PACT Mid-Term Review February-March 2016 - CARE · PACT Mid-Term Review, February-March 2016 ii Table of contents ... Sector wide approach operating from 1998 to 2009 UNAC União

PACT Mid-Term Review February-March 2016

Final report

Ole Stage, Dnet Consult ApS

22 March 2016

PACT Mid-Term Review, February-March 2016

ii

Table of contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS: ......................................................................... III

1 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 1

2 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 4

2.1 CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................... 42.2 THE PACT PROGRAMME ............................................................................................ 5

3 METHODS AND APPROACHES ............................................................................. 8

4 FINDINGS AND ANALYSES .................................................................................... 9

4.1 PERFORMANCE/RESULTS ......................................................................................... 94.1.1 Performance in relation to the programme goal and relevance of results to stakeholders ....................................................................................................................... 94.1.2 The most effective advocacy strategies .............................................................. 104.1.3 Adding value to partners’ advocacy work at various levels ............................. 104.1.4 Signs that rights-holder groups are claiming their rights ................................ 104.1.5 Documentation of lessons learned .................................................................... 11

4.2 STRATEGY .............................................................................................................. 114.2.1 Strategic focus ................................................................................................... 114.2.2 Assistance to platforms and networks .............................................................. 124.2.3 Universal Peer Review ...................................................................................... 144.2.4 Cabo Delgado .................................................................................................... 144.2.5 Clarification of the programme logic ................................................................ 15

4.3 PARTNERSHIPS ....................................................................................................... 164.3.1 Value added by strategic partnerships, ownership and administrative issues . 164.3.2 Transparency, accountability and reduction of reporting burden.................... 174.3.3 CARE’s roles in relation to partners ................................................................ 174.3.4 Results of capacity building .............................................................................. 184.3.5 Are civil society partners considered legitimate change agents? ..................... 184.3.6 The relative relevance and performance of the PACT partners ........................ 20

4.4 ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES .......................................................................................... 214.4.1 Programme team structure and size ................................................................. 214.4.2 Outcome mapping ............................................................................................. 214.4.3 Measurable annual results for programme management, accountability and learning 21

5 CONCLUSION ON HOW TO FOCUS THE PROGRAMME ............................ 23

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................................. 25

ANNEX 2: ITINERARY ........................................................................................................ 32

ANNEX 3: PERSONS MET ................................................................................................. 33

ANNEX 4: PROSAVANA AND THE SOFT LANDING IN NAMPULA .................. 35


iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations:

ABC Brazilian Cooperation Agency AENA Associação de Extensionistas de Nampula ASCUT Alliance of Civil Society Against Land Grabbing CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development

Programme CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CARE Mozambique CARE International in Mozambique CBO Community-Based organisation CSO Civil society organisation Danida Danish International Development Assistance DUAT Direito do uso e aproveitamento de terra –

Certificate for right to use land EITI Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative FOCADE The civil society platform in Cabo Delgado IPIA Individual Project Implementation Agreement Jica Japan International Cooperation Agency M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MASC Mecanismo de Apoio à Sociedade Civil – a joint

donor fund for civil society support MCSC Mechanism for coordination of civil society for

developing the Nacala corridor MTR Mid-Term Review NGO Non-Governmental Organisation ORAM Associação Rural de Ajuda Mútua PACT Parcerias e Alianças da sociedade Civil pelo Direito

Terra e aos recursos naturais (Partnerships and Alliances of Civil Society for Rights to Land and Natural Resources)

PEDSA Plano Estratégico para o Desenvolvimento do Sector Agrário

PROAGRI National Programme for Agricultural Development (Programa Nacional de Desenvolvimento Agrário) Sector wide approach operating from 1998 to 2009

UNAC União Nacional de Camponêses UPC União Provincial de Camponêses UPC-N União Provincial de Camponêses de Nampula UPR Universal Peer Review (of human rights for the UN

Human Rights Committee)

Yen Sore Mid-Term Review, February-March 2014

1

1 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations Finding and Conclusion Recommendation

Research on government policy related to agricultural livelihood has provided useful knowledge. However, it is not an issue, which is easily translated into effective advocacy.

PACT should keep focus on land rights. Extractive industries should be seen in relation to land grabs/land rights. Consider the relevance of climate change in the light of fewer resources. Do not undertake more research on agricultural livelihoods – but provide support in terms of training and technical assistance on methodology to other CARE projects undertaking advocacy on agricultural livelihoods.

The lack of formal links between platforms and networks at different levels is a weakness within the current ‘architecture’ of platforms and networks in Mozambique. Platforms/network members must be made aware of the problem. Then channels of interaction between platforms/ networks at different levels must be defined.

CARE should continue to facilitate discussion and decision making in relation to establishing well-defined links and communication channels between platforms and networks at national, provincial and district levels.

After having identified human rights violations in a shadow report and influencing the Human Rights Council’s recommendations to government there is a need to follow up to keep public attention on human rights violations

CARE and its partners should consider through PACT promoting an annual review of the UN Human Rights Council’s recommendations to the Mozambican government. In terms of substance PACT should keep focus on land rights

The civil society platform in Cabo Delgado is weak. Support from CARE would be much needed. It would imply assistance in setting up mutual learning mechanisms based on exchange of ideas and dialogue between group members.

The PACT team in CARE should consider how to provide limited technical assistance to FOCADE. This would mainly be based on a few visits from the Civil Society Advisor


2

Finding and Conclusion Recommendation

The three immediate objectives defined for PACT are long and lack clarity. CARE Mozambique has therefore used the domains of change defined by CARE Denmark for reporting.

In order to establish a clearer framework CARE Mozambique and CARE Denmark should agree to replace the three immediate objectives for PACT with the domains of change used by CARE Denmark or domains of change that are in line with these. PACT should, furthermore, continue the established practise of reporting against these domains of change.

Due to various administrative problems partners have not always received funds in time.

Care Mozambique should clearly define the steps and the deadlines for PACT partners’ preparation of the plan and budget for the next calendar year and make it available to all partners

NGOs in Mozambique are often not transparent and the degree of accountability in relation to donors (and others) is often low.

Donor harmonisation could contribute to addressing this problem.

CARE should continue to take initiatives to harmonise support to partner organizations with other donors.

Government officials sometimes have quite negative attitudes to civil society. Some see civil society (or a part of it) as acting in a rude confrontational manner and creating anxieties and fear among communities. Civil society is seen as lacking legitimacy because its acts on behalf of organizations in other countries.

CARE should consider what can be done to establish a more constructive interaction between civil society and government. This could be done by promoting non-confrontational advocacy approaches and by facilitating spaces for dialogue between government and civil society.

None of the persons recruited for the provincial advisor position in Nampula functioned as they were supposed to. This is partly due to structural issues.

In the light of the structural problems inherent in the provincial advisor position CARE Mozambique and CARE Denmark should consider how far this position should be maintained.


3

Finding and Conclusion Recommendation

The most important contribution to platforms/ network is technical assistance, the amount of support to platforms/networks will to a high degree depend on how the PACT team within CARE functions. If tasks are effectively delegated the project manager/ national advisor will be able to provide more technical assistance to the platforms and networks.

Due to limited resources the work with the platforms and networks needs to be prioritised.

PACT should keep the balance between support to individual organizations on the one hand and support to platforms and networks on the other.

Within the PACT team tasks should be delegated as much as possible in order to maximise technical assistance to platforms and networks as well as to individual partner organizations.

With a strategic focus on land rights PACT the following order of priority should be given to participations in and support to platforms and networks, where it should be carefully considered how far priority 3) should be part of the programme at all:

1) ASCUT and the Thematic Network on Natural Resources and Agriculture under the Provincial Platform of Civil Society Organizations of Nampula.

2) National Platform for Natural Resources and Extractive Industries. Promotion of annual monitoring of how Government addresses the recommendations resulting from the UPR.

3) National Platform on Climate Change and FOCADE/Technical Group on Natural Resources in Cabo Delgado


4

2 Introduction

2.1 Context The Mozambican government has had a historical preference for promoting large mechanized farms with little regard to the peasants living on the land. In the socialist period after independence government expanded the state farm sector and evicted peasants who were to become workers on the farms. When this failed, government started promoting foreign direct investment in large farms. Over the decades, investors have come and gone, but there are very few large scale farms. Mozambican agriculture remains based on small peasant farmers using hoes.

