PROSAVANA MASTER PLAN, STAKEHOLDER MAPPING
Prepared by Majol Consultoria &Serviços, for theJapan International Cooperation Agency
Semi-final draft for JICA Comments, January, 2016

Executive Summary
ProSAVANA would like to develop a Stakeholder Engagement Plan that will help thecentral level coordination in assessing the social environment in which it operates, this being
the Nacala Corridor composed of 19 Districts (with new administrative divisions making it21) in Northern Mozambique. To this end, Majol Consultoria & Serviços was contracted toprepare a stakeholder map of relevant civil society or institutions and government
departments in this geography. Thirty-seven institutions and two opinion leaders wereinterviewed between November and December, 2015, and asked for their opinions on the
ProSAVANA programme design process, the current ProSAVANA Master Plan, and thewillingness to dialogue with ProSAVANA in order to improve the Master Plan in the future.
Of all stakeholders contacted, only four were completely opposed to any dialogue with
ProSAVANA whatsoever. All the others expressed various degrees of concern with thecurrent state of ProSAVANA plans, but a willingness to dialogue with ProSAVANA in
order to improve the program and the Master Plan. Key concerns included a history of poor
communication between ProSAVANA development team and civil society organizations
and farmers, land tenure and environmental safeguards, the vagueness of some of the plans
and strategies as currently written, the lack of a clear role and financing for NGOs andCSO’s going forward, agricultural finance questions, questions about the development
models used, and others.
Key recommendations based on stakeholder mapping results include:
•

•

MAJOL

It is probably realistic to expect that a dialogue platform can be established,particularly given new civil society openness to dialogue. This openness is based atleast in part upon the changes introduced to the ProSAVANA program by the Zero
Draft Master Plan.
There do seem to be differences between civil society expectations of a complete andopen dialogue, starting over from the very beginning, and JICA expectations ofconsultations leading fairly quickly to a second round of public consultations, before
April, 2016. JICA would do well to begin to consider what its position might beshould the roadmap proposed by civil society differ substantially from JICA
expectations.

P. 1

•

•

MAJOL

Process is important as well as product and CSO’s and NGOs must feel that they are
essential elements of the planning process, and that their input is valued andconsidered.
ProSAVANA proponents must be prepared to go beyond Mozambican law and what
is currently written in the draft ProSAVANA Master Plan, to create broadly acceptedand publicly monitored safeguards for family sector land and resource access.

P. 2

Contents	
  1.0

Abbreviatura

4

2.0

Introduction (Brief review of Context)

7

2.1

ProSAVANA Stakeholder Engagement8

2.2

Areas of Direct and Indirect Influence9

2.3

Socio-economic Profiles of the Areas of Direct and Indirect Influence9

2.4

Summary of Consultations to Date9

3.0

Stakeholder Analysis

10

3.1

Introduction

10

3.2

Stakeholder Profile

11

3.3

Stakeholder Mapping

12

3.4

Mapping Methodology

14

3.5

Limitations of this Stakeholder Map

15

4.0
4.1
5.0

Stakeholder Mapping Results, ProSAVANA
Summary of Results
Discussion and Recommendations

