EVALUATING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY PREFERENCES
IN AGRICULTURAL CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT:
THE PROSAVANA CASE OF MOZAMBIQUE
AIMEE HAMPEL-MILAGROSA, RAOUL HERRMANN
Department of Sustainable Economic and Social Development,
German Development Institute, Bonn, Germany
[email protected]
Paper prepared for presentation at the
“2016 WORLD BANK CONFERENCE ON LAND AND POVERTY”
The World Bank - Washington DC, March 14-18, 2016
Copyright 2016 by author(s). All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice
appears on all such copies.
Abstract
Worldwide, Large-Scale Agricultural Investments (LSAIs) are rife with critique on their failure to consult
with affected communities and their disregard of community priorities. This paper presents initial results
of research into the quality of the public participation process as well as the revealed preferences of local
communities that are affected by the Prosavana programme in Mozambique. The Prosavana is an
agricultural economic development programme that affects 14 million hectares of agricultural land across
three provinces in the Nacala region of north Mozambique. Preliminary results show divergence - but also
- congruence in priorities set by farmers / farmer groups with those set by the Prosavana programme.
However, large differences seem to exist in each party’s risk assessments, namely, in land tenure security,
crop selection and mechanisms of farmer support. These differences seem to result from the nature of
consultations conducted and the strategy employed to community information provision. This paper
addresses the thematic area “Responsible Large-scale land-based investments" of the 2016 Land and
Poverty Conference.
Key Words: agricultural growth corridors, large-scale agricultural investments, Mozambique, Multi
Criteria Decision Making, public participation, Prosavana
Introduction
Inclusive agricultural development programmes require public participation as a crucial element in its
planning and implementation. Yet recent literature is rich with accounts of agricultural investments that
were flaunted as inclusive, but have failed in consulting and obtaining consent of affected communities.
Several LSAIs in Africa for example, that were supposed to take smallholders along in the development
process, are disputed due to reports of lack of public participation in the planning and negotiation
processes.
It is not that there are no guidelines to frame investor-community interaction. At the international and
country level, documents outlining codes of conduct, principles of engagement and voluntary guidelines
provide the context for including the voice of locals into the development process (see for example,
Voluntary Guidelines of the FAO, 2012; Principles of Consultation and Participation of the World Bank,
IFAD, UNCTAD and FAO 2012). However, in reality, there is limited interaction between project
planners, investors and smallholders; and seeking public consent for ongoing LSAIs is not common.
Mechanisms by which public participation could be and should be secured at the community level are
existing. However, extensive studies in African countries show a stark discrepancy between de jure
mechanisms for public participation with de facto evidence. Empirical data from Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali,
Madagascar, Mozambique and Tanzania for example, show that current practices in African LSAIs fall
short of the recommended global standards for consultation and consent (Vermeulen and Cotula 2010). A
study of LSAIs in Mali showed that existing international voluntary guidelines leave much room for
interpretation and that investor compliance with regard to free, prior and informed consent in is poor
(Nolte and Voget-Kleschin, 2013).
Evidence on public participation mechanisms in LSAIs would tremendously help decision-makers and
investors to design more inclusive policies. However, there exist very few studies concerning public
participation in corridor development as such and, the few existing studies are mostly qualitative in
nature. Much needed quantitative research that systematically matches priorities of affected communities
in relation to priorities of investors’ is missing. Indeed, because of the logistical difficulties in gathering
data across a large area, conducting quantitative researches on LSAIs and agricultural corridors is
challenging. Nhantumbo and Salomão (2009), for example, stated that currently “there are still no
mechanisms to identify or resolve different priorities and preferences among members of …
communities”.
It cannot be overemphasized that research-based policies that reconcile community preferences with
investor approaches is imperative. When affected communities’ concerns are overlooked in the planning
and negotiation phase, these issues tend to remain neglected for the duration of the long-term project.
Moreover, in the light of recent LSAIs disputes, evidence-based policies that balance communities’
priorities with investors’ goals would have easily shifted large scale agricultural investments nearer to
being “inclusive”.
The paper presents preliminary results of an ongoing quantitative and qualitative study on Prosavana in
Mozambique. Prosavana is an agricultural corridor development project led by the Mozambican
government together with the governments of Brazil and Japan, and several large international private
investors (Chichava et al 2013). Estimated to cover 14 million hectares of land across the provinces of
Zambezia, Niassa and Nampula, the programme is believed to impact 4 million Mozambican farmers.
