4. KEY LESSONS, PRESENT AND FUTURE CHALLENGES

A sustainable livelihoods approach requires that the focus of the Mozambican state now needs to be on providing tailored services to empower poor people (and others), within an appropriate policy environment, to benefit from potential livelihood gains. The critical role of the centre becomes helping to create that environment; through developing policy (or localising national policy), through redistribution where market forces need tempering to ensure the poor are covered, through high level strategic planning and developing strategies for implementation, through the delegation of operational control to “deconcentrated” structures at provincial and district level (or to local government), through ensuring coordination in the use of resources and monitoring development to ensure that policy objectives are achieved cost-effectively and without fraud. In Mozambique there remain many challenges; the purpose of this section of the paper is to propose some of the most important areas that need to be addressed if the initial gains that have been made through the development of new natural resource policies are to be consolidated. Box 19 summarizes entry points for a livelihoods approach to natural resource policies.

4.1 Policy gaps and implementation shortfalls

Policy issues

The legal and policy framework regarding natural resources is still evolving and presents good opportunities for strengthening community rights. However, there are some areas of concern; some important policy instruments still need to be put in place and the application of these policies and regulations has major shortcomings, in terms both of capacity and commitment. Ongoing decentralization processes and devolution of rights and responsibilities to local communities is revealing the tensions in Mozambique where land and natural resource policy mixes a powerful role of the state with the need to strengthen community rights. Devolution of rights policy is being driven more by informal “pilot” and ad hoc approaches than through central level processes, and in fact there are pressures to move in the opposite direction, where powerful interests are involved (World Bank, 2003).

Some of the important policy issues that still require clarification or the development of subsidiary instruments in order to be put into practise include the following:

a) The nature of the interface between the “community representatives” recognised by the state in terms of Decreto 15/2000 and the representatives of the community as a private entity with co-title over local land resources.

Confusion between public and private representative roles has arisen as a result of the implementation of state decentralization processes combined with a parallel devolution of rights to community groups in terms of, in particular, the Land Law. This confusion has arisen as a result of the contents of the legal instrument (Decreto 15/2000) that created a community-level tier of publicly-appointed representatives, whose powers now overlap with those that have been devolved to community groups as private land-holding entities. This has marginalized the role of those that represent the community as a private entity. Although this issue has been raised in natural resource for a on several occasions it is little understood within the broader realm of decentralization programmes and initiatives. A statement that clarifies the differences between these representative roles is needed; this could come as a result of a tightly focussed policy seminar that brings together policy-makers that are working on natural resource policies and those involved in decentralization programmes, with participation also from NGOs that are helping to support the implementation of both policy initiatives.

Indeed, there are several areas where natural resource and decentralization policy overlap; possibly enough to justify the creation of a semi-permanent forum to debate and discuss areas of overlap and synergy. In this way some of the pitfalls of implementation to date (e.g. the proliferation of different institutions at a local level, confusion between public and private representation, etc) might be avoided or minimised. Harmonization of policy in this way might prove to be more effective than the present system whereby completed drafts of policies and laws are then submitted for formal comment by other sector ministries.

b) The nature and extent of the powers that can be delegated to community groups in order for them to institutionalise their management of local natural resources (i.e. the joint Ministerial Diploma from MADER and MITUR referred to in Articles 33 of the Forestry and Wildlife Law and 99 of the Forestry and Wildlife Regulations).

This missing piece of legislation is crucial for the transfer of real authority and control over natural resources to local community groups. At present there appears only to be a draft technical annex produced by the MADER, rather than the joint instrument from MADER and MITUR that the law and regulations require. This draft is at times vague, particularly in respect to how community groups must be organised in order to qualify for the delegation of powers and the actual procedures and costs involved in making an application to the provincial services. Drafting appears to have been done by the DNFFB to date and there has not yet been any official consultation regarding the contents of the proposed technical annex. The opening up of the discussion concerning the elements of this legislation, so that civil society groups, NGOs and community groups themselves are able to engage with some of the issues involved, is an important next step. It is important that representatives of the provincial services, from Forestry and Wildlife as well as Tourism, also provide input to the process, since it is at this level where implementation will take place. Central-level drafting teams often overlook or have no experience of the resource and capacity limitations that exist at provincial offices.

c) The policy in respect of acquired land rights in areas which are or are to be declared as conservation areas.

