UNISCED

UNIVERSIDADE ABERTA ISCED

Environmental Democracy in Mozambique: its legal congruencies and practical

contradictions

Edite do Ceu Canote Adolfo Boa

Licenciatura em Gestão Ambiental

Cadeira: ENGLISH

Ano de frequência: 1º Ano

Tutor: Messias Uarreno

Maio de 2023
Contents
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................3

2. Environmental Democracy in Mozambique: its legal congruencies and practical

contradictions...................................................................................................................................4

3. Genesis of environmental issues in Mozambique....................................................................5

4. The Environmental Law n° 20/97............................................................................................8

5. Challenges for an Authentic Environmental Democracy in Mozambique.............................13

6. Conclusion..............................................................................................................................17

7. Bibliographic References.......................................................................................................18

2
 1. Introduction

This paper addresses "Environmental Democracy in Mozambique: its legal congruences and
practical contradictions".

The protection of the environment is one of the great challenges that humanity is facing at the
beginning of the twenty-first century. The emergence and complexity of environmental problems
is a kind of heavy inheritance that the new generations receive along with all the technical-
scientific advances achieved by humanity since the industrial revolution. The environment and
the global imperative of economic development.
In recent decades, at the global level, an ever stronger tension between the necessary
protection of the environment and the global imperative of economic development has begun to
be felt dramatically.
In this context, the theme "Environmental Democracy in Mozambique: legal congruences and
practical contradictions" is conceived with the purpose of making a historical and analytical
comparison from international documents of Environmental Law in the light of the local legal
framework and in accordance with the similar issues experienced in the Mozambican context.
It is a bibliographic and documentary research based on the comparative analytical method of
a qualitative nature.
Since Stockholm in 1972, with the presence of a Frelimo delegation, passing through Rio de
Janeiro in 1992, Mozambique was always present in international cimeiras dedicated to the
environment, signing the various protocols and coherently guiding their environmental policies
(Serra 2006).

However, in Mozambique there are still great challenges in the creation of a Democratic Rule of
Environmental Law with a view to sustainable development for all (Serra 2014). The
Government of Mozambique faces major difficulties in the implementation of environmental
policies: government institutions are weakly attached, in terms of human and financial resources
(Serra et al. 2012). The urgency of working for environmental democracy as the result of a
synergy between state and society is perceived.

3
 2. Environmental Democracy in Mozambique: its legal congruencies and practical
contradictions

Mozambique is a country undergoing rapid economic development whose implementation

cannot avoid the issue of environmental sustainability that normally brings with it the demand
for a reformulation of democracy itself. This assumption was expressed in the Brundtland
Report, “Our Common Future”, in the late 1980s. For the realization of future global
environmental sustainability, the Brundtland Report proposed the objective of making
development more participatory and established a close relationship between democracy and
sustainability: the realization of the latter could not be achieved without a reformulation of the
former (UN 1987).
Mozambique is a country undergoing rapid economic development whose implementation
cannot avoid the issue of environmental sustainability that normally brings with it the demand
for a reformulation of democracy itself. This assumption was expressed in the Brundtland
Report, “Our Common Future”, in the late 1980s. For the realization of future global
environmental sustainability, the Brundtland Report proposed the objective of making
development more participatory and established a close relationship between democracy and
sustainability: the realization of the latter could not be achieved without a reformulation of the
former (UN 1987).
Mozambique's water resources are vast and virtually untapped, but represent great potential
for agriculture (irrigation) and for the supply of hydroelectric power. Cahora Bassa, the second
largest dam in Africa, has the capacity to produce 16,000 megawatts (Ollivier et al. 2009).
Mozambique's soil is very rich in minerals. There are large reserves of coal that began to be
exported in 2012. It is estimated that the Moatize mine will produce 22 million tons per year
from 2017. There are also deposits of graphite, bauxite, gold and precious stones. Another
resource of great future economic importance is natural gas. According to the National
Petroleum Institute, Mozambique has more than 2.8 billion cubic meters of gas reserves,
comparable to Iraq's reserves (Hofmann & Souza Martins 2012).
Another valuable natural resource in Mozambique is its rich flora and fauna. With an oceanic
coastline of around 2,770 km in length, archipelagos with coral reefs, vast plateaus, tropical
jungle and plains with elephants, buffaloes, lions and giraffes in a context of intact nature,

