of all people should be prioritised; for example, including characteristics such as gender, age, income level, ethnicity and location. This information should then be used to shape the substance of rights issues considered and the process of decision-making in which the majority participates. This way, anticipated investment and management decisions will reflect the voices, views, knowledge and interests of all stakeholders, especially those most marginalised such as women, youth and isolated peoples in remote areas. Participatory rights mapping should involve raising awareness across the majority of stakeholders to ensure they understand their rights and the processes through which to secure them. Most importantly, the mapping should highlight the best ways to reduce barriers and to enhance entrepreneurship opportunities for marginalised groups.

: SUSTAIN-Africa can encourage traditional leaders to refocus their role to represent local communities, and in particular to use their platforms to increase recognition of local knowledge and experience in problem analysis, programme design and programme monitoring, particularly around

4 investments and resources management. Currently, traditional leaders weakly represent their constituents’ perspectives and values because they prioritise their own and those of the central government.

: The programme should strengthen general mobilisation around a common vision for both economic development of individuals and the community. The programme should also prioritise the sustainability of resources at the community and landscape levels, with particular reference to benchmarking the rights issues that have been mapped (see above, Principle 2). This should strengthen the link between the various established strategies and the local community engagement around a common goal.

: The SUSTAIN-Africa programme can influence better mapping and lobbying for fair benefit sharing by demonstrating these principles throughout the project. In particular, SUSTAIN-Africa should use decision-making structures to expand the reach of the programme’s benefits to the wider society, including in ways that enhance entrepreneurship opportunities. These efforts can catalyse a reflection of how public benefit sharing schemes established in policy can be equitably operationalised to address the key barriers to entrepreneurship, such as access to sustainable credit, inputs, markets and a wider and more diverse group of beneficiaries.

: These principles – accountability, rule of law and grievance mechanisms – are closely linked. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme can influence the discussion around these issues and strengthen existing relevant systems by using them as a basis for communities to seek redress on project decisions.

Table of Contents

5

6

1. Introduction

African growth corridors

In the past decade, a number of African governments have established growth corridors, such as the Southern Africa Green Growth Corridor (SAGCOT). One of the objectives for their designation is to attract and enable large-scale foreign private investments in natural resources to stimulate rural economic growth.1 However, this strategy has led to increased fears about the negative impacts of foreign investment on biodiversity, ecosystem services, rights and livelihoods of local people.2 Consequently, programmes such as Sustainability and Inclusion Strategy for Growth Corridors in Africa (SUSTAIN-Africa) were developed to influence inclusive, sustainable investment strategies to safeguard biodiversity and livelihoods that depend on biodiversity, and to contribute to enhancing the livelihoods and resources in the landscape. SUSTAIN-Africa is a 10 year initiative, funded by the Dutch government and implemented in the Tanzania and Mozambique growth corridors since 2014.

SUSTAIN-Africa programme

The first phase of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme reflects on the effectiveness of natural resources governance of the landscapes and the extent to which programmes such as SUSTAIN-Africa can contribute. Governance is critical because it determines the extent to which inclusion, safeguards and equity are adhered to in development programmes. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme determines how conservation and development initiatives can contribute to the governance improvements that are needed to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of the positive results they achieve. This analysis provides broad lessons and recommendations applicable to any interventions of a government, NGO, private sector actor or donor aiming to improve natural resources governance in a landscape and to enhance just and sustainable natural resources management.

The main objectives of the programme were to work in a cluster of landscapes in the two focus growth corridors to contribute to:

1. Water security, including a sustainable and climate-resilient supply of water for livelihoods, production, health and ecosystems. 2. Climate change adaptation and mitigation through land resource management. 3. New investment and business partnerships that reflect long-term synergies between development and conservation, and that raise investments and lower risks for rural households, commercial enterprises and sustainable economic growth. 4. Policy, learning and evidence to improve public and private sector strategies for sustainable water, land, ecosystems and climate change resilience, and the integration of learning and evidence into business planning and policies on economic growth.

Open Society Foundations (OSF) funded this assessment to highlight how the SUSTAIN-Africa programme empowers majority smallholder farmers to actively and meaningfully engage with and benefit from envisaged economic development opportunities in landscapes. The programme is well recognised by both duty bearers and rights-holders as supporting the conditions needed to shape private sector developments in Mozambique

1 For example, the South African Growth Corridor of Tanzania: http://sagcot.co.tz/index.php/partnership/. 2 See https://landportal.org/sites/landportal.info/files/african_agricultural_growth_corridors_new_alliance_- _econexus_june_2013_0.pdf. Also see https://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Tenure-and- Investment-in-Africa_Synthesis-Report_TMP-Systems-RRI_Jan-2017.pdf.

7 and Tanzania. Specifically, the first phase of SUSTAIN helps implement national, provincial and landscape-level environmental and development plans, which will enable scaling up of results – a critical step for enhancing the security of local peoples’ rights.

Mozambique analysis

SUSTAIN-Africa conducted programme implementation in two landscapes in Tanzania and Mozambique that contain vast conserved areas. These landscapes are the Sumbawanga and Ihemi-Kilombero ‘clusters’ in the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT) and the Cahora-Bassa-Mágoè and the Marara landscape in Tete Province, Zambezi Valley in Mozambique. The Mozambique conserved areas are shown in the map below.

This analysis shows that the SUSTAIN-Africa implementation approach through farmer clubs (a model of local cooperatives promoted by ADPP) in Mozambique led to a number of significant livelihood results which were crucial for enhancing the economic power and resilience of over 2,000 individuals in the landscape. However, to strengthen and enhance the scale of results to reflect the voice, interests and values of marginalised groups, this report recommends strengthening the use of the mandated community based natural resources management institutions as the main implementation platform of the programme. This will enable more balanced participation by wider society in programme interventions. These institutions can ensure that the outcomes from the SUSTAIN-Africa programme are long-lasting, in particular the increased capacity of marginalised groups to actively and positively participate in decision-making on natural resources management.

8

2. The Natural Resource Governance Framework

IUCN’s Natural Resource Governance Framework (NRGF) guided this assessment (Springer et al., 2021). The NRGF is an initiative that provides an inclusive and credible approach to assessing and strengthening natural resource governance, at multiple levels and in diverse contexts. The NRGF consists of a central framework of 10 key principles and criteria for assessing equitable and effective natural resource governance.

Governance definition The NRGF centres society to boost their In the context of the natural resource governance framework (NRGF), governance is defined as the agency as active participants alongside interactions between norms, institutions and processes powerful actors – like duty bearers – in that determine how power and responsibilities over shaping the implementation of fair natural resources are exercised, how decisions are policy/legal provisions that support rights- taken and how rights-holders and stakholders – based approaches in resource including women, men, youth, Indigenous peoples and management and development. The main local communities – secure access to, participate in and aim of the NRGF is to help catalyse and are impacted by the use and management of natural strengthen a balance of power between resources (adapted from Graham et al., 2003). duty bearers and rights-holders.

This report:

 Highlights how to create the enabling conditions needed to achieve rights-based approaches, including criteria for local structures and processes.  Makes recommendations for how SUSTAIN-Africa partners and other actors operating in the Zambezi Valley Landscape can bolster the power of local people to claim their rights and work with duty bearers, the private sector and media partners to address existing marginalisation and inequalities.  Emphasizes the need to regularly explore and benchmark intervention actions that impact rights issues, inequities and marginalisation. Such analyses highlight the ways to enhance inclusion, cooperation and trust among rights-holders and powerful actors like the private sector, elites in society and duty bearers in natural resources management.  Identifies weaknesses in the Mozambique natural resources governance system that impede meaningful participation of some people – leading to different forms of inequities.

The analysis is preceded by a brief background of the Zambezi Valley Landscape (in which the Cahora-Bassa- Mágoè and Marara districts are located).

3. Cahora-Bassa-Mágoè and Marara Landscapes

Tete Province, Zambezi Valley

9

3.1 Geographic and economic context

Tete Province

Tete is one of 11 provinces that make up Mozambique.3 Located in the Zambezi river valley, Tete province has 15 districts,4 one city, four municipalities, 34 administrative posts and 123 locales.5 The Tete territory is about 100,724 km2, of which 98,230 km2 is land and 2,494 km2 is inland waters. Of the province’s 2,648,941 inhabitants, about 67 per cent are considered poor and 31.8 per cent are food insecure.6 The majority of people in Tete depend on natural resources for their livelihoods.7 Fisheries, mining, land and forests are the main resources attracting the private sector and central government to exploit resources in the Zambezi Valley Landscape.

Zambezi Valley

Key features of the landscape in Tete are the Cahora Bassa Reservoir and the Zambezi River delta. The delta contains the largest pristine mangrove in Eastern Africa, with vast wetlands that are designated as a Ramsar site.8 It houses the largest concentration of water birds in Mozambique, including the endangered Grey Crowned Crane, vulnerable Wattled Crane and a major breeding colony of Great White Pelican in southern Africa.9 The Zambezi Valley hosts the Marromeu National Reserve, four extensive safari-hunting areas and two forestry reserves, as well as numerous forestry concessions.10 It is also home to one of the densest populations of buffalo on the continent and other wide ranging species such as the African elephant, the endangered wild dog and a unique population of “Selous” zebras.11

Mining and mineral resources

SUSTAIN Phase II efforts are particularly important in Tete Province because Tete is a prioritised economic zone due to the presence of various minerals in the province, especially coal.12 Large areas of Tete have been leased for mining,13 but few of the anticipated large-scale investments to the corridor have materialised.14 By 2016, 13 large companies operated in the Cahora Bassa-Mágoè-Marara corridor (six in Tete City, one in the Marara district and six in the Cahora Bassa district).15 Companies that were active in the area have closed (including Rio Tinto, Anglo American and MozBife).16

3 The SUSTAIN-AFRICA project document, June 2016. 4 Angónia, Cahora Bassa, Changara, Chifunde, Chiuta, Macanga, Mágoè, Maravia, Moatize, Mutarara, Tsangano, Zumbo, Doa and Marara. 5 Mozambique’s government structure is provinces at the highest level, then districts, then administrative posts and finally locales. Provinces are composed of a number of districts, which are in turn composed of administration posts. The lowest unit is a locale, a number of which are governed under an administrative unit. 6 Fourth National Poverty Assessment (2014-2015). 7 Ibid. 8 https://rsis.ramsar.org/about 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_offices/mozambique/ 12 https://ejatlas.org/conflict/resettlements-for-mining-projects-in-tete-province 13 https://ejatlas.org/conflict/resettlements-for-mining-projects-in-tete-province 14 The SUSTAIN-Africa baseline report (2016) shows that a number of large scale companies at the Cluster/Corridor and National levels was assessed. Out of a total of 355 companies listed, only 177 were large companies, most (85 per cent) represented at the National level. Only 12 large companies operated at the Corridor level. 15 Baseline report for SUSTAIN-Africa programme, 2016. 16 Ibid.

10 Nonetheless, in 2017-2018, the province signed 20 mining concessions, and authorities were in the process of allocating 55 per cent of the area to mining companies for prospecting or exploitation.17 Fifty per cent of total national exports are minerals, and 56 per cent of these minerals is coal mined in Tete Province.18 Coal is mainly mined from the Moatize, Changara, Mutarara, Maravia and Zumbo districts. Tete Province also has base metals (copper, nickel and zinc) associated with gold, as well as vanadium and silver in Chidué and Fingoé; mineralization of iron, vanadium and titanium in the Moatize district; gold in changara, Chifunde and Chiuta; cobalt and molybdenum in Angónia; and graphite in Cahora Bassa and Tsangano.