Prosavana however, is fraught with critique on the quality of public participation since its inception in
2009 (Paul and Steinbrecher 2013). We specifically evaluated the following aspects of Prosavana:
1. The nature and quality of the public participation process
2. Stakeholder preferences and priorities for an inclusive agricultural corridor development, specifically:
a. from the smallholder and Mozambican private sector perspective
b. From the Prosavana programme's perspective
3. Similarities and contradiction of interests and potential processes that can bring Prosavana and
smallholders/ civil society organizations/Mozambican private sector together
4. Policies, strategies or processes for a more inclusive agricultural corridor development programme in
Mozambique
Methodology
In November and December 2015, a household survey was conducted in the provinces of Nampula,
Zambezia and Niassa. A total of 657 farmers were interviewed, distributed among eight districts and
seventeen villages of the said provinces. The selection of districts and villages was conducted using two
stage proportional stratified sampling, from the pool of districts and villages where the Prosavana
programme is planned to be implemented. Within the villages, village households were arbitrarily divided
into those that were clustered near a main road (flattened clay road) and those that were clustered at least
one kilometer away from the main road. Adult respondents in each household were selected based on
availability and willingness to be interviewed. Table 1 shows the sample size per province and per
district.
-Table 1 hereThe questionnaire that was administered explored, among others, the following topics: smallholders’
sources of information and understanding of the Prosavana, participation in public meetings
(active/passive, at which level, frequency), areas of improvement in the quality public meetings
(information dissemination, structure, logistics, themes discussed), production information and
demographic characteristics. The questionnaire also included eight survey questions from the the Food
and Agriculture Organizations’ Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES).
A major contribution of the paper is the refinement and application of a sophisticated analytical approach
for collective decision-making in agriculture, the Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). MCDM is a
fairly recent methodological approach that allows for simplifying the policy scenario for decision-making
in the context of multiple and conflicting criteria. Originating in the late 1970s, MCDM has been applied
to a range of collective optimization problems such as river basin planning, energy planning, forest
management, engineering component design, portfolio selection, and R&D project selection (Wallenius et
al, 2008). Current agricultural corridor development in Sub-Saharan Africa presents the perfect
opportunity for applying MCDM to guide collective decision-making and to reconcile conflicting
priorities of communites and investors. We used a specific MCDM tool, the Analytical Hierarchy Process
(Saaty, 1980) for analyzing public responses. AHP was used to generate a systematic pair-wise
comparison of predetermined criteria help stakeholders reveal preferences. AHP allows for the
decomposition of decision problems into hierarchies, allowing for the evaluation of multiple
implementation criteria and creating an ordering of policy options. It therefore enabled the respondents
(farmers, policy makers, program developers) to rank policy options from most preferred to least
preferred approaches, all based on responses from affected communities.
In the survey, the main goal was “to design an inclusive and socially supported agricultural economic
corridor development programme for the Nacala”. The decision criteria were broken down into two
levels (Subcriteria_1 and Subcriteria_2). Each criterion level encompassed between three and four
decision items. Subcriteria_1 is an aggregation of decision items under Subcriteria 2 while Subcriteria_2
agrregates the lowest level decision items. Table 2 presents a snapshot of the the hierarchy diagram for
two of the criteria under “social and environmental goals”.
-Table 2 here-
Extensive qualitative stakeholder interviews with farmers groups, associations, businesses located in the
Nacala corridor as well as program developers and policy makers on different levels (local, regional,
national) were also conducted.