4
Mozambique is rightly known as “the Pearl of the Indian Ocean”. Mozambique's biodiversity is
impressive (with more than 5,500 species of plants, 220 mammals, 690 birds), with a large
proportion of endemic species (Hoguane 2007).
According to the 2016 Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI), in Mozambique,
“68.8% of the population lives in rural areas. Approximately 75% of the population practices
subsistence agriculture or fishing”. Therefore, “the livelihood and well-being of a large part of
Mozambicans will continue to depend on their access to land, water resources, forest products,
fisheries, mines, and other natural resources” (BTI 2016:16). Therefore, “the development of
commercial agriculture, key to economic growth and poverty reduction, will highlight the
challenge of inclusive and sustainable management of natural resources” (Ollivier et al. 2009:6).

Despite the country's progressive economic growth over the last two decades, which has mainly
benefited the urban middle class, BTI 2016 reports that “Mozambique continues to be one of the
poorest countries in the world: 55.2% of its population lives in conditions of poverty, on less
than $0.60 a day” (BTI 2016:31)4. The persistence of poverty, “despite the efforts of the
Government and donor countries, points to a structural challenge in the implementation of
policies dedicated to rural areas” (BTI 2016:16) with obvious environmental consequences. This
is just one aspect of the “multifaceted problem of poverty in Mozambique, where 70.2% of the
population is considered multi-dimensionally poor. This is so because even living above the
poverty line, the population suffers deprivation in education and health, among other things”
(BTI 2016:16). Mozambique does not escape the interdependence between development,
environment, education, health and peace that only governance oriented according to the
principles of Environmental Democracy can positively implement.

3. Genesis of environmental issues in Mozambique

During the colonial regime in Mozambique, protection and defense of the environment were
not a priority. Environmentalist Daniel Ribeiro recalls that a Frelimo delegation participated in
the historic Stockholm Conference (1972), demonstrating sensitivity for a sector that was treated
in isolation by the then colonial power (LUSA 2015).

5
 On June 25, 1975, Samora Machel, as President of the Mozambique Liberation Front
(FRELIMO), proclaimed the Independence of Mozambique which, having fought for the
inalienable right to assert itself as an African people, free and independent, accepted the
challenge to structure itself as a rule of law. After independence, continues Ribeiro, “the issue of
the environment took time to be fully on the agenda of the new State” (LUSA 2015). The
political-constitutional system then instituted in the middle of the cold war worldwide was “a
single-party system of restricted ideology, Marxism-Leninism, with an authoritarian,
interventionist and collectivist economic organization, where environmental issues continued to
be relegated to to a secondary plane” (Cunha 1993:63).
The new State emerged in a very complex context at the regional level: the bellicose attempts
of the racist regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa fueled a war with dramatic consequences for
the Mozambican people. Even so, despite the conflict between FRELIMO and RENAMO, the
environmental issue began to enter the Government's agenda from 1984 onwards, when the
Environment Division was created at the National Institute of Physical Planning (INPF).
On October 4, 1992, with the signing of the General Peace Agreement5 between the
Government of FRELIMO and RENAMO, in Rome, peace finally arrived. This happened,
however, in a completely different constitutional scenario, resulting from the Constitution of the
Republic of Mozambique (CRM) approved in 1990. It was a new Constitution both in the formal
and substantive domains, and the foundations of the Republic of Mozambique being a
democratic State, political pluralism, general and free elections and guarantees of citizens'
autonomy and freedom. It was in this context that the environment found express and
unequivocal consecration when it was declared as one of the fundamental rights of Mozambican
citizens (CRM 1990): “Every citizen has the right to live in a balanced environment and the duty
to defend it” (CRM 1990: § 72).
This consecration entails for the State responsibilities and duties to protect and guarantee the
ecological balance, conservation and preservation of the environment (CRM 1990: § 37). The
State itself is the owner of the natural resources located in the soil and subsoil, in inland waters,
in the territorial sea, on the continental shelf and in the exclusive economic zone (CRM 1990:§
35). The State is responsible for carrying out an inventory of these natural resources and
determining the conditions for their use and exploitation, safeguarding national interests (CRM
1990:§ 36).