Government has failed to come to terms with peasants. Government/Ministry of Agriculture has failed to understand the farming systems of the peasants and has through top-down methods consistently provided the wrong kind of support. The Government of Mozambique sees rural poverty as due to a “low rate of growth in agricultural productivity, particularly the food crop component”1 and has consequently defined increase of output and productivity as a first priority. Thus, Government/Ministry of Agriculture has focused on increasing yield per hectare of food crops (mainly of cereals) by promoting ‘modern’ inputs - instead of focusing on increasing farm income.

Ministry of Agriculture has distributed free hybrid maize seeds and fertilizer, which increases yield per hectare. However, maize is a low value crop. Therefore, the use of inputs to increase yields per hectare, do not necessarily increase farm income and farmers have acted quite rationally by not buying fertilizer. The Ministry has invested in irrigation schemes that have decayed after only a few years – mainly because the increase in productivity is insufficient to pay for maintenance - but also because irrigation schemes have been operated top-down without giving ownership to the farmers. The Ministry has tried to promote mechanization by selling tractors at subsidized prices and by running tractor schemes. However, none of these initiatives have been sustainable because they are not economically viable and farmers have consequently voted with their feet against them.

The Ministry of Agriculture would do much better by encouraging farmers to shift to high value crops and to facilitate development of new value chains where farmers can earn a higher income.

In the 1970s and 1980s there was no debate on no public protest related to forceful movements of rural communities. However, with the multiparty system established after 1992, when the General Peace Accord was signed, modern civil society organisations have emerged. Some of these organizations have defended the rights of communities (specifically those

1 PARP 2011 – 2014, page 7


5

related to access to land and water), transparency and good governance of the resources, and minimizing of the impacts on the environment.2

2.2 The PACT Programme The Parcerias e Alianças da sociedade Civil pelo Direito a Terra e aos recursos naturais (PACT) aims at strengthening civil society in Mozambique. PACT is a sub-programme within a broader programme of CARE International in Mozambique (CARE Mozambique) targeting ‘socially, economically and politically excluded food insecure women and their under five children dependent on land and natural resources’. In this report PACT is simply referred to as a programme.

The programme goal is: Legitimate Mozambican civil society organisations and coalitions and platforms are able to effectively promote inclusive pro-poor policies, legislation and implementation relating to land, natural resources and rural livelihood issues and engage with and influence government policies, legislation and implementation at national, provincial and district levels utilizing invited and claimed spaces and, where relevant, regional and international fora and instruments. Where relevant, Mozambican civil society organisations will also be capable of engaging with and influencing private sector entities with investment or production activities that affect land, natural resources and rural livelihood issues.

The programme has a thematic focus on securing the right to land for poor smallholder farming communities and thereby countering the impacts of agricultural investments and extractive industry activities (land grabs). The programme also addresses issues of securing better agricultural extension and livelihoods, climate change, and gender equality and women’s empowerment. PACT is formally a sub-programme within a broader CARE Mozambique women’s empowerment and food and nutrition programme.

The main strategic approach is for CARE to collaborate with strategic partner CSOs that have strong advocacy agendas. The programme also supports CSO networks and platforms at provincial and national levels. The programme document underscores that CARE’s role is largely facilitating and supportive of CSO partners. PACT is intended to support self-generated processes within and amongst civil society organisations where CARE’s role is largely to be a broker of resources, contacts and approaches while ensuring capacity building and oversight.

The Programme is to provide support (financial, technical and other) for partner organizations to engage in own strategic processes that lead to the articulation of clear strategies and plans of implementation of own agendas.

PACT was designed in 2013 and will continue until 2017. It is funded by CARE Denmark’s framework agreement with Danida and implemented

22 Mapping Study of Civil Society Organizations in Mozambique, page 10.


6

through CARE International in Mozambique (CARE Mozambique), involving Mozambican civil society partners and their networks and associations. The programme takes a rights-based approach and focuses on support to advocacy and capacity building of civil society organisations (CSOs).

In Maputo, i.e., at the national level, the programme is working with KUWUKA JDA, a youth organization that addresses extractive industry issues. CARE also supports three different national CSO networks, that is, the national platform on extractive industries, platform on climate change, and the alliance against land grabbing. In the first years of the programme, CARE had a partnership with the National Union of Peasants (UNAC).

In Nampula, CARE has supported the formation of the Provincial Union of Farmers (UPC-N), as a local branch of UNAC. Another partner is the Rural Organizations of Mutual Aid (ORAM), which works with the land rights agenda at the provincial level. The province based AENA, which is oriented towards rural extension, has been replaced by another province-based organization, Akilizetho, which mobilizes local Community Development Councils and supports CBO networking to give voice to community concerns over natural resources and extractive industries. CARE further supports agriculture and natural resources working group of the provincial CSO platform. CARE has also explored opportunities to work with the CSO platform in Cabo Delgado.

The programme document indicated that three professional staff would implement PACT:

• National Advocacy and Civil Society and Advisor • Provincial Advocacy and Civil Society and Advisor • Agriculture and Rural Livelihood Advisor with expertise in advocacy

(shared with other programmes).

Currently the programme is implemented mainly by a programme manager/senior advisor with assistance from an assistant:

• The National Advisor is also the Programme Manager. This person has been the driving force within CARE with little assistance from others.

• The Provincial Advisor position has proved difficult to staff: It was manned all of 2013 by a person who left in the beginning of 2014. Another person manned the position from August 2015 but in January 2015.

• The Agriculture and Rural Livelihood Advisor based in Nampula was originally a 20% position. When the partnership with AENA, which focused on provision of extension to farmers, was brought to an end by the end of 2014, this Advisor got les to do with the programme and the position was reduced to 10%.

• A Programme Assistant based in Maputo has assisted the National Advisor. This position was upgraded from half to full time in 2016.


7

In addition to the above positions, the sub-programme is provided with general financial, administrative and strategic support by CARE Mozambique staff. Additional specialized resources have been acquired on a consultancy basis.

The total budget for 2015-17 was 11.2 million DKK or 3.7 million DKK a year. However, due to historic budget cuts in Danish development assistance the budget for 2016 has been reduced from 3.6 to 3.3 million DKK.


8

3 Methods and approaches The Terms of Reference (refer to Annex 1) for MTR state that the purpose of the mid-term review of the PACT programme is to provide programme stakeholders with an external analysis of programme achievements, strategies and relevance, which can inform planning and decision-making for the second half of the programme period.

The ToR emphasise that the MTR has to strike a balance between accountability and recommendations for forward-looking planning

The approach of the MTR comprises: - Desk review of relevant background and programme documents - Interviews with partners and stakeholders in Mozambique and with

CARE Denmark - Observations in the field - Workshops with strategic partners and CARE staff

The MTR was undertaken by the independent consultant Ole Stage, who was accompanied by Vivaldino Banze, National Advisor and Programme Manager and Teresa Nhambirre, Programme Assistant. This group of three is referred to as the MTR mission. Field work in Mozambique took place from 18th of February to 3rd March 2016. The team’s itinerary is presented in Annex 2; the persons met by the Team are listed in Annex 3.

The consultant would like to express his appreciation to CARE staff, the partner organisations, government officials and others who took time to meet the MTR mission and share advice and information. He would also like to express its appreciation to CARE for excellent support to the team and valuable assistance in arranging meetings and for fruitful discussions throughout the process.


9

4 Findings and analyses

4.1 Performance/results

4.1.1 Performance in relation to the programme goal and relevance of results to stakeholders

On the consultant’s very first working day in Nampula, partners cancelled meetings due to a conference in town. This seemed to bode ill for the MTR. However, the consultant went to the conference venue to take initial contacts to the organizations. The subject of the conference was ProSavana, a mega-programme which would have led to massive displacement of local farming communities if implemented according to the original plan. Civil society had protested and had succeeded to stop the programme. At the conference in Nampula a further step was taken: civil society, government and its international partners as well as other stakeholders agreed on establishing a mechanism for coordination of civil society for developing the Nacala corridor (MCSC) in order to improve communication and coordination between civil society organizations and Ministry of Agriculture and its international partners and to develop a master plan in an inclusive and participatory way benefitting and protecting the rights of the small farmers (Annex 4 contains a more comprehensive account of ProSavana and the conference in Nampula).

