A REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL POLICY PRACTICE IN MOZAMBIQUE

(Paper prepared for BEAT/Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa)

STRENGTHENING AGRICULTURAL POLICY PRACTICE IN AFRICA

February 2015

Clemence T. Nhliziyo Research Assistant: BEAT

Table of Contents

List of tables......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

List of acronyms .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4

1. CHAPTER 1: MOZAMBIQUE COUNTRY PROFILE ...................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Mozambique socio-economic profile .............................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Mozambique’s agro ecology ........................................................................................................................................... 5

2. CHAPTER 2: STATE OF AGRICULTURE IN MOZAMBIQUE ......................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Characteristics and Performance of the Agricultural sector .......................................................................................... 5

2.2 Domestic Agricultural Markets and Postharvest Value Addition ................................................................................... 7

2.3 External Trade in Agricultural Commodities ................................................................................................................... 8

3. CHAPTER 3: CONTEXT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES PRATICE IN MOZAMBIQUE .................................................................... 8

3.1 The evolution of agricultural policy in Mozambique ...................................................................................................... 8

3.2 The political system in relation to agricultural policy formulation in Mozambique ...................................................... 9

3.3 Mozambique’s Land Policy and its effects to agricultural production ......................................................................... 10

3.4 The framework of government strategies and policies ................................................................................................ 11

3.5 Key policies on agricultural development ..................................................................................................................... 12

3.6 Assessing the effects of major decisions and policy measures .................................................................................... 15

3.7 Major Actors in Agricultural policymaking ................................................................................................................... 16

4. CHAPTER 4: AN ASSESSMENT OF POLICY COHERENCE WITH CAADP GUIDELINES ............................................................... 17

4.1 Development of agricultural investment programs ..................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Assessing the alignment of policy measures with CAADP pillars ................................................................................. 18

4.3 An Analysis of Agricultural Public-Sector Financing ..................................................................................................... 18

4.4 Changes in Mozambique’s agriculture and economy coinciding with implementation of CAADP ............................ 19

5. CHAPTER 5: AGRA WORK IN MOZAMBIQUE .......................................................................................................................... 20

5.1 AGRA’s Policy Nodes and Hubs in Mozambique ........................................................................................................... 20

5.2 AGRA’s work in Mozambique’s agro-ecological zones ................................................................................................. 21

5.3 AGRA’s work in relation to the CAADP process in Mozambique .................................................................................. 24

6. CHAPTER 6: AGRICULTURAL PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES IN MOZAMBIQUE ................................................................. 24

6.1 Agricultural sector working groups and their work in Mozambique ........................................................................... 24

6.2 Grow Africa Investments in Mozambique .................................................................................................................... 24

6.3 New Alliance and G8 Investments in Mozambique ...................................................................................................... 24

6.4 World Bank support to Mozambique’s agriculture ...................................................................................................... 25

7. CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 25

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 26

List of tables Table 1: Overview of PNISA structure List of acronyms CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CCSA Comité de Coordenação do Sector Agrário (Agricultural Sector Coordinating Committee CTA Confederação das Associações Económicas CTA (Confederation of Economic Associations of

Mozambique CTA) EDR Estratégia de Desenvolvimento Rural (Rural Development Strategy) ESAN Estratégia e Plano de Acção de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional (Food and Nutrition Security Strategy

and Action Plan) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GDP gross domestic product IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute JSR Joint Sector Review—here focused on the agricultural sector MINAG Ministério da Agricultura (Ministry of Agriculture), Mozambique NGO nongovernmental organization ORAM Organização Rural de Ajuda Mútua (Rural Organization for Mutual Support) PAPA Plano de Acção para a Produção de Alimentos (Action Plan for Food Production) PARPA Plano de Acção para Redução da Pobreza Absoluta (Action Plan for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty) PEDSA Plano Estratégico de Desenvolvimento do Sector Agrário (Strategic Plan for the Development of the

Agriculture Sector) PNISA Programa Nacional de Investimento do Sector Agrário (National Agriculture Sector Investment Plan) PQG Plano Quinquenal do Governo (Five-Year Program of Government) PRDC Plano de Acção Multisectorial para a Redução da Desnutrição Crónica em Moçambique 2011–2014

(Multisectoral Action Plan for the Reduction of Chronic Malnutrition in Mozambique 2011–2014) PROAGRI Programa Nacional de Desenvolvimento Agricola de Moçambique (National Program of Agricultural

Development in Mozambique) PRONEA Programa Nacional de Extensão Agrária (National Agricultural Extension Program ReSAKSS Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System SADC Southern African Development Community UNAC União Nacional dos Camponeses (National Union of Peasants) USEBA Unidade de Semente Básica (Basic Seed Unit)

Executive Summary Agriculture in Mozambique plays an important role in the economy as well as in the livelihoods of millions who live in rural areas. It contributes more than 20% to the GDP. Furthermore, the sector still provides livelihoods to majority of the population. Most of the land is arable, however only about 10% is said to be cultivated. There are more than three million small holders that are involved in agriculture activities, using mostly household labour. The government has been increasing expenditure in the sector to match the 10% of GDP as set out in the agriculture comprehensive development plan (CAADP, 2010). The policy on agriculture revolves around poverty reduction. This is a result of majority of people living in rural areas where poverty is prevalent. Land resources are mostly what these people have in terms of economic activities; hence the agriculture policy is so closely linked to poverty strategy. The production of food crops is mostly allocated to maize and cassava. The yields for maize are very low at around one ton per hectare. Cassava is grown by small scale holders, and sometime the record of output are not known given consumption as well as timing of planting and harvesting. Other food crops include rice, millet and sorghum. Their yields are even lower than those for maize. Livestock production numbers are generally very low despite conditions and climate being considered to be suitable for such activities. Goat numbers are the most among all types, followed by cattle and then sheep as well as pigs. However, the recovery seems to be underway although there are still battles to be fought over diseases and pests. Consumption of livestock products exceeds production and thus imports fill the gap. Agricultural policy in Mozambique focus on executing the country’s poverty reduction plan (PARPA II). The overall aim of this policy is to strengthen governance, improve human capital and enhance economic growth through integrating the agriculture sector and the rural economy with the national and world economy. Government support to the agricultural sector has focused on three main strategies, the green revolution (2007), the food production action plan (Plano de Acção da Produção Agrícola, PAPA, 2008-2011) and the strategic plan for development of the Agricultural Sector (Plano Estratégico de Desenvolvimento do Sector Agrário, PEDSA, 2009-2019). The green revolution strategy and the action plan to increase agricultural productivity by focusing on increasing agricultural productivity. These initiatives are believed to have led to increased investment in the sector enhancing domestic production of main food staples, market integration between regions and agricultural value chains which has reduced the country’s reliance on imported food commodities. One objective of PAPA’s strategy is to enhance the country’s storage capacity, which is cited as a key obstacle preventing small scale farmers participating in the commercial maize market as well as restricting an increase in inter-regional trade. The national capacity (silos and warehouses) both private and public is estimated at 560 735 tonnes, however, there is still a need for the construction of small scale rural silos to incorporate farmers into market system, in addition this will allow farmers to store maize until prices rise.

1. CHAPTER 1: MOZAMBIQUE COUNTRY PROFILE

1.1 Mozambique socio-economic profile

Mozambique is a large country in southern Africa with a population of approximately 22 million inhabitants (according to the NSI, 2007). Despite its wealth of natural resources and agricultural potential, Mozambique is still part of the 20 poorest countries in the world. The long civil war that followed independence in 1975 had devastating consequences on the economy and society. Recently, the country has been considered by international agencies as one of the success stories in contemporary Africa. This is not only because of political stability but also because of positive macroeconomic performance. Over the last ten years, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has registered an average growth of 8% per year. However, in 2010, the Human Development Index was still very low, and the country lingered at position 165 out of a ranking of 169 countries (UNDP, 2010). Over the last decade, economic growth has been largely a result of investments in so-called mega-projects, namely: aluminum smelting by Mozal, the investments of South African oil company SASOL and the Moma heavy sands project. Investment in these three projects has accounted for over 55% of total private investment made during the past 10 years and their combined production accounts for almost 70% of the gross industrial production of Mozambique (Castel-Branco, 2008). In 2006, Mozal’s gross production value (about 2 billion U.S. dollars) was higher than the National State Budget and the total exports of these projects accounted for nearly three-quarters of total national exports (Castel-Branco, 2008).

However, studies show that the contribution of these mega-projects to poverty reduction is rather limited (Burr et al, 2011; Castel-Branco, 2010). Between 1997 and 2002, the poverty rate fell from 69.4% to 54.1%. Between 2002 and 2009, however, no significant advances were made on this area, since the percentage of poor people increased by 0.6% to 54.7%, an increase more denounced in rural areas (MPD, 2010).

1.2 Mozambique’s agro ecology Rare for a sub-Saharan country, Mozambique has vast tracts of unused forests and cultivatable land, with most regions getting more than 800 mm annual rainfall and few being semi-arid (Coughlin 2006). 78% (62 million hectares) has forest vegetation; 46% is cultivatable, and roughly 10% is actually cultivated and 97% of that by small holders (Issufo 2003, World Bank 1996 and 2003, MADER 2003a:14). Theoretically, that is 12 to 13hectares for each farm family as opposed to the actual average, 1.4ha (World Bank 2005a:17). Mean annual rainfall is around 800 mm to 1,000 mm along the coast, around 1,200 mm in the mid part of the country and between 1, 000 mm and 2, 000 mm in the north. There is considerable variation even within the wetter north there are areas of low rainfall (World Bank 2005a: 76). Irrigation covers merely 3% of the potential (World Bank 2005b: 2009). Of Mozambique’s 138 districts, 20 are “highly prone to drought”, 30 to flooding and the other 7, to both risks (Rohrbach et al 2001:39). Overall, 48, 2% of the population suffers one, the other or both risks. Having Mozambique’s best agricultural land, the north and centre usually export food crops while the more arid south imports. Given the length of the country and the inadequacy of the transportation network, the north exports crops within that region but little to Maputo in the south, which imports food from South Africa and Mozambique’s central provinces (Jayne 1999:17).

2. CHAPTER 2: STATE OF AGRICULTURE IN MOZAMBIQUE

2.1 Characteristics and Performance of the Agricultural sector Physically, Mozambique is generously endowed with land and water for agricultural purposes. There are about 36 million hectares of arable land (MADER, 2004), which represents a huge agricultural potential. The peasant family sector occupies about 3.2 million hectares and is geographically dispersed and heterogeneous from a cultural, technical and economic point of view (MINAG, 2007). These families farm in plots of land with an average size of 1.1 hectares (ASP, 2005). In 2010, only 14% (equivalent to 4, 7 million hectares) of arable land was farmed (SNV, 2010). From the 36 million hectares of arable land, only 1.8% was irrigated. Until the 2008/2009 agricultural campaign, food crops took about 70% of cultivated area and the remaining 30% were occupied by agricultural crops meant for exportation such as sugar, cotton, tea and sisal (Falcão & Egas, 2008).

There are significant discrepancies in terms of production, marketing and productivity levels across provinces and districts due to agro-ecological accessibilities and conditions. Food crop production across provinces in the seasons 2008 to 2010 illustrates regional unbalances. According to official data, basic food crop production in the agrarian sector, which accounts for 90% of the total agricultural production (especially maize, sorghum, millet, cassava and sweet potato), has remained stable over the last three decades (MADER 2004; MINAG, 2010). However, Mozambique remains a net importer of agricultural products and rural poverty has increased. It is argued that rural poverty is rooted in a limited development of both agriculture and markets (TIA, 2002). Agriculture employs about 80% of the workforce (90% of the female and 70% of the male workforces) and accounts for 80% of family sector income, thus being instrumental to poverty reduction. However,

the agricultural potential does not translate into revenue generation and rural jobs creation in any tangible way (TIA, 2002). The prices of agricultural commodities and wages in rural areas are unfavorable and are, on average, 30% lower than salaries paid in other sectors of the economy (Mosca, 2011). Since its independence, public and private investment in the smallholder sector has been weak, and the peasantry continues to sell their products to state monopolies while providing cheap labor to large monocultures plantations (Wuyts, 2001). The smallholder dominated agricultural sector has therefore displayed growth rates far below its potential and, with few exceptions, productivity levels remain below levels achieved in the pre-Independence period. Nevertheless, if one looks at the sector’s performance as a whole, agricultural production has, between 2001 and 2007, increased by over 8%, with the exception of 2005 when production suffered a considerable slump. The drop in agricultural production was caused by drought, cyclones and floods that had a tremendous negative impact in the country. This growth in the sector as a whole is mainly the result of the expansion of farmed land and not increasing agricultural productivity. Furthermore, it is the commercial crops that account for much of this growth. NEPAD data shows that, while production levels of the smallholder sector had grown by only 3% in 2003, cash crop production increased approximately 41% as a result of the large investment in sugar, cotton, cashew nuts, tobacco and tea (NEPAD, 2004). Yields of some of these crops have been rising consistently. Sugar is the major exception, as the productivity records set during the colonial period still remain unsurpassed. Overall, agriculture continues to fail to meet its potential, especially with regards to reducing rural poverty. A combination of factors has contributed to this under performance. These have been grouped into four categories (do Rosario):

Civil war. Two decades of civil war, which pitted the Frelimo government against the Renamo guerrilla, had a devastating effect on the rural areas and the agricultural sector dynamics, turning approximately 4.7 million people into refugees and forcing about 1.5 million refugees to be abandoned in neighboring countries and thousands in urban areas (World Bank 2005: 13), where there was no food and no chance to practice family farming (Dinermann, 1998).