6
Society as a whole, and citizens in particular, also have a fundamental mission to ensure that the
right to the environment becomes an objective, real and effective right. The CRM, by
establishing fundamental rights, also determines the duties that correspond to them. The right to
live in a balanced environment corresponds to the duty to defend it, working for the environment
itself (CRM 1990: § 72). Economic and social development and the creation of material and
spiritual well-being depend on the harmonization between work and the environment, which
constitutes one of the constitutional foundations of the Republic of Mozambique, thus living up
to the so-called State of Social Justice (CRM 1990 :§§ 6 and 1).

With the creation of the Environment Division at the INPF (1984) and the entry into force of the
CRM in 1990, the environmental issue and the human right to the environment began to interest,
albeit marginally, political reflection. Serra refers that “the advent of a specific environmental
legal framework occurred in Mozambique, […], following its participation in the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development, held in the city of Rio de Janeiro, in 1992” (Serra
et al. 2012:11).

In 1992, by Presidential Decree, the 1984 Division of the Environment gave way to the National
Commission for the Environment (CNA)6 whose priority function was to prepare Mozambique
to participate in the Rio de Janeiro Conference.

Mozambique's adherence to the spirit and conclusions of the Rio 1992 Conference spurred a
significant movement in the legal-environmental domain translated into four fundamental lines,
as summarized by Serra:

1. Approval of a significant set of legislation with direct or indirect importance for the protection
and conservation of the environment, including laws of the Assembly of the Republic,
Government decrees and numerous ministerial diplomas;

2. Creation of specific public bodies in the field of the environment or reinforcement of the
competences of pre-existing bodies in order to integrate an increasingly diversified range of
environmental attributions and competences;

3. Approval of sectoral policies that reflect a growing concern with environmental protection;

7
4. Adherence to international instruments for the protection and conservation of the environment,
namely international conventions and regional protocols (Serra et al. 2012:12).

In practice, having carried out the study of the country's environmental situation from an
economic, social and institutional organizational perspective after the Rio Conference, the
question arose whether the principles relating to environmental protection and management
established in Agenda 21 (UN 1992b) would pass to integrate sectoral policies and respective
implementation strategies.

In 1994, after the first general and free elections on October 4th, the new Government had a
Ministry for the Coordination of Environmental Action (MICOA)7, which emerged in a new
political, socioeconomic and constitutional context as a solution that the Government understood
to be the most adequate to the Mozambican reality and as a result of all the environmental work
carried out from 1984 onwards.

Thus, from the second half of the 1990s, Mozambique came to have a legal framework that, in
Serra's opinion, “can be considered significant, comprehensive, adequate in many aspects and
diversified, focusing on various aspects of the problem. environment” (Serra et al. 2012:13). The
Environment Law (Law No. 20/97, of 1 October) and the 2004 CRM, which includes an
important set of principles and norms aimed at protecting the environment as a fundamental legal
asset, form part of this framework. authentic “Environmental Constitution” (Serra et al.
2012:14).

4. The Environmental Law n° 20/97

The Environmental Law “has as its object the definition of the legal bases for the correct use
and management of the environment and its components, with a view to materializing a system
of sustainable development in the country” (article 2). It is based on the definition of a set of
concepts8 and principles, on the establishment of the basic institutional framework for the
management and protection of the environment, on the prohibition of all activities that cause
environmental degradation beyond the legally defined limits (with emphasis on pollution), in the
enunciation of special norms for the protection of the environment (with a special focus on the
protection of biodiversity), in a set of environmental prevention instruments (environmental