The conference demonstrated that PACT in fact is on the way to achieve the programme goal:

Legitimate Mozambican civil society organisations, coalitions and platforms are able to effectively promote inclusive pro-poor policies, legislation and implementation relating to land and natural resources. 3

The conference showed that: - Government recognizes civil society as a legitimate partner with

whom it will negotiate. - Civil society is recognized as a relevant interlocutor for local

communities.4 - Civil society has managed to make benefits for communities and

respect for their rights an explicit objective and has succeeded in establishing a joint mechanism for ensuring these rights established. (Pro-poor policy and implementation).

The Nampula partners supported by PACT (except UPC-N) were actively participating in the conference (the consultant agrees that participation in this conference was far more important than meeting the MTR mission!) and PACT has obviously contributed to the results, which were formalised at the

3 Short version. Full text is in Section 2.3 4 Corresponds to Immediate objective 3 or CARE DK Domain 2


10

conference.5 Furthermore, these achievements are highly relevant to poor farming households including women and girls whose livelihood depends on natural resources (CARE’s impact group) in the Nacala corridor. They are relevant for civil society, which has conquered space. They are also relevant to government and its international partners, who all claim that poverty reduction is their overall aim; they will now be engaged in a dialogue with civil society on how to achieve this aim.

4.1.2 The most effective advocacy strategies

The most effective strategies for a major advocacy campaign seem to include a mixture of approaches. However, first and foremost such advocacy must be based on organizations joined in platforms and networks. The advocacy becomes more effective when networks at different levels (district, provincial and national) are linked. When relevant, international linkages can be decisive. Mobilisation of communities is important for making an advocacy effective, thus the advocacy issue must be easy to understand and address perceived needs of poor community members. Finally, the availability of solid evidence and use of media is an important ingredient.

Interviews with government departments in Nampula and Cabo Delgado underlined that a confrontational approach can backfire and that openness to a dialogue and constructive engagement can give results. A number of issues can probably be sorted out on the basis of non-confrontational dialogue. Thus, in many cases lobby or dialogue is an effective advocacy strategy.

4.1.3 Adding value to partners’ advocacy work at various levels

PACT is first and foremost adding value to partners’ advocacy work via its support to and facilitation of platforms and networks. One of the key element in this support has been facilitation of linkages between different levels: community, district, province and national. Provision of international contacts has not yet been an important aspect, however, such contacts can be decisive, so in future CARE Denmark might also get a role as broker of contacts.

The MTR has found that each network tends to act in isolation and that links between different platforms and networks at national level are weak. The linkage between national platforms and provinces provincial platforms are undertaken by (individual) organizations that are members of both. This approach is not effective and contributes to the weakening of the platforms.

4.1.4 Signs that rights-holder groups are claiming their rights

All partner organizations in Nampula are empowering rural communities by training them in issues like the land law and their right to being consulted 5 PACT has defined a wide range of indicators for each of CARE DK’s three domains of change. (Refer to Section 5.4.3). The consultant has, however, opted to base the assessment of goal fulfilment on the above account of ProSavana because it provides an easier basis for grasping the overall results PACT has contributed to.


11

and to receive compensation in case investors encroach on their land, as well as other relevant laws. The partners assert that due to this training as well as due to the backing they provide when community rights are threatened or encroached upon, more communities are now able to claim their rights. The partners have substantiated this by describing a number of cases where communities have successfully claimed their rights.6

4.1.5 Documentation of lessons learned

Lessons learned, approaches and other aspects are mainly documented in the annual PACT report. In addition, a number of specific papers and study reports have been made on e.g. Mozambique’s agricultural policy, civil society in Cabo Delgado etc. Thus, CARE takes well care of documentation. However, the lessons learned by partners and are not well documented and there are no mechanisms for systematic sharing of such lessons.

4.2 Strategy

4.2.1 Strategic focus

The focus on land rights is highly relevant in the Mozambican context. The main concerns of local communities and especially of peasants relate to land rights. With the discovery of major natural resources as well as other major investment projects (for producing bio-fuels, expanding sugar production etc.) the pressure on land has increased during the past decade. Land rights have a number of closely connected sub-themes that also needs emphasis like:

- Women’s land rights; - The rights of communities to be consulted when investors want to use

their land (for agriculture, mining etc.), to be compensated and resettled if need be, and to get a fair share of the benefits from the investment – rights that are often neglected; and

- Demarcation of land and registration of land rights to strengthen communities’ right of land tenure.

PACT is also dealing with extractive industries, climate change and agricultural livelihood. CARE follows the development of extractive industries in Mozambique. It should continue to do so, as this is an important basis for understanding potential land grabs. This issue is in other words closely linked to land rights.

CARE also takes part in the national climate change network. This requires quite some work. With fewer resources this might be an activity that has to be reduced.

6 The MTR mission has not been able to visit rural areas to substantiate these claims. However, CARE Mozambique adds that many NGOs promote awareness of rights document cases of right violations, however, these organizations do not coordinate their work and the channeling of these issues to authorities at different levels is not effective.


12

Initially PACT supported AENA, which provided extension to farmers – a service delivery not well aligned with PACT’s objectives related to civil society advocacy. The advocacy for better extension for farmers, which was to be undertaken by AENA, was weak or not undertaken at all. CARE therefore decided to terminate the partnership at the end of 2014. The National Advisor in collaboration with Action Aid Mozambique and other CARE Mozambique colleagues has undertaken research on government policy related to agricultural livelihood with the assistance of interns. This has provided useful knowledge; however, it is not an issue, which is easily translated into effective advocacy. CARE cannot rally a forceful alliance of civil society organisations and networks putting pressure on government to use the 10% of its budget for agriculture it has agreed to under the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). Furthermore, it is dubious how far larger budgets allocated to the Ministry of Agriculture and other actors will benefit small farmers (Refer to the fact that government has never come to terms with the peasantry as discussed in the introduction. Refer also to the joint donor programme for the agricultural sector, PROAGRI, which had little effect on small farmers). Therefore, it is suggested that PACT does no more research on agricultural livelihood. PACT should limit itself to support the advocacy of the programmes of CARE Mozambique dealing with livelihood.

Recommendation: PACT should keep focus on land rights. Extractive industries should be seen in relation to land grabs/land rights. Consider the relevance of climate change in the light of fewer resources. Do not undertake more research on agricultural livelihoods – but provide support in terms of training and technical assistance on methodology to other CARE projects undertaking advocacy on agricultural livelihoods.

4.2.2 Assistance to platforms and networks

PACT has emphasized support to platforms and networks. It is in this field, rather than in the support to individual partner organizations, that PACT has been able to make a difference. The platforms and networks are in most cases fragile – more fragile than the individual organizations that often have a series of donors, while networks only have one or two and sometimes none. However, functional platforms and networks are the basis for effective advocacy – without the civil society platforms the results in relation to ProSavana would never have been obtained. The platforms and networks are also important for protecting civil society organizations from being singled out and threatened by government. The platforms and networks are consequently able to voice opinions that a single organization would never dare to express.

It is important to understand that when platforms and networks are working they are also vehicles for capacity building. They are ‘workshops’ where participants have intense discussions of what should be done, where they are learning by doing and learning from a try and error process. They are forums


13

for exchange of ideas. As one network member in Nampula phrased it: ‘This has been a laboratory for ideas. When we campaigned against ProSavana we met here without knowing what to do, but together we managed to develop solutions and develop action plans’.7 Thus, participation in a working network provides opportunities for hands-on learning, which seems to be much more relevant than participating in a theoretical advocacy training course. The PACT team in CARE Mozambique should reflect on how they can support capacity building through networking more systematically. This might be an important lesson learned to be documented.

Finally, the ability to network and the linkages an organisation has, is an important aspect of its capacity. Such capacities are first and foremost acquired through participation in platforms and networks.