There is no clear consensus on whether or not land rights acquired through good faith occupation or according to ‘customary norms and practises’ are recognised in law where these fall within areas that have some form of conservation status. This is an important issue given the establishment of new conservation areas (e.g. the Limpopo Park, the Quirimbas National Park, etc.) and the number of people that live in existing parks (e.g. the islands of the Bazaruto Archipelago). Whilst conservative and conservation agendas take the line that the Land Law specifically excludes the obtaining of a DUAT in such areas, it is less clear on whether this applies to rights acquired through operation of the law (i.e. where pre-existing rights were being recognised). In addition, private sector representatives have in fact been awarded DUATs in such areas, even after the new law came into operation (examples of these, in the Limpopo Park area and the Bazaruto Archipelago, can be found in the Government Gazette). In a context where powerful interests are pushing for the removal of people living within conservation areas, in order to make way for the award of private concessions, clarity around this issue could provide a clear basis on which those affected were able to establish their equity (or a basis for compensation if removed). Although the IUCN has commissioned some research into this issue there are a number of divergent approaches in operation. The national departments of Land and Forestry and Wildlife, provincial governments in Gaza and Inhambane, the Transfrontier Conservation Areas Unit within Tourism and other government agencies all appear to have different perspectives on this issue.

d) The policy in respect to the awarding of concessions to private sector entities for natural resource management in conservation areas.

Closely connected to the previous issue, and as important from the perspective of local community groups that have de facto interests in the resources, this is an issue which is presently clouded in confusion. Tender procedures and the nature of the adjudicating bodies are not transparent and there has been no public debate or input into the relevant criteria to be adopted in decision-making processes. The World Bank have provided resources through the TFCA process (to MICOA) that are intended to bring clarity to this policy area, but progress to date has been slow and there are several institutions that fall outside the ambit of this programme.

e) The mechanisms for allocation and payment to community groups of the 20 percent of local revenues contributed to the state by private sector users of forest and wildlife resources (i.e. the joint Ministerial Diploma from MADER, MITUR and MPF referred to in Article 102(2) of the Forestry and Wildlife Regulations).

A draft of this joint Ministerial Diploma exists, but appears not to have been widely circulated to date. The payment to local communities of the 20 percent of local tax and licensing revenues is one of the cornerstones of the Forestry and Wildlife legislation and is the only tangible benefit that is envisaged in return for the increasing responsibilities that are accruing to local community groups in the management and control of forest and wildlife resources. It is therefore crucial that this piece of legislation is designed in a way that ensures that the policy objectives are attainable.

Unfortunately, the draft version in existence posits a range of conditions and procedures which appear tailor-made to ensure that no tangible benefits will be realisable for many years. Community groups, the nature of whose representation still remains unclear in the law, are required, for example, to open a bank account in order to receive the 20 percent of the local revenues. Notwithstanding the almost complete absence of banks in rural areas, the community groups will also be faced with banking procedures that will effectively prevent them from opening such accounts. The draft legislation further states that where a community is unable to open an account, the monies can be held in trust by the licensing authority and spent on the community groups behalf according to instructions from them. This would have the effect of turning a provincial office of the Forest and Wildlife Services, for example, into a bank-cum-procurement agency for a range of community groups, a situation that is clearly untenable given the severe absence of capacity within these offices to carry out their existing responsibilities. There appears to be a continuing level of technical assistance from the FAO in the development of these proposals^[53] but with the official demise of the DFID process there is less momentum around the consultative processes than is necessary to ensure their applicability and suitability to the Mozambican rural context. Representatives of the provincial offices of the DNFFB are unaware of the contents of the draft and have not been involved or consulted in the process.

f) The establishment of general principles concerning the distribution and utilization of the payments to communities made in terms of Article 102(1) of the Forestry and Wildlife Regulations.

These presently appear only (vaguely expressed) within the fundamentação section of the joint Ministerial diploma referred to above and as such do not actually form part of the legislation itself. The basis for the detailed discussion around mechanisms for payment of community benefits ought to be a set of general principles that have been broadly discussed and debated. An opportunity for this, based on the results of the nationwide community consultation process undertaken by the DNFFB, ought to be created.

g) Policy mechanisms and instruments that promote and facilitate the sustainable commercial exploitation of natural resources by local communities.