The key company currently operating in Tete is Jindal Power & Steel Multinational, which has operated an open cast mine in Chirodzi since 2012, with a 25-year, 17,000 hectares concession.19 In 2014, the Mozambican government signed a similar agreement with the Chinese Kingho Energy Group to open a coal mine at Mufa, in the Marara District.20 This concession area covers 8,000 hectares about 45 km west of Tete city.21 The Mufa mine is relatively small and projected to produce five million tonnes of coal a year.

Mining violations and conflicts

Many mines have demonstrated slowdowns in coal production in recent years. The main causes behind this slowdown are conflicts and exposure of rights violations in the media, in addition to the global drop in coal prices.22 Field consultations show that many mine operations caused conflicts with communities for failing to implement appropriate social, environmental and human rights protective measures since mining operations commenced. The media and human rights organisations continue to raise many concerns.23

People do attempt to shape or halt investments that threaten their livelihoods and rights, with varied levels of success. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme baseline report notes, “The working environment in Tete is not favourable to the big companies (particularly the extractive ones) due to frequent news in the media reporting cases of noncompliance with rules and laws.”24 Similarly, the report notes, “Corporate practices and policies related to environment and social responsibility are sensible topics here in Mozambique especially for big companies.”25 These excerpts reflect some level of power of society to hold companies accountable in enforcing social and environmental safeguards. However, the report further shows that local opposition is successful in combating mining operations only with the support of external actors such as NGOs and the media. This demonstrates that while local society has some power, it is limited in capacity and the report shows how to enhance it.

SUSTAIN-Africa Phase II

This context is critical for shaping the second phase of SUSTAIN-Africa programme interventions. The second phase of SUSTAIN-Africa should increase the capacity of rights-holders to enforce legal provisions that protect their rights from private sector interests and enable them to shape costs and benefits in equitable ways. The time lag in anticipated investments from mining companies (indicated above) provides valuable lead time. Communities can use this time to focus more on proactive approaches to strengthen the structures and processes that enhance their capacity to shape anticipated economic developments and address barriers to development. The economic and ecological achievements of SUSTAIN Phase I provide important lessons explored later in this report for which governance components need to be strengthened and scaled up. In Phase

17 Ibid. 18 EITI report Mozambique, 2017-2018. 19 Communication from District government representative for Economic activities (SDAE). 20 Feijo, 2016, 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 https://ejatlas.org/conflict/resettlements-for-mining-projects-in-tete-province 24 SUSTAIN-AFRICA Baseline report for Mozambique. 25 Ibid.

11 II, the programme has an opportunity to place society in a more powerful position to shape private sector and government interventions that enhance their own local economic capacities.

3.2 Cahora-Bassa-Mágoè landscape

The Mágoè and Cahora Bassa districts have a population of 99,210 and 151,529, respectively.26 Each is composed of three administrative units.27

Cahora Bassa dam

A key feature of the landscape is the Zambezi River, which includes the Cahora Bassa dam. The dam is operated by Hydro Electric Company (HCB) and powers five 415-megawatt turbines (the installed capacity is 2,075 megawatts).28 The dam is 275 km long, 30 km wide, and covers a flooded area of 2,700 square kilometres.29 The dam is the largest hydroelectric power scheme in southern Africa and is the fourth largest artificial lake in the whole of Africa.30 Its shore is dominated by various types of Mopane woodland, gorges and cliffs at the eastern end of the lake, and mixed open woodland with denser patches.31 This shore ecosystem buffers the Mágoè National Park.

Fishing sector

The lake and river systems associated with the Zambezi River and Cahora Bassa dam are increasingly important for the growing fisheries sector (which serves both semi-industrial markets and artisa nal niches).32 In 2014, there were at least 52 companies involved in commercial fishing in the region, owning about 252 boats.33 Most of the companies are set up by and run by foreign nationals (mainly from Zimbabwe and South Africa), and much of the fish harvested is exported, contributing to the 160 million dollars per year of Mozambique’s national revenue from the fishing sector.34 The licensing of fishing activities grew at an average annual rate of 1.8 per cent between 2011 and 2016, with the licensing of vessels for related operations standing out for its growth rate of 8.6 per cent.35

Mágoè National Park

The landscape includes the Mágoè National Park, established in 2013. It covers 355,852 hectares and is located between Mágoè and Cahora Bassa districts. The park includes large- and-medium sized animals, such as elephants, hippos, lions and other species. About 3,700 people, members of a semi-nomadic community, live in the land surrounding the park.36

26 http://www.tete.gov.mz. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 PEDPT, 2019. 34 Ibid. 35 PEDPT, 2019: 38. 36 http://www.tete.gov.mz

12 The landscape is strategically located along the border with Zimbabwe and Zambia. The landscape has fairly extensive road infrastructure and a mobile telephone network, as well as access to important markets including cross-border markets, the provincial capital of Tete, the district capital Chitima and the central parts of the Mphende region. The landscape has a growing tourist industry focused in the Cahora Bassa Reservoir and in the downstream Zambezi river basin. Tourists mainly engage in sports and recreational fishing.

The SUSTAIN-Africa programme established 10 farmer groups in the Cahora Bassa region that are engaged in fishing, agriculture, forestry and water resources management. These farmers are involved in shaping various components of the local agricultural value chain.

3.3 Marara landscape – dryland

The Marara district is marked by bushy vegetation cover and shrubby savannah, as well as some forested areas and seasonal rivers. It has relatively nutrient-poor soil, a long dry season and low rainfall in its woodland areas. It is home to many species and provides food and cover for mammals such as the African elephant (Loxodonta africana), African wild dog (Lycaon pictus), sable antelope (Hippotragus niger) and Lichtenstein's hartebeest (Sigmoceros lichtensteinii).

The Marara district covers 2,713 km2 and has a population of 92,435 inhabitants37 across two administrative posts: Mufa Moroma and Marara Cachembe. The majority of the population in the district depends on agriculture and produces a range of agricultural commodities including cotton, beans and sesame. The district has 11 registered artisanal fishermen,38 and the field interviews revealed the presence of “illegal” artisanal gold miners in the communities of Nhamadzanidzani, Cassoca and Chacocoma.39

Field consultations revealed that the southern part of the Marara district has well established protections for forest resources, and the district has issued a number of local production licenses to community members to produce firewood and charcoal. Natural resources that attract investments include minerals (coal and gold), limestone, timber and fish.40 Nine companies were in the process of being licenced to exploit wood,41 but there was also a noticeable increase in illegal logging of wood and charcoal. Mining is also growing in the district. 42 Jindal, one of the big mining companies operating in Tete , has been present in Marara since 2012. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme was implemented through 15 farmer groups in the Marara district. SUSTAIN- Africa mainly engaged in supporting4. Analysis: and building Scope capacity forand farmers Approach in agriculture and water resources management.

4.1 Landscape approach

The SUSTAIN-Africa programme followed a landscape approach,43 which at its core focuses on recognising the overlapping ecological, social and economic priorities of the project area. The landscape approach aims to

37 District government representative for economic activities ( SDAE). 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 www.tete.gov.mz 41 Interview with SDAE. 42 See https://ejatlas.org/conflict/resettlements-for-mining-projects-in-tete-province. 43 SUSTAIN-Africa project document.

13 balance the land use dynamics of natural resource management with environmental and livelihood considerations,44 and facilitates an inclusive decision-making process for landscape management and benefits. It also takes into account trade-offs between different actors and their competing interests, values and perspectives – all influenced by power relations at play. A successful landscape approach establishes decisions that reflect a common understanding and fair agreement on benefits and tradeoffs by all concerned stakeholders, especially by disadvantaged, minority and vulnerable groups.

The analysis below shows the extent to which the landscape approach implemented by SUSTAIN-Africa achieved desired outcomes in the management of water resources, land, forestry and fisheries. As highlighted above, the main implementation approach of the SUSTAIN-Africa programme in Mozambique was providing technical and financial resources to producer clubs. SUSTAIN’s plans and interventions reflect project priorities, including NRGF approaches for achieving inclusion and equity. The programme also engaged and convened policy makers from the district, province and national levels to guide and learn from the various project interventions. The analysis below shows the governance context’s strengths and gaps, which SUSTAIN-Africa and other conservation and development initiatives should take into account during any future intervention.

4.2 NRGF analysis

Landscape management decisions on conservation and development are reflected in strategic plans made during the SUSTAIN-Africa programme in Mozambique. These decisions reflect the prioritized values, interests and power of the main decision-makers on the project, and also reflect the extent to which enabling conditions for achieving inclusive and equitable governance were in place (see 4.4, project outputs, for more details). The NRGF allows for a systematic assessment of these enabling conditions to determine if they address equity and rights issues and if they draw from a diverse knowledge base (Springer et al., 2021). This analysis was primarily based on the strategic plans and reports developed by the producer clubs (composed of farmers), which reflect different sector actors and the breadth and depth of stakeholders’ actions to address agriculture, fisheries, forestry and water resources management. The NRGF analysis reveals the groups excluded from decision- making and the reasons for their exclusion. This review included the following:

of strategies/management plans and associated policies and legal information. This analysis used the 10 NRGF principles as a reference for a systematic reflection of the extent to which the legal and policy context meets the criteria for each principle. The analysis also explored the reasons and assumptions that explain inequities and marginalisation in policies and practices.

of the project documents and progress reports to determine the extent to which the intervention reflected an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses in the governance context (revealed through the desk analysis). The review also explored how the implementation approach addressed the limitations for achieving inclusive and equitable decision-making.

in the three focus districts – Mágoè, Cahora Bassa and Marara – to engage in discussions with key stakeholders. These included duty bearers (responsible for economic services in each district), councillors, project managers, project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. Field work included a workshop in Tete, where the NRGF was used to guide discussions. Discussions were also facilitated with 12 groups across nine communities, five of which were established under the SUSTAIN programme and seven of which were existing Natural Resources Management Committees (NRMC) in the forestry, fisheries and mining sectors.45

44 Blomley and Walters (2019). A landscape for everyone: integrating rights-based and landscape governance approaches, https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/48504. 45 Field work was led by the Association of Legal Support and Counselling to Communities [Associação de Apoio e Assistência Jurídica às Comunidades (AAAJC). Individual interviews were held due to the COVID-19 context.

14 The governance assessment explored interventions that reflected the dominant resources in each district:

: The project focused on sustainable fisheries, water quality issues and livelihood diversification, i.e. vegetable gardens and micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs).

: The project focused on the National Park buffer zone and surrounding areas. Key issues are biodiversity conservation, integrated forest management, development of sustainable livelihood strategies and minimisation of human-animal conflict.

: The project focused on agriculture,46 and specifically on the governance of land, water resources, forestry and mining.47

4.3 Field work interviews

The following table describes the different groups that were interviewed during the fieldwork exercises.