The PACT team in CARE Mozambique has considerable expertise in this field and has participated in platforms and networks and has therefore been able to influence as well as to advice platforms and networks on how to organize the work, create linkages as well as how to undertake advocacy. A member of ASCUT, the National Platform against Usurping Land who highly valued CARE’s contribution through participation (no funds have been provided) stated that the dynamics of the platform is due to a very potent contribution from CARE.

One of the weaknesses within the current ‘architecture’ of platforms and networks in Mozambique is the lack of formal links between platforms and networks at different levels. E.g. a decision taken at provincial level is not necessarily communicated to and put on the agenda for the similar network at national level or vice versa. Organizations present at national as well as provincial level (like ORAM or UNAC/UPC) tend to be communicating the issues that are of specific interest to their own agenda from one level to another. Thus, there is a need to define links and communication channels between platforms and networks at different levels. An Alliance of Platforms, which works on coordinating the platforms and undertaking advocacy in relation to national level institutions like the Employers Association (CTA), Parliament and the Council of Minister, is currently addressing this issue. CARE is also putting the issue on the agenda in the platforms and networks in which it participates. First and foremost, platforms/network members must be aware of the problem. The next step will be to define channels of interaction between platforms/networks at different levels. When this has been done successfully in one case other platforms/networks should learn from this.

Recommendation: CARE should continue to facilitate discussion and decision making in relation to establishing well-defined links and

7 Platforms and networks are not always working in this way. Some of them are periodically quite dormant.


14

communication channels between platforms and networks at national, provincial and district levels.

4.2.3 Universal Peer Review

The Government of Mozambique has recently forwarded its second country report on the state of human rights under the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Mozambican CSOs, including some of the partners within PACT, have forwarded a shadow report with a critical assessment of government performance in relation to human rights.8

However, it is not enough to point at human rights violations in a shadow report, which influences the Human Rights Council’s recommendations to government. PACT partners in Maputo agreed that there is a need to follow up on the recommendations to keep public attention on human rights violations.

Recommendation: CARE and its partners should consider through PACT promoting an annual review of the UN Human Rights Council’s recommendations to the Mozambican government. In terms of substance PACT should keep focus on land rights.

4.2.4 Cabo Delgado

Civil society in Cabo Delgado Province is rather weak compared to civil society in Nampula; the provincial civil society forum here, FOCADE, is rather dormant. The American oil and gas company Anadarko has therefore been able to co-opt parts of civil society. A number of civil society organizations have received funds from Anadarko for service delivery in various parts of the province; however, they have to keep away from the district where Anadarko is working, Palma! FOCADE has also asked for and received technical assistance for developing its strategic plan from Anadarko!

The mission met one of FOCADE’s four thematic groups, the Thematic Group for natural resources and environment, who informed that the group no longer meets regularly and has little ‘drive’. It was agreed that a ‘push’ from CARE would be much needed. This would imply advising the group on how to set up a rotational coordination mechanism accommodated by the member organizations instead of establishing a (costly) independent office. Probably a secretary with responsibility for coordination and for preparing meetings will be necessary; CARE could help the group to apply for funds from this from MASC. It would imply assistance in setting up mutual learning mechanisms based on exchange of ideas and dialogue between group members.

8 In fact, two civil society shadow reports were sent to Geneva! The one CARE and its partners produced was the most comprehensive in terms of issues covered and in terms of organisations contributing – and this report was accepted by the Council. Hopefully, Mozambican CSOs will be able to unite in future.


15

Recommendation: The PACT team in CARE should consider how to provide limited technical assistance to FOCADE. This would mainly be based on a few visits from the Civil Society Advisor.

4.2.5 Clarification of the programme logic

The MTR does not propose any change in relation to the overall programme goal and the strategy. However, a minor adjustment meant to make it easier to comprehend what the programme is aimed at and making reporting simpler is suggested.

The three immediate objectives defined for PACT are long and lack clarity:

1) Mozambican civil society organisations and platforms and coalitions targeted by the sub-programme able to articulate and promote clear and legitimate individual as well as collective advocacy agendas on inclusive pro-poor land, natural resources and rural livelihood issues, utilizing invited and claimed spaces and where relevant regional and international fora and instruments.

2) Civil society organisations and platforms targeted at provincial and district levels (with initial focused on Nampula and Cabo Delgado) linked to national civil society organisations and platforms and able to secure the inclusion of relevant issues in national civil society advocacy and carry out advocacy at provincial level.

3) Mozambican national and provincial civil society organisations targeted by the sub-programme able to work with and provide support for empowerment of community-based organisations and local communities to secure their voices and rights in relation to land, natural resources and rural livelihood issues.

CARE Mozambique has therefore used the domains of change defined in CARE Denmark’s strategy for structuring monitoring and reporting on the programme. These domains of change are as follows:

1) CSOs mobilise citizens for action. 2) CSOs are well-governed and representative, legitimate voices of the

impact groups. 3) CSOs are effectively influencing policies and practices.

Recommendation: In order to establish a clearer framework CARE Mozambique and CARE Denmark should agree to replace the three immediate objectives for PACT with the domains of change used by CARE Denmark or domains of change that are in line with these. PACT should, furthermore, continue the established practise of reporting against these domains of change.


16

4.3 Partnerships

4.3.1 Value added by strategic partnerships, ownership and administrative issues

PACT has supported partners at many different levels and in different ways; but despite of this, few partners have emerged as truly long-term strategic partners. The lack of development of true partnership relations is also indicated by the partners’ ownership to PACT: it has been found that although partners do have ownership to PACT, they generally do not see PACT as special in relation to projects from other donors9.

This is partly because support to an individual partner is a relatively ‘traditional’ funding of specific activities (e.g. core funding, which is mentioned in the programme document has not yet been provided). The support is based on a ‘scope of work’ prepared with the partner, but often for activities similar to those financed by other donors. Based on this the partner prepares an operational plan with activities, indicators and a timeframe, which is the basis for a sub-agreement running within the calendar year with CARE Mozambique. The contribution from PACT is normally small compared to that of other donors and CARE is in some cases seen as a rather difficult donor.

On top of this, PACT has experienced administrative problems, where late arrival of funds to some of the partners in Nampula has been the most serious. Late arrival of funds has delayed activities and in a few cases windows of opportunity have been missed. ORAM stated that they would have been able to demarcate community land in Palma District in Cabo Delgado before government decided to deny NGO access to the district if the funds had arrived in time.10 CARE Mozambique has indicated that ORAM itself caused delays by not submitting narrative report in time.

Finally, the lack of transparency and accountability described in the following section, also makes it difficult for CARE to provide core funding.

The workshop in Nampula with PACT partners reached the common understanding that the problems are basically due to three sets of administrative and financial systems not playing smoothly together namely the systems of: CARE Denmark, CARE Mozambique and partners. Problems in relation to just one of the systems can have damaging repercussions. For the time being the budget cuts in Denmark and the ensuing insecurity creates serious problems. However, partners do also create delays by not accounting promptly for funds they have spent or by preparing their plans and budgets

9 CARE Mozambique doubts that all partners share this view.

10 It should be mentioned that these communities are not in Afungi Bay where the Liquefied Natural Gas plant is to be constructed.


17

too late. The planning process for a new calendar year should probably not start later than in October of the year before.

Recommendation: Care Mozambique should clearly define the steps and the deadlines for PACT partners’ preparation of the plan and budget for the next calendar year and make it available to all partners.

4.3.2 Transparency, accountability and reduction of reporting burden

NGOs in Mozambique are often not transparent and the degree of accountability in relation to donors (and others) is often low. With donors left in the dark it becomes easier for the organizations to ‘play around’ with funds from different donors and create a ‘room of manoeuvre’. Some organizations have therefore seen no interest in promoting donor harmonization, which is one of the reasons that Mozambique has no tradition for this.

However, the lack of donor harmonisation has a series of negative consequences: it increases the reporting burden for the organizations, which have to provide a special narrative report for each of the donors; each donor commissions an audit for the specific activities it has financed, while the risk of double financing of activities is not addressed.

CARE has already taken several steps to harmonize with other donors. Thus, donor harmonization in relation to UPC-N seems within reach.

The PACT partners agreed that donors should harmonise reporting and especially that one joint audit is preferable.