Presently community groups are required to satisfy all of the legislated procedures that apply to private sector commercial users of natural resources. Whilst some of these are necessary from a sustainable use perspective there are elements of the laws, particularly the Forestry & Wildlife Regulations, which could be re-examined in order to make them more accessible to local community groups. Some research into these issues, with a particular focus on the movement and commercialization of charcoal and traditional plants, for example, could lead to some amendments to the legislation that would ease community groups’ entrance into the formal commercial exploitation of natural resources.

An enabling environment

It is also important to recognise that the impact of improved access to natural resources will be conditioned by access to other types of capital, in particular agricultural markets, inputs and appropriate technologies, as well as elements of other sector legislation that have an important bearing on the quality of the “enabling” environment. Some of these elements include the following:

• The formation of formal associations at a community level remains a difficult and bureaucratic process and is ultimately subject to a political/administrative veto. More simple and accessible mechanisms that enable groups of people to freely associate in such a way that they gain formal, legal recognition will be extremely important in the future. Presently, the recognition of formal associations can take months or years, partly as a result of unwieldy bureaucratic processes and other tactics (through colonial-era legal processes which, strictly speaking, are contrary to the fundamental right to free association and which were removed in Portugal after the fall of the Salazar regime for precisely this reason; in Mozambique, however, they remained on the statute books).

• Banking regulations and requirements will make it almost impossible for community groups to open and manage accounts, despite the fact that they may have been awarded legal recognition through the operation of the Land Law. Alternative financial institutions providing more accessible and tailored services to the rural poor in Mozambique do not yet exist outside of the rather narrowly-focused and NGO-managed credit programmes.

• The emphasis on the formation of formal, notarised agreements between private sector operators and community groups will have to contend with the extremely high transaction costs involved in accessing notary services^[54]. These, and other forms of business services, are not available to rural populations and even local business entities find them largely inaccessible and extremely expensive.

• Government services generally, but specifically those in the natural resources sectors, are staffed largely by technocrats with little experience of working in participatory ways with local community groups. Although there are some initiatives around the country to provide appropriate training and skills development (such as the Centre for Sustainable Development of Coastal Zones in Xai-Xai and agencies involved in various decentralised planning projects), there is no comprehensive change management process within MADER that is addressing this issue, despite the recognition of its importance within PROAGRI documents.

The regulatory frameworks governing these processes will be powerful disincentives in their present form and more analysis and understanding of these obstacles is required.

The private sector has an important role to play in increasing opportunities for livelihoods but the existing monopolistic practises of many agribusiness traders and companies are actually reducing access to markets for individuals and emerging small-scale enterprises. There is a clear need for a regulatory presence of the state to ensure competitive behaviour and the maintenance of low barriers to market entry. Appropriate incentive structures which encourage the private sector to be responsive to community groups (who have little or no economic power in the market place) are particularly difficult given the limited taxation base in the natural resource sector in Mozambique, thereby reducing the possibility of using tax incentives to guide private sector behaviour. Although of limited potential, it is notable that no thought has yet been given to the introduction of tax incentives for private sector users of land that make local development agreements with community groups.

Access to a well-functioning legal system is another important tool in curbing private sector (and state) excesses and in creating the necessary conditions for fair transactions. The right kind of social capital for communities to enter into “arms-length” negotiations over the use of the resources in their historical possession will come from the creation of this kind of environment.

Implementation issues

Other challenges remain in the implementation of existing policies so that potential gains as a result of new principles can become concrete gains in terms of an improvement to livelihood sustainability. A case in point is the new institutional arrangements related to the mandatory local consultations with community groups as part of concession allocation processes. Here the development of a common methodology and training materials that can assist in enabling government, NGO and private sector staff to complete the consultations in an effective way in the future is critical. There has been no official movement on this issue over the past three years despite the fact that it as been identified as a crucial gap.