- Nhamajanela Forest Management Committee Emilia Dausse Group: 50 members Marara - Cassoca/Nhamatua Community Natural in Nhacamba Resources Management group - Clube de Agricultores de - SDAE district representative Chinhanda - Chissua and Nhamabando Natural Resources - Kubverana Fishermen’s Management group Association in Chinoco - Chinoco Community Fisheries Committees Cahora Bassa - Chinhanda acquired land title - Chissua Natural Resources Management - Associação Tikumbuqueni- Committee Farmers Club in Chissua - Nhambado Community Committee for Fisheries Ntendere Wafica farmers club: Mágoè Cazindira Community committee for fisheries located in Zambeze

Implementing the SUSTAIN-Africa programme involved establishing 40 producer groups, each composed of about 50-60 participants. Ten groups were in Marara, 15 were in Cahora Bassa and 15 were in Mágoè. SUSTAIN worked with these groups to implement projects focused on SMART agriculture, water resources management and restoration activities. Project interventions were carried out in demonstration land (each averaging about four hectares)48 acquired by SUSTAIN on behalf of the participating groups. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme supported the groups by providing incentives such as higher quality bulls and goats, seeds, irrigation systems and support to link to markets.

Discussions with the local groups reflected people’s perception of conservation problems, decision-making structures and processes, and the power relations that explain the challenges in natural resources governance. The general questions that guided the discussions were:

 Who is included/excluded from decision-making on management, use, access and benefit sharing of selected resources? How and why are some categories of society included /excluded?  What are the implications for people’s capacity to enhance entrepreneurship potential?

46 Tembe, 2019; project document; field interviews, 47 Despite the mining sector not being an active intervention area, it was considered in the project because it is a core area of economic development. 48 Sampled groups had an average of 4 hectares, but ADPP staff indicated that sizes differed based on the community.

15  How does the project implementation approach help address exclusions and inequalities reflected in the governance context?  What gaps remain?  What are the implications of the inclusion and exclusions that remain?  What are the governance achievements?  What is the implication for the sustainability of the programme results?

4.4 Governance achievements

Overall, the SUSTAIN-Africa programme in Mozambique made the following contributions to economic livelihoods, resilience and management of the landscapes. Key among these achievements were:

 . SUSTAIN-Africa helped strengthen water resources management by engaging 40 groups with a total of 2,000 members. The programme demonstrated and influenced water resources management technologies, including establishing and maintaining wells, water point management and water harvesting. The aim was to secure water availability for various community-based production projects. A number of these practices were replicated by farmers in their own fields.  Adopting new technologies was critical for the resilience of the communities and to enhance their production quantities to advance beyond subsistence to include marketing. SMART agriculture technologies included techniques for maintaining soil moisture, new irrigation methods and post-harvest technologies and infrastructure.  SUSTAIN helped to diversify livelihoods by providing new options and assets for the programme’s beneficiaries, including access to higher quality animals (goats and bulls), capacity-building for apiculture49 and support for collecting non-timber forest products like baobab fruits. SUSTAIN-Africa also linked farmers and fishers to additional tools and resources, such as constructing and equipping two local animal treatment sites with vaccination capacity.  SUSTAIN-Africa linked the farmer groups to buyers and shortened the value chains of various products. SUSTAIN-Africa further supported discussions and decisions to explore and document a plan for farmers to establish a payment for ecosystems service scheme between the Mágoè protected areas authorities and managers of the Cahora Bassa Reservoir.  SUSTAIN-Africa supported the 10 farmers groups in securing land rights.  SUSTAIN-Africa supported the managing authorities of the Zambezi Basin sub-committee to implement elements of their strategic plans, such as monitoring water quality and establishing nurseries for catchment restoration. SUSTAIN-Africa also supported the development of a collaborative arrangement for implementing landscape management responsibilities between a hydro-electric power company, the Zambezi Valley Authority, Mágoè National Park and the province and district institutions.

Overall, the programme made significant contributions to increasing the economic capacity of the project beneficiaries, which helped advance entrepreneurship opportunities. Project activities also established and positioned the SUSTAIN-Africa programme as a capacity-builder for duty bearers and decision-makers, helping to mobilise resources and coordinate multi-stakeholder collaboration to improve the livelihoods of over 2,000 local people.

The following analysis demonstrates how to scale up and deepen the SUSTAIN-Africa project’s engagement with a wider population. Strengthening the natural resources governance of the landscape can enhance and

49 Apiculture: beekeeping.

16 secure rights of local people and help sustain the impact already achieved through SUSTAIN Phase I. The analysis also highlights the extent to which SUSTAIN addressed the governance challenges that have led to inequities and exclusions.

5. Findings

This analysis explores the extent to which Mozambique’s legal framework provides for each of the 10 NRGF principles and demonstrates practical operationalisation of the principles. It helps explain power dynamics and relationships between members of society, duty bearers and other actors in natural resources management. The report specifically explores relationships based in cooperation, trust, conflicts, apathy and disengagement. It further reflects the governance context and the extent to which the SUSTAIN-Africa programme interventions took the context into account.

17 Generally, the analysis shows that Mozambique has established a natural resources policy and legal framework for achieving each NRGF principle, but reveals significant limitations in implementating these policies and frameworks.50 A main limitation across principles is a lack of overall capacity of any programme to achieve good governance outcomes. The recommendations divert from the common conception that duty bearers, the private sector and NGOs are the main actors responsible for initiating stronger governance, and instead focus on rights-holders as critical actors for driving and sustaining the implementation of good natural resources policies. The report further highlights how rights-holders can help create conditions that strengthen their influence from below, focusing on boosting society’s procedural and substantive participation in decision- making on various aspects, including in investments and local economic development. The NRGF principles provide a systematic and comprehensive basis for this analysis and these recommendations.

5.1 Stakeholder mapping

A stakeholder map is the starting point for analysing governance. The table below highlights the key rights- holders that need to be included in decision-making on natural resources management (Annex 1 highlights additional stakeholders, primarily governments, departments, NGOs and other actors). This table highlights different categories of rights-holders and the issues that need to be considered for enabling their participation in decision-making.

- Customary land owners (consider age, - Right to decide on access, - Inequality in gender, wealth), including those use, benefit and access, use and marginalised by location upstream and management of resources management downstream of the Zambezi river through customary and that risks - Internal migrants (consider original region, statutory institutions livelihoods age, gender, wealth) - Right to shape own security, - Migrants from other countries livelihoods and resilience, - National and international community development pathways apathy and - The diverse traditional leaders (recognising - Right to safeguard against disengagement the matrilineal and patriarchal groupings) risks to present and future - Conflicts over - Community-elected representatives livelihoods from resource resource use - Technical leaders management and - Investors development - NGOs - Right to clean environment

5.2 NRGF principles

Principle 1: inclusive decision-making “Decision-making regarding natural resource policies and practices is based on the full and effective participation of all relevant actors, with particular attention to the voice and inclusion of rights-holders and groups at risk of marginalisation” (Springer et al., 2021).

This principle is used to assess the enabling conditions for the participation of majority stakeholders in decision- making on natural resources management. Primarily, the focus is on disadvantaged or often excluded people,

50 Norgrock and Tanner, 2016; De Wit, P. and Norfolk, S., 2010; Madondo, 2015.

18 such as women, indigenous peoples, youth, people with disabilities and labourers, especially in private sector companies such as mines, agricultural enterprises or fisheries. These groups should be allowed to exercise free prior and informed consent (FPIC), through their own governance systems, regarding any activities that may change their rights over access, use or ownership of particular resources. The analysis includes a reflection on the extent to which policies and laws of Mozambique provide clear directives and regulations on the best structures and processes through which to enable majority rights-holders’ meaningful participation in decision- making. The assessment then considers the process and extent to which structures are established and used in socially and culturally appropriate ways.

Principle 1: summary table

- Mozambique’s policy - Most NRMC have not been - Use established structures (NRMC, and legal frameworks established in the project community assemblies) to include the provide for structures landscape, especially where whole society in: and processes to there are limited tangible  Problem analysis and transparent enable inclusive economic returns. decisions from a rights governance. - The community councils - Key among them are: perspective  Community are in place but prioritise  Decisions about each SUSTAIN councils from directives of central intervention the local, government more than  Determining how the SUSTAIN- district and mobilising people’s voices Africa programme as a whole province levels in government strategies. contributes to strengthening  Natural - There are inadequate rights resources incentives and capacity to - Facilitate participatory mapping of all management justify and sustain the categories of right holders based on committees NRMC to most local their access to and use of different (NRMC) in each leaders. resources. Pay more attention to sector; - The SUSTAIN-Africa issues such as gender, ethnicity, community implementation approach income and age that often lead to committees in through farmer groups marginalisation. the fisheries limited the impacts of - Enable transparency and inclusive sector; forest establishing and discussions and decision-making by committees; strengthening the NRMC using interactive mass media tools – environment and councils’ governance such as radio and phones – to reach a committees around resources wider community, include more management. voices and process feedback.

Principle 1: strengths

. All legal and policy frameworks across natural resources sectors include provisions for enabling people’s full participation in decision-making on the management and benefits of resource use, as well as the safeguards against risk from economic development or unsustainable use.51 The main framework is the Mozambique constitution, Article 90, which provides for the involvement of the state, local authorities and civil society in all decisions regarding natural resources use and management. For example:

51 For a quick summary, see De-wit and Norflock (2010). Other supporting literature includes Norflock and Tanner (2007) and Chizanne et al. (2015).

19 - The 1997 Land Act provides for establishing an advisory land committee as a platform to enable rights-holders to apply for access and use rights from the central government (district administrator) that formally designates land rights. The advisory committee and assembly are platforms available to all members of society to participate in discussions and decision-making on distribution of land rights alongside central government technocrats. - The other key platform used by rights-holders to participate in decision-making on land rights is the customary institutions, recognised in the 1997 Land Act as one avenue through which the wider population can claim land rights from the state. The law also provides for the advisory committee to complement the customary platform, which is crucial because the customary route may exclude some disadvantaged groups due to ethnicity, gender and age. - The natural resources management committee is another framework provided for across sectors (Forest and Wildlife Act, Water Act, etc) for people’s participation in making decisions on the management, access, use and benefit of resources.52 These committees allow participation of all categories of society in decision-making about planning, management, protection and licencing (in some cases they control/issue local licences and oversee those issued from the central level). - The EIA 2004 Act complements the provisions above with its Technical Committee for public participation in shaping economic investments in natural resources in some sectors, such as mining. The Technical Committee includes community representatives, central government leaders at local levels, the private sector and technical government staff, who participate in overseeing EIA assessments and implementation.

. In addition to the specific sector participatory platforms above, Mozambique provides for consultative community councils located at local, town and district levels. These councils are general political structures through which people in an area participate in decision-making on various issues. It is composed of elected people from the area it represents, and ideally convenes twice a year or when the need arises to address an issue with the community or through the central government. Indeed, it is through the consultative council that resources management committees or advisory land committees are selected. These councils are de-facto structures for peoples’ participation where resources management committees are not established. Hence, society should use these platforms to influence resource investment decisions in ways that enhance their own entrepreneurship capacity.

. Mozambique also formally recognises the Civil Society Platform for Natural Resources and Extractive Industry. This is a multisectoral platform that involves several forums working in natural resources management in Mozambique. The platform aims to facilitate the articulation and discussion of common interests and promotes a constructive and coordinated dialogue with the government and private sector.53 The platform is also provided for at the provincial level in Tete.

. The legal and policy frameworks include elaborate process guidelines and regulations for people to claim their rights. For example, registering land rights involves a clear process of selecting a land committee, which in turn coordinates a participatory mapping exercise, participatory demarcation, validation and designation of land areas in the cadastre54 repository. To achieve inclusivity, the representatives at the land committees must have a clear and transparent process for consulting through the customary and community platforms.