Precarious technological and infrastructural conditions. Mozambique is characterized by a low application level of agricultural know-how and technology. The use of farm fertilizers is negligible, which keeps the average farm income at a low level (about 4kg/ha) and puts the country far below the continental average of 10 kg/ha and away from the goals proposed on the 2006 Abuja conference, which mandates fertilizer use in a 50 kg per hectare ration as a decisive measure for sustainable agricultural productivity (Hanlon, 2011). Productivity is also affected by limited access to and absorption of technology and extension services. In addition, the development of agro-ecological zones is constrained by weak infrastructures, both in terms of transport and communication infrastructures and in terms of supply facilities and irrigation structures (MINAG, 2010). The distribution infrastructure is asymmetric across the country and the northern and central areas of the country, endowed with a great agricultural potential, are the most densely populated and where the production bulk of cash crops, including cotton tobacco, sesame, sunflower, copra, tea and cashew (IFAD, 2008, MADER 2004, Wuyts 2001).

Low level of public and private investment in the sector. Investments in the public and private sector experienced a significant decline in recent decades. Public expenditure in agriculture has declined from an average of 24% of total expenditure in the period of 1975 to 1986,6 to 10% in 1989 (Castel-Branco, 1994) and 4% in 2008 (GMD, 2009, USAID, 2009), thus placing the country currently below the 10% goal established in the Maputo Declaration of the African Union. Data on private credit for the agricultural sector indicates that, between 2001 and 2008, the credit share fell from 18% to 8% and the sector has fallen from second to fourth place in the national sector ranking (Bank of Mozambique, 2009). Currently, it is estimated that about 60% of private investment in agriculture is focused on sugar and cotton.

Governance fragility. Weak governance capacity, characterized primarily by a top-down and administratively fragmented structure, coupled with an obsolete management system and poor technical capacity, were for decades important bottlenecks. In addition, the Mozambican state apparatus is still marked by elements of patrimonialism, where appointments and promotions are based on clientelistic ties and not on merit. Some efforts have been made by the government, with donor support, to restructure and modernize the Ministry of Agriculture and professionalize its staff. However, these efforts have, since 2005, when the new President took office, suffered some draw back. Instability in the political leadership of the agricultural sector has been feature of the new administration: between 2005 and 2010, four ministers have been appointed to lead MINAG. Replacement and/or marginalization of competent managers and technicians in favor of less competent ones, at both central and local levels, for ideological and political reasons, has led to the gradual erosion of the Ministry’s technical expertise (Mosca, 2011). Policy-making is also noticeably more politicized, with the direct intervention of the Presidency resource allocation decisions within the sector, outside institutionalized planning and consultation processes.

2.2 Domestic Agricultural Markets and Postharvest Value Addition

Most crops produced by smallholder farmers in Mozambique are used by the producing household itself. Drawing on household survey data collected in 2005, Mather, Cunguara, and Boughton (2008) report that only 12.5 percent of the income (both cash and in-kind, including use of own production) of farming households came from the sale of crops or livestock. Moreover, they provide evidence that the bulk of crop sales comes from a minority of farmers, with 48.7 percent of farmers reporting having sold food crops in 2005, 31.7 percent having sold cash crops, and 26.0 having sold livestock, with most of these farming households selling quite small quantities. Therefore it can be concluded that there is little indication that smallholder farmers in Mozambique are transforming their patterns of production to greater specialization and increased reliance on the market.

The agricultural output trade that does take place occurs at the local and district levels. Smallholder farmers who produce a surplus or are in need of cash will sell to other households either in the local community or in markets serving the local area (Mazvimavi et al. 2011). Moreover, informal cross-border trade is an important feature of farming communities in the border areas of the country—in 2007, informal trade in maize from Mozambique to Swaziland, Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe was estimated at 200,000 tons, with most of this going to Malawi (Mucavele 2009). However, the amount of maize traded in this way can be expected to vary considerably from year to year depending on production and market conditions in neighbouring countries. Historically, interregional trade in agricultural produce in Mozambique has been hampered by poor transport infrastructure, making it difficult to profitably move goods from, for example; the agriculturally endowed provinces of central Mozambique to Maputo in the far south. Most trade historically has moved from east to west with neighbouring countries, rather than from north to south. Therefore, historically, Maputo has been provisioned more by South Africa than by farmers in central and northern Mozambique. Mozambique has invested considerably in transportation over the past 15–20 years; however, this has principally been on the major interprovincial roads, to the neglect of rural feed roads (World Bank 2012). Transaction costs related to moving produce from areas of production to areas of consumption remain important. For example, in late 2013 the average maize prices in 21 consumer markets were 25 percent higher than the average prices at which farmers sold their maize in seven producer markets surveyed by the Sistema de Informação de Mercados Agrícolas (SIMA, Agricultural Markets Information System). Average maize prices were 39 percent higher in Maputo. With regard to the supply of inputs, Mozambique does not have well-functioning agricultural input markets. Although the Mozambican ports of Nacala and Beira are the principal ports for the supply from the international market of relatively large quantities of inorganic fertilizer to Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Malawi, the few Mozambican farmers using the input are not supplied from this important traffic in fertilizer but depend on imports primarily from South Africa. The public sector is not involved in fertilizer procurement and distribution but leaves this to the private sector. Agrifocus is the principal commercial firm engaged in the importation of fertilizer into Mozambique. There are also a few other fertilizer wholesale dealers, most of which are supplied by Agrifocus, and around 800 fertilizer retailers in Mozambique. However, fertilizer retail trade at the district level is very thin and patchy (Benson, Cunguara, and Mogues 2013). About 10,200 mt of improved seed were estimated to have been used in Mozambique in 2011. Most of this is improved seed of open-pollinated varieties rather than hybrid seed. Basic seed production is centralized at the Basic Seed Unit (USEBA) of the Institute of Agricultural Research of Mozambique. USEBA contracts private commercial farms to multiply this basic seed. USEBA varieties includes open-pollinated maize, rice, sorghum, cowpea, common bean, groundnut, sesame, and soybean. Eight seed processors and 35 certified seed-producing companies are registered in Mozambique. However, as of 2010, only 18 producers were engaged in production (World Bank 2012). Two companies—SEMOC and PANNAR—produced more than 90 percent of the open-pollinated maize seed. PANNAR was the only company producing hybrid maize seed in 2010. It reported to have made available to Mozambican farmers 330 mt of hybrid maize seed in 2010. The only registered rice seed producer in 2010 was MozFoods/MIA, which grew 70 percent of its certified seed on its own farm and contracted the rest with out-growers. In addition, the government has been promoting local production of open-pollinated varieties of improved seed of maize, rice, groundnut, sesame, bean, and cowpea by individual farmers, farmer groups, and associations in cooperation with certain nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). In the past, government was the main supplier of improved seed to farmers through the Plano de Acção para a Produção de Alimentos (PAPA, Action Plan for Food Production) and the EU voucher program implemented by the International Fertilizer Development Center (World Bank 2012).

With regard to postharvest processing and value addition in agriculture in Mozambique, investments are weak. As is common with many developing countries of the world, most of the processing of agricultural products is done within the household, processing grain and other raw produce into food. Export crops are usually shipped out of the country with only the minimal processing required to allow them to be shipped to their destination, where further value-addition processing will take place. For example, sugar, although produced in a vertically integrated manner within Mozambique, is not sold locally or exported in a final, refined form. Instead, it is sold as brown, unrefined sugar. Refined, white sugar for elite consumers in Mozambique is imported (Zacarias and Esterhuizen 2013). Virtually no consumer-ready processing of the crops Mozambican farmers produce for export takes place.

However, investment in food processing industries is being made to serve the growing urban population of the country, particularly in the industrial milling of maize. Intensive poultry producers also constitute a growing source of demand for processed maize. A 2012 report estimated that industrial maize processing for both human consumption and intensive poultry production accounts for 13.2 percent of total domestic maize production. The authors of the report enumerated 13 industrial maize millers operating mills in Mozambique (World Bank 2012). Yet, here there is still scope for improvement, as quality problems with domestically procured maize have resulted in a sizable portion of the maize milled by these industrial millers being higher quality maize imported from South Africa – the second largest industrial miller reported obtaining from domestic sources only 12 percent of the maize the firm milled. Mozambique is a large cassava-producing country, albeit primarily for home consumption, and therefore cassava processing is a potential area of increased investment in the agriculture sector. Pilot industrial efforts using cassava for bioethanol production and beer brewing are now operating (Donovan et al. 2011). In sum, industrial processing of agricultural produce can be expected to grow in the coming years.

2.3 External Trade in Agricultural Commodities Chilonda et al. (2012) indicate that between 2000 and 2010 the value of traditional agricultural exports averaged $280 million per year, while imports averaged $212 million. Average annual growth in agricultural exports and imports were 5 percent and 6 percent per year, respectively, for the same period. The three major exports of Mozambique are tobacco, sugar, and cashew. Cotton products and sesame make moderate contributions to Mozambique’s export sector. The major international destinations outside the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region for Mozambique’s agricultural exports are in Europe and Asia. In the first decade of the new millennium, 65 percent of tobacco, 46 percent of sugar, 18 percent of cotton, and 17 percent of cashew exports were destined for European markets. Similarly, Asian countries, principally India, received 51 percent of cashew and 40 percent of cotton exports during the same period (Chilonda et al. 2012). The three major imports of Mozambique are soybean products, wheat, and maize. Given that maize is among the major staple foods in Mozambique, its importance as an agricultural import is an indication of the country’s need to produce more, higher quality maize. The sources outside of the southern African region for Mozambique’s agricultural imports are widely distributed across North America, Europe, and Asia, with some wheat coming from South America (Chilonda et al. 2012). Regional trade in agricultural commodities is significant for Mozambique. Its SADC partner countries are major destinations for exports and major sources of imports. South Africa is the major single trading partner of Mozambique. For the period 2000–2010, 24 percent of Mozambique’s total tobacco exports were traded to SADC countries. Similarly, 14 percent of cashew and 10 percent of cotton and forestry products exports were destined for SADC countries. However, in Mozambique’s imports is where SADC countries play the major role. Between 2000 and 2010, SADC counties were the major sources of maize (83 percent) and wheat (45 percent) imports. In addition, almost all (94 percent) of Mozambique’s live animal imports and 37 percent of carcass imports came from SADC countries (Chilonda et al. 2012). In addition to the formal trade registered by customs authorities, as noted earlier, Mozambique also has a substantial amount of an informal cross-border trade of maize, rice, and beans with Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Zambia. For example, between April and July 2012, Mozambique informally exported more than 13,000 mt of maize, of which 11,600 mt went to Malawi (FEWSNet 2012). This concludes the state of agriculture in Mozambique and the next chapter looks into the policy and institutional context within which agricultural development initiatives under the PNISA are being conducted to attain the objectives of the PEDSA.

3. CHAPTER 3: CONTEXT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES PRATICE IN MOZAMBIQUE

3.1 The evolution of agricultural policy in Mozambique Agricultural policy in Mozambique has gone through at least four distinct phases since the declaration of independence in 1975. The first stage, from 1975 to 1986, was dominated by the socialist model of strong state intervention aimed at the social and cultural transformation of the peasants and the fixation of their productive and economic base in cooperatives and state enterprises. This model greatly penalized the smallholder sector, leading to a decline in marketed production and impairing domestic consumption. With most of the agricultural credit allocated to cooperatives and state farms, little support was given to the smallholder sector. Without funding, smallholder production, which comprised two of the main export crops (cotton and cashews) as well as most food crops sold in the domestic market (maize, cassava, rice and peanuts), declined significantly (Pitcher, 2002). The second phase takes place between 1986/7 and 1992 as was marked by the introduction of the Structural Adjustment Programme supported by the Bretton Woods institutions. Agricultural policies implemented in this period were not able to create considerable incentives for the dominant smallholder sector to serve as a foundation to leverage the industry. However, they contributed greatly to the recovery of the agricultural development model in the colonial period, consequently sidelining smallholder agriculture (Mosca, 2011; Castel-Branco, 1994).

The third phase took place in the decade following the General Peace Agreement, between 1992 and 2002. In a context of a post-war collapsed state (Zartman, 1995), the main concern of the ruling elites was to promote cash crops (such as cotton, tobacco, and sugar, which could be a source of government revenue through exports as well as providing an opportunity for rent extraction. These revitalization of these crops was driven by privatization measures adopted during the structural adjustment period and, in particular, the availability of foreign capital willing to invest on them (Mosca, 2011). Although the prioritization of cash crops had an economic rationale, it also was driven by political motivations. The recovering of these cultures produced new alliances between foreign capital and the elites in power and contributed to the consolidation of Frelimo’s power over the economy, the state and rural space, much of which was under Renamo’s domination, the main opposition party (Pitcher, 2002). Furthermore, this policy contributed to the settlement in the local economy of demobilized soldiers and thousands of displaced families that began returning to their homelands.

