[i]The abbreviation for “Program for agricultural development in the African tropical savannah” through triangular cooperation from Japan, Brazil, and Mozambique (September 2009 agreement).
[iii]“Open Letter from Mozambican civil society organizations and movements to the presidents of Mozambique and Brazil and the Prime Minister of Japan(calling for the immediate suspension of ProSAVANA)“ (May 28, 2013).
http://www.farmlandgrab.org/22150
[iv]House of Councilors Budget Committee (May 12, 2014). After JICA chairman Tanaka Akihiko and Minister Kishida Fumio promised “careful activities” and “careful dialogue,” on April 20, 2015
[vii]The sixteenth dialogue meeting (March 9, 2016).
[xiv]ToR, page 4. In the “Monthly Report (Relatório de actividade ProSAVANA)” by CV&A, it became clear that CV&A had moved to enact the strategy they formulated. Only the monthly reports for July, August, and October of 2014 were disclosed by JICA.
[xv]“By having direct contact with these communities, it will devalue these associations representing the communities or farmers. In order to minimize the strength of these organizations are as follows:…. By taking importance away from the Mozambican civil society organizations, it will take strength away from the foreign NGOs to operate in Mozambique"(ProSAVANA Communication Strategy) (September 2013, pages 34-35.)
http://www.ajf.gr.jp/lang_ja/ProSAVANA/docs/104.pdfOriginal in Portuguese. This “strategy,” as a public document for the ProSAVANA program, was agreed upon by the three countries and JICA, authored and released by ProSAVANA.
[xvi]The original uses the word “devaluing” (“ProSAVANA Communication Strategy, pages 30-35. “The international media does not tend to take such offers, but ProSAVANA must always offer to support expenses” (34). These proposals are not solely from CV&A, as it is clear by the same appearing in the appended documents to its contract with JICA (ToR, “Communication Strategy in the Framework of ProSAVANA.” The latter is available here:
http://www.ajf.gr.jp/lang_ja/ProSAVANA/docs/103.pdf
[xix]The original gives “identification of …potential conflicts or conflicts of interest between the project and particular groups or between the groups themselves.”
[xx]MAJOL’s “Inception Report” disclosed by JICA“ (page 18).
[xxii]“A dialogue platform” in JICA’s ToR (October 2015) was transformed to a “ProSAVANA advisory committee” in MAJOL’s inception report (November 2015). MAJOL suggested JICA to modify “advisory” to “working,” and remained that way until January 2016 (MAJOL’s invitation letter).
[xxvi]See the earlier mentioned “Denouncement of the Unfairness of the Dialogue Process” (February 17, 2016) and “Denouncement of the Partnership of WWF Mozambique and ProSAVANA” (March 29, 2016).
http://www.farmlandgrab.org/25963
[xxix]The internationally-known researcher on Mozambique, Joseph Hanlon, in his article “Comment on ProSAVANA: What does a successful campaign do after it wins?” (June 26, 2016), praised the campaign as “the most successful campaign in Mozambique.” Yet he criticizes organizations for continuing to focus on campaign against land grabs in Northern Mozambique, arguing that land grabs are no longer a major threat in the area. He writes, “There appear to have been no new large agricultural land grabs in the past five years. And existing projects are not doing well.” This is not how we view the situation. The dangers of land grabbing in the area are not decreasing. For example, Hanlon dismisses a proposed 240,000 ha project along the Rio Luirió (Lurio Valley Development Project) that could displace 500,000 families as not being serious.A recent article, based in part on information from the Panama Papers database, shows however that the project remains under examination by the Mozambique government and DUATs (land title) have been applied for. There is also the involvement of a company belonging to a holding company of the Abu Dhabi Royal Family, indicating that funding is a real possibility. (
http://farmlandgrab.org/26386). If we follow Hanlon’s claim, the peasant and civil society organizations will not be able to engage in this kind of landgrabbing “plans” and in rolling back activities for already grabbed land. Further, the area along the current Nacala corridor is also experiencing land grabbing from not only agribusiness but also afforestation plantations and infrastructure (railroads) as written in the “Nacala Corridor Economic Development.”
