Social Protection in Mozambique:

A new imperative?

By Dr Rachel Waterhouse
&
Gil Lauriciano

Paper presented to the IESE Conference

‘Poverty Dynamics and Patterns of Accumulation in Mozambique ‘
Maputo, 22-23 April 2009

1
Summary

Even before the impact of a global economic crisis kicks in, there is renewed thinking in
Mozambique about a wider role for the state in social protection. Proponents are still
struggling to convince others of the economic and social value of a broader investment
in social protection. This is against the backdrop of institutional resistance borne of
Mozambique’s political and economic history.

The government attitude to social protection has been influenced by colonial experience
of an extractive rather than protective state and the legacy of post-Independence events
and processes. After Independence in 1975, initial social service expansion was heavily
undermined by war-time destruction and economic collapse in the 1980s.

Post war, the Government’s top priorities were to re-establish security and rebuild
infrastructure. However, political and economic liberalisation in the 1990s saw tight caps
on state spending. Poverty was so widespread and deep that there seemed to be little
scope for special consideration of the ‘poorest of the poor’… except for ad hoc initiatives,
such as the food subsidy programme for the poor and unable to work.

In the last 15 years, Mozambique has experienced impressive economic growth and
poverty reduction. Nonetheless Mozambique continues to rank amongst the world’s
poorest countries. Government is becoming more aware of chronic poverty and that
large population groups are currently unable to escape the poverty trap. This raises
debate about what can be done … and promotes renewed thinking on social protection.

There are still many obstacles to a coherent and comprehensive approach to social
protection. These include: analytical limitations around the causes, consequences and
extent of vulnerability as well as the potential social and economic benefits of social
protection; institutional barriers; budgetary limitations; and perceived political risk.

However, there is also a growing acceptance of the relevance and importance of social
protection to reduce vulnerability, build resilience and contribute to poverty reduction.
These issues need to be addressed at policy and practical level, if Mozambique is to
effectively address the growing challenge of chronic poverty.

2
Dr Rachel Waterhouse

Rachel Waterhouse holds a PhD in Sociology (University of Cape Town 2001).

She currently works as an independent consultant on social development and
gender issues.
She has previously taught at the University of Eduardo Mondlane on the Masters
in Rural Development course and also as a tutor to undergraduate sociology
students at the University of Cape Town.

Gil Lauriciano

Gil Lauriciano holds a Masters Degree in Development Anthropology from the

School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. He is
currently a researcher and lectures anthropology at the Higher Institute for
International Relations –ISRI.

He also works as an independent consultant on development, policy analysis,

communication and media.

3
Social Protection Policy in Mozambique: a new imperative?

Rachel Waterhouse & Gil Lauriciano

Introduction
Even before the impact of a global economic crisis kicks in, there is renewed thinking in
Mozambique about a wider role for the state in social protection. Proponents are still
struggling to convince others of the economic and social value of a broader investment
in social protection. This is against the backdrop of institutional resistance borne of
Mozambique’s political and economic history.

Mozambique was united as a nation under Portuguese colonial rule from the turn of the
20th century. The colonial government ran a highly extractive regime providing little in the
way of social welfare or protection. A brief period of Marxist-Leninist policies after
national Independence in 1975 – when the Frelimo government sought to extend basic
social services throughout the country – was soon superseded by economic collapse
and war, followed by a tight reigning back of the state under structural adjustment.

Renewed thinking about a wider state role in providing for the consistent and
comprehensive social protection of its citizens is still emergent and controversial. This
paper gives a brief overview of the political and institutional context in which this debate
is gaining significance.

Historical background

Colonialism, war and emergencies

Perceptions in Mozambique about the role of the state in providing social protection is
influenced by a harsh colonial experience in which the state provided little in the way of
welfare to any of the indigenous people. The Portuguese colonial government ran a
highly extractive regime, not only exploiting the natural resources but human resources
as well; exporting male labour to South Africa and (the then) Rhodesia as well as
conscripting forced labour for foreign owned plantations and other works. Education and
health care, such as they were, were largely provided through the Church.

Despite their policy of ‘assimilation’, whereby certain Africans - principally those who
collaborated with the Portuguese administration - were given privileged access to official
schools and universities, the Portuguese colonial authorities stifled any development of a
Mozambican middle-class. By the time of National independence from Portugal, only a
tiny handful of Mozambicans had higher education qualifications.

Thus, when the Liberation Front of Mozambique (Frelimo) took power at Independence,
one of its key concerns was to build the human capital of the country. Guided by Marxist-
Leninist politics, Frelimo’s aim was to promote rapid growth and development. The state
was to play a leading role through social planning and centralised control of the
economy. Industry would be the motor of development, with the agricultural sector
providing the raw material and necessary labour in its support. Alongside the exodus of
Portuguese officials, technicians and businessmen, Frelimo carried out widespread

4
nationalisation – of everything from large-scale industry to commercial farms and
barber’s shops.

The first years of Independence saw a massive expansion in state provision of social
services, particularly health care and education. Church run schools and health centres
were taken over by the state, many barriers to access were removed and the Ministry of
Health organised large scale, free vaccination campaigns for child immunisation.
Agricultural production was heavily subsidised: state investment, however, went to an
inefficient and soon to prove unsustainable sector of state run agricultural enterprise.

