Case study selection

This research has followed a comparative most-similar approach (method of difference), using cases in which most variables are constant (Lijphart, 1971) but which diverge in historical and geographical contexts. The intention is thus to understand how these contextual factors influence the perceptions of fairness held by local actors towards the agricultural investments in each site. It can be considered a multiple-case study, able to contribute to theory improvement (Bryman, 2012). I selected the cases following a purposive approach: on one hand, I have sought to select areas that would allow me to answer my research questions; on the other hand, I made this particular selection to ensure some variation in the outcomes, as Rihoux and Lobe (2009) recommend. The aim here is to gain a deeper understanding of how social dynamics can shape the justice outcomes of a land deal, in each local context. This comparison may “suggest concepts that are relevant to an emerging theory”. In such a multiple case-study approach, “the researcher will be in a position to examine the operation of generative causal mechanisms”

(Bryman, 2012, p. 74), in this case in similar contexts.

Before starting the fieldwork, I relied mostly on media reports, as well as reports and databases compiled by NGOs such as Grain and Land Matrix, to gain a

11 Computer Assisted Qualitative Data AnalysiS.

71 sense of the existing concessions in the country. However, the first trip in June 2014, as well as the first stage of the main fieldwork (November 2014 to January 2015) allowed to triangulate this information with testimonies of key informants, field visits and data directly provided by the Mozambican government (at national and district level), further refining my sample of cases.

I have come to realise some discrepancies between the accounts from NGOs and the reality in the field, starting with the number and extension of concessio ns.

In truth, in terms of the scale of these deals, the reality was often more modest than stated. In addition, it was difficult to find enough information on deals that reportedly involved exceptionally vast areas, in the order of tens of thousands of hectares. These discrepancies may reflect the abandonment of some investment proposals, which have not gone beyond the probationary period. This occurred in particular with biofuels projects. Other factor that might help to explain discrepancies is that projects go through different stages, from initial proposal to operation, often not clearly reflected on existent databases. For the above-mentioned reasons, I had to adjust my preliminary selection of cases during the first stage of fieldwork.

The case studies for this research were selected through a purposive method, taking into consideration the relevance of each of them to answer the research questions (Bryman, 2012). Following the first visit to Northern Mozambique in June 2014, I selected three preliminary research sites – in the districts of Chiúre (Cabo Delgado province), Sanga (Niassa) and Malema (Nampula). During the fieldwork, as logistic difficulties arose, I agreed with the supervisors to narrow down to two cases (Malema and Ocúa), in order to spend enough time at each one and achieve a more detailed data collection. Both cases are representative of recent land use and tenure changes in Mozambique.

The selection observed a specific set of criteria:

 concession above 1,000 hectares and with 30+ years of duration;

 some years lapsed since the approval of the project;

 nature of the investment (food crops, direct plantation);

72

 geographical location in most attractive investment areas (special development plans, development “corridors”);

 resettlement of land users (houses and farm plots).

In each site, the research involved interviews at the provincial, district and local levels (administrative post and village). Although I visited several villages in each district – Namele, Nholo, Nataleia and Mutuali, in Malema; Mahurunga and Samora Machel, in Ocúa, Chiúre – the main field research is centred in the villages most directly affected by the land deals under study. These are Namele (Malema district) and Mahurunga (Chiúre district). For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to the research sites, throughout the thesis, by the names of the administrative posts, Malema (Malema-Sede) and Ocúa. These are also the units with the most detailed statistics available, at the local level, from the Population Census (sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2).

In terms of geographical location, both cases are situated within or in the proximity of the “Nacala Corridor”, the area that has been receiving the most attention and investment in agriculture in Northern Mozambique. For each of these areas the government is preparing a vast rural development program, including multiple land concessions to agribusiness investors. Both areas are located near important road or rail infrastructures and rivers, and therefore are representative of the reality in the field: that most investors converge to densely populated areas, within reach of infrastructures, transportation and good water sources, therefore increasing competition for arable land where it is already high. This contradicts widespread assumptions about agricultural investments – that investors contribute to develop marginal rural lands – which empirical research on land deals has been generally dismantling (Cotula, 2012a; Hall et al., 2015; Hanlon, 2011). Both of the research sites in this thesis have been attracting interest from multiple investors, but the cases selected were the most advanced at the time of the fieldwork.

Amongst the variety of land investments currently in place – with areas that range from less than 1,000 ha to more than 10,000 ha and encompassing different sectors and objectives – I selected cases in which land was attributed through direct negotiation with the local communities and the projects had already been under

73 operation for some years. Both concessions surpass the 1,000 hectares and were granted for 50 years. In terms of land tenure, in both cases there is an overlap between customary and legal systems – as elsewhere across Mozambique and most Sub-Saharan Africa (Otto & Hoekema, 2012). Although there has been significant progress in the delimitation of community lands throughout the country, this mostly depends on the initiative of NGOs (e.g. ORAM, Kulima) and external support for the costs. None of the areas selected for this research had been delimited as

“community land” at the time of the fieldwork, except for Nholo village in Malema.

Malema and Chiúre districts, as well as the administrative posts and villages included in this research, are located on the map included in section 4.5 in the next chapter. Table 1 summarises the characteristics of the cases.

As for the nature of the investment, the concessions in place consist of commercial direct plantations (sugarcane and soybeans). Both required eviction of the then land users and resettlement of residents as well, although in a smaller proportion. Whereas the second case (Ocúa, Chiúre) started as a biofuels plantation and later converted to sugar production – reflecting changes in the global energy markets – in the first case (Malema) the investor applied for cotton production and later converted most of the area to soya.

Although these cases share the characteristics outlined above, they are located in different provinces across the Northern part of the country and vary in their social, historical, and geographical context. They were affected differently by the colonial organisation of labour (colonial plantations, forced labour,

“Companies”), and later, after independence, by processes of nationalisation, creating villages, and civil war. In terms of their cultural context, though, in both the research sites the Macua are the dominant ethnic group. This means most of the research participants, at the local level, share the same language, although with slight variations. This had obvious practical advantages for the fieldwork, besides conferring some homogeneity and a greater consistence to my empirical analysis.

74 Table 1 - Common features and differences between the case studies

Malema-Sede Ocúa

2,389 hectares (2012) 1,000 hectares (2008)

Food production – soya beans

Area partially used by the investor, delays Area partially used by the investor, delays Ethnicity of local population – majority people only lost access to plots; 12

families resettled

Full resettlement process, 277 people with land use rights, eligible for

compensation

The most important difference between the two cases is their experience with large-scale farm estates since independence. Whilst in Malema the farm estate had different “owners” since the end of the colonial period in the 1970s – State plantation, then Portuguese corporate investment, currently new concession

12 Emakhuwa in some sources. I have opted to use the Portuguese spelling in the thesis, as it is the most common in Mozambique.

75 involving the same investor -, in Ocúa there is no continuous history of ownership from “outsiders”. Here, the last “owner” of the concession area backs to the colonial period, and some of the resettled residents had been living there for 40 years. This difference is key to understanding the implications of historical memory, past experiences and stories to current legitimacy perceptions (recognition dynamics), and hence to answering the research questions.

76

3.2. Research methods