The manner in which concessions are being granted is closely connected to this issue. The World Bank have indicated that “a lack of transparency and an ad hoc approach to the granting of large-scale agriculture, tourism, wildlife and other natural resource related concessions threaten the sustainability of development in these areas” (World Bank, 2003). Large tracts of high quality coastline have been parcelled out to investors, many of whom having little long-term investment commitment or experience. The benefits of investments associated with these concessions are largely being captured by narrow interests, and local communities are being both excluded from decision-making and are gaining little benefit. A “patronage system” is developing at the different levels of state intervention, which “increases the fragility of Mozambique’s much lauded economic recovery” (ibid). The award of forestry concessions despite non-compliance with existing regulations and the non-existence of standard tender procedures and regulatory institutions for the award of tourism concessions in conservation areas put the attainment of formal policy goals at risk.

The general lack of implementation in respect to the potential of the new land policy for tenure reform on a large scale, particularly in a situation where clear and strong property rights are being identified as a sine qua non of sustainable community level natural resource management systems, is of concern. Land is perhaps the key livelihood resource for the rural poor in Mozambique, even where agriculture is not the main source of livelihoods. It can act as security, as a means to gain access to other livelihood options, and as a lever for other forms of investment and linkage. The new land policy was in fact designed with precisely this in mind and its non-implementation in this respect has been a crucial failure of the MADER. This paper has noted the extremely low allocations in the PROAGRI annual budgets for dissemination of information regarding rights and entitlements in terms of the new laws and the non-existence of funds to promote and support the delimitation of community land areas. Attaining the policy objectives will require a much greater investment of public finances.

Transparency in information on resource use rights is also critical. The continuing lack of an efficient and transparent cadastre, where both private and communal use rights are recorded and maintained appears only to attract periodic attention and criticism. The existing land administration system, which is geared more to servicing the needs of the minority, has to be turned into a service for the rural majority. Local administrations, NGOs, private sector operators and communities face huge obstacles in obtaining accurate and up-to-date information regarding the allocation of natural resource rights in an area^[55]. Institutional coordination in this respect is extremely weak and some government services, such as those of the SPGC and the SPFFB, are maintaining separate records and systems of use rights where in fact these should be unified.

A general lack of integrated planning and implementation is noticeable still, despite the PROAGRI and PARPA. Sectoral approaches, leading to some of the inconsistencies noted in this paper, are dominant and the restructuring process that is ongoing within the MADER has done little yet to have an impact on this. Other Ministries, such as Planning & Finance and Environment, are developing policies and programmes with important implications to local level planning processes. Linking the implementation of the Land Law with processes of land use and district planning offers considerable potential for the strengthening of good governance through the delineation of responsibilities, improvement to capacity and ensuring accountability (CTC, 2003). Presently, however, there is little evidence of this.

4.2 Understanding and monitoring impact

With increasing emphasis in Mozambique on programme or direct budgetary support (building capacity through responsibility) the need for governance feedback loops and monitoring mechanisms becomes ever more critical. These mechanisms are vital in order to gauge whether current policies and institutions are hitting the target, a critical question that can only be answered through the detailed technical and consultative review of field-level impacts in often distant locations (IIED, 2002). In addition, there is a high degree and complexity of spatial differentiation within Mozambique; policy in practice can vary greatly between different parts of the country, according to local variations in the institutional/organizational environment. This environment can also change over time, without change in policy statements.

Information regarding the impact of new natural resource policies in Mozambique is characterized by its fragmentary and ad hoc nature at the moment, emanating from various institutions and organizations and consisting very often of anecdotal rather than empirical evidence. There is clearly a need for a more rigorous and institutionalised process of monitoring policy impact that builds upon and supports the presently fragmented collection of data and studies that are being conducted.

The Inter Ministerial Land Commission, for a period at least and with a varying degree of success at different times, functioned as a focal point for the initial monitoring and necessary iterative processes involved in the policy formulation period in respect to the land law. Now that this institution has been folded into the MADER, it is difficult to identify a central institution that can serve as the collection and analysis point for the kind of monitoring and feedback processes that are necessary. In a DFID workshop report from 2000, the head of the Mozambican Land Commission is quoted as saying that “there are some in Mozambique today who worry that the new obligations to consult and work with local communities on land occupation and management issues will block or delay the development process” and she underlined the need to “take the facilitating role of the [technical secretariat] down to provincial level now in order to assist full implementation of the policy and law in practice” (DfID, 2000). Although this did not happen, a return to the idea of establishing provincial-level focal points within the Directorates of Agriculture and Rural Development, that can serve as support mechanisms and monitoring institutions, would assist in building a much better picture of the impact of new policy frameworks. They could also assist in developing best practice guidelines based upon past community based natural resource management efforts.