The fourth phase, which begins in 2003 and extends roughly to the present day, coincides with the arrival to power of President Armando Guebuza. With Guebuza, there has been a vigorous promotion of the agricultural sector in the political discourse, focused on food production and the smallholder sector. The 2007 Green Revolution strategy and the 2008 Food Production Action Plan for Food Production (PAPA) provide an illustration of the paradigm shift in the sector.

3.2 The political system in relation to agricultural policy formulation in Mozambique

The 1999 elections and the growing awareness of the importance of the rural electorate

Despite Frelimo’s attempts to co-opt Macua elites, the 1999 election results in the provinces inhabited by large segments of this ethnic group were not favorable to the government party but instead endorsed Renamo and its leader, Afonso Dhlakama (do Rosario). At the national level, Renamo’s votes grew from 37.8% to 38.8% of the electorate and Afonso Dhlakama’s from 33.7% to 47.7% (do Rosario). In provinces where major population centres of Macua origin are located, Dhlakama improved his election results significantly: from 43.1% to 57.0% in Nampula province, from 47.6% to 71.8% in Zambezia, and from 27.3% to 57.0% in Niassa. Vast segments of the rural population voted for Renamo’s leader in order to express their dissatisfaction with the Maputo regime. Although shaken by internal and organizational problems, Renamo was able to use traditional authorities as intermediaries for the political mobilization of the rural electorate. During this period, Frelimo had not yet made significant strides in its policy of régulo recovery (the traditional chieftains) and “to socially open up power”, despite some initial efforts (Dinnerman, 1998). Yet, despite the significant recovery of Dhlakama, the elections were won by Frelimo and Joaquim Chissano (with 48.5% and 52.3%, respectively). This victory was challenged by Renamo who accused the election of being fraudulent

1. Initially, Dhlakama refused to recognize the election results, but later

authorized the Renamo members to take their seats in Parliament.

Agriculture as a power consolidation mechanism within the Frelimo

The highly disputed and marginal victory by Chissano in 1999 shook the legitimacy of the leader within the party, eventually preventing him from running for re-election in the following elections. Hélder Muteia, agronomist and a new generation scholar of Frelimo, was the first to be indicated as potential successor to Chissano. Taking advantage of his status as Minister of Agriculture and as a Zambezia native, a province located in the centre of the country, Muteia used agriculture to consolidate and legitimize his position within the party. The rice production campaign of 2001, launched a few months before the internal Frelimo elections, can be interpreted as a political point-scoring by the candidate to the leadership of the party in power. The rice campaign was launched in the provinces of Gaza, Sofala, Zambezia, Nampula and Cabo Delgado and aimed to foster rice production and reduce the rice deficit through investments in irrigation infrastructure and the recovery of rice processing plants (Domingo, 2001). Provincial and district seminars were organized, where Muteia and peasant and traditional authorities associations participated to discuss ways to improve productivity and expand smallholder rice production (Domingo 2001). According to some interviewees, this campaign continued after 2004 and eventually led to a proposed strategy for development of the rice crop sector in 2005. Its implementation did not produce the desired effects, not only due to the departure in 2005 of a large number of senior Ministry of Agriculture staff, but also because the sector began to be subject to strong political influence. The main agriculture policy priorities defined by the Chissano government were dropped in favour of new ones, namely the production of jatropha, a biodiesel crop

2.

The issue of land privatization was another strategy used by Minister Muteia hoping to garner support amidst the new Frelimo elite. The Minister’s interview with the pro-government newspaper Domingo illustrates this clearly:

1 It is speculated that Dhlakama may indeed have won the elections. Many of the ballots of the Central and Northern Provinces, where Renamo held a strong foothold, were not accounted for (Cahen 2000 and Carter Center – www.cartercenter.org ). 2 R. de Sousa, June 11 2011.

“I believe, as a minister, it is time to start discussing the creation of farm land markets, to discuss this and uphold a compatible approach with our reality. Our land law protects the peasant [and according to the debate on this law], there was a consensus between all farmers and civil society that it was best to protect the peasant, but I think the time has arrived to start selling land... (Domingo, July 8, 2001). However, the second strategy triggered a reaction opposite to that the Minister expected, who ended up being harshly criticized within the party (Hanlon, 2002). At the July 2002 party congress, the following was noted:

“The policy of the Frelimo Party on farm lands is to ensure that the Mozambique people does not lose its most valuable resource -- the land, which holds, besides its economic value, a vital cultural dimension” (Frelimo, 2002)

The theses presented at the Eighth Frelimo Party Congress dealt a harsh blow to Muteia’s ambitions. The pressure exerted by this candidate and others of the new generation was not sufficient to impose a candidate of theirs in a party still dominated by veterans of the anti-colonial struggle. The party’s internal elections were eventually won by Armando Guebuza, chosen as the lead candidate and a member of the Frelimo leadership since the days of the anti-colonial struggle, known for his organizational capacity as well as his obstinacy. Guebuza then began a major patronage thrust with religious overtones (Cahen, 2010) with the aim of capturing the rural electorate of the central and northern provinces of the country, until then a main support stronghold for Renamo. According to (do Rosario: 2009) Guebuza paid special attention to the party foundations and the district administrators that historically constituted a fundamental link to territory and population control. In the following period, Frelimo’s strategy towards the electorate made a sharp turn, visibly manifested in the unfolding of the decentralization policy.

3.3 Mozambique’s Land Policy and its effects to agricultural production Following the 1992 peace accord between the ruling party, FRELIMO, and the guerrilla group, RENAMO, millions of people displaced by the civil war resumed agricultural production. In parallel to this, large amounts of land were being distributed to new and returning national and foreign companies. However, case studies revealed that land is not an abundant resource in Mozambique, free from competition or conflict. By then, the formal land-tenure and the land management systems were weak and ineffective and the land law did not reflect the economic, social, and political realities of the rural Mozambique (Myers, Eliseu, and Nhachungue 1994). The 1979 Land Law and the 1986 Land Law Regulations allows the allocation of land concessions to the private sector and gives a right to smallholders access a small piece of land for own production purposes (De Wit 2002). Above all, the land law did not recognize customary tenure systems and therefore it denies community access rights to land that were not under cultivation. Conflicts over land were common due to the lack of compatibility between the traditional tenure system and the formal, government managed land regulation system (Tique 2001). The situation resulted in general agreement within the government, international agencies and donor community in Mozambique that the introduction of new land was extremely important (Tanner 2001; Unruh 1997). In 1995 a new Land Policy was introduced. The new policy recognizes customary rights of access and management of land and the role of local leaders in conflict management and land allocation. In the following years through a broad based participation of all stakeholders, three key pieces of legislations were developed and approved. These are: the Land Law (Law 19/97), the Land Law Regulations (Decree 66/98), and the Technical Annex of the Land Law Regulations (2000) (De Wit 2001). According to the new law, the State owns the land; and individuals and communities have legally recognized use rights over the land under their occupation. The law recognizes as “existing rights” the occupation of land by local communities or individuals according to customary norms and practices and occupation in good faith by individuals for a period of at least 10 years. In addition, individuals and legal entities could acquire new use rights by making formal requests to the State. The existing rights may be formalized through registration though their registration is not required by law. Registration of new rights is, however, compulsory (De Wit 2002). The new land law also requires new land right seekers to consult the local community before procuring a land within the community’s landholding; and, under normal circumstance, the community has the right to refuse the proposal (IIED 2006). In spite of the strong legal protection they have, local communities’ rights on their land remain vulnerable to increasing demand for land from investors. In connection to this, there is an argument that favours the formalization of acquired land rights though the law does not necessarily require doing so. However, formalizing acquired land rights was not an easy task; experiences show that the existing ways of formalizing land rights in the past were slow and expensive. Currently, in formalizing traditional rights on land, the widely-accepted common process is “delimitation”. Delimitation is believed to be an open, flexible and participatory mechanism through which local communities define their land holdings (Norfolk and Tanner 2007). De Wit and Norfolk (2010) summarize the community land delimitation process in six phases: i) Community sensitization; ii) Participatory community land rights diagnostics; iii) Participatory community land mappings; iv) Consensus-based community land map (Cartogram) production; v) Community land map validation by neighbouring community; and vi) Issuance of community land certificate through Cadastral processing. In the past, the community land delimitation in Mozambique was undertaken by NGOs in order to protect the local community’s land from the speculators and to promote community-paced natural resources management initiatives. From

the mid-2000s onwards, while still continuing to be largely donor- driven, community land delimitation started to be considered as a means of attracting investment. In line to this, in 2003, the ITC (Iniciativa Terras Comunitarias) Fund was established by group of international donors as a means of supporting the registration of local community’s rights on their land with the ultimate objective of promoting local economic development opportunities through a balanced community investor partnership. Furthermore, delimitation is also seen as means of creating local accountability for the protection of fragile environmental resources such as parks, conservation areas and community lands (De Wit and Norfolk 2010). The delimitation process in Mozambique can be said “supply - driven” in the sense that it is mainly financed by NGOs. However, it can also be said “external demand-driven” since most of the community lands are delimited to be granted to investors (Åkesson, Calengo, and Tanner 2009; De Wit and Norfolk 2010). With regard to the extent of the delimitation process - after ten years of community land delimitation- what is achieved is little. However, mainly due to lack of coordination between different actors – namely, the National Directorate of Lands and Forestry (DNTF), provinces and NGOs – involved in the delimitation process, it is difficult to provide accurate figures that tell the status of the process. An inventory that was made based on cadastral information revealed that, by early 2009, probably less than 10 percent of Mozambican “rural communities that equally cover less than 10 percent of the national territory were delimited. The major reasons for such low performance are, first, the process continued to be external demand-driven; secondly, the process was driven by the NGO sector and has never been government’s high priority r; and, finally, the capacity of both the public and NGO sectors was weak. Although, since 2003, the iTC makes available resources for grassroots activities related to land and natural resources management, with a major focus on community land delimitation, this facility has also been slow in becoming fully operational (De Wit and Norfolk 2010). However, in addition to lack of finance, community’s lack of legal knowledge about their land rights and the delimitation process is mentioned as a major factor behind the lack of community-driven delimitation process in Mozambique. The findings of a Randomized Control Trial study, undertaken by the International Development Law Organization (IDLO), on 58 selected communities from Mozambique, Uganda and Liberia, indicated that, on average, the performance of the communities that have received one or more types of legal support in their endeavour to complete their land documentation process is far better than the performance of those communities which have not been provided with any type of assistance. Based on this strong causal relationship and their extensive field experience, the study team concluded that providing legal education and capacity-building training concerning legal rights on land, introducing land documentation processes, educating land users on how to successfully complete the necessary land documentation process, and providing targeted legal and administration assistance to local communities would have a significant positive impact on the performance of community land documentation in the study countries (Knight et al 2012). The introduction of the new land law of Mozambique and its partial implementation has already had some impacts, although it is not well studied and documented in a systematic manner. One of the immediate impacts of the new Land Law was the cancellation of thousands of applications in the pipeline for millions of hectares of land that were made under the old 1987 regulations. Given the fact that the old regulation did not offer sufficient safeguards for existing land users, had the applications not been cancelled, it would have resulted in a considerable loss of land access for the rural poor (Norfolk, Nhantumbo, and Perira 2003). Case studies undertaken in Nampula and Zambezia provinces indicated that local people perceive land registration as a mechanism to strengthen community land rights in relation to other communities and to private operators. The studies also showed that the reinforced security of tenure for common pool resources is fundamental for protecting the livelihoods of vulnerable groups (Chilundo et al 2005). There are also case studies that show how a delimitation exercise has strengthened local communities’ capacity to deal with outside agents. These efforts have led to the realization of useful development projects (Norfolk and Tanner 2007). Today, the issue of land has moved higher up the political agenda of Mozambique, with the direct interventions of the President, Council of Ministers, communities, and donors in Mozambique. After it had been stopped in 2007, the community land delimitation has been resumed since 2010 with the support of the donor community (MPPB 2011).

3.4 The framework of government strategies and policies For the Government of Mozambique two policy and strategy documents are key: the Government Five-Year Programme (PQG, 2011-2014), and the Action Plan for the Reduction of Poverty (2011-2014). The primary objective of the PQG is the fight against poverty by improving the living conditions of Mozambicans in peace, harmony and tranquility. To achieve this objective the government seeks to promote rapid, inclusive and sustainable socio-economic growth. Critical for the development of the agricultural sector is the government focus on the development of basic infrastructure, the creation of employment opportunities and the promotion of a business environment that enables private investment and private sector development.

3 In addition to the PQG, the government has the Action Plan for the Reduction of Poverty (PARP) 2011-2014,

adopted on May 3 2011, which is the medium-term strategy to fight poverty in the country. This strategy operationalizes the recommendations of the PQG concerning actions against poverty. The general objective of the PARP is to fight poverty and promote a work ethics with a view to achieving inclusive growth that will lead to a reduction of the incidence of poverty

3 Five-year Plan of the Government (2011-2014). República de Moçambique. April 2010. Maputo, Mozambique

from 54,7% in 2009 to 42% in 2014. Being of particular interest for the development of the agricultural sector, the poverty reduction strategy focuses on three key objectives: (i) an increase in production and productivity of agriculture and fishery; (ii) the promotion of employment; and (iii) human and social development.