16
28
33

5.1

Key Results

33

5.2

Recommendations

36

6.0

MAJOL

List of Appendixes

37

P. 3

1.0

ABBREVIATURA

ABC

Brazilian Cooperating Agency

AfDB

African Development BankAIDS

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

AIFM

Integrated Assessment of Forests in Mozambique

AMODER

Association of Mozambique for Rural Development

ANE

National Agency for Roads

CARE

Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere

CEPAGRI

Agriculture Promotion Center

CLUSA

Cooperative League of the USA

CPI

Investment Promotion Centre

CSO

Civil Society Organization

CTA

The Confederation of Econimic Associations of Mozambique

DFID

Department for International Development, United Kingdom

DNA

National Directorate of Water

DNTF

National Directorate of Land and Forestry

DPA

Provincial Directorate of Agriculture

DPASA

Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Food Security

DPCA

Provincial Directorate for the Coordination of Environmental Action

DPIC

Provincial Directorate of Industry and Commerce

DPOPH

National Directorate of Land Planning and Management

DPTC

Provincial Directorate of Transport and Communications

DUATLand Use Rights

EIA

Environmental Impact Assessment

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

FDA

Fund for Agriculture Development

FDD

Fund for District Development

FIPAG

Water Supply Investment and Assets Fund

GOM

Government of Mozambique

IIAM

Agriculture Research Institute of Mozambique

INCAJU

Institute for Promotion of Cashew Nuts

INE

National Statistics Institute

INGC

National Institute of Disaster Management

iTC

Community Land Initiative

JICA

Japan International Cooperation Agency

MAJOL

P. 4

MASA

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security

MITADER

Ministry of Land, Environment, and Rural Development

MOPHRH

Ministry of Public Works, Housing, and Water Resources

MPD

Ministry of Planning and Development

MT

Meticais

MTC

Ministry of Transport and CommunicationNGO

Non-government Organization

OECD

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

OMM

Organization of Mozambican Women

PARP

National Action Plan for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty

PARPA

Action Program for Reduction of Absolute Poverty

PEDSA

Strategic Plan for Agricultural Development

PEMA

Strategic Plan of Agricultural Mechanization

PROMER

National Program for Agrarian Extension

ProSAVANA

Triangular Cooperation Program for Agricultural Development of the African Tropical Savannah

SDAE

District Services for Economic Activities

SDC

Swiss Development Cooperation

SDPI

District Service of Planning and Infrastructure

SIDA

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

SIMA

The Agriculture Market Information System

SME

Small and Medium Enterprises

SNS

National HealthService

SPER

Provincial Agricultural Extension Services

SPFFB

Provincial Service of Forest and Wildlife

SPGC

Provincial Service of Geography and Cadaster

TIA

Agricultural Census

UBS

Seed Processing Unit

UCASN

Union of Peasants of South Niassa

UNAC

National Union of Peasants

UNDP

United Nations Development Program

UNEP

United Nations Environment Program

UPCN

Provincial Union of Farmers for Peasants in Niassa

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

VAT

Value Add Tax

WB

World BankWFPWorld Food Programme

MAJOL

P. 5

WHO

MAJOL

World Health Organization

P. 6

2.0

INTRODUCTION (BRIEF REVIEW OF CONTEXT)The Agricultural Development Master Plan for the Nacala Corridor is being formulated
through the study of nineteen districts (now 21) in three provinces of the Nacala Corridor
Area located in northern Mozambique. The Master Plan aims to improve the livelihood of
inhabitants, especially small scale farmers in the Nacala Corridor and to contribute to socioeconomic development in the area. This Master Plan is one of the key elements of the
ProSAVANA Programme, which is based on a Triangular Agreement between the
Governments of Mozambique, Japan, and Brazil.
The Nacala Corridor is located in the northern part of Mozambique. It starts at the NacalaPort at the coast of the Indian Ocean connecting Mozambique to Malawi and Zambia.
ProSAVANA Districts include:
NampulaProvince:

The districts of Monapo, Meconta, Muecate, Mogovolas,
Rapale (Nampula), Murrupula, Mecuburi, Ribaue, Lalaua andMalema.

NiassaProvince:

The districts of Chimbonila (Lichinga), N’Gauma, Mandimba,
Cuamba, Sanga, Majune and Mecanhelas.

Zambezia The districts of Gurue and Alto Molocue.
Province:

The ProSAVANA Districts have an
extent of 107,002 km2 and an
estimated population of about
4,287,4151. The Master Plan isformulated to generate a new
development model, taking into
consideration environmental andsocio-economic aspects, aiming at arural and regional market-oriented
agricultural development with acompetitive advantage.
The formulation of the Master Plan
started in 2012 and involved a
Figure 1. ProSAVANA Districts

1 2011 National Statistic Institute (INE) Population Census estimate
MAJOL

P. 7

technical team that consisted of experts in various fields from the Ministry of Agriculture
and Food Security of Mozambique (MASA). It also included the Provincial Directorates for
Agriculture and Food Security (DPASAs) of the Provinces of Nampula, Niassa, andZambezia. Technical Assistance (TA) was provided by the governments of Japan and Brazil.
A local company was subcontracted to conduct specific surveys of farmers’ organizations
and agricultural trade.
The Process to date has included many consultations with a variety of stakeholders, farmers
groups, and other interested parties. However, ProSAVANA planners felt the need tostrengthen stakeholder engagement, with particular regard to the interaction with
communities and farmers’ organizations and representatives of farmers. This was in reaction
to broad-based negative reactions and campaigns. Identification of legitimate farmer andcommunity representatives is also a concern.

