Joint statement and open questions on ProSAVANA by the civil society of Mozambique, Brazil and Japan in response to newly leaked government documents

No to ProSavana | 27 August 2016 | português, français

Joint statement and open questions on ProSAVANA by the civil society of Mozambique, Brazil and Japan in response to newly leaked government documents

(PDF)

Background and Purpose

In October 2012, UNAC, the largest peasant movement in Mozambique, came forth with a declaration that outlined its concerns with ProSAVANAi, a large-scale agricultural development program in the Nacala Corridor in the north of Mozambique. We, as members of civil society from the three countries involved (Mozambique, Brazil, and Japan), have since been actively engaged in seeking change in the program in a direction that respects the rights and sovereignty of local peasants.ii

In May 2013, an open letter was submitted by UNAC and twenty-three local civil organizations to the governments of the three countries. The open letter requested an immediate suspension of the program, the disclosure of pertinent information, and a fundamental reconsideration of the program that would allow for the independent and active participation of peasants.iii In response, the governments promised to carry out a “careful dialogue” with peasant and civil society organizations.iv

However, information concerning the program continues to be withheld, and since 2013, there have been continued threats and human rights violations against individuals and leaders of peasant unions that have raised reservations or are in opposition to the program. “Public hearings” were held in the 19 districts where the program would be implemented between April and June of 2015. However, over 80 civil society organizations around the world, including UNAC, have condemned the “hearings” as rigged, staged, and flawed, and denounced the process and the outcome as invalid. v

Following such developments, civil society in the three countries has repeatedly requested 1) respect for human rights, 2) improved transparency and accountability, and 3) valid and “Meaningful Dialogue” based on FPIC (free, prior, and informed consent). Despite verbal promises, the situation has only continued to deteriorate.

In October 2015, JICA initiated a “stakeholder engagement project,”vi “in order to respond to criticism directed at the public hearings, especially of UNAC.”vii However, the said projects were rolled out without informing civil society in the three countries, and have had negative repercussions, notably on Mozambican civil society. In February of this year, UNAC and nine local civil organizations issued a statement on ProSAVANA “denouncing the unfairness of the dialogue process.”viii

In May of this year, 46 documents related to the ProSAVANA “civil society participation project” were leaked.ix Over one hundred public documents were obtained additionally under the Japanese Administrative Information Disclosure Law.

This statement strongly condemns the findings in these documents and demands that the following concerns be addressed and questions answered immediately by the three governments.

What the Documents Reveal

The evidence from these documents, findings through field research at the program site,x and a careful assessment of explanations given by the government in various meetings,xi indicate the following:

1) In December of 2012, immediately following the denunciation of the ProSAVANA program by UNAC in October, the governments of the three countries agreed to adopt a “Communications Strategy.”xii Various countermeasures against civil society organizations and movements raising reservations or in opposition of the ProSAVANA program were planned and implemented. The scheme was financed by JICAxiii as an “Intervention Proposal and Action Plan.”xiv

2) A “Network of Collaborators” including district administrators, traditional authority figures, and cooperative individuals was formedxv in order to diminish the influence of peasant and civil organizations in the local communities of 19 districts targeted by the program and to undermine their claims.xvi

3) In order to create division among civil society groups and to undermine the credibility of, and trust in international civil society organizations (especially those from Brazil and Japan), various measures were taken involving local government authorities and media.xvii

4) In October 2015, JICA initiated the “Stakeholder Engagement Project,” and through a contract with local consultants,xviii implemented a strategy to “achieve buy-in from civil society.”xix Specifically, they identified potential conflicts of interest between local civil society groups or internally within groups and made strategic interventions;xx “promoted the development of alliances”xxi in support of the ProSAVANA program; pushed for the “cultivation” of certain groups;xxii and aimed to create a “a (singular) dialogue platform”/“ProSAVANA advisory [working] committee.”xxiii Only “those who demonstrate willingness” and approved by JICA and ProSAVANA-HQ were invited to the preparatory meetings.xxiv The “No to ProSAVANA Campaign,” including UNAC and its provincial unions were also excluded and “disregarded in terms of negotiations.”xxv The creation of the platform moved forward, as they expected to create a circumstance in which groups would have no choice but to participate for fear of being left behind and isolated.xxvi

A thorough analysis of these documents, which this statement is based on, was published on August 22, 2016, by Japanese civil society.xxvii The details can be found in that paper, but this statement concludes that it is clear that the ProSAVANA program, far from responding to the urgent concerns and demands of local peasants unions and civil society organizations that support them in the three countries, has actively strategized and sought to weaken, create division, and isolate, those raising valid concerns against the program.

Resistance, Demands, and Open Questions

We strongly condemn this intervention and manipulation of civil society by the government as part of an international cooperation program.

Land grabbing remains a pressing concern in the Nacala Corridor. The “Nacala Corridor Economic Development” program, which is the greater scheme that the ProSAVANA program falls under, continues to promote investment without effectively addressing this issue.xxviii International cooperation and aid programs should support the empowerment and solidarity of peasants and civil society facing these challenges. However, the ProSAVANA program does the opposite, intentionally weakening and creating division among peasants. Meanwhile, there is an increased risk of even more peasants losing their land.

The current situation, as discussed above, not only goes against the principles of “international solidarity” and “international cooperation” as promoted by the governments of Brazil and Japan and their respective agencies, but also violates fundamental constitutional rights of the peoples. We strongly condemn the three governments for withholding and concealing information, in breach of relevant guidelines and laws in each of the countries, and for continuing to deliberately and institutionally implement measures as outlined above. We also stress that these counter-activities taken against civil society are taking place in the context of deteriorating peace, democracy, governance, and human rights in Mozambique.xxix

We, as citizens of the three countries, demand the following measures be taken immediately:

1. Stop the ProSAVANA program and all related activities

2. Disclose all remaining government documents related to ProSAVANA in order that the three governments fulfill their responsibility and accountability

We also request that the three governments provide clear responses to the following questions:

1. A response to the claims this statement makes on the “Communication Strategy”

2. A response to the claims this statement makes on the “Stakeholder Engagement Project”

Lastly, we manifest our strong concern with the following development:

According to the leaked documents, the “counterpart fund” from food (agriculture) aid (KR/KRII) provided by Japan will be the source of funding for future “dialogue” activities.xxx The non-transparent nature of this “counterpart fund,” in which the beneficiary country pools funds outside of its own treasury, has been an outstanding concern. This only adds to the continued lack of transparency in the ProSAVANA program.

Conclusion

Since civil society organizations that have decided to participate in the dialogue mechanism are unaware of most of the information discussed above, we request that these organizations carefully examine the primary sourcesxxxi and the analysis paperxxxii for this information, and to then reconsider their future engagement with the ProSAVANA program.

We, the citizens of the three countries, declare our resolve to continue working with Mozambican peasants to protect their rights, dignity, sovereignty and land.

Organization Signatures