4 Adding to these objectives are the support

pillars on (a) good governance, and (b) macroeconomics. The PARP is a key link in the National Planning System (SNP) and is aligned with other important documents, such as Agenda 2025, with which it contribute to achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). The financial allocations for the PARP are reflected in the Medium Term Fiscal Framework 2010-2014 (CFMP) and operationalized through the Economic and Social Plan (PES) and the State Budget (OE). The planning and coordination instruments of the government for agricultural sector issues are based on a political-legislative framework with a series of policies and strategies, standing out among which are the Agricultural Policy and Implementation Strategy (PAEI), the Strategic Plan for the Development of the Agricultural Sector 2011-2015 (PEDSA), the Fishery Policy and Implementation Strategy (PPEI), the Fishery Master Plan 2010-2019 (PDP), the Development Plan for Small Scale Aquaculture 2009-2013 (PDAPQ), the Rural Development Strategy (EDR), the Food and Nutritional Security Strategy II (ESAN II, 2008-2015), the Multi-sectoral Action Plan for the Reduction of Chronic Malnutrition in Mozambique (PAMRDC) 2011-2020, the National Programme for the Strengthening of Commodities (2011-2016), and the Green Revolution Strategy (ERV)

5.

The vision established for the agricultural sector in the medium / long run is the development of “a prosperous, competitive, equitable and sustainable agricultural sector” whose main objective is “... to contribute to food security, income and profitability of agricultural producers and to a rapid, competitive and sustainable increase in market- oriented agricultural production” based on 3 priorities, namely food and nutritional security, competitiveness of domestic production and higher income levels of producers, and the sustainable use of natural resources and environmental conservation. The vision is based on 4 strategic pillars, namely: (i) Agricultural Productivity and nutrition - referring to the increase in productivity, production and competitiveness in agriculture in particular in nutritious food value chains in order for it to contribute to a proper diet; (ii) Market Access – through improving services and infrastructure for better market access and making the guiding framework of the agricultural sector conducive to agricultural investment; (iii) Natural Resources, referring to sustainable use and the integral exploitation of land, water, forest and wildlife resources; and (iv) Institutions - by strengthening agricultural organizations and institutions

6.

3.5 Key policies on agricultural development

a. Plan of Action for Food Production (PAPA) 2008

In 2007, the government of Mozambique approved the Green Revolution Strategy (ERV), which aimed at a rapid increase in sustainable production and productivity based on diversification and intensification of food crops. In the same context, the Action Plan for Food Production (PAPA) was designed in 2008 as an instrument for the ERV’s operationalization. PAPA essentially envisaged the promotion of partnerships between private and small‐scale farmers in selected crops, such as maize, rice, wheat, cassava, Irish potato, oilseeds (sunflower and soya bean), poultry, and fish culture (Zandamela 2014). The implementation of PAPA has involved rehabilitating small irrigation systems and supplying various agricultural inputs and improved seeds to farmers in selected districts (do Rosario 2010). With the aim of increasing local wheat production, for example, priority districts were selected to benefit from the programme’s assistance: Tsangano (Tete), Manica and Sussundenga (Manica), Lichinga, Lago, Sanga and Muembe (Niassa), Xai-Xai (Gaza) and Manhiça (Maputo) (do Rosario 2010). Wheat seeds were imported and distributed to selected family farmers, including 874 tonnes for the 2008/09 season and 1860 tonnes for the 2009/10 season (MINAG/DNSA, 2010). In a context where politics plays a key role in priority setting for agricultural policies and where there is limited debate among key stakeholders, Guebuza’s arrival in power in 2005 did not change initially the political rhetoric on the prioritization of the agricultural sector as an engine for development and poverty reduction. In order to show Government’s commitment towards PAPA, the 2008/09 agricultural campaign was officially launched across the country under the very visible leadership of the President and Provincial Governors (do Rosario 2010). The choice of priority districts for the implementation of the PAPA reveals, in fact, an electoral motivation, the selected districts were those that, despite the efforts of the GPZ, continued to vote for Renamo in 2004. With the abolition of the GPZ in 2005, it became necessary for the Frelimo government to create mechanisms to continue distributing rents to secure the electorate. The extent to which PAPA will continue to be such mechanism is under question, as difficulties of administrative and financial nature are threatening implementation (MINAG / DNSA, 2009). Provinces and districts lack the funds necessary to ensure the handling and distribution of large amounts of seeds distributed by the programme (ibid, 2009). The funds allocated by the government were insufficient and the programme was highly dependent on aid provided mainly by the World Bank and the European Union.

4 Government of Mozambique (2011) Plano de Acção de Redução da Pobreza, 2011-2014. Maputo, Mozambique. 5 National Agriculture Investment Plan 2014–2018 (Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme), Government of the Republic of Mozambique Ministry of Agriculture 6 Ibid

Such aid produced perverse political effects as it helped to support the party in power and harm the political competition by increasing the importance of donors in the policy-making process (Brito, 2010; Hanlon and de Renzio, 2007). The biggest political problem posed by international aid is that it tends to reduce the level of “accountability” of government to the citizens, instead focusing on accountability to the donors (Brito, 2010). In an alliance with foreign capital (donors), Frelimo determined agricultural policy according to their interests. While funds were not released, the PAPA was reduced to being a political project of the ruling elites to increase the dependency of the family sector. According to (Mosca, 2011), PAPA lacked a truly developmentalist motivation, but was used by the elite in power to suit their own political interests and also to attract additional external resources from donors.

b. Strategic Plan for the Development of the Agriculture Sector (PEDSA) 2011-2020

PEDSA was approved in late 2010 to serve as the government’s strategic plan for the development of the agricultural sector for the period 2011 to 2020 (MINAG 2010). PEDSA replaced the PROAGRI strategies (IFAD 2012b) and is characterized as a multi-sector, inter-ministerial approach to improving agricultural performance (World Bank 2011). The PEDSA provides specific content on agricultural development within the broader context of the PQG and PARPA and contributes to the definition of financial programming by government in the agricultural sector under its three-year Medium-term Expenditure Framework (Cenário Fiscal de Médio Prazo). The medium- and long-term vision of the PEDSA is based not only on national directives for agriculture but also on the priorities set out in CAADP. The four pillars of CAADP—sustainable development of natural resources, markets and infrastructures, food production, and agricultural research—serve also as foundations for PEDSA at both strategic and operational levels.

In line with CAADP’s target of 6 percent annual economic growth in the agricultural sector, the PEDSA establishes a higher target of at least 7 percent agricultural growth per year. The sources of this growth are envisioned to be a combination of a doubling of yields and an increase in the area under cultivation by 25 percent by 2019, both done in a manner that ensures the sustainability of Mozambique’s natural resources.

The general objective of the PEDSA is to “contribute towards the food security and income of agricultural producers in a competitive and sustainable way, guaranteeing social and gender equity (MINAG 2010, vi).” To achieve this objective, it has the following five specific strategic objectives:

Increase agricultural productivity and competitiveness Improve infrastructure and services for markets Use land, water, forest, and wildlife resources in a sustainable manner Create a legal framework and policies that are conducive to agricultural investment Strengthen agricultural institutions

Under each of these strategic objectives, specific results are defined—30 results in total—with specific strategies proposed for achieving each one.

Explicit in the PEDSA is that government’s proper role is facilitating increased private investment to foster expansion of the agricultural sector. Government is to provide infrastructure, incentives, legal frameworks, and public services that will create a favourable environment for the private sector to invest in agricultural production, processing, and marketing. Boosting the confidence of private agricultural investors is at the centre of the PEDSA. Notably, the PEDSA seeks to expand commercial agricultural production in Mozambique, with a consequent reduction in the number of smallholder farmers and an increase in farm size and productivity levels.

PEDSA was developed following a nominally participatory approach that involved all stakeholders, including representatives of producers, service providers, cooperation partners, researchers, and civil society.

c. National Agricultural Investment Plan (PNISA) 2014-2018 The Investment Plan: Vision, Objectives and Structure (Content) The PNISA reaffirms the vision of the agricultural, livestock and fisheries sector established in the PEDSA of developing “a prosperous, competitive, equitable and sustainable agricultural sector” whose objectives are “... to contribute to food security and nutrition, increase income and profitability of agricultural producers and the rapid, competitive and sustainable increase in market-oriented agricultural production”

7. Specific objectives are: (a) accelerate the production of staple and

nutritious food products; (b) guarantee income for producers; (c) ensure access and secure tenure of the necessary natural resources; (d) provide specialized services geared towards the development of the value chain; and (e) boost the development of the areas of greatest agricultural and commercial potential

8. The PNISA gives priority to the production of

food and cash crops. Priority food crops are maize, rice, wheat, beans, cassava, tomato (and horticulture more broadly), potatoes, oranges, sweet potatoes; priority cash crops are cashew, cotton, soy, sesame and tobacco and priority livestock

7 National Agriculture Investment Plan 2014–2018 (Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme), Government of the Republic of Mozambique Ministry of Agriculture 8 Ibid

products are dairy products and eggs. The main goals established for the PNISA are (i) achieve an average growth of at least 7% per year over the next 10 years; (ii) the reduction of chronic malnutrition in children under 5 years of age, of 44% in 2008 to 30% in 2015 and 20% in 2020; (iii) the reduction by half of the proportion of people who suffer from hunger by 2015

9.

In order to materialize the vision and scope of the PEDSA objectives strategic actions have been defined that focus on food production based on the development of the sub-sectors producing cereals, pulses, vegetables and fruit, roots and tubers, livestock, poultry and animal sourced products (dairy, eggs), fish production and aquaculture. This approach provides for the establishment of public-private partnerships and the provision of subsidies to technological packages, mechanization and electricity supply related to the production of nutritious food products, as part of the incentives for private sector involvement. It is expected that priority public investments shall be directed towards geographic areas with a high agricultural potential and food insecurity, in particular the development corridors with easy access to production centers and consumption markets. In the remaining areas the state will support local initiatives in order to enable alternative income sources, including non-agricultural activities that contribute to food and nutritional security. The PNISA is structured so that the programmes are understood and implemented from a complementary perspective. That is, except in cases where certain crops are the responsibility of specialist institutions and overseen by MINAG, the programmes should be linked. Thus, support programmes for the improvement of productivity must be closely linked with other programmes such as for instance Agricultural Extension, Agricultural Research, Post-Harvest Management, Marketing, and Institutional Strengthening. This view avoids duplications within the PNISA. Thus the PNISA is structured in 5 Components, 21 Programmes and 61 Sub-programmes. The Components are: (i) Improvement of Production and Productivity; (ii) Market Access; (iii) Food and Nutritional Security; (iv) Natural Resources; and (v) Reform and Institutional Strengthening. Table 1: Overview of PNISA structure

Category Thematic Area Component/Sub-component

#1 Agricultural Production and Productivity

(i) Food Crops (Programme 1); (ii) Cash Crops (Programme 2); (iii) Fishery (Programme 3); (iv) Livestock (Programme 4), (v) Agricultural Research (Programme 5), Agricultural Extension (Programme 6) (vi); Hydro-agriculture (Programme 7) and Agricultural Mechanization (Programme 8)

#2 Access to Markets (i) Post-harvest Management and Marketing (Programme 9); (ii) Financial Services (Programme 10); (iii) Agro-Business Development (Programme 11); (iv) Rural Roads (Programme 12); (v) Information Systems and Agricultural Statistics (Programme 13)

#3 Food and Nutritional Security (i) Improving Access to and Use of High Nutritional Value Food (Programme 14); (ii) Multi-sectoral Monitoring and Coordination (Programme 15).