2.1

PROSAVANA STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENTProSAVANA would like to develop a Stakeholder Engagement Plan that will help the the
ProSAVANA coordination team in assessing the social environment in which it operates
and in particular to:
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Identify conflicts of interest between stakeholders in order to help manage such
relationships during the course of the programme and its projects;
Identify relationships between stakeholders that may enable "coalitions" ofProgramme and its project sponsorship, ownership and co-operation;
Assess the capacity of different stakeholders and stakeholder groups to participate inengagement activities;
Formulate strategic and flexible engagement strategy built on principles oftransparency, coalition and cooperation between the Programme and thestakeholders;
Assess the appropriate type of participation by different stakeholders at successive
stages of the Programme cycle;
Identify weaknesses and strengths, and opportunities and threats of the programme
at present;
Formulate appropriate policies, tools, and approaches to insure inclusivity withrespect to gender, youth, and other vulnerable groups.

To begin this process, Majol Consultoria & Serviços was contracted (via a tender process) todevelop a stakeholder dialogue platform, and to research and draft a partial stakeholder
map, both as first steps towards a ProSAVANA Stakeholder Engagement Plan.
The Stakeholder Map includes Civil Society Organizations ( NGO’s, NGO Forums andPlatforms, Farmers Unions and Associations, and the Business Association—CTA) and somerelevant Government Departments. It specifically excludes affected villages, individual

MAJOL

P. 8

farmers (with the exception of their representative CSO organizations), and private sector
stakeholders, as per the agreed Terms of Reference.

2.2

AREAS OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFLUENCE

Definition of the ProSAVANA areas of Direct and Indirect Influence was somewhat difficult
to do, because the ProSAVANA Study area has only been loosely defined as the 19 above
mentioned Districts; areas for direct investment within these districts have not yet been
defined. For this reason, the Area of Direct Influence is considered to be the entire
ProSAVANA Study area. The Area of Indirect Influence is also considered to be the same
area. As ProSAVANA investments are further pinpointed, it will be possible to separate
these two areas.

2.3

SOCIO-ECONOMICPROFILES

OF

THE

AREAS

OF

DIRECTAND

INDIRECTINFLUENCE

The 19 Districts have been extensively studied during the ProSAVANA Master Plan drafting
process and details are available in the Master plan itself. Thus they will not be repeatedhere and readers are referred to the current Master Plan for further information.

2.4

SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS TO DATE

Despite many attempts at consultation, including a round of Public Consultations aroundthe “Zero Draft” Master Plan (dated March, 2015), effective dialogue had not been achieved
as of this writing, as evidenced by the existence of two campaigns birthed from the
ProSAVANA project. These are:•

The “Não ao ProSAVANA” campaign (“No to ProSAVANA”). Members of thiscampaign have as their objective the total abandonment of ProSAVANA by GoM
and Partners. Members include: Acção Académica para o Desenvolvimento das
Comunidades rurais (ADECRU); Associação de Apoio e Assistência Jurídica as
Comunidades (AAAJC); Justiça Ambiental; União Nacional das Camponeses(UNAC), and others.

•

The “Campaign Against Land Grabbing” grew out of the “No to ProSAVANA”
campaign, and is directed broadly against all forms of land grabbing. It is not
specifically against ProSAVANA, but any engagement with ProSAVANA will
depend on the degree to which members are satisfied that land rights of rural people
will be safeguarded. To date members are not satisfied with the safeguards aspresented in ProSAVANA public documents and communication so far. This
campaign is run by Oxfam, and has the support of ActionAid and otherdevelopmental NGO’s.

MAJOL

P. 9

Main concerns about the Zero Draft Master Plan presented by Civil Society have included
the following:

1. The concept of ProSAVANA (as amended in the Zero draft) which is to create a newmodel for agriculture, focused the market and also family sector producers, is good.
2. However, this new model is not clear; the ‘how’ questions (how will ProSAVANA do
this?) are largely unanswered.
3. Plans are ambitious and not clearly explained. This lack of clarity about how
ProSAVANA will achieve its objectives makes the programme seem unrealistic.
4. Safeguards proposed for community land and resource rights, family sector farming,and environmental protection, are inadequate. Safeguards are discussed but thelanguage used does not compel compliance with standards suggested.
5. Land rights are particularly problematic given the current level of conflicts withincoming investors; civil society feels that the current legal framework andgovernment guarantees are insufficient and that ProSAVANA must adopt clearer,
compulsory, and more stringent standards than those existing in Mozambican Law.
6. There has not been a good information flow throughout the consultation process,with a lack of transparency and sometimes intimidation.
7. There are questions about political will and government capacity to adequately
implement family sector safeguards.
8. The document does not discuss social and environmental risks associated with the
project. Something like an ESIA (Environmental and Social Impact ssessment) isneeded.
9. Questions of agricultural finance are not clearly explained. How will small farmersof the family sector access the credit they need (again the ‘how’ questions)?
10. Where will NGO’s and CSO’s fit into ProSAVANA? This is not clearly explained.
And will there be components for them to implement?
11. The Zero Draft was created without sufficient consultation with stakeholders.
In December, 2015, members of the Não ao ProSAVANA campaign presented a criticalcommentary on the Zero Draft Master Plan (of March 2015), entitled “Comentários ao Plano
Director Versão Draft Zero, Marco de 2015, no Contexto da Campanha Não ao ProSAVANA”. This
document was perhaps produced in response to renewed attempts by JICA to dialogue with
Civil society. It reprises many of the concerns mentioned above. See Appendix 1.