Recommendation: CARE should continue to take initiatives to harmonise support to partner organizations with other donors.

4.3.3 CARE’s roles in relation to partners

When asked how they perceive CARE the partners in Nampula provided a wide range of responses:

- UPC-N saw CARE as a companion working for the same goal. - ORAM stated: ‘They need to be more like partners’, and explained

that relations are too much top-down. - Akilizetho was not asked directly because of a lengthy discussion of

administrative problems. They would most likely have described CARE as a bureaucrat.

- The Network for Agriculture and Natural Resources was not asked neither, but they might have said ‘our saviour’ because PACT provided financial support at a critical point time.

Partners in Maputo: - KUWUKA JDA and UNAC both saw CARE as a companion.

KUWUKA JDA added that the many meetings with the CARE at


18

times had been fatiguing but added that much had been learnt from them.

- The National Platform for Climate Change saw CARE as a companion as well as an advisor.

- ASCUT saw CARE as primarily a coach promoting the dynamics of the group.

4.3.4 Results of capacity building

CARE’s principal strength has been in relation to capacity building of platforms and networks, which is dealt with in section 4.2.2. However, notable results have been achieved within this area as well. Two organisations, Akilizetho and UPC-N, have been able to point at special results in terms of capacity building due to the support from CARE. Akilizetho told the MTR mission that they have acquired capacity within the field of advocacy due to the support. UPC-N was simply established based on support from CARE (as well as from Oxfam and Helvetas). The other organisations supported were able to point at incremental strengthening of capacity (ability to contract consultants, improved planning procedures etc.).

The creation of the Provincial Union of Peasants in Nampula (UPC-N) merits a short description: When PACT started, UNAC was only represented in the province by the Provincial Union of Agricultural Cooperatives (UGCAN). Thus, the assistance was focused on organising a Provincial Union. The partnership did not work well in the initial phase. Funds were channelled to UNAC in Maputo, who would then send staff to Nampula to organise a provincial union. This led to delays. At the same time relations between CARE and UNAC in Maputo soured. UNAC has a wide range of donors and CARE is only of marginal importance. As CARE felt that it was not taken seriously, it decided in July 2015 that it would relate directly to the UPC-N.

In 2014 UPC Nampula (UPC-N) was finally constituted when the first Annual General Meeting was held in April, which elected political leaders. At the same time an office with a small secretariat consisting of three professionals was established in Nampula town. UPC-N has 15,000 members across most of the districts of the province, roughly 2% of the peasant households in Nampula province. This constituency gives UPC-N a position that none of the other CSOs in Nampula can match. Thus, the Provincial Governor attended a UPC-N meeting in 2015 and participated actively in the discussion with the members.

4.3.5 Are civil society partners considered legitimate change agents?

The national platforms supported by PACT, which the team met in Maputo have all been recognised by Government in the sense that Government opens spaces for dialogue with them (ASCUT takes part in the mechanism assessing progress made in implementing the CAADP goals), parliamentarians seek their views or Government considers their position papers. There are a


19

number of international agreements that created invited spaces for civil society. In some cases, national laws do also create such space. ProSavana (described in section 4.1.1) is an example of a claimed space where Government now recognizes civil society at the negotiation table. It appears that government has become more open to collaboration with civil society since Nyusi took office as President in January 2016.

It is an important finding that in general it is not individual organizations that are able to occupy these spaces regardless of whether they are claimed or invited. It is platforms and networks with a broad range of members who can credibly represent ‘civil society’ in such spaces.

However, government officials sometimes have quite negative attitudes to civil society. At meetings with government institutions in Cabo Delgado, where civil society is rather weak, the mission found that government has a positive attitude to civil society. Civil Society is first and foremost seen as a partner complementing the work government is undertaken. However, at times some civil society organisations are seen as having a very negative role by instigating local communities against companies and government and by making false accusations in the media. An informal forum for interaction between government and civil society seems to have contributed to the predominantly positive attitude to civil society in Cabo Delgado. Once a month government officials and leading members of civil society organisations meet at (the Swiss NGO) Helveta’s terrace to discuss a specific issue of common interest. These meetings seem to have created a certain common understanding.

In Nampula, where civil society is strong, government institutions met by the mission were very negative in relation to civil society advocay. This is despite of the fact that the MTR mission met the government institutions a few days after the agreement aimed at improving communication and coordination between civil society and government with its partners for developing an inclusive and participatory master plan for developing the Nacala Corridor (MCSC). However, despite of this step forward, the representatives of government institutions in Nampula met by the mission and who were asked about their general attitudes to civil society as such saw civil society (or a part of it) as acting in a rude confrontational manner. At community level such organisations do, according to the government representatives met, create anxieties and fear among communities which are difficult to deal with for government. Civil society was seen as lacking legitimacy because its acts on behalf of organizations in other countries, who want to stop the economic development of Mozambique!

The Mozambican public seems in general to give more credibility to information from civil society organisations than to information from government. Government representatives did (indirectly) recognize this


20

during dialogues with the mission when they underlined that civil society critique in the media can make their work very difficult.

The civil society organisations have two kinds of constituencies: a formal membership who can participate in the annual general meeting and elect the board with the leader; and a ‘real’ constituency of people who support them. The formal membership base that would guarantee democratic governance is in most cases extremely weak. Akilizetho has only 21 members; ORAM has 5 members in Nampula (three of them are associations), which elect an advisory council; UPC-N is an exception as it claims to have 15,000 members. One of the problems is that the current legal framework does not allow a large membership basis for NGOs.

The real constituency of the civil society organizations supported by PACT is comprised of communities and CBOs who support them. The mission has not visited any communities, however, from information provided by PACT partners it appears that communities in the areas where the organizations work recognise and support them because the organizations in turn provide them with valuable services, be it in the form of training on legal matters and advocacy, be it in the form of rural extension. The background for this is that government normally provides comparative services of low quality if at all. Thus, based on the support from PACT it seems that the organisations have been able to strengthen their constituencies.11

Recommendation: CARE should consider what can be done to establish a more constructive interaction between civil society and government. This could be done by promoting non-confrontational advocacy approaches and by facilitating spaces for dialogue between government and civil society.

4.3.6 The relative relevance and performance of the PACT partners

As indicated in the sections above, the individual partners of PACT, ORAM, Akilizetho and KUWUKA JDA have to a large degree developed or expanded their work in the fields, where they were already working. Their organisational capacity building can be described as incremental. UPC-N is an exception; PACT helped it coming into being.

However, it seems that it is the platforms supported by PACT where the most notable successes have been seen. This applies especially to the platform for civil society in Nampula, but the national platforms are also currently gaining space for dialogue with government and others. Occupying this space seems to be decisive for development of a civil society in Mozambique able to engage government as well as the business sector.

11 The MTR has not been able to find clear evidence on whether government, the public and the constituencies of civil society organizations have changed their perceptions of how far civil society organisations are legitimate change agents. However, the agreement on MCSC indicate that government’s perception has become more positive.


21

4.4 Organizational issues

4.4.1 Programme team structure and size

The programme is widely spread with a provincial focus in Nampula Province, where partners work directly at community level, and a focus on national organisations and platforms and networks located in Maputo. The programme management is located in the CARE country office in Maputo while the CARE office in Nampula does provide some support in the financial-administrative area.

Due to this spread the programme document stipulated a Provincial Advocacy and Civil Society Advisor located in Nampula. However, none of the persons recruited for this position functioned as they were supposed to; the first left after one year, the second left after just 6 months. Though the personal qualities of the two persons might have played a role structural issues make the position difficult perform well. The last person recruited was to:

- Assist in managing the programme, while he has been unable to fully understand policies and procedures defined in the programme documentation and therefore did not send the same messages to partners as the team in Maputo.

- Monitor and evaluate; while partners were relatively closed. - Provide capacity building, while partners do not demand his support

in this field.

Recommendation: In the light of the structural problems inherent in the provincial advisor position CARE Mozambique and CARE Denmark should consider how far this position should be maintained.