: Generally, different sectors (fisheries, forestry, water and wildlife) have guidelines for establishing resources management committees which are complemented by community councils and a civil society platform. These institutions are the main platforms through which the majority of people can

52 Environmental ACT of 1997; forest, agriculture, fisheries, wildlife and water policies. 53 https://www.wwf.org.mz/noticias/?1440/Sociedade-Civil-une-se-na-criao-de-Plataforma-multissectorial-de-gesto-de- Recursos-Naturais 54 Cadastre: registry of land.

20 make decisions that impact their economic capacity, and decisions that are taken forward (by various technical agencies or through policy processes) to the central government at the district, province and national levels (see Annex 1). These institutions shape budgets and interventions, but technocrats at the central level seem to make most decisions, which leaders then implement without much engagement from the majority of people.

Principle 1: limitations

. There are only a few established natural resources management committees in the landscape, since most landscapes do not have tangible resources from which the government generates revenue.55 Without such resources, local leaders have limited incentive to establish these committees, but without the committees, people have limited participation in making decisions about resource access, use and management. Instead, decisions are made by technocrats.

. The established platforms have weaknesses in the process of including majority rights-holders in decision-making. For example, Tembe (2019) notes that some fisheries councils violate community rights to access resources.56 The project interviews revealed that most people are unaware of their rights to participate in the Community Consultative Platform (CCP), or do not know about legal provisions to use committees to guide their rights claims. This lack of awareness is prevalent, despite the formal convening of the platforms every month and quarter. The committees work to implement government functions such as licencing and revenue collection, but focus less on community inputs to government management decisions.

. The problem above is linked to the weak capacity of most rights-holders to lead and influence discussions and decision-making processes. This in turn is linked to the extent to which discussions are transparent, use societal knowledge systems and focus on substantive issues that matter to different people (such as security of tenure, livelihood improvements, investments and benefit sharing).

. The institutions that are in place are ineffectively used by the government and NGOs to facilitate decision-making on their own initiatives.57 The limited use of the institutions contributes to undermining their legitimacy and relevance to the community, despite being the most appropriate mechanisms to facilitate inclusive decision-making. Implementing programmes through other platforms can pull the duty bearers’ attention, reducing their focus on the rights issues that affect the majority of people and instead using working groups organised by NGOs because they often have funding.

This is an area that SUSTAIN-Africa should focus on. In Phase-I, SUSTAIN-Africa primarily worked through farmer clubs, which limited the programme’s capacity to consider other majority rights-holders’ issues. Implementing SUSTAIN-Africa through the participatory platforms highlighted above will increase the likelihood of including the majority of people in discussing problems and solutions on natural resources management and resources for economic opportunities.

. Where there are no natural resource management committees, the community council is the main structure for people to participate in decision-making on natural resources management and natural resources-based investments. However, community councils are considered to be extensions of the central government, following and responding to directives from the government rather than society.58 This context explains one of the reasons why most community

55 Comments from the CBRNM network coordinator . 56 These rights are provided for in Article 23 (2) (a) of the Fisheries Law: to access resources for subsistence, access areas for artisanal fishing; and sharing benefits. 57 Tembe (2019) shows the case of the fisheries sector. 58 Madondo (2015).

21 members are disengaged from the councils and do not actively participate unless their livelihoods are significantly threatened (such as the threat of displacement).59

. The law allocates the responsibility of deciding whether or not to undertake an EIA to government administrative officials only. This legal provision limits the power of the majority of people to shape economic investments on the land – especially those activities that do not require EIAs. This occurs in two ways: - Technical officials decide if an EIA is needed and what form it will take.60 Public participation is only requested when an investment requires an EIA, which implies that most people do not help shape natural resources-dependent investments that do not require EIAs. Administrative decisions on undertaking EIAs are primarily based on the applicant’s submission, which is meant to indicate the social and environmental impacts envisaged. However, oftentimes applicants under-emphasise potential negative impacts from their proposed projects, and because the public does not participate at this point in the process, they are unable to expand on expected negative impacts that the applicants have left out. - Field consultations confirm that society’s capacity to shape the EIA process is fragmented and weak. EIAs that are undertaken are mostly symbolic – most private sector actors follow the process because it is a requirement to acquire a licence, but do not follow through to implement provisions. For example, the Jindal mining company has been operational since 2012, but did not begin to implement EIA provisions until 2019 – after significant objections from the community.61 The weak EIA process results in irregularities in the resettlement and community compensation processes. Many resettlement cases in the communities of Nhamanhumbiri (District of Montepuez), Kassoca (District of Marara), Cateme, 25 de Setembro and Muhaladzi (District of Moatize) provide further empirical evidence of inappropriately conducted resettlement and compensation for the expropriation of land and other assets.62

Generally, many business development projects do not undertake an EIA, despite the projects causing negative impacts on people and nature. Additionally, where EIAs are required, public participation is limited to addressing social and environmental safeguards (especially resettlement and compensation). The public does not: manage or sustain resources; propose investment models that include broad society as shareholders or actors at different levels of the value chain; or shape alternative investments that benefit broad society. Instead, society is often mostly considered as a supplier of labour and receives benefits as income for their labour. Drivers and shapers of investment decisions are often the powerful actors (duty bearers and the private sector). Societal power is only prominent in extreme cases when people seek redress through community tribunals (see principle 10) or when they are considered as outsiders who benefit from CSR negotiated by the state. Society’s weak capacity to shape land-based investments is also reflected in the weak enforcement of safeguards when EIAs are undertaken.

Existing frameworks enable the use of identified institutions (customary, natural resources committees and community councils) for inclusive decision-making on various key decisions such as management, investment models and opportunities, but the on-the-ground conditions for majority people’s participation need to be strengthened.

Principle 1: recommendations

. A program like SUSTAIN-Africa should use mandated participatory platforms for making project management decisions. Using these platforms can enhance the capacity of

59 Madondo (2015). 60 Not all investments require EIAs; The policy differentiates along categories of a, b and c. 61 See also https://ejatlas.org/conflict/resettlements-for-mining-projects-in-tete-province. 62 Velasco (2016); Mosca and Sulemane (2011).

22 rights-holders and duty bearers to consider wider societal issues, which in turn makes the platforms more relevant. Effective use of these platforms will depend on the extent to which decisions made are acted on and accounted for. SUSTAIN can play a role in ensuring that actions decided on at the platform are implemented and that accountability is measured.

. The first phase of Box 1. Support to Kubverana Fisheries Association SUSTAIN was implemented through through SUSTAIN-Africa. small producer groups of 50 people each, which limited the programme’s In 2018, ADPP, through SUSTAIN-Africa, influenced reach.63 It also limited the consideration the creation of a fisheries committee in Chinoco, of rights issues that apply to wider Cahora-Bassa known as Kubverana Fishermen's Association. It included 50 men and women who categories of people in the area. worked in the fishing sector. Most members were For example, while Phase I addressed motivated by incentives (access to motor boats and tenure issues within the project area,64 fishing nets). The main market activity of the association is the artisanal fishing of Tilapia / Pende for broader issues were not given adequate sale. consideration. Most people do not have formally registered titles, which leads to ADPP implemented a policy for the association to co- loopholes where powerful actors who finance a symbolic amount of 250,000 meticais (about apply for the same land are able to $3,500 USD) to buy a boat for members to use. This policy divided the group because not all members were “grab” it because they have more able to contribute. Only four members had the ability, capacity to submit to the cadastral and they managed to contribute 112,000 meticais 65 registry. The project could have (about $1,570 USD), paid in installments to ADPP. supported a process of collective These members own and control the boat. delineation of land rights. Such a Additionally, Kubverana Association only accepts new process could raise awareness, members upon payment of an amount determined by recognition and confidence among the the association (not determined by broader society). population on land boundaries and This implies that the majority of people are managing affairs with outside actors automatically excluded from membership. through “verbal” collective claims,

which are formally recognised and represent a security measure against land speculators.66 Indeed, the risk of not focusing on the wider majority in decision-making may have benefitted a few at the expense of the majority.

Box 1 also shows how the SUSTAIN project interventions can create conditions that tilt the power balance away from weaker groups – often the majority – and may have led to their inability to make decisions and access benefits. The unforeseen consequences were a possible exacerbation of inequities among the population, and benefits did not go to the most marginalised.

. The second phase of SUSTAIN can strengthen existing institutions by utilising them as the primary structures for decision-making and implementing the programme. The effective use of the mandated institutions to enhance inclusion, rights and equity will require: - transparent and collective problem analysis; - drawing from diverse perspectives; - reaching fair agreements on solutions and tradeoffs; and

63 Interviews in eight sites indicated that the population in the areas was about 819. 64 Acquired land titles for 4 hectares for 10 groups. 65 Chizane et al. (2017). 66 Norflock and Tanner (2007); Dewit and Norflock (2010).

23 - motivating cooperation and sustained engagement in stewardship.

Specific contributions for Phase II include: - . Phase II can use mandated structures to engage wider society in decision-making for project problem analysis, implementation and accountability. The project should strengthen the process and substance of mapping various rights-holders and ensuring they have access to decision-making. This would: o strengthen the legitimacy of the structures; o bolster and motivate majority society participation and confidence in natural resources management; o encourage majority participation in shaping nature-based development models; and o illustrate how society can most equitably engage and benefit beyond only being considered as a labour source. Through this framework, all stakeholders, especially marginalised people, should be enabled to discuss and explore opportunities and barriers to entrepreneurial activities. - . The decision-making processes must reflect the diverse rights- holders’ perspectives, interests, values and knowledge. A rights-based mapping of stakeholders and issues is one of the areas that needs improvement. Mapping the issues should be based on multiple interests, perspectives and knowledge and should be a transparent process in order to build a shared understanding among stakeholders. - . The programme intervention must consider the relationship between conservation problems and majority rights-holders, especially for disadvantaged or marginalised groups. - . Phase II should operate through these committees and ensure that different appropriate platforms (such as customary, council, land committees or EIA technical committees) can be used as institutions through which rights issues at various levels are addressed synergistically.

. The second phase of SUSTAIN-Africa provides a good opportunity for a test run of five years (2020-2025) to mobilise majority decision-making on landscape issues, including community-led investment decisions, through the resource management committees.

Principle 2: recognition and respect for tenure rights “Rights to lands, resources and waters are recognised and respected, with particular attention to the customary, collective rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and to women’s tenure rights” (Springer et al., 2021).

The NRGF promotes recognition and respect for land and resource rights. Customary and collective rights are especially important, because they motivate local stewardship of lands and resources, which in turn contributes to effective and equitable natural resources governance. The legal framework in place should provide for the recognition of structures and processes used to secure customary, collective and individual tenure rights, including for marginalised groups such as women. Tenure rights should be robust and enhance access, use, benefit and management of resources. The processes and capacities of duty bearers and rights-holders should enhance the recognition, protection and enforcement of tenure rights, including clarification of overlaps among the various bundles of rights such as access, use and ownership.

Principle 2: summary table

24

- Mozambique’s natural - Most of the population - Facilitate participatory mapping of resource governance lack registered land rights-holders/issues in relation to policies and laws rights, and this has resources in the landscape and how include a broad basis caused risks of SUSTAIN-Africa’s interventions affect for self-determination dispossession and them. and securing rights of conflicts from powerful - Prioritise broader categories, such as access to, use of and interests. gender, income level and a variety of benefit from natural - There are only a few livelihood groups. Note that these are resources through both institutions (ie NRMC) dynamic. customary and through which to claim - Work through councils and statutory systems. rights such as benefit establish/strengthen NRMCs to - The provisions are sharing. facilitate open and participatory broad, - Councils through which discussions of possible solutions to accommodating rights can be claimed secure majority rights to different various rights issues are often coopted by resources. including marginalised powerful interests. - Enhance awareness of rights, groups such as women - The programme mechanisms and processes for and migrants. inadequately mapped claiming rights through platforms. - The SUSTAIN-Africa rights issues/groups, - Enable society to regularly discuss programme supported which limited and track different land uses and their the securing of land SUSTAIN’s ability to impact on rights through the rights for 10 groups. strengthen them. platforms, especially since “verbal” claims is a recognised formalisation of rights.