8
licensing, the environmental impact assessment process and the environmental audit) and in the
characterization of the system of infractions , penalties and enforcement.
The first and most important definition enshrined in the Law is that of “Environment” (article
1/2): “the environment in which man and other beings live and interact with each other and with
the environment itself”, and includes: a) the air, light, earth and water; b) ecosystems,
biodiversity and ecological relationships; c) all organic and inorganic matter; d) all socio-cultural
and economic conditions that affect the life of communities.
The scope of the Law covers the set of public or private activities that directly or indirectly
may influence the various elements that make up the environment and whose interaction allows
for its balance, including air, water, soil, subsoil, flora and fauna and all the socioeconomic and
health conditions that affect the communities, and are also usually referred to as natural
resources (article 1/7 and article 3).
Another important concept defined by the Law is that of “activity” (article 1/1): “any action,
by public or private initiative, related to the use or exploitation of environmental components, the
application of technologies or production processes, plans, programmes, legislative or regulatory
acts, which affect or may affect the environment”. The Law establishes that the coordination of
environmental management activities is the responsibility of the National Council for
Sustainable Development (Article 6). This is a consultative body of the Council of Ministers and,
at the same time, a forum for listening to public opinion.
The fundamental principles are defined in article 4: rational use and management of
environmental components; recognition and appreciation of the communities' traditions and
knowledge; precaution; global and integrated view of the environment; citizen participation;
equality; accountability; international cooperation.
Article 9 prohibits polluting and importing waste or hazardous waste into national territory,
except for what is legally permitted. Article 10 prohibits the exercise of activities that threaten
the conservation, reproduction, quality and quantity of biological resources, in particular, against
those that are threatened with extinction.
The prevention of environmental damage is regulated in Chapter V by four important
provisions (Articles 15, 16, 17 and 18) regarding environmental licensing, environmental impact
assessment and the minimum content of the environmental impact study that must include: non-
technical summary of the project ; description of the activity to be carried out; environmental
9
situation of the place where the activity is to be implemented; modifications that the activity
provokes in the different environmental components existing in the place; measures envisaged to
suppress or reduce the negative effects of the activity on the quality of the environment; systems
foreseen for the control and monitoring of the activity.
All activities potentially causing environmental damage that, upon entry into force of the law,
are in operation, are liable to be subject to audit (article 13/1), and the costs arising from the
repair of environmental damage detected by the audit are borne by responsibility of
entrepreneurs (article 18/2).
Chapter VI of the Environmental Law, entitled “Rights and Duties of Citizens” is particularly
important, as it translates into Law the indications contained in Principle 10 of the Rio de Janeiro
Convention which, as already indicated, constitutes the basis for the formation of the idea of a
democratic-environmental governance as the most adequate to the pursuit of the objective of
sustainable development. It should be noted that this Environmental Law clearly enshrines two
of the three constitutive pillars of Environmental Democracy: the right of access to information
and the right of access to justice in environmental matters. As for the right to participate in
decision-making processes, the text of the Law does not seem clear, determined or supportive. It
speaks generically of the necessary participation of communities, but says nothing more about it.
Article 19 establishes the right to information: “everyone has the right of access to
information related to the management of the country's environment, without prejudice to the
rights of third parties legally entitled”.
As for the right of access to justice for the effective exercise of the constitutional right to an
ecologically balanced environment, article 21/1 of the Environmental Law determines that: “Any
citizen who considers that the rights conferred by this Law have been violated, or who considers
that there is a threat of violation thereof, may resort to judicial authorities to obtain the restitution
of their rights or the prevention of their violation”. Paragraph 2 exemplifies and details this right:
“Any person who, as a result of violating the provisions of environmental legislation, suffers
personal injury or property damage, including the loss of crops or profits, may sue the author of
the damage or loss in court. offence, and to demand redress or compensation”. The remaining
two paragraphs (3-4) of Article 21 indicate the legal means of exercising this right.
Considering the weakness or almost total absence of protection by the Environmental Law to the
right to participate in deliberative and decision-making processes in environmental matters, the

10
scope of the right to access to justice is also restricted to the scope of the other rights established
by the same Law, and in the specific cases of certain or possible violation, offense, damages,
threats.
Thus, it is difficult for the interested public, possibly represented by groups or associations, to
resort to justice if they have not been involved, from the outset, in the deliberative and decision-
making processes in environmental matters in situations that concern them. However, it should
be recognized that, theoretically, the right of access to justice established in article 21 of the 1997
Environment Law fully covers and protects the right of access to information related to
environmental management.
On the other hand, citizens have duties in relation to the environment, reporting infringements
and responsible use of resources (articles 23 and 24). In the event of infringement of these rights,
citizens may file administrative embargoes against those who carry out activities that are harmful
to the environment, or even resort to other procedural means that prove appropriate (article 22).
In this context, associations for the defense of the environment are considered to be legal persons
whose object is the protection, conservation and enhancement of environmental components, and
may have an international, regional or local scope (article 1/3).
In chapter VII on liability, infractions and sanctions, emphasis is placed on the obligation of civil
liability insurance for all persons whose activities involve a high risk of environmental
degradation (article 25), and the consecration of the concept of strict liability applicable to those
who cause significant damage to the environment regardless of fault (article 26). In Chapter VIII,
where we talk about environmental inspection, we have another reference to the participation of
local communities, but not so much in the deliberative and decision-making processes as in the
Government's effort to guarantee that they can adequately benefit from the natural resources of
the environment in which they live. Criminal offenses, as well as environmental inspection, are
dependent on specific legislation and future regulations, respectively. The law also provides for
the need to create incentives of a different nature for users of healthy environmental technologies
and processes (article 31).
With the entry into force of this new law, and depending on the values established by it, it
becomes necessary to readjust projects and undertakings so that their activities are adapted to the
light of this new philosophy, whose deadlines must be set by the Government (Article 32), and it