In the absence of an institutionalised capacity at provincial level for monitoring and policy feedback, an alternative approach would be to initiate this process at a national level, in partnership with institutions such as IUCN and NGOs such as ORAM, HELVETAS, etc. The development of an action research agenda that provides a methodology and tools through which a variety of policy instruments in the natural resource sector could be evaluated in terms of their impact would be a valuable first step towards the establishment of a permanent feedback loop. Some elements of the policies that could be an initial focus of such work include:

• The implementation and impact of the Forestry and Wildlife Regulations vis-à-vis the creation of co-management councils at district level. This could include the identification of obstacles in practise to the creation and functioning of these councils, as well as the community-level institutions that are intended to underpin them.

• The nature and extent of benefits to local communities as a result of private sector use of natural resources through negotiated access and the award of concessions. This could adopt a long-term monitoring approach that would help identify some of the important dynamics between local community groups and private sector “partners” over time. Comparisons between benefit regimes that arise through the allocation of forestry concessions and those in the tourism and hunting sectors, within and outside of conservation areas, could be made and lessons drawn from the various institutional settings within which the agreements are negotiated and maintained.

• The nature and impact of land delimitations that are being carried out. This could begin by developing a basic typology of delimitations and help to identify more clearly the factors that lead to or militate against successful interventions that have a positive impact on livelihoods.

• The impact of information dissemination campaigns conducted by various entities. If this were conducted as part of a cooperative programme between government and non-government agencies, this kind of research could begin to identify some of the best methodologies and serve to diffuse tensions between the state and NGOs concerning the contents of various information campaigns.

Alternatively, the proposed institutional restructuring of MADER, which envisages the amalgamation of the DINAGECA and the DNFFB into a single natural resources directorate, may offer an opportunity to establish a further monitoring system within PROAGRI that addresses these areas. Some low-level technical assistance in the design of an impact monitoring system, carried out in consultation with non-state agencies involved in the natural resources sector, could add considerable value to the existing information systems developed through the PROAGRI process (which have tended to be activity rather than impact-orientated).

It may be useful to use the recent establishment of a Poverty Observatory as a model for this kind of monitoring initiative or as an element of this broader body. The main objective of the Poverty Observatory (PO), established with technical assistance from the UNDP, is to monitor and evaluate the performance in the implementation of the PARPA by collection of data on progress achieved and analysis of the data to better orient required action. It will conduct studies and research and establish a series of data banks, documenting experiences of best practices. The PO will be expected to make suggestions to Government to promote the impact of the implementation of the PARPA. The PO is made up of two groupings; an ad hoc advisory group to be known as the Opinion Council and a permanent body known as the Technical Secretariat. The Opinion Council is made up of 60 members representing the central bodies of the State, civil society organizations, and from international development partners. UNDP, through a project titled “Support to PARPA’s Monitoring and Evaluation System” will assist the Secretariat of the PO. Discussions with the secretariat on the development of natural resource policy monitoring mechanisms could be a useful starting point for the development of this capacity.

4.3 Supporting local institution building

Developing strong representative rural institutions is now widely recognised as being one of the central pillars without which rural economic development cannot take place. A key governance challenge is to build the political will and institutional capacity to promote sustainable livelihoods and this requires a particular focus on developing practical linkages to translate national policies, laws and regulations into action at the local level (Glavovic, 2001). Support for local institutions, to strengthen their ability to deliver services (government) and to make claims on entitlements (citizens) is an area on which there needs to be considerable focus in the years ahead. This paper has shown how local politics have a far greater impact in practise than the design of decentralization policies at a national level and therefore much greater attention should be paid to the issue of building and strengthening the social and political capital of the rural poor than at present.