#4 Natural Resources management (i) Land for Agricultural Purposes (Programme 16); and (ii) Forestry and Wildlife (Programme 17); (iii) Institutional Development of the DNTF (Programme 18); and (iv) Mapping and Remote Sensing (Programme 19)

#5 Institutional Reform and Strengthening

(i) Institutional Reform (Programme 20); and (ii) Institutional Strengthening (Programme 21)

Cross cutting issues

(i) Gender; (ii) Environment; (iii) Other sector policies & on-going plans; (iv) decentralization;

These are not stand-alone hence have no budgets of their own. They are fully integrated into the % components and corresponding 21 programmes and Services

Source: National Agriculture Investment Plan 2014–2018 (Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme), Government of the Republic of Mozambique Ministry of Agriculture

The Investment Plan: Process The National Investment Plan for the Agrarian Sector (PNISA) undertaken through the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) seeks to identify and prioritize key investment and policy interventions that are critical to enhancing the desired agricultural productivity growth in Mozambique. PNISA was developed on the basis of a participatory methodology with strong stakeholder consultation and taking into consideration the following milestones: (i) in January 2012 a 20-member national Technical Team composed of Government, civil society and private sector representatives and independent experts was created that guided the process using priorities established by the Strategic Plan for the Development of the Agricultural Sector (PEDSA); (ii) technical support from Lead Pillar institutions and NEPAD Agency and FAO facilitation, technical and methodological assistance, (iii) national consultants supported the globalization and the elaboration of the PNISA master document (iv) working groups formulated proposals for the sub-sectoral investment plans, while involving the key stakeholders; (v) plenary sessions were held for the presentation and validation of the proposals. Expert Team conducted a public consultation session attended by government institutions, the private sector, international

9 ibid

agencies and non-governmental organizations and civil society. The contributions gathered in the public sessions were subsequently analyzed by Expert Team before being incorporated into the final document.

d. Fishery Policy and Implementation Strategy (PPEI) The Mozambican government has approved the Policy on Fisheries Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) and its Implementation Strategy as a Plan of National Action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. The policy and MCS activities are harmonized with the programs and regional and international protocols that the country has joined or is part (SADC protocol and Fisheries, The International Plan of Action for FAO prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, Not declared and Unregulated POA, the UN Convention on the Sea-UNCLOS). Selected interventions in the MCS include the following activities: (i) Raising awareness through informational materials, educational and media to fishermen and ship-owners to comply with the legal instruments concerning restrictions on catches of protected species and prohibited use of harmful arts, respect for seals and nesting period; (ii) Raise the quality of information provided by ship-owners to facilitate the monitoring and management of fisheries; (iii) Program shipments fisheries observers on fishing vessels in order to make catch records that will cross to the data provided by the captains of vessels; (iv) Acquisition of software (ERS) for electronic data recording adapted to national fleets; and (v) Training of technicians in the field of monitoring and management of fisheries at central and province.

e. African Agricultural Growth Corridors The concept of African Agricultural Corridors is designed to facilitate the conversion of millions of hectares of land to

industrial agriculture, to be served by building infrastructure (roads, railways, irrigation, storage, processing and ports) and

led by private companies. According to Paul and Steinbrecher (2013), the aim of the corridor project is to establish

infrastructure to attract investment and facilitate development of commercial agriculture. Mozambique has identified the

Beira Corridor Nacala Corridor and Zambezi Valley (Mozambique Agriculture Minister, Pachco; June 2012). The Beira

Corridor covers Tete, Sofala and Manica Provinces and has got a road and railway network linking Zambia, Malawi,

Zimbabwe and Mozambique to the Port of Beira on the Indian Ocean. It covers 10million hectares of arable land of which

1,5million hectares is farmed by subsistence farmers and a mere 25, 000ha is under commercial agriculture with 22 000ha

under sugar cane production (Delivering Potential Document Beira). The aim is to increase irrigation from 1, 200ha to 200,

000ha by 2030 (Paul and Steinbrecher 2013). The Nacala (which consist of Nampula and Niassa Provinces) and Zambezi

Corridors are the other corridors identified by the Mozambique government and they are dominated by the Pro-Savana

Programme (UNAC 2012). The Pro Savana Programme is a triangulation project between Mozambique, Brazil and Japan for

the development of large scale agriculture in the Nacala Development Corridor affecting 14 districts in the provinces of

Niassa, Nampula and Zambezia covering an area of approximately 14 million hectares.10

3.6 Assessing the effects of major decisions and policy measures This section provide an assessment of what has been achieved in the implementation of the PNISA and where actions should be taken to strengthen implementation. At a higher level of coordination, the actions of the various stakeholders in agricultural development in Mozambique within the PEDSA framework need to be considered regarding the commitments they made to advance PNISA implementation (Benson et al 2014). These assessments allow for mutual accountability among the stakeholders and should foster a sense of joint responsibility to correct problems as they are identified. However, the PNISA was made public only recently, in April 2013. Most readers of the PNISA document will quickly observe that the 21 programs and 61 subprograms of the PNISA require considerable elaboration before implementation can begin for any of them (Benson 2013). More specific to the purpose of this paper, only an outline of how the PNISA implementation was to be evaluated and monitored was provided in the PNISA document. The CCSA body needed to be constituted and its mode of operation determined (Benson 2013).

It is expected that a more detailed set of indicators for monitoring performance of the PNISA will have been developed by the CCSA. Nonetheless, a couple of observations on the implementation of the PNISA to date can be made. In the best case, considerable headway should have been made since its launch in moving the PNISA from being a statement of intent and into action (Benson 2013). One of the initial steps identified in the PNISA in this regard was to develop the coordination system for PNISA implementation cantered on the CCSA. However, little evidence exists to show that this has yet been done effectively. In consequence, if responsibilities have been assigned for designing specific action plans for the many programs and subprograms of PNISA, the action plans that emerge will not be sufficiently well coordinated and may have both duplication and gaps that will impede progress toward the PEDSA objectives (Gêmo, H. R., and P. Chilonda. 2013). Even without having detailed knowledge of PNISA activities at the program and subprogram levels, we found no actively operating coordination body or mechanisms in place to guide implementation (Gêmo, H. R., and P. Chilonda. 2013).

10 Land Grabbing for Agribusiness in Mozambique: UNAC statement on the ProSavana Programme. 25 Oct 2012. http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php/main-issues-mainmenu-27/agrarian-reform-mainmenu-36/1321-landgrabbingfor-agribusiness-on-mozambique-unac-statement-on-the-prosavana-programme

Subsequently, one aspect of coordination is to monitor key elements of the implementation process. Although there has been at least one attempt to develop a set of indicators for monitoring PNISA implementation (Uaiene 2013), this attempt has yet to be completed. Mutually agreed-upon milestones and targets are still missing on various elements of PNISA. Such indicators are necessary to assess progress under the PNISA that will allow for mutual accountability among participants and stakeholders in the process. More broadly, the mutual accountability that is built into the design of the PNISA under commitments made in the CAADP–Mozambique compact likely has not yet been realized.

3.7 Major Actors in Agricultural policymaking Having reviewed the two main policy statements regarding agricultural development in Mozambique, the major actors in Mozambique’s agricultural policymaking are now considered in this subsection. These participants in agricultural policymaking processes can be placed into four categories based on their roles. At the centre of the process are different bodies of government (the president, parliament, the Council of Ministers, provincial governments, and MINAG with its provincial- and district-level directorates) that interact with one another to devise a new policy or strategy that pertains to the agricultural sector and that is consistent with guiding national programs and strategies and with regional and international commitments. Second are Mozambique’s development partners. As these donors play a significant role in financing many of the programs that emerge from policy redirection and reform, they also closely engage in the discussions on the design of reforms in the sector. Third are different nongovernmental stakeholders that include farmers and farmer groups, civil society groups, and private-sector firms and interest groups that try to influence the agricultural policymaking process through consultation with government bodies at different levels. Finally, several policy research institutions that provide information to guide the policymaking process in Mozambique. Ministry of Agriculture

In making agricultural policies in Mozambique, the analysis, formulation, and monitoring aspects are principally the responsibility of MINAG. In this regard, MINAG’s Technical Team and its working groups are tasked with producing policy and strategy proposals that are submitted to the Consultative Council and later to the Council of Ministers and parliament for consideration. Most of these efforts are coordinated by the Directorate of Economics within MINAG. The Directorate of Economics is the principal planning unit of the ministry. MINAG, with its provincial- and district-level organs, is also responsible for the implementation of agricultural policies and strategies. International Development Partners

In Mozambique, designing agricultural policies and strategies is not simply a local exercise undertaken without consultation with development partners. Over the last two decades, Mozambique has been heavily dependent upon foreign aid.

11 All of

its major agriculture-sector strategies have been implemented with significant support from the donor community. In consequence, most of these have been designed in consultation with the donor community. For example, the first phase of PROAGRI was initiated and implemented as a joint effort by the government of Mozambique and the main donor agencies working in the agriculture sector. Similarly, PROAGRI II was launched through a joint agreement between the government and eight of Mozambique’s development partners (Gêmo 2011). The primary justification given for such strong engagement by donors in the national policy processes in agriculture is their need to be accountable to their home government on how the funds they provide for agricultural development are used. However, somewhat more problematically, they also play a strong role in defining the priorities and designing the programs and other activities to which their funds are applied. International NGOs, such as CLUSA, Techno Serve, CARE, Save the Children, SNV, and World Vision, also have played key roles in the implementation of agricultural policy. Typically working in focus provinces, these organizations have been involved in extension service provision in parallel with the government agricultural extension service, in the establishment and development of smallholder farmer associations, and in strengthening agricultural value chains by better linking farmers with commodity traders and other agribusinesses. Although they are not so prominent in policy processes, they are important participants in the implementation of policy and therefore are not totally excluded from the design of those policies. National Stakeholders in Agricultural Development: The Private Sector and Civil Society Organizations

Another potentially important set of actors in agricultural policymaking in Mozambique are civil society organizations. For instance, National Union of Peasants (UNAC), an umbrella organization of 58 unions and 1,243 farmer associations and cooperatives, was established to be a voice for small farmers in rural development and agricultural policymaking. UNAC has also been involved in activities that include training, dissemination of information, and advocacy campaigns. Similarly, the Rural Organization for Mutual Support (ORAM) is another agriculturally focused civic organization that has participated in rural and agricultural policymaking in Mozambique. ORAM has primarily focused on land reform issues, particularly in supporting rural communities to understand and protect their land rights (Benson et al 2014).

11 In 2011, official development assistance to Mozambique accounted for 42.3 percent of the national budget and 14.9 percent of GDP (MINAG 2013).

Although they are few in number and are somewhat underrepresented in consultations and policy discussions, the private agricultural service providers also play a role in agricultural policymaking (Benson et al 2014). The Confederation of Economic Associations of Mozambique (CTA), the confederation of different associations of small private agricultural service providers, has been promoting the interests of these groups in agricultural policymaking. Similarly, sector-specific associations for participants in the cashew, cotton, and sugar value chains and the Nampula Commercial and Industrial Association in Nampula Province use the CTA to channel their opinions and concerns to government as part of these policy processes (MINAG 2010). However, most participants in agricultural policy processes in Mozambique would agree that the national private sector and civil society organizations rarely, if ever, play a leading role in fostering policy change in the sector (Benson et al 2014). Government and its development partners, generally in some sort of partnership, lead such efforts at policy formulation. Consultations with the private sector and civil society take place, but they are viewed by many somewhat cynically as being token, obligatory exercises that do not result in significant, new perspectives being brought into the process or affect the policy choices that are made (Africa Lead and EAT 2013). Their role as effective advocates in determining the priorities for agricultural development in Mozambique needs to be strengthened, rather than leaving this task primarily to the government agencies (Benson et al 2014). Policy Research Institutions

Although several research institutions are involved in agricultural policy research in Mozambique, as yet no core body of Mozambican analysts and policy research institutions is in place upon which government, donors, civil society, and the private sector rely for providing objective analysis and recommendations (Benson et al 2014). International research organizations still are relied upon for evidence to guide many policy choices in agriculture. These include donors that undertake significant research to guide their investments in Mozambique, such as the World Bank. They also include more dedicated research groups such as Michigan State University, which has an almost 20-year history of providing policy research and capacity building in the agricultural sector in Mozambique, and CGIAR international agricultural research centres. Among the CGIAR centres, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has a particular focus on policy research to advance agricultural development and ensure food and nutrition security in Mozambique (Benson 2014). The Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) Southern Africa office also has paid a key role in supporting CAADP–Mozambique and the design and initial implementation of the PNISA. However, to a large degree because they are international, these organizations are not integral to many of these policy processes. The capacity for agricultural policy research in domestic institutions is primarily found within Mozambique’s government in the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Planning and Development, and MINAG; within the principal university in the country, Eduardo Mondlane University; and within some smaller domestic policy research institutes (Benson 2014). While these Mozambican analysts may have a greater ability and wider range of avenues than international researchers do to contribute evidence and other information for policy decisions, their sphere of expertise is technical, which is only one element among many that drive decisions on agricultural policy. In Mozambique, as everywhere else, technically optimal policy solutions need to align with overriding political considerations before those solutions will advance into policy. Nonetheless, a continuing need exists to build national capacity to undertake sound technical policy analyses in the agricultural sector. An initiative is now well advanced for establishing a Centro de Estudos em Políticas e Programas Agro-Alimentares (CEPPAG—Centre for Research in Agro-Food Policies and Programs (Benson 2014). This centre is to be housed within Eduardo Mondlane University and to operate independently of government, but it would be expected to function in a manner that would build policy research capacity across several ministries, including MINAG. Plans for the centre have been in discussion since 2011. However, although considerable progress has been made in obtaining commitments of political and financial support, when the centre will start operations is unclear.

4. CHAPTER 4: AN ASSESSMENT OF POLICY COHERENCE WITH CAADP GUIDELINES

4.1 Development of agricultural investment programs Although CAADP as a continent-wide initiative was launched in 2003 with the signing of the Maputo Declaration on Agriculture and Food Security by African heads of state, in nearly all African countries the CAADP country process did not begin until 2010. This is then also the case with regard to Mozambique. After undertaking a range of background studies and holding regional consultations, the CAADP compact document for Mozambique was signed in December 2011 by representatives of the government of Mozambique, the private sector, civil society organizations, development partners, and regional organizations. The compact explicitly states that CAADP will be implemented in Mozambique via the national agricultural policy in place, the Strategic Plan for the Development of the Agriculture Sector (PEDSA, the Plano Estratégico de Desenvolvimento do Sector Agrário). The PEDSA is to guide agricultural development in the country over the period 2011 to 2020. Following the signing of the compact, work then began on developing the National Agriculture Sector Investment Plan (PNISA, the Programa Nacional de Investimento do Sector Agrário), the investment plan for agricultural development that is

stipulated as a key element in all CAADP country processes. The PNISA was officially launched in April 2013 and specifies 21 programs grouped under five components—agricultural production and productivity, access to markets, food and nutritional security, natural resources, and institutional reform and strengthening—and the investments that are needed over the period 2013 to 2017 to successfully complete them. The financial requirements for this investment plan total 112 billion Mozambican meticals (Mt), or about US$4 billion.