4.4.2 Outcome mapping

In October 2015 CARE Denmark introduced outcome mapping and CARE Mozambique has followed up with thorough training and coaching of strategic partners in this field. An action plan was developed for all partners and it was agreed that the use of outcome mapping will be part of the scope of work for 2016. Partners say that outcome mapping is very useful and although it is time consuming it can help them to focus on results and reflect on the changes achieved. Thus, evidence on how far outcome mapping improves the M&E of programme partners cannot be gauged from the annual reports for 2015 that are due now. However, it seems that strategic partners need to have more training and follow up in order to be able to reap the full benefit from outcome mapping.

4.4.3 Measurable annual results for programme management, accountability and learning

The annual report for PACT is rather concise and contains a number of results which are appropriate for accountability as well as for learning. Indeed, the report summarises a number of lessons learned. A number of


22

instructive examples or cases are provided in the report. In addition, some of these results are measured with (compulsory) indicators defined by CARE Denmark and some are programme specific and have been defined by CARE Mozambique. Scores for goal fulfilment are attributed to the indicators and average ratings are calculated for each domain of change. Based on that fields that have been problematic and fields that have been especially successful can be identified and development of the indicators can be followed over the years. The introduction of outcome mapping is expected to improve the M&E as well as the reporting.

How far the reporting of results is also useful for management purposes is hard to gauge as it is the programme manager himself who collects the information over the year and therefore knows what the problems are and take appropriate action all along the year.


23

5 Conclusion on how to focus the programme PACT supports two kinds of entities:

- Individual organizations, which receive funding and some technical assistance from the PACT team.

- Platforms and networks, which primarily receive technical assistance from PACT team members participating in the meetings and in most cases receive no funding.

Both kinds of support are important. The platforms and networks would not exist without well-functioning member organizations, while the member organizations would have little or no influence on political and economic decisions without platforms and networks. Thus, PACT needs to balance support to the two kinds of entities. In addition, working with both kinds of entities helps the PACT team to get a holistic understanding of civil society development. Thus, the MTR does not recommend any major change in the balance between support to individual partner organizations on the one hand and platforms and networks on the other.

The MTR does not recommend that any individual partner organization is phased out. On the contrary, each of the four organizations should be allowed to continue to develop their organization and their work according to their own agendas over the remaining programme period.

In relation to the support to platforms and networks the MTR has found that clearer objectives for the work in each of them are needed. CARE should not see itself as a permanent member and supporter of any of the platforms and networks it takes part in. CARE should reflect upon the time perspective and try to conceptualise and define the kind of (sustainable) capacity it will aim at for each of them before it gradually phases gradually out. Thus, realistic exit strategies should also be considered.

As the most important contribution to the network is technical assistance, the amount of support to networks will to a high degree depend on how the PACT team within CARE functions. The project manager/national advisor, who is the key person, has up to now been burdened with too many routine tasks and administrative task. The PACT team is currently being restructured by nomination of a full-time Programme Assistant, by attaching a Junior Programme Assistant, and by placing an intern in Nampula. If tasks are effectively delegated to the assistants in Maputo and the intern in Nampula the project manager/national advisor will be able to provide more technical assistance to the platforms and networks.

However, the work with the platforms and networks needs to be prioritised:

As land right is the strategic focus of PACT, first priority should be given to participation in and support to ASCUT and the Thematic Network on


24

Natural Resources and Agriculture under the Provincial Platform of Civil Society Organizations of Nampula.

Second priority should be given to participation in and support to the National Platform for Natural Resources and Extractive Industries. PACT should be present here because it helps to keep track of land issues caused by establishment and expansion of extractive industries. Similarly, promotion of an annual event for monitoring of how Government addresses the recommendations resulting from the UPR should also primarily be seen as a possibility to follow up on land issues.

Third priority should be given to supporting and participating in the National Platform on Climate Change. This issue is not strongly linked as strongly to land rights as the issues mentioned above. Support to FOCADE/Technical Group on Natural Resources in Cabo Delgado is also third priority. The work of this group is closely related to land rights, but it should be carefully considered how far limited support over a short period will make a real difference.

Recommendations: PACT should keep the balance between support to individual organizations on the one hand and support to platforms and networks on the other.

Within the PACT team tasks should be delegated as much as possible in order to maximise technical assistance to platforms and networks as well as to individual partner organizations.

With a strategic focus on land rights PACT the following order of priority should be given to participations in and support to platforms and networks, where it should be carefully considered how far priority 3) should be part of the programme at all:

4) ASCUT and the Thematic Network on Natural Resources and Agriculture under the Provincial Platform of Civil Society Organizations of Nampula.

5) National Platform for Natural Resources and Extractive Industries. Promotion of annual monitoring of how Government addresses the recommendations resulting from the UPR.

6) National Platform on Climate Change and FOCADE/Technical Group on Natural Resources in Cabo Delgado.


25

Annex 1: Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference for PACT Mid-Term Review February-March 2016

1 Background

The Parcerias e Alianças da sociedade Civil pelo Direito a Terra e aos recursos naturais (PACT) programme is funded by CARE Denmark’s framework agreement with Danida and implemented through CARE International in Mozambique (CARE Mozambique), involving Mozambican civil society partners and their networks and associations. The programme was designed in 2013, following other CARE Denmark programming for framework resources in Mozambique since 2007.12 CARE Mozambique has been active in the country since 1986 in emergency response, agriculture, health, water and sanitation, and early childhood development. Projects have primarily been located in Cabo Delgado, Nampula Provinces, and Inhambane provinces.

The PACT programme was designed on the basis of the CARE Denmark Programme Policy (i.e, before the programme strategy), and the Danida Strategy for Danish Support to Civil Society in Developing Countries (i.e. before the civil society policy). It is generally seen as being in line with also the more recent strategic frameworks. The programme takes a rights-based approach and focuses on support to advocacy and capacity building, including organisational change processes, of civil society organisations (CSOs).

The programme has a thematic focus on securing the right to land for poor smallholder farming communities and thereby countering the impacts of agricultural investments and extractive industry activities (land grabs). The programme also addresses issues of securing better agricultural extension and livelihoods, climate change, and gender equality and women’s empowerment. PACT is formally a sub-programme within a broader CARE Mozambique women’s empowerment and food and nutrition programme.13

The PACT programme development goal is that:

“[l]egitimate Mozambican civil society organisations and coalitions and platforms are able to effectively promote inclusive pro-poor policies, legislation and implementation relating to land, natural resources and rural livelihood issues and engage with and influence government policies, legislation and implementation at national, provincial and district levels utilizing invited and claimed spaces and, where relevant, regional and international fora and instruments. Where relevant, 12 The previous framework intervention was Forestry and Agriculture Programme in Mozambique (FAPIM) between April 2009 and December 2012. FAPIM received rather negative evaluation. The PACT programme was deliberately designed to be very different from FAPIM. 13 Empowering Women and Adolescent Girls to Exercise Their Rights: A Path to Greater Food and Nutrition Security.


26

Mozambican civil society organisations will also be capable of engaging with and influencing private sector entities with investment or production activities that affect land, natural resources and rural livelihood issues.”

The programme has three immediate objectives: 1. Mozambican civil society organisations and platforms and coalitions targeted by the sub-

programme able to articulate and promote clear and legitimate individual as well as collective advocacy agendas on inclusive pro-poor land, natural resources and rural livelihood issues, utilizing invited and claimed spaces and where relevant regional and international fora and instruments.

2. Civil society organisations and platforms targeted at provincial and district levels (with initial focused on Nampula and Cabo Delgado) linked to national civil society organisations and platforms and able to secure the inclusion of relevant issues in national civil society advocacy and carry out advocacy at provincial level.

3. Mozambican national and provincial civil society organisations targeted by the sub-programme able to work with and provide support for empowerment of community-based organisations and local communities to secure their voices and rights in relation to land, natural resources and rural livelihood issues.

The main strategic approach is for CARE to collaborate with strategic partner CSOs that have strong advocacy agendas. The programme also supports CSO networks and platforms at provincial and national levels. The programme document underscores that CARE’s role is largely facilitating and supportive of CSO partners. The PACT sub-programme is intended to support self-generated processes within and amongst civil society organisations where CARE’s role will be largely to be a broker of resources, contacts and approaches while ensuring capacity building and oversight.