11
is also incumbent upon it to proceed with the respective regulation so that the Environmental
Law becomes effective.
It is, therefore, remarkable that, a year before the Aarhus Convention (at European regional
level), considered as the mother document of Environmental Democracy, the Environmental
Law in Mozambique already received many of the indications that the international community,
since Rio de Janeiro 1992, recognized as human rights and effective instruments for good
environmental governance towards sustainable development. In the Environmental Law,
although perfected in terms of terminology, two of the three pillars of Environmental Democracy
are already codified (access to information and access to justice) and there is already talk in
general of community participation in the protection and management of the environment.
This aspect, together with the constitutional protection of the environmental legal good, was
significantly reinforced in the Fundamental Law, the CRM of 2004, which not only underlined
the fundamental right of every citizen to a balanced environment and the respective duty to
defend it, but also maximized the public interest in protecting the environment (articles 117 and
90/2), creating a general norm predicting the citizen's duties towards the community, including
that of defending the environment (article 45),
enshrined the right of popular action as a guarantee to defend legal interests of a diffuse or
collective nature, including the environment (article 81), and consolidated the principle of
sustainable development as one of the structuring principles (articles 11, 96, 101 and 117) .

It should be added that territorial planning is now enshrined in the CRM of 2004, through
paragraph 2 of article 117, which elevated it to the category of public interest. In order to
guarantee the right to the environment within the framework of sustainable development, the
State must, among other aspects, “promote territorial planning with a view to the correct location
of activities and a balanced socio-economic development”.

The Constitution thus integrates an important set of principles and norms aimed at protecting the
environment as a fundamental legal asset, forming an authentic “Environmental Constitution”
(Serra et alii 2012: 14), consequently attributing to the ordinary legislator the important
responsibility of operationalizing, through the approval of the appropriate legal instruments, the
constitutionally defined bases, making the fundamental right to a balanced environment a reality
to which every citizen of the Republic of Mozambique is entitled.

12
 5. Challenges for an Authentic Environmental Democracy in Mozambique
The path taken, from the genesis and growth of environmental awareness in Mozambique, and
the proposed analysis of the Constitution of the Republic (1990-2004) and the Environmental
Law (1997) can lead to sharing Serra’s conclusion: “Mozambique currently has of a juridical-
legal framework that can be considered up-to-date, significant, comprehensive, adequate in many
aspects and diversified, focusing on various aspects of environmental issues” (Serra et al.
2012:13). However, “the summary analysis of the legal-environmental framework highlights the
need to continue the work of regulating the Environmental Law, despite the enormous efforts
made to date” (Serra et al. 2012:18).
Among the various aspects that deserve attention from the legislator in the scope of this
research, also in the light of the Aarhus Convention, which has become an international mirror in
legislation on environmental matters and in the light of the 2004 CRM, chapter VI of the Law of
Environment. In the first place, in a Democratic State of Environmental Law, it is imperative to
guarantee by law the right of the interested public to participate in the processes of
environmental decisions and deliberations that concern them. It is not a question of mere
information when decisions have already been taken, but of full involvement from the beginning
of the processes, or in other words, participation duly accompanied by exhaustive and
transparent information.
Next, it is important to comply with the regulation of article 22 of the Environmental Law,
which deals with the definition of adequate procedural means for access to environmental justice.
After the approval of the new Constitution of 2004, which provides for the figure of the right of
popular action as an appropriate mechanism for the defense of legal interests of a diffuse or
collective nature, including the environment, it becomes crucial to forecast/define adequate
mechanisms , simpler, more accessible, quicker and more efficient to facilitate citizens' access to
justice whenever interests/values concerning the whole community are at stake.
Carlos Serra regrets that in Mozambique the right of access to justice is, in practice, made
unfeasible by the high economic costs: “In fact, the legal equality of citizens does not rule out
socioeconomic inequality. This situation sometimes gives rise to serious inequality of arms
between the parties, because the Mozambican population still lives below the poverty line, not
having or earning income to support the burden of a lawsuit in courts” (Serra 2014:269). The