12

Both the CAADP compact document for Mozambique (Republic of Mozambique 2011, paragraph 30) and, in more detail, the PNISA (Republic of Mozambique 2013, chapter 5) specify that the activities being carried out within the context of CAADP in Mozambique will be closely coordinated and monitored. The PNISA provides for the establishment of the Agricultural Sector Coordinating Committee (CCSA, the Comité de Coordenação do Sector Agrário), which will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the PNISA and regularly assessing progress made. This monitoring and evaluation effort will include the generation of joint reviews of the PNISA by the government and its partners and annual reports on the performance of the agricultural sector. The implementation of the PNISA will also be subject to two evaluations—one in the second year and the other in the last year of the program. In the generic design of CAADP country processes, the Joint Sector Review (JSR) is the instrument to be used on a routine, scheduled basis to implement the mutual accountability principle of CAADP at the country level. Functionally, the JSR is: “…..a platform to assess the performance and results of the agriculture sector and, in turn, assist governments in setting sector policy and priorities. Specifically, they aim to assess how well state and non-state stakeholders implemented pledges and commitments stipulated in the CAADP compacts, National Agricultural Investment Plans [such as PNISA], and related cooperation agreements in the sector.” (ReSAKSS 2013a, 1) Within the inclusive consultations and discussions that make up a JSR exercise, the stakeholders objectively consider what actions have been taken, resources have been committed, and progress has been made toward the CAADP objectives within a country. In doing so, all stakeholders in the national CAADP process are made accountable to each other as they pursue their common goal of transforming agriculture in the country. For Mozambique, specific monitoring activities were included within the design of PNISA to provide for mutual accountability in its implementation. The agricultural JSR process that is to monitor the execution of the PNISA and to guide any course corrections is already under way.

4.2 Assessing the alignment of policy measures with CAADP pillars Central to the CAADP process at national level is national ownership which extends beyond the agricultural sectoral agencies

of government to include other sectors within government, civil society organizations, and the private sector involved in

agriculture. However, commitments to support the national CAADP investment plan involve a broader range of participants:

both the national CAADP stakeholders and their international partners. The commitments are established among all parties

involved, within the national CAADP investment plan in an explicit framework of mutual accountability for agricultural

performance and including the necessary agricultural policy reforms, the required investment and its enablers. Both in the

CAADP compact for Mozambique (para. 30) and, in more detail, in the PNISA (ch. 5), it is specified that the activities being

carried out within the context of CAADP in Mozambique will be closely coordinated and monitored. The PNISA provides for

the establishment of the Comité de Coordenação do Sector Agrário (CCSA, the Agricultural Sector Coordinating Committee)

that will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the PNISA and regularly assessing progress made. This

monitoring and evaluation effort will include the generation of joint reviews of the PNISA by government and its partners

and annual reports on the performance of the agricultural sector. The evaluation is to be based on commitment reports

which will be used as a basis for monitoring performance. The implementation of the PNISA will also be subject to two

comprehensive evaluations – one in the second year and the other in the last year of the program.

4.3 An Analysis of Agricultural Public-Sector Financing

The PEDSA establishes a target of a 7 percent agricultural growth rate per year, which is 1 percent higher than that called for under CAADP. One of the major challenges in drafting the PNISA and effectively implementing it is determining the amount and types of investments that will be needed to achieve this objective (Mogues and Benin 2012). To do this, close analysis of past public expenditures in the agriculture sector and the outputs that can be attributed to those investments is required. Since 2008, at least three analyses of public expenditures in agriculture have examined how the levels and composition of public investment in the sector has changed over time—Zavale et al. (2011), World Bank (2011), and Mogues and Benin (2012). Although these studies were not necessarily done independently of each other, they did differ in their focus and therefore provide different insights into how public investment in agriculture could lead to more sustainable growth in the sector. Unfortunately, the two most comprehensive studies (Zavale et al. 2011; World Bank 2011) consider only the period up until 2007. Among the key findings of these assessments are the following:

12 Dollar amounts throughout this paper are given in U.S. dollars.

Although budget allocations to agriculture have hovered around 10 percent, actual spending in the sector has been somewhat less than that. The average public spending on agriculture between 2001 and 2007 was 6.8 percent of total government spending, considerably below the CAADP target of 10 percent. This mismatch between what is budgeted and what is actually spent is attributed to complex procurement processes, public accounting requirements, and delays in disbursement of funds from development partners.

Most public agriculture expenditure is on salaries and other transfers, including institutional overhead. Spending on agricultural research and development, support to farmers, and provision of other agricultural services accounts for only about one-quarter of expenditures.

A spatial assessment of where agricultural funds are spent shows that the most important provinces in terms of agricultural output and their contributions to total agricultural GDP are generally least favoured in the allocation and spending of public funds for agricultural development.

There is a mismatch between the commodities and functions that are given budget priority and what research evidence indicates should be the priorities. For example, wheat is given considerable attention, while cassava is not. Irrigation expenditures are significant, while those for agricultural extension are neglected, even though evidence is clear that agricultural extension services are far more likely to contribute to rural poverty reduction and broad growth in the rural economy of Mozambique than irrigation schemes.

Subsidies are not a prominent part of government expenditure in agriculture, at least over the time period considered. Implicit subsidies are seen in the cashew sector, as government provides services that arguably the private sector could manage on its own. However, since 2007, there has been some experimentation with subsidized provision of inputs with a voucher-based fertilizer and seed program targeting 25,000 smallholder farmers in five provinces of central and northern Mozambique.

MINAG and its agencies in 2007 obtained just under 50 percent of their expenditures from domestic resources, with externally provided funds covering the balance.

Information on private investments made in agriculture are not available and may not exist. This is critical in the context of Mozambique’s development ambitions, since the PQG, the master development framework, and the PEDSA explicitly conceive the role of government primarily to be the enabling of private investment and private-sector development.

All of the agricultural public expenditure reports stated that the insights for future planning that could be obtained from the analyses were constrained by a lack of sufficiently disaggregated data along functional, geographical, and sub-sectoral or commodity dimensions. Moreover, the analysts reported obtaining conflicting information depending on source and accounting system used. Perhaps most important is that the quality and structure of the public expenditure data on agriculture were insufficient to allow for strong value-for-money assessments to be made. Thus, in the Mozambique–CAADP process, with current public accounts data it would be very difficult to tell if expenditures made under the PNISA framework were effective in making progress toward the agricultural development goals of the PEDSA. Mogues and Benin (2012) take their agricultural public expenditure analysis a step further by calculating what budget allocations are needed to attain the goals set in the PEDSA. These calculations are based on observations, both in Mozambique and elsewhere, of the relationship between various public expenditures in agriculture and the economic growth in that sector that can be attributed to that expenditure. They assert that the public expenditures required to achieve 7 percent annual growth in the agricultural sector, which is the PEDSA target, will need to grow at a rate of 17.5–20.9 percent per year, considerably higher than current growth in agricultural public expenditures. Moreover, there will need to be a reallocation of expenditure toward investments that will bring about technical change and efficiency improvements in agricultural production and away from simply investing in the use of current factors of production under existing technology. An implicit assumption in this analysis is that the capacity of those managing these growing public investments in agriculture will expand appropriately to absorb the increase in public investment. As such, capacity development is a key element in achieving the agricultural development goals laid out in the PEDSA and supported by the CAADP–Mozambique process.

4.4 Changes in Mozambique’s agriculture and economy coinciding with implementation of CAADP In the best case, considerable headway should have been made since its launch in moving PNISA from being a statement of intent into action. One of the initial steps identified in PNISA in this regard was to develop the coordination system for PNISA implementation cantered on the CCSA. However, little evidence shows that this has yet been done effectively. It is expected that, in consequence, if responsibilities have been assigned for designing specific action plans for the many programs and subprograms of PNISA, the action plans that emerge will not be sufficiently well coordinated and may have both duplication and gaps that will impede progress toward the overarching PEDSA objectives (IFPRI 2014). Even without having detailed knowledge of PNISA activities at the program and subprogram levels, no actively operating coordination body or mechanisms are found in place to guide implementation According to (IFPRI 2014) one aspect of coordination is to monitor key elements of the implementation process. Although at least one attempt has been made to develop a set of indicators for monitoring PNISA implementation, that attempt has yet to be completed. Mutually agreed-upon milestones and targets are still missing on various elements of PNISA. The potential for the agricultural JSR exercise to lead to more effective implementation of PNISA will be constrained so long as the

participants do not have a complete set of mutually agreed-upon indicators by which to assess how well the action plan is being implemented, and by which the CCSA can assess the quality of PNISA implementation. More broadly, the mutual accountability that is built into the design of PNISA under commitments made in the CAADP– Mozambique compact likely has not yet been realized. These two observations are all that can confidently make on the performance of PNISA implementation so far (IFPRI 2014).

5. CHAPTER 5: AGRA WORK IN MOZAMBIQUE

5.1 AGRA’s Policy Nodes and Hubs in Mozambique The AGRA Policy and Advocacy (PAP) Unit has since 2010 supported grantees in Ghana, Mozambique, Tanzania and Mali to

establish policy support systems (Policy Nodes and Hubs) to generate evidence and increase its use for evidence-based

policy making and advocacy in order to put in place better policies, laws, regulations and institutional arrangements for

seeds, soil health, markets, land tenure and environmental and climate exchange for supporting a uniquely African Green

Revolution. Starting in 2010 to 2014, 14 fully operational Policy Action Nodes and 3 fully operational Policy Hubs established.

Policy Action Nodes: Ghana 5; Mali 1; Mozambique 3; Tanzania 5. Hubs: Ghana 1; Mozambique 1; Tanzania 1. Policy Action

Nodes and Hubs have implemented interventions to bring policies, laws, regulations and administrative practices to reform

in seeds, soil health, markets and trade, land tenure and environmental and climate exchange.

The AGRA Policy Action Nodes and Hubs objectives are (1) ) Strengthen policy systems for enabling policy environment for

Green Revolution; (2) Build human and institutional capacity for evidence-based policy making and implementation; (3)

Strengthen linkages between policy analysts and PACs; (4) Create awareness of AGRA’s goal and activities and; (5) Mobilize

resources for Green Revolution. In Mozambique, AGRA has partnered with the National Directorate for Economics, Ministry

of Agriculture; National Directorate of Agrarian Services; and the National Directorate for Rural Development.

AGRA has embarked on Advocacy for an African Green Revolution whose aim is strengthening Implementation of AGRA’s

Advocacy Strategy whose objectives are (1) Articulate AGRA’s country-level and corporate advocacy objectives; (2) Clarify

AGRA’s approach to advocacy; (3) Develop and institutionalize country-oriented framework for identifying and carrying

advocacy; and (4) Demonstrate linkages among advocacy, communications, and knowledge management. In Mozambique,

the work is being carried out in partnership with AGRA Policy Action Node; the National Seed Platform; CTA /FEPAC; NEPAD

Business Foundation (Southern African Agriculture development partnership Platform-SAADPP); Integrated Seed Sector

Development in Africa (ISSD Africa); Associação de Regantes; IFDC; International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD);

CTA/Federação de Pequenos Agricultores Comerciais (FEPAC); UNAC and Mozambican Association of Banks.

The following are the achievements of the Policy Nodes and Hubs in Mozambique;

1. Seed • PBR Act was approved by Parliament in 2007 and reviewed by the Node to align with UPOV and SADC and

approved by Council of Ministers in March 2014 • Seeds Act Seed regulations approved by Council of Ministers in February 2013. Development of protocols for

implementation and approved by Minister of Agriculture and in process for publication • Dissemination of seed regulations through 2500 pamphlets, 120 Seed Regulation Manual s and 3 regional

workshop, radio and public television, 100 seed companies and stakeholders participated • Manuals on the regulation for protection of new varieties (PBR) produced and disseminated • Conducted study on seed enterprise assessment to evaluate the capability of 15 seed companies producing seed

to produce basic seed. Findings were presented at a workshop held in Chimoio on 6 October, 2014. Provided evidence that seed companies have capacity to produce basic seed. Maize and rice breeders identified to train the seed enterprises in basic seed production. Terms of reference drafted for training seed enterprises for the basic seed production. Training of seed companies to produce basic seed started in January 2015

• Developed and approval of Seed Quality Manual that will be used for Seed Quality Assurance system in seed analysis consistent with to International Seed Testing Association standards

• Reform of blanket government-run seed subsidy to electronic voucher private sector schemes. The direct seed subsidies replaced by voucher program. Voucher program being piloted in some districts in five provinces (Manica, Nampula, Zambezia, Sofala and Tete).

The Seed Policy Action Node’s success in changing Mozambique's seed and plant variety protection laws and regulations is helping to increase foundation and certified seed production in the country.