CARE has identified a range of partners and works with them on different topics and with different types of support. In Maputo, i.e., at the national level, the programme is working with KUWUKA JDA, a youth organization that addresses extractive industry issues. CARE also supports three different national CSO networks, that is, the national platform on extractive industries, platform on climate change, and the alliance against land grabbing. In the first years of the programme, CARE has a partnership with the National Union of Farmers (UNAC).

In Nampula, CARE supported the formation of the Provincial Union of Farmers (UPC-N), as a local branch of UNAC. Another partner is the Rural Organizations of Mutual Aid (ORAM), which works with the land rights agenda at the provincial level. Akilizetho, a province-based organization, mobilizes local Community Development Councils and supports CBO networking to give voice to community concerns over natural resources and extractive industries. CARE further supports agriculture and natural resources working group of the provincial CSO platform. CARE has also explored opportunities to work with the CSO platform in Cabo Delgado.

The PACT programme was envisaged to run for a five-year period. The expected end of at least the current phase is by the end of December 2017. This means that we are slightly beyond the mid-point of the anticipated five-year programme period, which is a good moment to take stock and review the strategic direction and other aspects of the programme in dialogue between the CSO partners, CARE Mozambique and CARE Denmark.

The first two years of the programme period – 2013 and 2014 – were funded through one-year budget agreements. Initially it was because formulation was still ongoing, while in the second year,


27

there were financial management issues. From the beginning of 2015, a three-year (2015-17) funding agreement was made.

The mid-term review coincides with historic budget cuts in Danish official development assistance, which are also affecting CARE Denmark. All CARE Denmark-supported country programmes have been reduced but at different percentages depending on the country context, past performance track record, and other considerations.

The PACT budget for calendar year 2016 has already been reduced from the expected 3.7 million to about 3.3 million DKK to accommodate the immediate needs to make savings on CARE Denmark framework resources. The gradual rise in 2015 in the dollar exchange rate to the Danish kroner has resulted in a further reduction in the available budget for PACT. Discussions about the budget are still ongoing between CARE Mozambique and CARE Denmark and will be finalized after the mid-term review.

A key outcome of the mid-term review will be to create an informed basis for CARE’s discussions about how to focus and prioritize among intervention areas of the PACT programme in view of fewer resources available.

The perspective for CARE Denmark’s engagement in Mozambique is to maintain the framework programme but also to look for new opportunities for regional activities involving other countries in the Southern Africa sub-region, using Mozambique as a base. CARE Denmark and CARE Mozambique are actively seeking additional funding from the EU. Framework resources are needed to cover the match fund requirements of the EU. To the extent that we are successful in attracting EU funding, there will, therefore, be more pressure on framework funding.

2 Purpose

The overall purpose of the mid-term review of the PACT programme is to provide programme stakeholders with an external analysis of programme achievements, strategies and relevance, which can inform planning and decision-making for the second half of the programme period. The review will need to strike a balance between looking at backwards accountability and providing recommendations for forward-looking planning.

3 Scope

The mid-term review should in particular focus on and provide recommendations on the following issues.

3.1 Performance / results • How has the programme performed in relation to defined targets and results? • How relevant are programme results for the different partners and stakeholders? • To what extent is the programme adding value to partners’ advocacy work at various levels

(community, provincial, national and international)? • Are there signs that rights-holder groups/constituencies are empowered and claiming their

rights? • To what extent has the programme documented its lessons learned, approaches and other

aspects?


28

• Which advocacy strategies employed by the PACT partners and CARE have proven to be the most effective?

3.2 Strategy • Is PACT’s focus on land rights relevant in the context and to stakeholders? Have other

rights issued move to centre stage?

• How could PACT focus thematically in light of reduced resources? Should the program maintain (or recapture) a focus on land and the different subthemes, such as delimitation, resettlement, consultation, women’s land right lands?

• To what extent can PACT, with fewer resources, attend to the secondary themes of agricultural livelihoods and climate change?

• What should be the geographical focus of the programme? Should PACT continue to focus on Nampula (provincial level) and Maputo (national level), and what should be the role of Cabo Delgado, if any?

• Has the programme’s approaches to link the local levels (district and provincial) to the national level been effective? Should links to the national level go through provincial platforms or individual organization?

• Should we continue the support to Universal Periodical Review processes following the preparation of civil society shadow reports for the review in mid-February?

• How may the programme become better aligned with CARE Denmark’s programme strategy, particularly the three domains of change, for easier and more harmonized reporting to Danida?

3.3 Partnerships • What is the value added of strategic partnerships? PACT has supported partners at many

different levels and in different ways. Few partners have emerged as truly long-term strategic partners.

• Related to the above, is the balance between support to platforms and individual partner organisations right? PACT has substantially more support to platforms than other CARE Denmark country programmes.

• Is there the right balance between support to individual partner CSOs and networking in the programme?

• Assess the extent of ownership by PACT partners to programme processes and results. • Have there been improvements in to what extent partners are considered legitimate change

agents in the eyes of the public, the government and the constituencies? • Has capacity building efforts by CARE or others led to any changes in the way the partners

function? Can these be traced back to CAREs support? • What roles are CARE playing in relation to partners (e.g., coach, trainer, controller, etc.)?

Which roles are appreciated by partners? • Has CARE done anything to reduce the reporting burden of partners (e.g., simplified

formats, joint capacity assessments, joint narrative and financial reporting)? • Assess the relative relevance and performance of the PACT partners with a view to future

streamlining of the programme with fewer resources.


29

3.4 Organisational issues • Is the current programme team structure and size appropriate for the work and the

geographical spread of the programme? • To what extent have outcome mapping approaches and tools been used following their

introduction in October 2015? • To what extent have there been measurable annual results for programme management,

accountability and reporting? • How can the monitoring and evaluation functions, including outcome mapping, be further

strengthened?

4 Team and methodology

The mid-term review will be carried out by lead consultant Ole Stage, who also made the initial mapping of potential civil society partners in late 2011. The consultant will be responsible for producing the outputs of the review.

The PACT National Advocacy and CSO Advisor, Vivaldino Banze, will be the primary responsible person at the CARE Mozambique team and will facilitate the mid-term review process. He will be supported by Teresa Nhambirre, Programme Assistant.

CARE Mozambique will set up appointments with all relevant partners and key informants. The consultant may request additional meetings as needed. The consultant decides whether CARE can be present in meetings with external stakeholders. CARE Mozambique and CARE Denmark will coordinate to organise the review logistics.

The consultant will develop the methodology and introduce it verbally in his briefing on arrival. The consultant is expected to employ a mix of methods including, but not limited to:

• Review of background programme and country documentation; • Semi-structured interviews with partner representatives, key informants and stakeholders

both internally and external to CARE; • Written questions to key informants, if needed; • Workshop feedback on initial findings.

The review should strike a balance between accountability for results and learning for adjusting the programme with the emphasis on the the forward-looking aspects.

5 Timeframe

This is a tentative schedule for the mid-term review: Date Activity

17 February Travel to Nampula 18 to 19 February Meetings in Nampula 20 to 21 February Weekend 22 to 23 February Meetings in Nampula continued 24 to 26 February Meetings in Pemba


30

Date Activity 27 to 28 February Weekend, travel to Maputo 29 February to 2 March Meetings in Maputo 3 March Draft MTR report is circulated. The report may not be

complete, but should contain all relevant recommendations for discussion

3 March Debriefing meeting 3 March (afternoon) Departure 18 February to 20 March The consultant is working on other assignments 13 March Deadline for CARE and partner comments on draft

MTR report 21 to 24 March The consultant finalizes the MTR report

The consultancy is estimated at 20 workdays, including preparation, travel, field work, and report writing.

6 Outputs

The lead consultant will produce a draft review report in time for the debriefing meeting to be held in Maputo on 3 March. This report will include all relevant findings, analysis and recommendations for discussion in the debriefing and with CARE management. The draft report need not be complete otherwise.

CARE and partners will give their verbal comments to the draft report in the debriefing meeting on 3 March. The deadline for written comments to the report will be 13 March.