13
same Integrated Strategic Plan of Justice II (2009-2014) identifies as one of the main weaknesses
the insufficient free legal and judicial assistance to citizens who do not have adequate economic
means.
According to Carlos Serra, “it is an established fact that Mozambique already has a
remarkable legal framework, constituting a greater challenge for its implementation, however, it
remains true that there are still some important gaps in the Mozambican legal system, translated
into matters/issues on which still prevails a total or partial legislative omission” (Serra et al.
2012:23-24). The biggest weakness, continues Serra, “actually has to do with the degree of
application of this environmental legislation in Mozambique, a general problem. This is the
biggest Achilles heel of environmental governance” (Serra et al. 2012:30).
Reality is very rich in examples of violations of the Law, generating a generalized feeling of
impunity that must be fought. By way of example only, Serra cites some of the most common
violations of the legal framework: the lack of environmental licensing and acting against the
provisions of the environmental license; the illegal exploitation of forestry, faunal, fishing and
mineral resources. With regard to land use legislation, the biggest problem lies in the fact that the
vast majority of district administrations and local authorities have not started drawing up district
land use plans (PDUT) and urban structure plans (PEU) , as determined by the Regulation of the
Territorial Planning Law (Serra et al. 2012:30).
Daniel Ribeiro, responsible for programs at “Justiça Ambiental Moçambique” (a Mozambican
NGO), stated in an interview given to LUSA that “Mozambique is not managing to save the
environment through a democratic and social system”. Carlos Serra, in the same article, added:
“This is an Achilles heel of our State: although it has 75% of beautiful laws, it fails to fully
execute them” (LUSA 2015). Already in 2014 Anabela Lemos, director of “Justiça Ambiental
Moçambique”, said that over a decade of struggle for social and environmental justice, human
rights, conservation and sustainable management of natural resources, she realized that decisions
regarding projects underway in the country had been taken without consultation with the
communities and their implementation had been imposed on civil society.9
Of all African countries, Mozambique is one of the most coveted by companies and foreign
countries in recent years. According to National Bank Reports, Mozambique has occupied in
recent years the third largest destination for FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) in Africa.10
According to the 2015 Report by GRAIN, a non-profit international organization, in recent years

14
Mozambique has sold or delivered for agribusiness projects 535,539 hectares to foreign
companies (Grain 2015). In 2007, around 33 million hectares (40% of the country's cultivable
surface) were identified in Mozambique as valid for the cultivation of biofuels11. In 2009, an
initiative by the World Bank, the G8 New Alliance for Food and Nutrition Security, was
launched to open up Mozambique to large-scale agribusiness projects. A framework agreement
was signed, later transformed into national public policy: the National Investment Plan for the
Agrarian Sector (PNISA), which became the instrument that operationalizes the development of
agriculture in Mozambique (Grain 2015:5).
In all these decisions, local communities, civil society and the interested public did not have
access to transparent information, were not involved in the deliberative processes and, as
Anabela Lemos already underlined, the unhealthy climate in relations between the State and
environmental organizations of Civil Society does not facilitate access to justice: “our
government's frustrating development decisions; the tightening of the siege on civil society
space; the constant threats we face as a result of our positions; the antagonism between some
civil society organizations; the government's stance – which prefers to treat everyone who
questions or disagrees with its decisions as enemies, instead of treating us as partners with
different ideas”.
In his study “Mozambique, 10 years in reflection”, Feijó denounces that the activities
implemented by the State (or with the consent of the State) have obscure interests, do not aim at
the common good or the achievement of sustainable development objectives. The communities
are not consulted and this only creates conflicts, which is why peasants leave the fields and go
looking for jobs in the cities. Feijó points out the negative examples of forced resettlements, the
Pro-Savana project, aggressive deforestation, etc… and concludes: “life can improve if the
promises made are kept” (Feijó 2015:93).
Serra says that in Mozambique the earth screams under the predatory and deadly machine of our
development model and calls for greater responsibility so that there is an inclusive, broadened
and enriched democracy. The need to increase food production is giving rise to constant and
serious demands for dignified resettlements and constant compensation from the affected
population. This is due to the weak integration of civil society in the land use and benefit
consultation and of all the communities that live in the concession areas, forestry, mining that
many times do not even know their rights (Serra et al. 2012).