Principle 2: strengths

. Mozambique’s constitution and sectoral laws allocate ownership rights over land and all the key natural resources (fisheries, minerals, timber, wildlife and water) to the government. Nonetheless, the laws also include clear provisions to secure the rights of all Mozambicans to access and use resources to safeguard their livelihoods, shape economic models and share benefits from commercial exploitation of resources. The rights are claimed though customary systems or occupancy of the land for 10 years or more.

. The provisions for claiming land and resource rights through customary and community institutions are broad enough to accommodate all categories of Mozambicans (Principle 1)67. These inclusive provisions provide a framework to address potential exclusions based on gender, age, race, class or ethnicity. People who are unable to claim rights through customary institutions can claim their rights as residents of the community. The state law makes it clear that it respects but supersedes customary laws. Thus, the policy deliberately establishes a framework that balances power between the customary and modern institutions, providing society broad choices, avenues and capacity to claim their rights. The main category that seems excluded is future generations.

. The land policy also provides for diverse forms of formalisation of rights, including “verbal testimony.” This helps accommodate the limited capacity of most rights-holders to file formal

67 Norflock and Tanner (2007).

25 registration with the government cadastre register.68 However, verbal formalisation must be secured through regular participatory updates and open proclamation of rights, as well as delineating areas for speculators.69 This system affordably and collectively secures rights from powerful interests who may have the capacity to register their land. The law also includes an important safeguard that all applications of land by non-citizens must be subjected to community consultations.

. Transparent clarification of national citizens’ collective and individual tenure rights entitles them to receive economic and financial benefits from the implementation of private or state-owned land operations – including agriculture, livestock, reforestation, logging, mining, oil, gas and industrial companies – particularly when they occupy an area over 10,000 hectares.70

. The provisions in the land laws apply to various sectoral laws governing natural resources. The Forest and Wildlife Law provides for claiming rights to access and use resources through cultural and community institutions. Particularly, the law provides for the following:71 - Use wildlife and forestry resources for subsistence and cultural rites. - Access simple licences in multiple use areas for economic exploitation of resources. Conditions for simple licences are less stringent compared to foreign concessionaires. - Share 20 per cent of any forestry and wildlife concessions. - Share 50 per cent of the revenue from fines imposed for violating legislation. Revenue shares are given to any member of the community that reports a violation. - Concessions are only provided when clear outcomes from conservation efforts are demonstrated.

. Both sea and inland water fisheries guarantee rights of fishing communities to subsistence fishing. Article 20 of the law provides for the possibility of creating areas solely for artisanal fishing by nationals. Article 27 reserves territorial waters up to three nautical miles exclusively for small- scale fishing, subsistence fishing, scientific research and sport fishing. These rights are claimed through the community platforms highlighted above.

. The Mining Law provides for safeguards, resettlement and sharing 2.75 per cent of benefits with local people.

Principle 2: limitations

. The analysis reflects weaknesses in the structures that the majority population can use to claim their rights. The council is viewed as an extension of the central government and seems to prioritise investors’ and government interests, rather than representing society and mobilising people to engage and shape investors’ decisions.72 Furthermore, there are few NRMC in the

68 Ibid. 69 Ibid; Dewit and Norflock (2010). 70 CESC (2017). 71 CESC (2017). Tembe (2019). 72 Madondo (2015).

26 landscape. This explains, in part, the weak capacity of people to claim their rights and shape investment decisions, as well as the weak enforcement of environmental laws such as EIAs.73

. Most people have weak capacity to register their rights, such as land titles, at the national cadastre. The registration process itself is slow because of additional limited capacity at the 74 registrar. Additionally, the majority of people are unable Box 2. EIA violation: Jindal mining to meet the costs associated with rights legislation. By company 2006, only 185 titles in the landscape had been issued.75 Mining regulations require The “verbal declaration of rights,” often used instead of implementing a resettlement plan official registration, can be insecure and undermined by before operations begin. However, the titles issued from the central government, especially in Jindal company in the Cassoca areas with rich resources. community started mining coal in 2012, but only managed to resettle the . Benefit sharing from mining Cassoca community to Nhamatua in investments is determined by district governments, with 2019. Furthermore, the district only limited or no input from society. NRMC in the forest sector benefited from the mining fund in are mostly used to implement the 20 per cent benefit 2019. sharing, and yet there are many cases where communities do not actually receive any benefits.76

. The literature shows that some access and use rights for subsistence are denied, especially in the fisheries sector, by committees that enforce licences (Tembe, 2019; PEDT, 2019).

Principle 2: recommendations

. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme Phase I enhanced the economic resilience of 2,000 beneficiaries by promoting the adoption of innovations such as SMART agriculture, diversification of production, water harvesting and strengthening and supporting value chains. The programme also supported the securing of land titles for 10 groups. SUSTAIN-Africa demonstrated approaches for increasing the economic empowerment and security of livelihoods among the local society. Phase II should enhance these achievements at scale. However, the programme’s contribution to rights and equity can be enhanced further by working through mandated platforms (indicated above, principle 1). Further, the project should support the following:

. Update mapping of all stakeholders, especially rights-holders in relation to different resources and project interventions, in order to identify potential exclusions and the reasons thereof. All possible users of resources should be considered, including illegal actors such as miners and encroachers, to determine their rights as human beings, their interests and the imperatives that push them to engage in illegal activities. Project decisions should consider how resource management contributes to different peoples’ rights and capacity to use them for economic development. For example, all actors in the fisheries value chain should be mapped, including subsistence users, cleaners, workers on boats, the export industry, buyers and sellers. Similarly, mapping the mining industry should consider land owners, workers and mining operators.77

. While Phase I used a membership approach, Phase II should use the sectoral natural resources committees and councils. This will broaden the project focus to include the

73 Most reports indicate many cases of companies that do not undertake EIAs or implement EIA provisions. 74 Norgrook and Tannaer (2006). 75 Ibid. 76 Matediane (2018); Dialogue in Forest Management in Mozambique, IUCN. 77 Due to the COVID-19 situation, this process was not undertaken. It is best done in a participatory way with a range of resource users.

27 majority population in analysing rights problems and solutions. SUSTAIN-Africa should help establish NRMCs where they do not exist and strengthen those that do exist. SUSTAIN-Africa can use the councils to both address inclusive decision-making in investment options and to provide feedback to the wider society.

Working through the NRMCs involves engaging the district councils and customary authorities around decision-making on programme implementation and resources management. Representatives can consult their communities about the issues and discussions considered at the platform and vice versa. In this way, decisions made at the NRMC will reflect majority peoples’ values and priorities.

. SUSTAIN-Africa should facilitate participatory dialogues for securing majority rights at the councils/NRMC. These dialogues can identify different perspectives on landscape issues and economic barriers and involve society in designing solutions. Key issues to explore in these platforms are: - How to sustain the formal registration of individual and collective rights through verbal or written registers. - How the majority can influence and monitor various land uses, especially economic investments, EIAs and benefit sharing. - How to use the different sectoral platforms to discuss and address landscape and economics issues.

Principle 3: recognition and respect for diverse cultures and knowledge systems “Natural resource governance is grounded in sound and diverse forms of knowledge and respect for diverse natural resource values and practice” (Springer et al., 2021).

The NRGF promotes diverse local knowledge – alongside the dominant scientific perspective – to guide discussions and decision-making. This enhances participation, balances power of those often marginalised and enables marginalised groups to become stewards of nature. The structures and process of decision-making should incorporate local perspectives and ideas in problem analysis, developing solutions and monitoring intervention outcomes.

Principle 3: summary table

- The law provides for the - Traditional leaders seem to SUSTAIN provides the rationale recognition of prioritise the decisions and and capacity to use NRMC and customary knowledge. interests of the central customary institutions to mobilise - Key among these government and private sector peoples’ input based on their local provisions is the basis for more than those of society – knowledge, ideas, values and self-identity (identifying such as land titling and EIAs. interests. This should be with customary groups) - The use of local knowledge in implemented in all initiatives such to claim land and decision-making, including in as forestry management, fisheries, resources rights. project analysis and land management, water use and implementation, is limited. benefit sharing.

Principle 3: strengths

. Mozambique’s constitution provides for the recognition and respect of spiritual and customary rights and knowledge in many areas, including natural resources

28 management. The state also recognises and values customary law and institutions, and recognises the relationship between society and traditional institutions.

However, when the two systems contradict each other, statutory law supercedes customary law. This can result in positive or negative consequences. For instance, when customary law marginalises groups – like when women’s rights to land are bound to men or when youth rights are linked to their parents and inheritance – the law can expand the rights of marginalised peoples. On the other hand, when state law undermines a customary law that empowers marginalised groups (as is the case with investments in minerals) the state allows deliberations and safeguards through the mandated institutions (Principle 1) or grievance and conflicts resolution mechanisms (Principle 10).

The natural resources legal framework provides a strong position to traditions, culture, knowledge and traditional authorities. Customary systems provide a basis for claiming rights to co-manage forests, fisheries, wildlife and water. They also provide a basis to claim rights to shape economic development and safeguards such as compensation and resettlement.

Principle 3: limitations

. The interviews and the literature show that while traditional authorities are recognised, most have weakened authority and are considered as extensions of the central government.78 The customary leaders implement directives of the central government to maintain their relevance and power because the government provides most of their resources. Madondo (2015) demonstrates how customary leaders can prioritise government interests at the expense of society in collaborative forest management. This was also seen throughout SUSTAIN-Africa’s implementation, where the leaders were unable to focus on the majority and instead worked with fewer people through the farmer groups. The weak capacity of traditional leaders can limit people’s involvement in decision-making, which leads to their losing their rights and contributes to many illegal activities.79

. Related to above, there is a risk for traditional leaders and elites in society to claim and individualise collective rights. Madondo (2015) shows a case where the elite and traditional leaders usurped the decision-making process to reap benefits from the private sector, leading to the disengagement of some people. This is also illustrated by the Kabverana Fisheries Association (Box 1), where a few individuals who could afford to pay for a boat benefitted from the project at the expense of the majority.

. Overall, traditional leaders and institutions have little power to mobilise society to shape discussions and decisions on landscape management.

Principle 3: recommendations

. The SUSTAIN-Africa programme facilitated discussions to explore various ways to grow more resilient crops and use water more efficiently to enhance their resilience and economic potential. However, this was achieved through small farmer groups, rather than with the wider community. The regular trade fair, convened to raise awareness among the wider population and link with other actors in the various value chains, was a key programme effort, but this one-off event should be broadened through community structures. Cultural institutions should also be used to explore more diverse knowledge on conservation, development and resilience. The following recommendations are proposed:

78 Madondo (2015). 79 Page 4 indicates the various contestations that followed economic investments, and field consultations highlighted these challenges.