By 24 March, the consultant will submit the final and complete version of the review report. The report should not exceed 20 pages excluding annexes. The suggested format for the report is:

• Executive summary • Introduction • Methods and approaches used in the review • Findings and analysis

o Performance o Strategy o Partnerships o Organisational issues

• Overview of recommendations • Conclusions • Annexes (TOR, people met, documentation reviewed, etc.)

7 Essential documentation

The consultant is expected to familiarize himself with the following programme documentation, which is made available in a Dropbox:

• PACT programme description and budget • PACT programme logframe


31

• Reports of Outcome Mapping workshops, including progress markers • Land and agricultural policy reports produced with PACT support

Other background documents (also in the Dropbox):

• CARE Mozambique programme strategy • CARE Mozambique agricultural strategy • CARE Denmark report to Danida for 2014 • CARE Denmark programme strategy 2014-2017 (provided for Ghana MTR) • EU civil society roadmap for Mozambique • EU civil society mapping


32

Annex 2: Itinerary Date Time Activity Venue

18th February 14:30 Arrival of Ole Stage – MTR Consultant Initial meeting with the CARA Team

CARE office in Nampula

19th February 9:00 Uniâo Provincial de Camponêses (UPC-N) UPC-N office 11:15 Prosavana Conference (as an observer) and

interview with former CARE employee Antonio Lagres

Cobacabana Conf. Center

21st February 13:00 CARE Maputo Restaurant in Bairro Limoeiras

22nd February 8:30 ORAM Nampula ORAM 14:00 Akilizetho Akilizetho 15:00 Platform for civil society in Nampula Akilizetho

23rd February 9:00 Workshop with all partners in Nampula to verify and discuss preliminary findings

Akilizetho

11:30 Provincial Directorate for Mines and Energy and Provincial Directorate for Land

Provincial Direct. for Min & Energy

24th February 11:15 Travel from Nampula to Pemba Airport 25th February 9:00 Meeting with thematic group on natural

resources and environment of FOCADE Helvetas

12:30 Provincial Directorate for Mines and Energy

Provincial Direct. for Min & Energy

26th February 10:00 Provincial Directorate for Land Provincial Direct. for Land

27th February 13:40 Travel from Pemba to Maputo Airport 28th February – Report writing Hotel 29th February 9:00 KUWUKA-JDA KUWUKA-JDA

11:00 UNAC UNAC 15:30 National Platform on Climate Change Livaningo

1st March 9:00 ASCUT Joint office 15:30 Alliance of the platforms WWF office

2nd March 9:00 Workshop with partners in Maputo CARE office 3rd March 9:30 De-briefing with CARE CARE office

15.:40 Departure of consultant Airport


33

Annex 3: Persons Met Rolf Hernø Program Coordinator, CARE Denmark Vivaldino Banze PACT Programme Manager and civil society and

advocacy Advisor Teresa Nhambirre PACT Programme assistant Nic Dexter CARE Regional Coordinator in Nampula Antonio Lagres CARE Provincial Advocacy and Civil Society and

Advisor (from August 2015 to January 2016) Agostino G. Samsone CARE Abu Bakarr Fofam CARE Financial Controller Lilly Smines CARE Intern Francis Ubisse CARE Intern Cathy Riley CARE Head of Programme Department UPC Nampula Justina Wisiarro Vice President for UPC-N Délcio João B. Mbota Coordinator for UPC-N Maia Dionesio Locenda Gestor Financeiro Akilizetho Antonio Muagerene Executive Director Maria Isabel Administrator Rosa Marlene Project manager José Ribeiro Project manager Janeta Mariamo M&E assistant ORAM Marlene Julane Gender coordinator Clausto Caetano Programme officer Minés Miguel M&E officer Aunicio da Silva Communications officer Joaquim da Silva Administrator Calisto Ribeiro Head of provincial branch Ibraimo Jamal Advocacy officer Cardoso dos Santos Sefane Data base operator Network for Agriculture and natural resources António Muagerene Executive secretary António Mutoa Vice President for the platform Maria Isabel Administrator Costa Estevão President of UPC-N Delta Aleixo Lobby and advocacy officer Provincial government in Nampula Olavo Deriasse Provincial directorate for Mines and Energy Celestino Mariano de Sousa Provincial directorate for Mines and Energy Raul Sabonete Viraneque Provincial directorate for Mines and Energy Victor Daniel Lopes Provincial directorate for Land Environment and

Rural Development


34

Thematic group for natural resources and environment Jaime Manuel Utui Advocacy officer AMA Patricio Mkuemba Executive director ASPACADE Renato Uame Delegado, CTV Casimiro Alberto Advisor, Helvetas Sari Teresa Merkonen Coordinator GVC Jorge Sousa Delegado, Kulima Buanamate Asane Journaliste Horizonte Eduardo Capande Advocacy officer, UPC Cabo Delgado Provincial government in Cabo Delgado Claudio Environment technician, Forestry Department Nicolau Oscar Mosés Forestry engineer, Forestry Department Tiago Tadeu Milione Land Department Fernando Inspector, Mines and Energy KUWUKA JDA Gilda Homo Programme officer Tania Mbanze Programme officer Olga Tando Financial controller UNAC Bartolomeu António Programme assistant Eugénio Chilengue Admin and financial officer Luis Mulhanga Executive coordinator National Platform on Climate Change Samuel Mondlane Justica Ambiental Yolanda Mulhuini GDMR Tania Nhantumbo AMOR Manuel João Cardoso Livaningo Elvis Francisco CMA ASCUT (Civil society Alliance against Land Usurpation) Leopoldino Jerónimo KEPA Dakcha Achá Action Aid Isaura Mauelele Joint Karina Dolobo Forum Mulher Edson Mussa Oxfam (attended workshop in Maputo)


35

Annex 4: ProSavana and the soft landing in Nampula ProSavana is a triangular agreement backed by the co-operation agencies of Brazil (ABC) and Japan (Jica), which was reached in 2011 and combines Japan's import market with Brazil's knowhow and Mozambique's land. When first announced, ProSavana was to encompass 35 million hectares of land (= the total area of Germany)! Based on the technology for tropical agriculture developed in Brazil, ProSavana aimed at increasing production in the Nacala corridor, an area that has agricultural potential similar to the Cerrado region – Brazil's savannah.

However, attracting companies focused on large-scale, high-yield production on immense estates would displace the small farmers in the area. Civil society organisations have therefore protested. Based on the provincial platforms and networks in the north as well as at national level they have waged an effective advocacy campaign against ProSavana. They linked up with civil society networks in Japan and Brazil in a triangular conference which asked each of the governments for transparency and for establishing a consultation process. Especially the Japanese civil society organisations proved to be strong allies.

The protests forced the Mozambican government and its partners, Jica and ABC, to reformulate the programme. Small and medium producers are now the main beneficiaries of ProSavana.

At a conference in Nampula 18-19 February 2016 all stakeholders including civil society and Mozambican academia agreed on establishing mechanism for coordination of civil society for developing the Nacala corridor (MCSC) with the initial mandate to improve communication and coordination between civil society organizations and Ministry of Agriculture and its international partners to develop in an inclusive and participatory way a master plan for the development of the Nacala Corridor that benefits and protects the rights of the populations. It was, furthermore, agreed to establishment of Technical Group lead by the (NGO oriented) think tank Observatory of the Rural World (Observatório do Meio Rural) and include academia, research institutions and NGOs, which will review the ProSavana programme document.

The main achievements from this agreement is in the opinion of the MTR that 1) it is an explicit objective and there are mechanisms for ensuring that communities benefit and that their rights are respected; 2) civil society is recognized as an independent identity with whom government will negotiate; and 3) civil society is recognized as an interlocutor for local communities.

UNAC has been part of the alliance against ProSavana. However, it was not represented in the conference. Representatives from UPC-N explained to the review mission that the central organs of UNAC had not yet taken a decision on whether to support the agreement. The review mission heard the Vice President of UPC-N express herself positively in relation to a reformulated programme. At the meeting with UNAC in Maputo the MTR was asked about its assessment of the conference in Nampula. UNAC seems to be considering how far it will join the other civil society organisations.

Documents

PACT Mid-Term Review February-March 2016 - CARE · PACT Mid-Term Review, February-March 2016 ii Table of contents ... Sector wide approach operating from 1998 to 2009 UNAC União