15
According to CEM, in the Pastoral Letter “To your descendants I will give this land” (Beira, 30
April 2017), what is at stake is “the absence of an integral ecology and a development model that
respects the integration of all , particularly the most fragile” (CEM 2017:6). In particular, CEM
denounces the violation of a whole range of human rights that underlie Environmental
Democracy. This violation falls on the most disadvantaged sections of the population interested
in deliberate and acted decisions at an environmental level, “because they lack information about
their rights; because they lack the ability to make themselves heard; because they lack the
economic power to find alternative solutions; because they ignore their ability to mobilize;
because they lack leadership to make their voices heard; because they lack means of assistance
and protection” (CEM 2017:6).

16
 6. Conclusion

At the level of governance in Mozambique, positive attention and awareness was noted due to
the fact that Mozambique is always present at international summits on the environment, signing
protocols and conventions, and coherently legislating. The problem lies in the effectiveness, in
the will and political determination to enforce the rights of public participation in environmental
matters.

Environmental Democracy is still a project to be realized in Mozambique. The Constitution of

the Republic and the Environmental Law contemplate the right to the environment, but the
transparency and completeness of information, the effective participation of the interested public
and the access to justice that guarantee the realization of this right still lack stable and democratic
implementation. In Mozambique, the improvement of democratic mechanisms of “rights to
access”, combined with social mobilization, environmental education and transparency practices
at all levels in environmental matters still needs reflection, discernment and, above all,
consolidated practices.

For this to happen in Mozambique, a cultural revolution will be necessary, which includes the
abandonment of non-transparent political practices that are not shared with the public, the
acquisition of postures guided by an ethics of responsibility and the acceptance of political
pluralism, the normal interference of civil society. on State issues and the need for critical action
in the construction of a Democratic State of Environmental Law.

17
7. Bibliographic References
 Cunha, F. F. da, 1993, Democracy and Division of Power, a reading of the
Mozambican Constitution, Maputo: Ministry of Justice, Department of Research
and Legislation.
 Ebbesson, J., 2007, 'Public Participation', in D. Bodansky, et alii, The Oxford
Handbook of International Environmental Law, Oxford: University Press, pp.
682-703.
 Feijó, J., 2015, Mozambique, 10 years in reflection, Maputo: Justiça Ambiental
Moçambique.
 Foit, J. et alii, 2008, Voice and Choice: Opening the Door to Environmental
Democracy, Washington: The Access Initiative/World Resources Institute.
Available online www.wri.org/publication/voice-and-choice
 Government of Mozambique, 1990, Constitution of the Republic of Mozambique
(CRM), Maputo: Imprensa Nacional de Moçambique.
 Marguénaud, J. P., 1999, ‘La Convention d’Aarhus et la Convention européenne
des droits de l’homme’, Revue Juridique de l’Environnement, pp. 77-87.
 UN, 1982, World Charter for Nature.
(https://www.dh-cii.eu/0_content/investigation/files_CRDTLA/convencoes_tratad
os_etc/carta_mundial_da_ Natureza_of_28_of_October_of_1982.pdf). 14 May
2023.
 Serra, C. M., 2006, Collection of Conventions and Protocols ratified by the
Republic of Mozambique on environmental matters, Maputo: Center for Legal
and Judiciary Training.
 Serra, C. M., 2014, State, pluralism and natural resources, Lisbon: Escolar. Th
 Serra, C.M. et alii, 2012, The environment in Mozambique. Notes for reflection
on the current situation and challenges for the future, Maputo: Environment-
Cooperation Partners Group.

18