If decentralization and devolution are to be effective in promoting sustainable resource management there have to be effective management institutions in place at the level to which authority has been transferred. These institutions need to be genuinely representative, transparent and accountable to the constituencies that they represent. A critical component of the decentralization/devolution process is ensuring that these local level institutions are effectively empowered through both an appropriate legal framework and the provision of skills and resources needed to exercise such control. A prerequisite to the successful functioning of such institutions is a clear and commonly understood definition of the membership of the group that such institutions represent. Whilst this is a policy issue that has not been dealt with clearly and consistently by the new policies to date, it is also an implementation issue that as been little considered. Some of the examples covered in this paper indicate that in several cases despite an effective legislative framework, implementation has been undermined by lack of a coherent strategy.

There is also a clear and related need for more and broader investments in human capital that cut across classes and gender and support transformative processes within community level institutions. As Bingen (2000) points out “...human capital investments offer the promise of enabling people to liberate themselves from the ‘ties that exclude’...” Research findings quoted here are revealing that investments in human capital can provide women and other marginalized groups in a society the opportunity not only to build and strengthen their other assets, such as social capital, but also to use them as a means for enhancing their livelihood strategies.

The process of modifying informal institutions in this way can be slow, and often conflict-ridden. Its success in practice often depends on access to an effective legal system and the existence of supportive community-oriented service organizations and resources. These will take time and patience to build within the Mozambican context, where both the justice system and civil society organizations are weak and disorganised and have tended to be socially removed from the community groups that they are intended to serve. However, the ability to address restrictive informal institutions is an important element in achieving a policy context that is supportive of livelihoods for marginalized sections of the community (Thomson, 2000).

An immediate area of focus ought to be the development of support and training resources for the local co-management bodies established by the Forestry and Wildlife Law, with a particular emphasis upon the community elements of these, so that participation in these institutions will have meaning and purpose. To date it appears that the DNFFB have not yet begun to consider the resource requirements of these institutions. Groups such as the COGEPs need to be allowed to engage in a “learning process of institution-building” supported by government policies that favour participatory management and that provide legal support and protection for the groups. There will be no “one size fits all” but a coherent strategy of support is certainly needed. IIED have made small grants available to groups that are working to develop replicable and transferable tools in this regard, but the impact will be limited without a long-term focus and concern from within the DNFFB.

NGO staff and government personnel alike also need to learn new ways of working with local community groups, as evidenced by some of the examples in this paper. A sustained focus on the changing of attitudes and the deepening of skills and understanding of participatory approaches of working are necessary.

Direct funding support

Other forms of support for local community groups might include funds to enable them to take advantage of new opportunities created through policy changes that remain out of reach because of the high transaction costs involved. Existing initiatives are shown in Box 20.

Training and support

Projects around the country that have addressed some of the training and support needs for strong representative institutions at community level are listed in Box 21.

4.4 Independent institutions

Different mechanisms have been used to clarify the levels and standards of services to which people are entitled, to increase accountability, and to empower citizens in relation to public organizations. These include the use of benchmarks, codes of conduct or citizens’ charters and report cards for identifying service standards and monitoring their implementation. Mozambique, as a result of its history, has little (but growing) experience of independent institutions; a focus on the identification and feasibility of suitable independent institutions in the natural resources sector may be useful in the future, however, since the effectiveness of such approaches may be greater when mechanisms for monitoring and redress are embedded in such “higher” level institutions. Independent institutions may provide the forms of support to local community groups that are not forthcoming from the government services - overseeing the fairness of negotiations, providing effective mediation between disputing parties and monitoring compliance with agreements that are made between private sector entities and local communities. In the absence of an accessible and efficient judicial system the creation of less formal but equally independent mechanisms for these functions to be performed may be necessary.

4.5 Capacity building for civil society

Mozambican NGOs and civil society organizations often do not have the capacity to present a strong voice at policy consultations and considerable work is needed for them to become familiar with issues and to organize around them. Only a few NGOs are in a position to react to unexpected opportunities to influence policy, which often arise at short notice and give little time to consult their membership. In addition many of the Mozambican NGOs often find it difficult and time consuming to work together in alliances, as evidenced by the problems being faced by some of the provincial fora established in the wake of the Land Campaign.

Working with rural focused NGOs and other civil society organizations requires significant management time and a long-term perspective. Strategic approaches might include the provision of support for different stakeholders on an issue simultaneously. In this way donors and technical assistance agencies are not overly identified with the interests of one stakeholder and can sometimes add value by making linkages and leaning lessons.