29 . SUSTAIN-Africa provides a rationale for the various structures to collaborate, including the natural resources committees, community councils and traditional processes. Regular use of the participatory structures will promote drawing on peoples’ experiences and knowledge systems. Centring people’s rights and interests will produce better conservation and economic outcomes and increase people’s power to claim their rights from other programmes beyond SUSTAIN- Africa – especially in government and private sector interventions.

. The programme should support the committees in strengthening consultation processes between representatives and all constituents (regardless of gender, age or class). This includes more frequent and regular public discussions of decisions made at the councils/NRMCs and soliciting feedback from society about those decisions.

. The programme should make discussions and decisions on programme implementation more transparent and accessible to majority constituents – especially those that are underrepresented or vulnerable.

. Use regular mass communication systems (radio, phones) to update the majority of people on project decisions and accountability.

Principle 4: appropriate devolution of authority “Decisions are taken at the lowest possible level appropriate to the social and ecological systems being governed, with particular attention to supporting the roles and authority of local communities in natural resource governance” (Springer et al., 2021).

NRGF promotes the use of the lowest possible level to make social and ecological decisions. This approach enhances responsiveness and active participation of all rights-holders. A landscape’s policy and legal framework should anchor and guide the devolution of resource governance. Most importantly, local institutions, duty bearers and rights-holders must have the capacity (knowledge and access) to facilitate decision-making at the local level.

Principle 4: summary table

- Devolution is provided - There are few NRMCs. Capacity (revenue) is the biggest for in natural resources - The institutions have challenge affecting devolved management policies, limited revenue from structures. Programmes like laws and institutions. resources, which limits SUSTAIN-Africa provide - Provisions for funding mobilising society for important catalysts for devolved

are present. management decisions. structures when these structures - Some key institutions - SUSTAIN-Africa are used for programme are in place: community inadequately utilised the implementation. This motivates councils and NRMCs. institutions, which and strengthens the capacity of limited opportunities to rights-holders to make decisions strengthen them. on key issues in the landscape. Principle 4: strengths

. Mozambique is in the process of rolling out a decentralisation framework.80 However, the pace is being hampered by Mozambique’s history of civil war

80 LOLE, Art.3 Nº1 (2003) provides for de-concentration to the Provincial Level, (ii) the District Level, (iii) the Administrative Position Level and (iv) Location Scale. The Province is led by an elected Governor.

30 that influences central government to maintain control over the local level and the discovery of significant resources, especially coal in Tete and natural gas in Carbo Delgado.81 Local governments at the province and district levels mirror central government structures, with local structures designed to be closer to the people and promote their involvement.

At the provincial level, the governor, secretary of state and provincial directorates coordinate the implementation of government programmes and policies and ensure the collection and distribution of revenues and resources by the State. The district level has more direct links with communities. This is where communities can participate in decision-making on the design and implementation of government plans.

The local governance systems provide for district councils. These are composed of traditional, elected and technical leaders that coordinate community input into the central government strategies developed and implemented at the district and provincial levels. It is also the platform where communities can hold duty bearers accountable.

In addition to the councils, there are various sectoral NRMCs (Principle 1). These are decentralised structures specific to a sector, through which sector-specific issues are discussed and mobilised for consideration at the general council and the different directorates. The landscape has 31 mapped NRMCs, most of which are in the fisheries sector.

The councils and NRMCs are ideal for enabling people’s representation in decision-making on interventions led by the central government or NGOs and implemented at the local level. These structures link duty bearers with society to make, account for and enforce decisions. They provide a consistent platform for people to influence decision-making on natural resources management decisions and benefits.

Principle 4: limitations

. In many areas, the councils are in place but prioritise enforcement of central government directives, such as licencing and collection of revenue, investment models and benefit sharing schemes, more than prioritising society’s interests. Most community members were unaware that they had a right to shape decisions of the central government.

. Most councils and NRMCs have limited capacity or incentive to mobilise societal participation in decision-making on resource management and economic development decisions. 82

. Widespread illegal activities are reducing benefits for others, which is further undermining peoples’ engagement with NRMC and councils.

. The NRMCs are few in the landscape, which implies that some groups have limited capacity to participate in shaping sector-specific issues. These specific issues are obscured by wider district plans.

Principle 4: recommendations

. SUSTAIN provides capacity and incentives to catalyse the use of councils and NRMCs in decision-making around resources management and the local economic development models. The programme should use the councils and NRMCs to regularly discuss project interventions, especially in relation to how SUSTAIN considers rights issues and entrepreneurship opportunities. SUSTAIN-Africa’s use

81 http://constitutionnet.org/news/conflict-and-decentralization-mozambique-challenges-implementation 82 Madondo (2015).

31 of these platforms provides evidence for their utility and enhances peoples’ capacity to use them to influence their own initiatives as well as NGO, government and private sector initiatives.

. Facilitate collective analysis of the weaknesses of councils and NRMCs in shaping resources management and economic development models.

. The participation and decision-making processes of the platforms should draw on various knowledge systems, values and perspectives (see table on page 2).

Principle 5: strategic vision, direction and learning “Natural resource governance is guided by an overall vision of desired environmental and social ends, and allows for adaptation in response to learning and changing conditions” (Springer et al., 2021).

A community’s or project’s strategic vision should reflect and promote inclusive participation, equity, rights and safeguards. The vision should be reflected in policies and laws, and structures should reflect majority people’s voices, perceptions, interests and values.

Principle 5: summary table

- There are a number of - Most people were unaware - The programme should frameworks that provide a basis about existing frameworks. establish/ strengthen a for coordinated natural resources - Various plans were developed regional platform management and addressing independently, leading to through which the right issues collectively at a limited coordination in majority of people can landscape level. These include resource management and collaborate with the the Zambezi Valley Development claiming rights. private sector and the Agency (ADVZ), Regonal Water - SUSTAIN worked with ADVC, government in Agency (ARA Zambezi), National HCB and Mágoè NP to develop discussions, decisions Development Strategy (EDN) for MOUs, but the process and accountability on 2015-2035 and the Mágoè inadequately included rights- resources management National Parks Strategy. holders in making or and benefits. - The SUSTAIN-Africa programme committing to decisions. Thus, - The programme should coordinated efforts to link with the MOUs reflect programme facilitate a process to the platforms above and staff and larger organisations develop a landscape negotiated83 MOUs to achieve views and inadequately reflect vision and management landscape interventions such as the perspectives of other plan that reflects rights- Payment for Ecosystems Services rights-holders. holders priorities and (PES). ideas for solving issues. Principle 5: strengths

. The country has various national and sectoral strategies and frameworks to which programmes like SUSTAIN-Africa can contribute. These frameworks can enable the development of a common vision on rights. Frameworks include the National Development Strategy (EDN) for 2015-2035, which aims to achieve structural transformation in Mozambique’s agriculture, fisheries, manufacturing, mining and tourism sectors. Other plans draw from EDN, such as Development of the Agrarian Sector for

83 Though not yet signed.

32 2011-2020, which aims to expand the agricultural sector for rural development, and the Master Plan and Strategy for the Fisheries Sector.

Regional plans include the Zambezi Valley Master Plan and ARA-Zambeze Water Resources Strategy. Specific sectors also have their own plans, such as the Mágoè National Park Plan and the Cahora Bassa Fisheries Plan. Most of these frameworks provide a formal mechanism for anchoring and influencing national or landscape level resource management.

. The Zambezi Valley Development Agency (ADVZ) provides the main landscape framework for contributions from stakeholders in the landscape. It links significant players such as the HCB, fisheries, Mágoè National Park management, council members, the different technical offices and the local and international NGOs.

Principle 5: limitations

. As already indicated, the population is largely unaware of how to influence these frameworks and structures. Representatives in the councils, NGOs and other institutions do not effectively consult with the public, and so society does not take advantage of frameworks to mobilise their rights.

. SUSTAIN-Africa engaged the different frameworks independently, which limits the development of a common vision and action plan.

Principle 5: recommendations

. SUSTAIN-Africa can scale up achievements by encouraging inclusive decision-making. Phase I included several collaborative management projects: - Helped develop a strategy for Cahora Bassa Hydroelectric Company (HCB) to contribute to payment of ecosystem services. - Helped develop a strategy for Mágoè NPs to reduce the silt levels in the dam. - Worked with the Zambezi Valley Development Agency (ADVZ) to support knowledge production and joint action on the management of natural resources, socioeconomic development and conservation of biodiversity in the Zambezi river basin. - Signed an MOU with ADVZ to produce a study of the risks and opportunities for biodiversity and ecosystems in the Cahora Bassa-Mágoè landscape.

. SUSTAIN-Africa Phase II should improve the discussions at the Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSD) and promote wider publicity and engagement through local institutions and interactive tools such as radio and phones. - The proposed goals and activities of the MSD should include a clear rationale and role for different actors. This is possible if the landscape MSDs are accessible to the majority of people and take their interests and diverse viewpoints into account. In this case, clarity on how to enhance the different stakeholders’ entrepreneurship in relation to enhanced resources management should be discussed and engaged. - SUSTAIN-Africa can help strengthen existing landscape platforms by ensuring that they have representation from the different NRMCs, councils, traditional institutions and key actors (HCB, private sector, cooperatives, etc). - To be effective, MSDs should be regularly convened. Most importantly, they should be used to account for every decision.

. Local people should significantly influence or lead the development of the landscape vision, as well as determine how to address rights issues and resource challenges from multiple perspectives. They should also participate in developing strategies to influence

33 powerful actors (government, donors, private sector, etc). The MSD must be accessible to all stakeholders and promote transparency in all discussions, decisions and interventions.

Principle 6: coordination and coherence “Actors involved in or affecting natural resource governance coordinate around a coherent set of strategies and management practices” (Springer et al., 2021).

NRGF promotes enhancing the vertical and horizontal coordination of all actors who have a role in managing the landscape. To achieve this, policy and legal frameworks must promote structures where the majority of people can participate in governance, especially people who are often marginalised. Structures should be accessible and transparent in order to motivate broad participation.

Principle 6: summary table

- Government administrative and - Coordination across - The SUSTAIN-AFRICA programme political structures are sectors is weakly should influence rights-holders to hierarchical, hence they enable operationalised at claim/demand systematic and active vertical coordination of policy both the technical collaboration across platforms and decisions at all levels. and societal levels. levels. - At each level there is a process - The councils work in - The focus of discussions at the for cross coordination of fragmented ways platforms should include rights issues different natural resource with the different such as the NRMCs’ weak management issues. sectors. consideration of tenure issues, benefit - The landscape includes CSO - Platforms are sharing, accountability, etc. platforms, such as the convened by the - Link the CBNRM network with local Community Based Natural ADVZ, but they are and landscape level MSDs to provide resources management inaccessible to most society with a structure through (CBNRM) network created in rights-holders. which they can systematically engage 2019. These are important for representatives from the local to strengthening coordination national levels across stakeholders.

Principle 6: strengths

. As indicated under principle 5, Mozambique’s centralised natural resources governance is coordinated through hierarchical sectoral structures across all levels. The different national institutions for management are mirrored at the provincial and district levels, which enables vertically coordinated decision-making on rights issues.

. At each administrative level, the councils and CSO network ideally provide a platform for wide participation in decision-making for resources across sectors. At the national level, the CSO network and CBNRM provide support for coordinating and strengthening the participatory institutions, and particularly support communities to engage in shaping private sector development to enhance equity and safeguards.