Preliminary results
Although farmers were aware of the Prosavana, it was mostly based on media information (television and
radio) and not on participation in public meetings. Although planned large scale agricultural investments
under the Prosavana are yet to occur, several LSAIs have been already implemented in the three
provinces. Preliminary results show divergence - but also - congruence in priorities set by farmers /
farmer groups with those set by the Prosavana programme. However, large differences seem to exist in
each party’s risk assessments, namely, in land tenure security, crop selection and mechanisms of farmer
support. Farmers that were interviewed voiced their concerns about the threat of landlessness once
investments are implemented in their districts. They base their opinions from information regarding the
Prosavana provided by civil society organisations, and based on the negative experience of smallholders
who were affected by similar private investments.According to representatives of the Prosavana
programme, however, farmers’ worries about losing their land is unfounded because Mozambique has
one of the strongest property rights law in Subsaharan Africa. The 1998 Mozambican land Law lays down
detailed provisions, among others, for public consultations to take place before any investment could
occur. In terms of crop selection, farmers prefer to continue / improve existing industries such as cashew,
cassava, rice, sugarcane than to create new industries in the region, as suggested by the Prosavana. A
second preference is at least a joint selection between farmers and Prosavana in terms of the crops to be
promoted under the programme. A final issue of divergence in preferences are the mechanisms for
farmers support, specifically, on regulations on the eligibility of farmers to avail of credit and
technological support under the Prosavana. Farmers prefer that these mechanisms of support be laid out
up front and discussed, while Prosavana prefers a bilateral agreement first, on the private investment
before discussing support mechanisms. These main differences that were identified seem to result from
the nature of consultations conducted and the strategy employed to community information provision.
Interestingly, farmers and Prosavana programme have a common vision for an agricultural-led
development in the Nacala, but envision starkly differentiated strategies on how to achieve it. Preliminary
results point to more frequent, more transparent public participation strategies as a way of mitigating
divergence in priorities and preferences. Public meetings should seek the genuine involvement of affected
communities and take the social implications of agricultural investments into consideration.
References:
Chichava S. / Cabral L. / Shankland, A. / Buckley, L. / Lixia, T. / Yue, Z. (2013): Brazil and China in
Mozambican agriculture: emerging insights from the field. IDS Bulletin, 44.4
Food and Agriculture Organization (2012): Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Land
Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, retrieved from
www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf
Nolte K. / Voget-Kleschin L. (2013): Evaluating consultations in large scale land acquisitions, spotlight
on three cases in Mali. Land Deal Politics Initiative Working paper No. 28, ISS The Netherlands
Nhantumbo, I. / A. Salomão (2009): Biofuels, land access and rural livelihoods in Mozambique. IIED,
London, 2010. ISBN: 978-1-84369-744-2 retrieved from: pubs.iied.org/pdfs/12563IIED.pdf
Paul, H. / R. Steinbrecher (2013): African Agricultural Growth Corridors and the New Alliance for Food
Security and Nutrition: Who benefits, who loses? Retrieved from http://www.econexus.info/publicationslist
Saaty, T. (1980): Decision mking with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Services
Sciences, Vol 1, No. 1, 2008 retrieved from
www.colorado.edu/geography/leyk/geog_5113/.../saaty_2008.pdf
Vermeulen, S. / L. Cotula (2010): Making the most of agricultural investment: a survey of business
models that provide opportunities for smallholders, FAO and IIED, Rome
Wallenius J. / Dyer, J. / Fishburn, P. / Steuer, R. / Zionts, S. / Deb, K. (2008): Multiple Criteria Decision
Making, Multi Attribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead. Management
Science, 54 (7), p. 1336-1349
World Bank (2012): Knowledge exchange platform for responsible Agro Investment (RAI): Consultation
and participation, retrieved from https://www.responsibleagroinvestment.org/node/256
Tables and Figures
Table 1. Sample distribution per province and per district (Source: own survey)
Province
District
Village
Nampula (232)
Monapo
Monapo Sede
Ituculo
Carapira
Mecuburi
Namina
MUcaca
Muthapua
Zambezia (240)
Ribaué
Iapala
Nacauia
Rapale
Molocué
Mugema
Nauela
Kaperula
Gurue
Lioma
Murrimo
Niassa (185)
Cuamba
Kathapua
Mandimba
Liciete
Lipuzia
Ngoma
Table 2 Tiers of the hierarchy model of public preferences for Prosavana, snapshot only (Source: own
survey)
Increasing
production and
productivity
Social and
environmental
goals
Social
development
Design an inclusive
and socially
supported
agricultural
economic corridor
development
programme for
the Nacala
Sustainable
agriculture
Market oriented
agriculture
Creation of private
investments
Economic goals
Establishment of
value chains
Securing land
rights
Equal rights for
farmers and
investors in the
expansion of
agricultural land
Joint farmergovernment
selection of crops
to be promoted
Construction of
irrigation
infrastructure
Clarification of
how farmers can
acquire credit and
technology
mitigating the
negatie health
effects of
intensive
agriculture
Including women
in agricultural
development
Increasing literacy
and improving
educational
system