3.0

3.1

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSISINTRODUCTION"Stakeholder Analysis" is a term used to describe the identification and characterization ofindividuals and groups of people that impact on or might be impacted by a planned or
proposed project. Identification and characterization imply the following:

MAJOL

P. 10

•
•

•
•

•
•

identification of the characteristics of each group, culturally, socially, economically,
as well as with the reference to the project;
identification of concerns, opportunities, expectations, and potential conflicts orconflicts of interest between the project and particular groups or between the groups
themselves;
identify and characterize relationships between the stakeholders that may promote
or impede the development of alliances and consensus or alternatively, conflict;
Identification of key groups and individuals who need to be the subject of targeted
engagement for engagement as well as important messages and objectives of theseengagements;
Impact mitigation necessary and stakeholders associated;
any other relevant information.

Thus, stakeholder analysis develops project understanding of its own neighbors andinterested and affected parties, which is an early step in the development of the Stakeholder
Engagement Plan. It also attempts to understand and describe the relationships between
stakeholders, and, in doing so, allows for the creation of management systems, moments,and methods for engagement. The following sub sections provide a profile of the various
stakeholders relative to ProSAVANA as well their concerns and relative influence in the
project.

3.2

STAKEHOLDER PROFILEA stakeholder is a ‘person, group or organization that has direct or indirect stake in a project
because it can affect or be affected by the project’s activities’. Identification andcharacterization of stakeholders, especially those vulnerable groups or individuals that are
not highly visible or well represented, is an important step in any stakeholder engagement
process. This characterization works as follows.
Stakeholders vary in terms of degree of interest (degree to which a project will impactthem) and influence (control; or degree to which they might influence a project) withrespect to a given project/investment. Those stakeholders who have a direct influence on or
have direct interests in the project are known as Primary Stakeholders, those who haveindirect influence or indirect interests are known as Secondary Stakeholders. Examples
follow.

•

MAJOL

The national government for example is a highly influential stakeholder withrespect to the ProSAVANA programme; government forestry, agriculture, andenvironmental policies as well as taxation regimes, land and labour laws, and others,
will directly affect programme viability and feasibility. On the other hand, inprinciple the programme has a lesser degree of impact on the government; thesuccess or failure of ProSAVANA ought to have only a small impact on government
function and reputation. However, the ongoing dialogue and publicity created in the
media means that government is more invested in this particular programme than inmany other bilateral and multilateral aid programs. Usually, with respect to an aid

P. 11

program, the government might be a high influence, low interest stakeholder.
However, in this case, it is probably more accurate to say that with respect to the
ProSAVANA program, government is a high influence/ medium interest
stakeholder, as there does seem to be some degree of government reputation riding
on the successful establishment and implementation of this particular trilateral aid
program. Because the influence is direct, the national government is considered to bea primary stakeholder.
•

Village women in the 19 ProSAVANA Districts are low influence but high-interest
stakeholders. Their livelihoods patterns (particularly emergency survival strategies,
which generally include the consumption of wild foods) may be negatively affectedby occupation of forest and bush areas by increased market-oriented agriculture,with concomitant loss of wild foods and future areas for their children to expand
into. They also have little actual voice in male-dominated community affairs. On theother hand, if ProSAVANA is crafted with women in mind, increasing their voice incommunity affairs and guaranteeing them equal access to benefits and services,
ProSAVANA might be of very great benefit for them. If land co-titling with womenis pursued by ProSAVANA as an objective, this will be an even greater benefit,
because, for perhaps the first time in their lives, they will actually have a claim on theland they raise their families’ food upon. Because the project affects them directly,
village women would be primary stakeholders as well.

•

A local environmental NGO, lobbying for protection of high biodiversity value forest
areas and riparian deserves along rivers, might be a high influence/ low interest
stakeholder. Should ProSAVANA operations impact negatively on these areas, thelocal NGO could call upon both public opinion resulting in a loss of reputation for
ProSAVANA, JICA, and the Government. Local NGO’s are secondary stakeholders,
as they are impacted indirectly.