Principle 6: limitations

34 . Field consultations revealed that community assemblies, convened twice a year, are used to share information about government programmes, not to enable inclusive decision-making on economic models or benefit sharing. These assemblies are, therefore, largely symbolic. Nonetheless, the presence of the structures is an important enabling condition that should be complemented by action. An improved process would include the voice of rights-holders both vertically in the different levels of government and horizontally across different sectors.

. There is no institutional framework through which the majority can participate in influencing natural resources management decisions at the landscape level.

. Representatives at some landscape level institutions, such as ADVZ, are from NGOs and technical departments, with limited or non-existant coordination with communities. Instead, society is considered as beneficiaries or labourers who benefit from jobs on restoration initiatives.

Principle 6: recommendations

. Generally, the SUSTAIN-Africa programme was implemented in collaboration with the councils and technical officers, which implies that SUSTAIN-Africa helped link and justify cross coordination of different sectors (forests, agriculture, water and fisheries). Future action can focus on establishing/ strengthening a landscape platform for coordinating across sectors, engaging in problem analysis, planning and monitoring for all programmes that impact the landscape’s ecosystems and shape economic opportunities. SUSTAIN-Africa should promote this kind of platform and encourage NGOs, donors, the private sector and government to use it.

. SUSTAIN-Africa made connections with other structures including ADVZ, OLAM, HCB and Mágoè. These connections were made without substantive input from rights- holders, which may limit the sustainability of the collaborations beyond the SUSTAIN-Africa project. Going forward, an inclusive decision-making process should be established through the MSD. Issues discussed and decisions made at the individual sectoral platforms should filter through to the MSD, and MSD discussions should be complemented by interactive media tools to enhance broad participation.

. SUSTAIN-Africa convened landscape and national level open stakeholder events to share experiences from the programme and to create collaborations. The second phase should systematise this initiative through the NRMCs/ councils/ customary institutions to enhance the coordinated process of consulting and providing feedback to wider society on various decisions.

. Using the MSD over time can empower society to demand that all programmes (government, NGO, private sector investments and EIAs) are discussed and shaped through the MSD.

Principle 7: sustainable and equitably shared resources “Actors responsible for natural resource governance have the resources they need to carry out sustainable management and governance activities, including from the equitable sharing of benefits generated from natural resources” (Springer et al., 2021).

NRGF promotes establishing or strengthening decision-making activities that promote equitable sharing of the benefits generated from natural resources, including sustainable livelihoods. This principle considers two aspects: the capacity that is needed to sustain the institutions and actors engaged in resources management, and the flow and equitable sharing of benefits, which includes an intergenerational dimension.

35 Principle 7: summary table

- Strong policy - Most of the policy and legal - Use the SUSTAIN-Africa programme to provisions that provisions are not implemented incentivise and catalyse the involvement of provide society or operationalised. the majority, especially marginalised with resources for - Decision-making over resources groups, in decisions around co- management and to be given back to society is management and sharing of benefits. benefit sharing. dominated by government staff - Enhance the transparency, inclusiveness - Other and council members, with and equity in discussions about the programmes like limited input from the majority implementation approach at the NRMCs. SUSTAIN-Africa of society. Each rights-holder should be aware of the complement - SUSTAIN-Africa had a significant process and schedule of discussions around these provisions. budget for incentives, but pertinent issues. utilised a limited approach of - Support/ strengthen more NRMCs as an access through farmer groups. accessible framework for shaping benefit sharing and conservation funding.

Principle 7: strengths

. Mozambique’s policy framework provides for securing access of right holders to resources for subsistence use and for sharing tangible benefits from investments. Societies use customary institutions (councils, NRMCs) to coordinate claims of access, use and benefit sharing from the government and private sector. These institutions are used to engage the sectoral departments of the central government at the level where re-distribution is processed.

Particular provisions include: - The ministerial declaration 95/2005 that stipulates the return of 20 per cent of tax royalties from forestry and wildlife activities to society. The policy also provides for sharing 50 per cent of fines from illegal activities with the people that report them. - The mineral law provides for sharing 2.7 per cent of revenue generated. - The fisheries, forestry and wildlife sector allocates special licences and areas to enable and catalyse local entrepreneurship.

. There is high potential for the landscape to establish a sustainable source of funding for local entrepreneurship that promotes good resources management and benefit sharing. Various elements that are required to negotiate a sustainable community stewardship model are already in place. In particular, the landscape hosts the managing institutions of several important sectors, and these institutions can work together to establish a co-financing mechanism for entrepreneurs. These institutions should be motivated to develop funding for responsible resources management, as their sectors depend on healthy ecosystems and community participation (sectors include hydroelectricity, fisheries, forestry and tourism – the mining sector is also important for its significant water use).

. The landscape has good examples such as the Nhamajanela community, which has already accessed the 20 per cent benefit from forest exploitation. Interviews reflected that this was successful because there was a strong community effort in management catalysed by the strong effort to equitably share the 20 per cent of revenue. The Cassoca NRMC also benefited from the Jindal mining company in 2019 (see Box 2). These two examples can be used as a basis to learn, improve and expand opportunities.

36 Principle 7: limitations

. Most communities have access to benefits for subsistence use, but few actually gain the tangible economic benefits provided for in law.

. Society has limited ability to collectively track the royalties and benefit sharing claims from concessionnaires. In Nhamajanela, the NRMC did fairly well and have demonstrated the use of funds to support their members to initiate various economic enterprises. However, the accounts have been frozen since 2018 due to new regulations that require the group to follow a bureaucratic hurdle of publishing annually in the government bulletin.

. Society lacks a process and capacity to develop a sustainable flow of both individual and collective benefits. This was the main challenge the SUSTAIN-Africa programme faced. Benefits could not reach the whole society, which was a major challenge for all the farmer groups to sustain membership and action.

. Madondo (2015) highlights the common problem of elites usurping benefits from broader groups and undermining actions such as patrols or the role of local leaders. This reflects a limited capacity of people to hold leaders accountable.

. The limited scope of benefit sharing from ecosystems/ landscapes creates marginalised groups. For example, while Nhamajanela and Nhacambo share a community forest, only Nhamajanela benefits from concessions, despite control and management rules also affecting Nhacambo. In Mágoè, tree resources cannot be exploited, as they are in other districts. These inequities across regions may create conflicts or discouragement.

Principle 7: recommendations

. In Phase I, the project supported most of the members of the farmer field groups to explore benefit sharing mechanisms. Benefits included supporting livelihood and economic activities like providing breeding bulls and goats, developing irrigation schemes and improving seed varieties. However, because of the limited reach of each intervention, Phase II should include a majority of the community members in exploring innovative ways for people to shape the project to enhance and sustain the reach and flow of benefits and opportunities to the majority of people. The process should be participatory, including the majority of stakeholders, especially those most marginalised.

. SUSTAIN-Africa established working relations – including discussing MOUs – as the basis for coordinating implementation of joint activities like PES schemes between the Mágoè National Park and the HCB to enhance funding and incentives for conservation. The second phase should concretise and scale up these activities by helping to establish and strengthen peoples’ participation in deciding on benefit sharing. This should be organised through participatory platforms ( principle 1) like NRMCs, Councils and MSDs.

. Discussions and decision-making on generating and distributing resource benefits should be transparent and include all society to ensure that benefits align with differentiated and collective interests. Rights-holders include the broader national and global community. SUSTAIN must establish a clear link between the collective and individual roles in sustainable resources management, economic development opportunities and the flow of benefits.

Principle 8: accountability “Actors responsible for or affecting natural resource governance are accountable for their actions and the environmental and social impacts they produce” (Springer et al., 2021).

37

Accountability involves accepting responsibility and providing feedback about actions taken. Effective accountability requires that policies and laws articulate processes and structures for duty bearers to provide transparent feedback to rights-holders. The provisions should particularly be clear on how to account for social and environmental safeguards. Accountability is most effective when rights-holders have capacity or mechanisms to sanction leaders positively or negatively. This helps prevent corruption (use of public resources for private gain).

Principle 8: summary table

- Policies and laws have clear - Duty bearers and - Strengthen new articulation of actors, representatives only weakly use institutions by using responsibilities and mandates for the new structures (NRMC and programme interventions social and environmental councils) to provide and incentives to catalyse safeguards. accountability to society. participatory planning, - Accountability structures are - Rights-holders require extreme monitoring and sanctions generally in place (such as efforts – such as going through of both society and assemblies and tribunals). the courts or using the media – leaders. - The country has also adopted to hold powerful actors - Use interactive media, global frameworks such as accountable, which is costly in like radio, to reach the Extractives Industry Transparency funds and time. masses and enhance Initiative (EITI) and Publish What - Most people are unaware of transparency and you Pay (PWYP). their rights and the processes to participation of the - The media and NGOs support claim them. majority of rights-holders societies, resulting in some - SUSTAIN-Africa helped improve in holding representatives effective examples of halting accountability, but in a limited accountable. private sector interventions to scope through the farmer field hold them accountable. schools.

Principle 8: strengths

. The policy and legal frameworks and government ministries clearly articulate the various roles and responsibilities of actors in natural resources management. The national, provincial and local level assemblies are used by people to hold the central government accountable. Furthermore, different categories of society can hold each other accountable through the NRMC, customary institutions, assemblies or tribunals. Various mechanisms for EIAs, like public consultations, also provide accountability opportunities.

. The country has adopted the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI)84 (see Box 3) and Publish What You Pay (PWYP), internationally recognised accountability mechanisms for extractives revenue for business, government and civil society.

84The EITI performs national biannual meetings chaired by the Ministry of Mining and Energy. At the provincial level, similar meetings are led by AAAJC.

38 . Existing policy stipulates Box 3. Extractive industry in Mozambique the sharing of 50 per cent of returns from illegal activities with the people. Na EITI report from 2018 shows that the extractive industry has become increasingly . Various prominent in the Mozambican economy. In avenues for contesting private sector actions 2017, it contributed 6.86 per cent to national (indicated under principle 1) have led to changes in GDP, and in 2018 the contribution was 7.35 per cent (INE). 2017 data from the Bank of the operations of the private sector or duty Mozambique showed that the extractive bearers. This indicates that the existing industry produced about 50 per cent of total accountability system can be fairy effective if national exports, and mineral coal mined in enforcement is mobilised. Tete Province represented 56 per cent of total exports from the extractive industry. In 2018, Principle 8: limitations the extractive industry produced 47 per cent of total national exports, with 71 per cent of the . As indicated above, many extractive products exports coming from the institutions are in place but society has limited mineral coal industry. capacity to use the institutions to demand accountability from the private sector, government and community leaders. It is only in extreme cases where livelihood is seriously threatened that people contest. Hence, many companies and duty bearers are weakly held accountable, which leads to various illegal activities. Fighting these usually requires support from the media and CSOs.

. The assemblies are used for information sharing but not for majority participation in decision-making on the use of benefits.

. Most people are unaware that they have the right to demand accountability, or are unaware of how to use existing institutions to demand accountability.

. The EITI does not stipulate a clear process for tracking distribution of benefits once benefits are allocated to the treasury.

. There is no clear framework for accountability at the landscape level.

Principle 8: recommendations

. SUSTAIN-Africa helped bolster accountability mechanisms by establishing a project governance structure that includes duty bearers and NGO partners. SUSTAIN-Africa also included other accountability measures, such as a project audit and M&E. Furthermore, the project convened platforms in the landscape to share lessons learnt with the wider community and to link with other programmes and initiatives.