2. Soil Health Policy Action Node • VAT removal on fertilizers • Fertilizer subsidy program (fertilizer blending and voucher system to promote adoption). Developed document to

frame fertilizer subsidy program at national level. Document currently under consultation with the Director of National Directorate of Agrarian Services (DNSA) and other leaders of Ministry of Agriculture to gain support before it is presented at the formal council in Ministry of agriculture for approval

• Policy analysis studies of feasibility and profitability of local fertilizer production and blending (gas and phosphates in Mozambique)

• Policy reforms to reduce the cost of fertilizer to farmers • Scaling “smart” fertilizer subsidy program • Advocated for removal 2.5 % duty on fertilizer importation. The proposal of removal of 2.5 % on fertilizer

importation tabled to be discussed in Parliament in October 2014 but delayed because of elections • Developed extension strategy for fertilizers and advocated Local Government to increase budgets allocated to

extension services targeting the Beira • Developing a fertilizer law and regulations

3. Markets • Warehouse Receipt System Legislation approved by Council of Ministers • Contract Farming Legislation at advanced stage • Policy analysis study on commodity value chain study to examine transaction costs and market information need • Reviewed of regulatory environment for farming contracts and collectives in agricultural markets and extent of

contract disputes • Policy analysis study to assess impact assessment of taxes and fees in value chains of maize on prices and demand

5.2 AGRA’s work in Mozambique’s agro-ecological zones The high agricultural potential of Mozambique’s Beira Corridor allows farmers to intensify their farming operations by using modern and environmentally sustainable techniques. AGRA’s Soils Program is working with the Instituto De Investigação Agrária De Moçambique (IIAM) Centro Zonal Centro (IIAM-CZC), to improve smallholder productivity and livelihoods through increased fertilizer use and the integration of grain legumes into local cropping patterns. AGRA is also working with a consortium of partners led by Concern Universal to advance a US$ 3.1 million value chain development project in Sofala and Manica provinces of the Beira Growth Corridor (AGRA Annual Report 2012). The goal of this initiative is to raise the crop productivity and incomes of smallholder farmers by increasing their ability to effectively engage with input and output markets and service providers. An Aide Memoire for guiding development and implementation of Mozambique’s breadbasket strategy was signed with the government in October 2010, and the Beira Corridor Breadbasket Study was begun soon thereafter. The government-led BBTT was in charge of this process and the draft study is well aligned with the national 5-year agricultural development plan. The investments focused on: 1) increasing the availability and affordability of modern agricultural technologies (e.g., improved seeds and fertilizers); 2) market-based approaches to link smallholder farmers and associations to modern value chains and commercial buyers; and 3) creating an enabling environment, including a better rural infrastructure, affordable finance, and institutional mechanisms to improve coordination and planning in the agricultural sector. The estimated total cost of for developing the Beira Corridor Breadbasket is US$ 320 million over 5 years. The Government has endorsed the plan, but has yet to make any specific funding commitments. Support for the plan by various donors (DfID, NORAD, World Bank, and AGRA) is aimed at encouraging the government. In 2010, AGRA invested US$ 1.5 in Mozambique, 65% of which was in the Beira Corridor Breadbasket. A little over US$ 9 million in 2011, with a significant portion going to the Beira Corridor.

TEXT BOX 1: Smallholder farmers benefit from improved maize and sweet potato varieties in Mozambique

The staff of NEPADs Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) took part in a media field visit to Umbeluzi Agriculture Research Centre, in Maputo, Mozambique, that was organized by the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), on the eve of the 2013 African Green Revolution Forum on 3 September 2013. NEPAD is a partner organization of the African Green Revolution Forum. Dr Pedro Fato, who has been working in maize breeding for 20 years, explained that his work at Umbeluzi involves breeding maize that is tolerant to multiple constraints such as down mildew, and pests that are prevalent both in the field and in storage. During the media field visit, Dr Fato went on to explain that down mildew is especially prevalent in low lying areas in Mozambique, hence the importance of this project in Mozambique that has a high number of areas that often get water logged. Dr Fato further explained that down mildew is carried on through seeds, and the maize breeding project has so far produced twelve maize varieties. The focus of this breeding project is small-scale farmers who make up 90 per cent of maize growers in Mozambique. The maize breeding project has so far released five hybrids that have been released on the market since 2002. The varieties are now producing better yields per hectare as testified by local farmers.

Mr José Ricardo, a sweet potato breeder with more than fifteen years’ experience reported that after maize and cassava, sweet potatoes are the third most important crops in Mozambique. Sweet potatoes are grown for their leaves and roots. The breeding of sweet potato varieties at the Umbeluzi Research Centre is a local breeding programme that focusses on breeding plants that are resistant to drought and disease. Since 2011, fifteen sweet potato varieties have been produced at the Centre. The Centre also trains smallholder farmers to reproduce the developed varieties in their communities. Each farmer can in turn distribute the varieties to at least another 100 other farmers. The Centre currently evaluates sweet potato varieties for draught resistance and multiplication to local farmers. There are currently 200 farmers that Centre provides sweet potato vines to for replanting, in turn, the 200 farmers redistribute the vine cuttings to a further 2000 000 farmers, all from the 15 cloned varieties. A survey is currently underway to ascertain the level of success.

Mr Sebastiao Temane, a 49 year old potato grower has a 2 hector holding. He was initially a farmer, but left to become a miner in South Africa. Mr Temane reported to the media that he resumed farming so he could take better care of his family. He sells his potatoes for a profit in a village called Mahubu. He also grows onions, beans and vegetables as well as the sweet potato varieties from the Umbeluzi Research Centre. Mr Temane cultivates the sweet potato vines that he received from the Centre, and sells the tubers to other small-scale farmers. "There is now improvement in yield and people are happy. Being a farmer in Mozambique is good because I produce enough to look after my family," said Mr Temane.

Mr Richard Mwanza, an AGRA representative, closed the field visit by expounding on the work on AGRA that supports programmes in 16 countries. AGRA's support spans from capacity building to directly equipping farmers such as Mr Temane. Mr Mwanza went on to say that in all its work, the focus is on smallholder farmers, and so far 20 million dollars has been spent in the different programmes. The focus on smallholder farmers is also within the ambit of CAADP’s agribusiness strategy to have a dynamic agribusiness sector that generates jobs and contributes to growth and food security in Africa.

Source: http://www.nepad.org/fr/ceo039s-office/news/3152/smallholder-farmers-benefit-improved-maize-and-sweet-potato- varieties-mozam

Programme for Africa Seed System (PASS)

Mozambique’s seed system value chain remains undeveloped, with inadequate but improving capacity within its National

Agricultural Research Institute, IIAM. Lack of finance, low human capacity and poor variety release procedures continue to

impact on breeding activities. The 1996 Seed Act and its regulations including those for variety release procedures remain in

need of updating and harmonizing with those of other SADC countries. National Seed Services (SNS) within the Ministry of

Agriculture (DNSA), the key policy and regulatory body requires strengthening and facilities for seed testing renovating or

upgrading. AGRA’s support in addressing policy concerns and shortages of basic seed would be welcomed.

Although the country is likely to receive support from Brazil in improving it seed systems, AGRA support is much appreciated, but greater in-country coordination has been suggested by IIAM. IIAM is working towards better coordination of donor funding with USAID funding a donor coordination unit. PASS interventions have occurred across all four initiatives with 11 grants being made to date. The initial focus was on EACI aimed at strengthening the capacity of plant breeders. This has included four PhD fellowships at ACCI, one of whom has now graduated and is in receipt of a FIAAC grant, and one MSc fellowship. To date FIAAC has made five grants to both PhD and MSc plant breeders. Four have been made to IIAM one each for maize and sorghum, two for rice and one to CIP for sweet potatoes

13. AGRA has also joined non-governmental

organizations in Mozambique through breeders from the IIAM, which runs under the Ministry of Agriculture to breed new hybrid maize varieties suitable for different parts of the country

14. The organization, which works directly with government

agricultural institutions, is supporting Mozambique in two folds; development of appropriate hybrid varieties and support for new seed companies so as to enable the improved seeds get out to the farmers on the ground. So far AGRA has trained 30 maize breeders in Mozambique

15

Extension Support Function (ESF)

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) has identified the need for an Extension Support Function (ESF) to contribute to the integration of extension activities within AGRA programs and enhance linkages with national extension systems and other extension initiatives in the countries where they work. AGRA sees these linkages as important to ensure increased awareness and accelerated uptake of farmer-ready green revolution technologies and practices, taking into account the unique needs of women and young farmers. In Mozambique AGRA carried out studies aimed at gaining a detailed understanding of the context and extension needs of the chosen breadbasket areas within each of the country. This information will then be used as a base on which to take decisions on where the funding should be directed and what specific activities would support an improved extension function across the AGRA programs (Oduor 2011). The objectives of the in-country study were to establish the state of extension services, with a focus on the institutional arrangements for delivery of extension; policy directions and their impacts on extension; methods and approaches used; agribusiness models that enhance the delivery of extension, and the targeting of extension to ensure increased and sustainable crop productivity. The in-country study was conducted between 31 January and 11 February 2011, with an additional interviews done on 25 February 2011 (Oduor 2011). Methods used to collect information for the study included a desk review of relevant literature, key informant interviews, stakeholder consultations and focus group discussions. The first few days focused on the capital Maputo which hosts the heads of government ministries, departments and research institutes as well as the head offices of donors, NGOs, international agricultural research centres (IARCs) and agribusiness organizations. Field visits were then made to the breadbasket region of the Beira Corridor. This includes the city of Beira and rural district of Gondola (Sofala Province) as well as the city of Chimoio and rural districts of Gondola and Manica (Manica Province).

The Soil Health Programme

In June 2012, AGRA awarded SNV Mozambique with a grant of USD 800,000 for a 3-year project that was aimed at

improving food security and incomes of smallholder farmers through intensification of maize and pigeon pea production and

marketing in 3 districts in Tete Province of Mozambique16

. Through promoting backward linkages with buyers/exporters, the

project sought to improve productivity and quality of the produce and lower transaction costs of trading maize and pigeon

pea and possibly other pulses. Alliances with other AGRA grantees and local organisations were built and knowledge of what

works was shared.

The project was financed by the Soil Health Programme of AGRA and addressed common challenges faced by smallholders

through a Value Chain Development approach, which includes the following interventions:

Analysis of the value chain and driving forces for improvement of bottlenecks: identification of market based solutions;

Linking farmers to output markets;

Capacity building of farmers, farmer organizations and extension workers in ISFM, GAP, marketing skills and better

farmer organization;

Linking farmers to inputs through an inclusive business approach

The production of pigeon pea and maize was promoted in the three high-potential districts of Moatize, Tsangano and

Angonia in Tete province, targeting 20,000 smallholder farmers - with 30% of them being women.

13Mid-Term Review of the Program for Africa’s Seed Systems-MOZAMBIQUE-June 2010 14 http://agra-alliance.org/media-centre/news/agra-urges-mozambique-government-to-get-involved-as-farmers-take-on-hybrid-maize/ 15 http://agra-alliance.org/media-centre/news/agra-urges-mozambique-government-to-get-involved-as-farmers-take-on-hybrid-maize/ 16 http://www.snvworld.org/en/countries/mozambique/news/agra-alliance-for-a-green-revolution-in-africa-0

Rural Markets Promotions Programme (PROMER)

In 2009, The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) joined forces with the government of Mozambique and the

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in support of the Rural Markets Promotions Programme (PROMER)17

.

PROMER was a long-term initiative committed to helping small farming households make the transition from subsistence to

market-oriented agriculture. PROMER sought bigger harvests and higher incomes for hundreds of thousands of poor rural

farmers in Mozambique's northern region, a fertile area with strong agricultural potential, the release noted. IFAD initiated

the US$40.6 million programme in April 2009 and contributed US$31.1 million to the project and that AGRA contributed

US$2.5 million over three years, goods. In addition, PROMER sought to strengthen networks of agro-dealers, the small-scale

village vendors who sell farmers critical farm inputs, such as quality seed and appropriate fertilizer. Under the agreement,

AGRA worked with Mozambique's Ministry of Planning and Development (DPNR) to improve the entrepreneurial capabilities

of farmers' associations, small-scale traders, and agro-dealers.

5.3 AGRA’s work in relation to the CAADP process in Mozambique Though AGRA works on policy improvements in Mozambique, we are yet to ascertain whether they have been supporting

the CAADP process. However AGRA’s work feed into the PEDSA and PINSA.

6. CHAPTER 6: AGRICULTURAL PARTNERSHIPS AND ALLIANCES IN MOZAMBIQUE

6.1 Agricultural sector working groups and their work in Mozambique

There are two Agricultural Working Groups in Mozambique, the Agriculture and Food Working Group and the Conservation

Agriculture Working Group. (More information to be researched)

6.2 Grow Africa Investments in Mozambique

Investments linked to Grow Africa offer a limited but fascinating window on what is happening with the business of African

agriculture. They suggest that the private sector is demonstrating unparalleled dynamism and commitment towards the

sector. Investment commitments within the Grow Africa partnership have more than doubled to a total of $7.2 billion, with

most to be converted in the next three to five years. Investment is happening, and, for 2013, companies reported $970

million worth against their commitments – the majority of which came through African companies18

. 80% of investments

report being complete, on plan or only facing minor problems with implementation. Where early investments are proving

successful, many companies are preparing to scale up their operations.