The following section (Stakeholder Mapping) sets out in tabular form those stakeholders
identified, their potential issues with the project, their relationship with the project, theirconcerns, their expectations, and also attempts to characterize the potential influence of the
project. The final column of the chart characterizes each stakeholder by their degree of
influence over the project (how much their actions, decisions and opinions can affect the
project) and the degree to which they are interested (how much project actions, decisions,and opinions affect their lives).

3.3

STAKEHOLDER MAPPINGAs mentioned stakeholder mapping is a process of examining the relative interest/influencethat different individuals and groups have over a project as well as the impact of the projecton them. The purpose of stakeholder mapping is to:

•
•

MAJOL

Identify each stakeholder group;
Study their profile and nature of their ‘stakes’;

P. 12

•
•

Understand each groups issues, concerns and expectations;
Gauge their influence on the project.

On the basis of such understanding the stakeholders are evaluated on two scales ofinterest/expectations and influence. Stakeholders are thus categorized into High influence,
medium influence and low influence and similarly evaluated on a low, medium, high scaleof interest.

The stakeholders categorized as high influence are those than can have a high control on the
project or likely to be heavily impacted by the project. On the other hand stakeholders with
low influences are those that have minimal influence on the decision making in the project.
A “Stakeholder Map” is then created, (usually in chart form), summarizing all datacollected.
This map is then used in a subsequent step of creating a full “Stakeholder Engagement
Plan”. Influence and interest ratings are used to prioritise stakeholders. Information about
concerns, issues, and opportunities are used to define engagement strategies for the different
groups of stakeholders identified. These priorities and strategies are then developed into the
Stakeholder Engagement plan, with (usually) a logframe, action plan, timeline, and budget.
A stakeholder engagement plan will also indicate which supplementary documents/
policies might be needed (such as a Land Access Policy and Procedure, a Grievance
Mechanism, an Ombudsman, a Gender Policy or Affirmative Action Policy—to promote

MAJOL

P. 13

access to programme benefits and services by vulnerable groups, a Climate Change Policy,
or a Communications Plan, for example).2

3.4

MAPPING METHODOLOGY

The first step was the identification of potential stakeholders. This was accomplishedthrough an initial consultation with JICA and government authorities. Following this, civilsociety stakeholders were contacted, generally through the provincial and national civilsociety platforms and forums. From these contacts a list of the most important institutions
to meet with was drawn up. The Civil Society Mapping Exercise done by the EU recently 3
was also useful.
A literature search was also undertaken, looking for all recent and publicly available
commentaries on the ProSAVANA process and documents. A thorough review of
documents provided by JICA and the Mozambican government was also undertaken.
A survey instruments was developed using the online serving tool, Survey Monkey. Please
see Appendix 2 for the instrument and results. The survey instrument was used by Majol
team members to guide interviews with CSO stakeholders. The interviewee was not shownin the survey, rather, the questions were used to guide the discussion through the range of
topics needed to fill in the stakeholder map. This methodology worked in most cases.
However, sometimes the mere mention of ProSAVANA would provoke very lengthy
responses from interviewees. In these cases, interviewers would capture the information
catch as catch can from the interviewee. Due to the sometimes high degree of emotions
associated with these interviews, it was not always possible to fully complete the Survey
Monkey instrument, for each interviewee.
Immediately after each interview, Majol interviewers would sit together to map the resultsof each interview in the Stakeholder Map table (see section 4.0 following).
Interviews were held over November 2 to December 21, 2015. Results were analyzed andsummaries produced between December 19, 2015 and January 3, 2016.

2

The creation of a full Stakeholder Engagement Plan is not a part of the MAJOL ToR at this time.

3

Mapping Study of Civil Society Organizations inMozambique (October, 2015). Report prepared by
the team of consultants: Ms Bent Topsoe –Jensen (team leader, Ms. Alice Pisco, Mr. Padil Salimo
and Mr. João Lameiras, with contribution from Mr. Vasconcelos Muatecalene.

MAJOL

P. 14

3.5

LIMITATIONS OF THIS STAKEHOLDER MAP

The limitations to this document are temporal and informational. This plan is developed
based on a snapshot of the programme as of December, 2015, but it is not intended to be astatic document. Changes in the context, the socioeconomic situation, and the evolution of
the ProSAVANA programme itself will mean that this Stakeholder Map should be updated
regularly and iteratively during the life of the ProSavana programme.

MAJOL

P. 15