resources to the local level in Mozambique. In both the third and fourth sections we present
maps, diagrams, tables, and graphs to illustrate and support our discussion. A synthesis of
the findings and our conclusions are presented in section five, and policy recommendations
are suggested in section six.
The authors wish to state that officials of the Government of Mozambique were generally
responsive to our questions and supportive of the goals of this research. Even when evidence
indicated governmental mistakes, many state officials were willing to contribute to our
understanding of the issues.
The field research for this study was carried out after the signing of the cease-fire.
However, since a climate of war still prevailed in many areas of the country, the study was
carried out in the context of war and a population traumatized by its devastating conse-
quences. Many people interviewed were convinced that the war would resume and were
insecure about their present and future situations; consequently, some were understandably
reluctant to openly discuss issues as politically sensitive as those related to land access.
Nevertheless, we found many respondents forthcoming and sincere.
The authors wish to state that the observations, analyses, and conclusions presented here
are tentative, and that there is a great need for further investigation of land tenure, land
access, and land-dispute resolution in Mozambique. It is our hope that this paper will
stimulate a further dialogue on land rights in Mozambique, an issue that is emerging as
central to the redefinition of the state and the system of governance in the postwar period.
We accept responsibility for any errors or omissions in this paper.