131
V. SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS
As noted in the introduction, the countryside in Mozambique is in a state of intense
transformation. Many facets of this change are positive, if fragile, creating economic
opportunities for individuals and leading to greater food security and to a better, more secure
way of life.
At the same time, aspects of this great metamorphosis are negative, destabilizing, and
may well erode the economic and political gains achieved since the signing of the peace
accord. The de facto land policy that is emerging undermines agricultural and other economic
investments and the development of collaborative and decentralized political relations and
institutions. Despite existing land laws, the government is facilitating a massive land-grab that
strips many smallholders of their land and tenure rights and adversely affects investment
strategies for all landholders.
Three critical problems exist. First, the statutory land law empowers the state to strip
people of their land rights and to redistribute those privileges. This often occurs at the
expense of smallholder producers, but it also stymies commercial investment: it pits
smallholders against one another as well as smallholders against larger commercial interests;
it frustrates the possible collaborative and competitive economic relationships that might
emerge between smallholders and commercial farmers; and it denies smallholders the
opportunity to compete with larger producers.
Second, individuals within government aid the process that denies smallholders land rights
through their manipulation of the law, for they believe that they are doing what is right for
both smallholders and the agricultural sector as a whole. These persons argue that
smallholders are incapable of exploiting the better lands in the country, are unproductive, and
must be protected by the state. 302 Provincial and district officials in many locations expressed
this view. Strong evidence from Maputo Province and unconfirmed reports from Gaza,
Manica, and Sofala indicate that this tactic is used more frequently against female farmers or
landholders than against males. This has been shown by both our research and the
investigations of others. Unfortunately, government officials often have a weak understanding
of smallholder production and tenure relations. Further, there are continuing biases within
government against smallholder producers, customary legal authorities, and small-scale
production; these prejudices are founded not on fact but on ideology. Although many
officials, particularly at the lower levels of government, have good intentions, they are not
achieving their objectives. In the final analysis, it is the state in its current configuration that
poses the greatest threat to smallholders and sabotages commercial investment.
302. This was stated several times at the recent Second National Land Conference in Mozambique; see
Weiss and Myers (1994); Myers and Weiss (1994).