In early 2013, 17 companies signed Letters of Intent (LoIs) for Mozambique linked to Grow Africa (Grow Africa Report 2014). These outlined company plans to contribute to sustainable agricultural development through specific investments in numerous commodities and value chains. During 2013, many of these advanced positively if slowly. A few companies made great progress, such as SABMiller’s 450% growth in their locally-sourced cassava beer, and Sunshine Nuts, whose factory is now exporting to South Africa and the US. The majority of companies reported progress in laying the necessary foundations for future scale-up, especially of smallholder sourcing and production. For example, Corvus is investing in a 600 ha macadamia farm, and Cargill surveyed the country for suitable out-grower farm locations and established the basis for long-term off-take agreements to source maize from 50,000 smallholders by 2018. Nearly all companies making progress are working in partnership with donors, NGOs, the government or impact investors to help overcome pre-competitive barriers to investment.

6.3 New Alliance and G8 Investments in Mozambique The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN) is a commitment by G8 nations, African countries and private sector partners, to lift 50 million people out of poverty over the coming ten years. The alliance was launched at the G8 summit at Camp David in 2012. Mozambique was among the first African countries to commit to the G8’s New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (late September 2012). This is intended to be a platform for accelerating implementation of the PNISA, as well as private investment and scaling up innovation. G8 members agreed to focus key resources and other contributions on high priorities, and high impact investments featured in the PNISA, in particular to benefit the Zambezi Valley, Beira, and Nacala agricultural growth corridors. The Government has committed to pursue the goals in the document’s policy framework, in order to build the confidence of domestic and international private sector investors. Through letters of intent private sector representatives have committed to invest in agriculture in support of the National Agriculture Strategy and Investment Plan.

17 http://www.clubofmozambique.com/solutions1/sectionnews.php?secao=business&id=16015&tipo=one 18 Nigeria dominates Grow Africa’s aggregated figures with over half of all planned and converted investment, and an economy larger than all others combined.

Within the New Alliance 17 businesses have signed Letters of Intent for investment with the government. Of these 7% are

completed and 35% are on plan. Of concern however are the 41% which are experiencing problems, and above all the 7%

that have cancelled investments. While the government has set up a specific department within CEPAGRI to assist these and

other investors the problems reported by the department are often those typically faced by investors in other sectors (New

Alliance Report 2014).

6.4 World Bank support to Mozambique’s agriculture In 2013, the World Bank approved two International Development Association (IDA) credits totalling US$150 million to boost

the Government of Mozambique’s efforts to improve the performance of commercial agriculture and smallholder farmers,

while also improving people’s food and nutrition security. The first US$50 million credit supported the government’s First

Agriculture Development Policy Operation (AgDPO-1), the first of three operations designed to promote private sector-led

agriculture in order to improve access to food and better nutrition. This project focused on providing opportunity to

Mozambique’s growing ranks of farmers and agribusiness entrepreneurs in a way that was meant to generate higher

incomes for farmers while also improving nutrition for the country’s rural population.

The second credit of $100 million went towards supporting the government’s Integrated Growth Poles Project designed to

improve the performance of enterprises and small farming landholders in Mozambique’s Zambezi Valley and Nacala

Corridor. Both of these areas are identified as having high growth potential. The project was meant to raise employment and

agricultural sales and help fund a variety of activities such as upgrading feeder roads, increasing privately executed public

investments, and linking small farmers to emerging supply chains. The Integrated Growth Poles Project is an innovative

approach to leverage private sector investments and implementation capacity and to establish business linkages between

large investors and smallholder farmers and SMEs.

7. CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION Mozambique has demonstrated a real commitment to improving the enabling environment for more inclusive growth in the

agriculture sector and the promotion of food security. MINAG has made great progress in designing a national investment

plan for agriculture. The PNISA is grounded in the CAADP principles of country ownership and leadership, and is ambitious in

its aims to transform the sector from subsistence agriculture to a competitive market-oriented force for economic growth

and shared prosperity. The PNISA is guided by a set of mutual accountability mechanisms that are both well established and

newly initiated (G8 New Alliance Framework), with MINAG’s Directorate of Economics and the AgRED at the centre working

ultimately to improve sector performance, and aid effectiveness.

However, there is need to invest in developing a greater results orientation, strengthen capacity of Government institutions

for monitoring and evaluation to enable more evidence-based analysis and improved results frameworks. Set resources

aside to support the enhanced reporting and coordination that will be needed to operationalize the PNISA. Position a

stronger joint sector review process, to strengthen mutual accountability. Wherever possible adopt a common set of

indicators and targets to enhance collective impact and mutual accountability. Consider building country systems that are

able to connect globally and regionally, and engage locally for evidence-based analysis through the proposed CEPAG

initiative. There is need to stimulate policy dialogue with a focus on implementation, build on the strategies and policy

frameworks that have been developed. For the PNISA to succeed, it must move stakeholders from a shared vision and

agenda to action on the ground. Getting the word out nationally, to the provinces and districts will require enhanced

coordination, outreach and strategic communication interventions, as well as internationally. This will mean focusing on

improving the business climate to gain the attention of the private sector.

REFERENCES Africa Lead and EAT (Africa Leadership Training and Capacity-Building Program, and Enabling Agricultural Trade). 2013. Institutional Architecture for Food Security Policy Change: Mozambique. Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development. Arlindo, P., and J. C. Keyser. 2007. Mozambique Country Case Study. Background paper for the Competitive Commercial Agriculture in Africa study of the FAO and the World Bank. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Washington, DC: The World Bank. Benfica, R., J. Zandamela, A. Miguel, and N. de Sousa. 2005. The Economics of Smallholder Households in Tobacco and Cotton Growing Areas of the Zambezi Valley of Mozambique. Research Report No. 59E. Maputo, Mozambique: Directorate of Economics, Ministry of Agriculture. Benson, T. D., B. Cunguara, and T. Mogues. 2013. The Supply of Inorganic Fertilizers to Smallholder Farmers in Mozambique. Mozambique Strategy Support Program Policy Note 5. Maputo, Mozambique: International Food Policy Research Institute. Brito, L. (2010) « Le difficile chemin de la démocratie », Politique Africaine, Paris: Karthala, 117: 5-22 Chilonda, P., V. Xavier, L. Luciano, H. Gêmo, A. Chamusso, P. Zikhali, A. Faria, J. Govereh, S. Manussa, B. Acubar, E. Musaba, L. Osvaldo, N. Alage, E. Macome, and A. Manganhela. 2011. Mozambique Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (MozSAKSS) 2010 Annual Trends and Outlook Report: Monitoring Agriculture Sector Performance, Growth, and Poverty Trends in Mozambique. Maputo, Mozambique: Directorate of Economics of the Ministry of Agriculture and MozSAKSS. Chilonda, P., V. Xavier, L. Luciano, H. Gêmo, A. Chamusso, P. Zikhali, A. Faria, J. Govereh, E. Musaba, S. Manussa, B. Acubar, L. Osvaldo, N. Alage, E. Macome, and A. Manganhela. 2012. Mozambique Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (MozSAKSS) 2011 Annual Trends and Outlook Report: Monitoring and Evaluating Agricultural Growth, Trade, and Poverty in Mozambique. Maputo, Mozambique: Directorate of Economics of the Ministry of Agriculture and MozSAKSS. Cunguara, B., and B. Kelly. 2009. The Impact of PARPA II in Promoting the Agricultural Sector in Rural Mozambique, 2002–2008. Working Paper. Maputo, Mozambique: Ministry of Planning and Development. Do Rosario D.M, From Negligence to Populism: An Analysis of Mozambique’s Agricultural Political Economy, Working Paper 034, Future Agricultures Donovan, C., S. Haggblade, V.A. Salegua, C. Cuambe, J. Mudema, and A. Tomo. 2011. Cassava Commercialization in Mozambique. MSU International Development Working Paper no. 120. East Lansing, MI, USA: Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2013. FAOSTAT. Rome. FEWSNet. 2012. Informal Cross-Border Food Trade in Southern Africa. FEWSNet Cross-Border Trade Report. Pretoria, South Africa. Future Agricultures. 2012. Has CAADP Made a Difference? Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses. Political Economy of Agricultural Policy in Africa (PEAPA) design paper. Brighton, UK: Future Agricultures Consortium, University of Sussex. Gêmo, H. R. 2011. Moving Towards the Implementation of the CAADP Framework in the Agriculture Sector: The Case of Mozambique. Background paper for the CAADP–Mozambique process. Midrand, South Africa: New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). Gêmo, H. R., and P. Chilonda. 2013. Why Did Mozambique’s Public Extension Halt the Implementation of the National Agrarian Extension Program (PRONEA)? Mozambique Strategy Support Program Working Paper 6. Maputo, Mozambique: International Food Policy Research Institute.

IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2012a. Republic of Mozambique–EU Food Facility in Support of the Food Production Action Plan (PRO-PAPA) through IFAD-Supported Projects and Programmes: Project Completion Report. Rome. ———. 2012b. Republic of Mozambique–National Agricultural Extension Programme (PRONEA): Mid-Term Review Report. Rome. Kalaba M, Kapuya T. and Mapila M, Mozambique Agricultural report, The Bureau for Food and Agricultural Policy (BFAP), May 2011 Kondylis, F., and V. Mueller. 2012. Seeing Is Believing? Evidence from a Demonstration Plot Experiment in Mozambique. Mozambique Strategy Support Program Working Paper 1. Maputo, Mozambique: International Food Policy Research Institute. Hanlon, J. and Renzio, P. (2007) Contested Sovereignity in Mozambique: Dilemmasod Aid dependency, Global Economic Governance Programme Working paper, n° 25, Oxford University Mather, D., B. Cunguara, and D. Boughton. 2008. Household Income and Assets in Rural Mozambique, 2002–2005: Can Pro-Poor Growth Be Sustained? Research Report No. 66. Maputo, Mozambique: Directorate of Economics, Ministry of Agriculture. Mazvimavi, K., I. Minde, S. Manussa, P. Tshuma, and C. Mureno. 2011. A Review of Agricultural Input and Output Markets Development in Mozambique. Paper presented at Dialogue on Promoting Agricultural Growth in Mozambique, July 21, 2011, Maputo, Mozambique. MINAG (Ministry of Agriculture). 2010. Plano Estratégico Para o Desenvolvimento do Sector Agrário (PEDSA) 2010–2019. Maputo, Mozambique. ———. 2013. Plano Nacional de Investimento do Sector Agrário (PNISA) 2013–2017. Maputo, Mozambique. Mogues, T., and S. Benin (with S. Woldeyohannes). 2012. Public Expenditures in Agriculture in Mozambique: What Investments Are Required for Technical Change, and What Drives Investment Decisions? Mozambique Strategy Support Program Working Paper 3. Maputo, Mozambique: International Food Policy Research Institute. Mosca, J. (2011) Politicas agrárias de (em) Moçambique, Maputo, Editora Escolar MPD and MF (Ministry of Planning and Development and Ministry of Finance). 2013. Cenário Fiscal de Médio Prazo, 2014–2016. Maputo, Mozambique. Mucavele, F. G. 2009. The True Contribution of Agriculture to the Economic Development of Mozambique. Pretoria, South Africa: Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network. Nhantumbo, I., and A. Salomão. 2010. Biofuels, Land Access and Rural Livelihoods in Mozambique. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Paul H, and Steinbrecher R, African Agricultural Growth Corridors and New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition: Who benefits, who loses? June 2013 Republic of Mozambique. 2011. Pacto para o Desenvolvimento do Sector Agrário em Moçambique no Contexto do CAADP. CAADP compact for Mozambique, signed 09 December 2011. Maputo: Republic of Mozambique. Republic of Mozambique. 2013. Plano Nacional de Investimentos para o Sector Agrário, PNISA 2013-2017. CAADP Investment Plan for Mozambique. Maputo: Republic of Mozambique. ReSAKSS (Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System). 2013a. Implementing the CAADP Joint Sector Review Guidelines: What Should Be Reviewed? ReSAKSS Concept Note. Washington, DC: ReSAKSS, International Food Policy Research Institute. ———. 2013b. Terms of Reference for Agriculture Joint Sector Review (JSR) in Mozambique. ReSAKSS Concept Note. Washington, DC: ReSAKSS, International Food Policy Research Institute. Rosário, D. M. 2012. From Negligence to Populism: An Analysis of Mozambique’s Agricultural Political Economy. Future Agricultures Consortium Working Paper no. 34. Brighton, UK: Future Agricultures Consortium, University of Sussex. Uaiene, R. N. 2013. Monitoria e Avaliação do Plano Nacional de Investimento do Sector Agrário (PNISA). Design paper. Maputo, Mozambique: Food Security Group, Michigan State University Walker, T., D. Tschirley, J. Low, M. Tanque, D. Boughton, E. Payongayong, and M. Weber. 2004. Determinants of Rural Income, Poverty and Perceived Well-Being in Mozambique in 2001–2002. Working Paper 57E. Maputo, Mozambique: MINAG. World Bank. 2011. Mozambique—Analysis of Public Expenditure in Agriculture. Washington, DC. ———. 2012. Agribusiness Indicators: Mozambique. Report Number 68241-MZ. Washington, DC. ———. 2013. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC. Zacarias, A., and D. Esterhuizen. 2013. Mozambique: Sugar Annual Report. Washington, DC: Global Agricultural Information Network, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Zandamela C, Mozambique, ReSAKSS CAN Report 4 March 2014

Zavale, H., G. Mlay, D. Boughton, A. Chamusso, and P. Chilonda. 2011. The Structure and Trends of Public Expenditure on Agriculture in Mozambique. ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 34. Pretoria, South Africa: Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System for Southern Africa (ReSAKSS-SA)