In Phase II, these actions should be enhanced by including the majority stakeholders in M&E efforts. SUSTAIN should also use the NRMCs, councils and landscape level MSDs to facilitate procedural and substantive accountability on the project’s interventions and how they enhance economic and conservation benefits. SUSTAIN can further use these platforms to discuss and explore the performance of other initiatives in the landscape.

. Incentives and benefits (such as income generating activities, irrigation schemes and improved seeds) should be used as positive sanctions to improve conservation performance. Decisions about their distribution can provide an important basis for decision-making and accountability.

39 . Use interactive media to communicate regular updates to the broader society and seek input on program interventions. Use of media is one of the most effective means of enabling majority rights- holders to hold duty bearers accountable.

Principle 9: fair and effective rule of law “Natural resource-related laws and their application are fair, effective and protect fundamental rights” (Springer et al., 2021).

The rule of law “refers to a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards” (United Nations Security Council, 2004, as cited by Botero & Ponce, 2010).

Principle 9: summary table

The rule of law - Lower-level governments have - A programme like SUSTAIN-Africa should is clear, and limited capacity to enforce the strengthen and catalyse awareness and capacity there is an rule of law and manage of the community and rights-holders to enforce established grievance mechanisms to the law through accessible institutions such as justice system uphold rights. NRMCs, councils, tribunals and MSDs. to enforce it - The community is hindered by - SUSTAIN-Africa should support regular from the local high costs needed to engage interactive discussions and follow-up of issues to national higher level structures. through the media. levels.

Principle 9: strengths

. As the analysis shows, laws are in place and prioritise securing societal rights and peaceful conflict through customary institutions or councils. The judicial system is established and accessible at the local, tribunal, administrative, district, provincial and national levels.

. As already indicated, society has been supported by partners to take many private sector actors to court, and their harmful actions have been halted or adjusted to abide by the rules.

Principle 9: limitations

. There are still widespread cases of noncompliance with the law because of the weak capacity of people and duty bearers to enforce the law.85 The success stories highlighted above result from the support of civil society and media attention, but these are just a few cases. As indicated in one of these instances (Box 2), the company was held accountable after seven years, when AAAJC supported the community to claim their rights.

. The interviews revealed that most people are unaware of options to enforce the law, or they feel incapable of holding the private sector and government staff accountable beyond the local level.

Principle 9: recommendations

85 Falcão et al. (2013).

40 The SUSTAIN-Africa programme helped raise awareness about various laws that define roles and responsibilities in resource management and identify forms of economic benefits. SUSTAIN should further catalyse and support the majority population to make decisions on how they can collectively enhance their capacity to enforce the rule of law (including ideas based on indigenous or local experiences). Linking law enforcement decisions to the project’s incentives and sanction mechanisms will enhance its uptake by the council, NRMCs and MSDs.

Principle 10: grievance mechanism “People are able to seek and obtain remedies for grievances and resolve conflicts regarding land and natural resources” (Springer et al., 2021).

The NRGF adopts that UNDP 2005 definition that “access to justice concerns the ability of people to seek and obtain remedies for grievances from formal or informal judicial institutions, in accordance with human rights standards.” Principle 10 requires the establishment of policies and structures for redress. This is complemented by peoples’ awareness about their rights, and/or processes and mechanisms through which they can seek redress and resolution. Most important is to ensure that mechanisms are accessible to the most marginalised.

Principle 10: summary table

- Grievance mechanisms - Conflicts and impunity reveal - The SUSTAIN-Africa programme are in place in an inability to seek redress in a provides a catalyst for the grievance customary systems, cost- effective way. system to solve problems and enforce community tribunals - Society has to rely on media sanctions on issues related to the and the attorney and NGO support to engage project. general’s office. powerful interests – which is - SUSTAIN can support an interactive - Society is relatively well unsustainable financially and grievance process by facilitating informed about and results in only sporadic conflict discussions at different levels and uses the structures. resolution. through radio programmes.

Principle 10: strengths

. Conflict resolution is a fairly strong component of Mozambique’s governance framework. It arises from a history of civil conflict in the country’s recent past. The critical structure is the hierarchical community tribunal system. This is accessible to society to seek redress on a range of issues that cannot be resolved through customary, community or administrative decision-making platforms. Indeed, as indicated under principle 1, this is one of the key structures available to society to claim and enforce their right to participate and make decisions on natural resource management.

. Mozambique’s grievance mechanisms are fairly effective – albeit with significant challenges in enforcing rules when powerful interests are involved. Such efforts require external support from higher level actors, such as the media and NGOs. Many external actors also support communities, such as EITI and the Global Atlas for Environmental Justice.

Principle 10: limitations

As indicated above, various cases of impunity reflect weaknesses in enforcing the law. In particular, it is difficult to enforce sanctions of the tribunal system when powerful actors are involved. Communities need

41 NGO or media support, or they must engage higher levels, to effectively seek redress – but this is unsustainable due to financial and time costs. This further implies that the majority of people are unable to access the support they need to seek redress.

Principle 10: recommendations

SUSTAIN-Africa facilitated conflict resolution through the farmer groups. However, working with smaller groups limited the impact of the programme’s achievements. As indicated above (Principle 9), the project should use the tribunals to resolve conflicts in the landscape – including any conflicts emerging due to the project.

6. Conclusions

42

The analysis shows that the natural resource governance context of Mozambique provides a fair policy framework for achieving rights-based natural resource governance. Such governance is required for sustainable resources management, which can boost local entrepreneurship based on natural resources. However, there are significant limitations in the implementation of the policy and legal framework that undermines its effectiveness. Programmes like SUSTAIN-Africa can help address these limitations and strengthen the overall governance context of the landscape. The 10 NRGF principles provided a reference for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Mozambique’s policy and legal context (Springer et al., 2021).

Strengths and weaknesses in Mozambique’s natural resources framework

Strengths

: Provisions for inclusive and equitable participation of the majority population in making decisions on natural resources management and shaping nature-based economic opportunities.

The existing framework articulates the institutions (customary, resources management committees and community councils) involved in resource management, the substance of tenure rights, and the benefits and processes for claiming those rights and enhancing economic opportunities.

The enabling conditions include the recognition of customary and traditional institutions (Principle 3) and the fact that institutions are located at the lowest level of authority (Principle 4).

The country has a number of national and landscape strategies to enhance coordination at different levels and enhance impacts at scale.

: The policy framework provides local people with the ability to hold duty bearers accountable on decisions made, benefits and rights.

Clear rules of law are established (Principle 9) and guide grievance mechanisms, especially the community tribunal (Principle 10).

Limitations

. The community-based natural resources management committees, which are the most appropriate institutions for inclusive participation, are limited to a few places. The majority population has no access to these platforms, limiting peoples’ capacity to sustainably participate in and engage powerful actors in decision-making.

. The customary institutions and community councils are used by communities without NRMCs to claim their rights, but these usually prioritise directives of the state and powerful interests more than community rights. They are considered extensions of the central government, and their meetings are often symbolic and for information sharing, not for seeking input from people or for claiming rights.

. People’s knowledge and experiences are not used substantially in decision-making, undermining their power. As indicated above, the councils implement directives of the central government and do not prioritise drawing on ideas and views of the local people. As people lack decision-making power,

43 this leads to less control over resource management and less capacity to hold duty bearers accountable. Society often requires support from NGOs and the media to seek accountability.

. There are cases of marginalisation in the landscape. This threatens and may explain food security, conflicts with powerful interests over resource use and benefits, weaknesses in management, and weak foundations for entrepreneurship and economic development.

Recommendations for SUSTAIN-Africa Phase II

While there are enabling conditions for a strong natural resource governance framework, gaps in implementation undermine the framework’s effectiveness. Recommendations for a programme like SUSTAIN- Africa to help strengthen local power and address existing limitations to enhance the enabling conditions for boosting local nature-based entrepreneurship that is inclusive and equitable include:

. Establish (where possible) or strengthen NRMCs. Work with them to coordinate with the councils and customary institutions to undertake a participatory mapping of rights-holders in the landscape, using broad categories such as gender, ethnicity, income level and age to determine resource access, use and benefit. Considering broad cross-cutting categories will enable the communities to assess the depth and breadth of inequalities that may exist. For example, considering rights issues alongside gender, ethnicity and class can identify women who may be doubly marginalised based on their class, ethnicity or age. In addition, the breadth of stakeholders engaged along the chain of production to marketing should be considered..

Use NRMCs to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of decision-making processes for all mapped categories. Pay attention to the process of participation and how rights issues are discussed, and identify how they contribute to inequalities and other problems in resource management and economic benefits.

. Facilitate discussions and proposals that draw on diverse perspectives. This will help include the majority of people in natural resource management. Usually, critical issues relate to benefit-sharing at the individual and collective levels and how this links with individual and collective natural resource management actions and economic development.

. Facilitate participatory monitoring and reflecting on programme performance and how it supports security of tenure, benefits, local enterprises and management for all mapped rights- holders.

. Establish clear links between decisions made at the lowest levels and higher level decisions. MSDs can be used, where all actors participate alongside representatives from the customary and community councils as well as the sectoral natural resources management committees.

SUSTAIN-Africa identified and proposed these steps to work with community-based natural resources management structures, such as the NRMCs, and highlighted critical issues such as the displacement of communities from mining areas. The platforms should also be used to boost capacity to influence various investments decisions in natural resource-based enterprises such as tourism, fisheries, forestry and agriculture sectors.

Through these platforms, all stakeholders, especially marginalised groups, should be able to influence and initiate discussions about their barriers to entrepreneurship and the various ways these barriers can be addressed, such as access to credit and markets.

Programmes such as SUSTAIN-Africa can make significant contributions to implementing a favourable policy framework and enhancing the conditions for inclusive, equitable, rights-based management of a landscape.

44 SUSTAIN-Africa Phase I provides a foundation for the majority of society to participate in decision-making around natural resource management and investments coordinated by the state. In particular, SUSTAIN encourages societal participation that boosts peoples’ capacity to engage and shape any decisions, including their influence on investment opportunities that continue to arise in the landscape.

45

Works Cited

CESC (2017). Manuel de Direitos das Comunidades sobre os Recursos Naturais. CESC. Maputo.

De Wit, P. and Norfolk, S. (2010). Recognizing rights to natural resources in Mozambique. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington.

Madondo, A. (2015). Examining the Democracy Outcomes of Environmental Subsidiary: The Case of a Carbon Forestry Initiative from Central Mozambique. Responsive Forest Governance Initiative (RFGI) Working Paper No. 31.

Matediane (2018). Dialogue in Forest Management in Mozambique. IUCN.

Norfolk, S. and Tanner, C. (2007). Improving Tenure Security for the Rural Poor. Mozambique Country Case Study. LEP working paper #5, Workshop for Sub Saharan Africa. FAO.

Plataforma da Sociedade Civil para Indústria Extractiva (2015). Documento de Posição produzido na Assembleia Geral e Nkutano. Maputo. Secretariado da Plataforma.

Springer, J., Campese, J. and Nakangu, B. (2021). The Natural Resource Governance Framework. Improving governance for equitable and effective conservation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and CEESP.

Tanner, C. and Baleira, S. (2006). Mozambique’s legal framework for access to natural resources: The impact of new legal rights and community consultations on local livelihoods. Rome, FAO, FAO LSP Working Paper, 28.

Tembe, J. (2019). Desafios do Sistema de Co-Gestão em Moçambique. Blogspot. 32 de Marco de 2019.

46

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

WORLD HEADQUARTERS Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland, Switzerland [email protected] Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org

47