In its attempt to engineer socio-economic planning, the Government created ‘communal

villages’ in many parts of the countryside – with the idea that if people were settled in
one place then service provision such as health and sanitation would be easier.
Resettlement into communal villages, however, soon began to take on a politico-military
significance as well, as insecurity spread in the countryside.

With extremely low human capital within the country to replace the exodus of educated
Portuguese, failed attempts at heavily centralised economic management, and the
hostility of neighbouring countries such as apartheid South Africa and Southern
Rhodesia who supported armed insurgency in Mozambique, the country soon
descended into economic crisis and war.

War and massive population displacements, coupled with natural disaster, in turn,
brought repeated hunger crises throughout the 1980s. Large scale emergency relief
began a pattern of emergency appeal and response that continues to influence the
institutional culture of both Government and donors in Mozambique. Namely, there is a
persistent tendency to respond to extreme transient vulnerability with emergency
measures – whilst long term chronic vulnerability and poverty are under-analysed and
poorly addressed.

Post-war reconstruction and growth

By the time a Peace Accord was signed in October 1992, between Frelimo and the
‘Mozambican National Resistance – Renamo’ opposition, the country seemed like an
archipelago where travel between one urban centre and the next was only possible by
air. A devastating 16 year war had sent some four million people into refuge in
neighbouring countries whilst hundreds of thousands of others were internally displaced.
Roads and bridges had been destroyed, as had over one third of schools and health
centres.

The peace process, resulting in the country’s first ever multi-party democratic elections
in 1994, accompanied a broader process of political and economic liberalisation
including IMF and World Bank guided economic reform. This began in the late 1980s
with a Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), intended to curb rampant inflation and
put the economy back on its feet through a tight restriction on government spending,
privatisation of state enterprise and state owned assets and constricting the role of the
state. By this time, Mozambique was dependent on foreign aid for most of the state
budget as well as emergency relief; a trend that only intensified with the huge demands
of post-war reconstruction.

Post war economic policy in Mozambique focused initially on reconstruction and

increasingly on poverty reduction through growth. The SAP and its focus on economic

5
stabilisation gave way to the national Action Plan for the Reduction of Absolute Poverty -
PARPA (the country’s PRSP) with the first PARPA running from 2001-2005 and the
second PARPA II approved in May 2006 covering the period 2006-2009. The main
policy focus of the PARPA has been and continues to be on promoting economic growth
through market liberalisation, fiscal restraint and improving the environment for the
private sector.

National data suggests that the first PARPA enjoyed considerable success. Comparing
data from the First National Poverty Assessment, collected in 1996-97, with data from
the ‘Second National Poverty Assessment’1 collected in 2002-03 shows an impressive
decline in the national poverty head count. Absolute poverty (the number of people living
on less than US $1.00 / day) fell from 69% of the population to 54% during this period.
Further analysis by the Ministry of Planning notes that income inequality increased, but
only very slightly, suggesting that there was broad-based poverty reduction.

Economic growth looks highly impressive for the same period: from 1996-2002 the
economy grew by a cumulative 62% according to official statistics (MPF 2005a). Note is
rarely made, however, of the fact that these calculations of growth relate to an extremely
low and depleted economic base following the war years. Indeed, Mozambique had still
not regained its pre-war production levels by the time this data was collected.

Much of the ‘spectacular’ economic growth in the decade after the end of the war can be
attributed to post-war recovery. Reconstruction of roads and bridges, rehabilitation and
expansion of telecommunications and electricity networks and recuperation or rebuilding
of the health and education infrastructure gradually wiped out the vestiges of war,
particularly in the rural areas. Increased physical security allowed the resurgence of rural
production and trade.

Despite this success story, there are worrying trends that bode ill for poverty reduction in
the future. Debate around these trends is contributing to fresh thinking on social
protection.

Policy trends and concerns

PARPA policy and outcomes

Despite its impressive growth record, Mozambique is still one of the poorest countries in
the world, ranked 175th out of 179 countries on the UN’s human development index in
20082. Life expectancy at birth is only 42.4 (2006 figures), adult literacy 43.8%, while
GDP per capita (measured by purchasing power parity - PPP) was US$ 739/year for
2006. Over half the population still live in ‘absolute poverty’ and over a third of
households are highly food insecure3.

In other words, absolute poverty is still a critical problem and poverty reduction remains
a formal policy priority for Mozambique.

1
Ministry of Planning and Finance 2004
2
http://hdrstats.undp.org/2008/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_MOZ.html
3
The prevalence of high vulnerability to food insecurity in Mozambique is of 34.8% of
households, where 20.3% are classified as highly vulnerable and 14.5% are classified as
very highly vulnerable (SETSAN 2007)

6
The key policy framework for the Government’s response to poverty and vulnerability is
the Poverty Reduction Strategy, the PARPA. As with its predecessors, the current
PARPA II focuses on poverty reduction through economic growth and liberal market
economics, on fiscal stability and the role of Government in policy formulation and
monitoring.

Nonetheless, PARPA II reflects a more nuanced view of poverty than the first PARPA. In
contrast to the early phase of structural adjustment and retraction of the State, PARPA II
includes important emphasis on the state’s role in basic social service provision. There is
also a more explicit recognition that persistent poverty is intimately linked to deep rooted
causes of vulnerability including: high levels of food insecurity and malnutrition,
increasing numbers of orphans and vulnerable children and of people living with
HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), exposure to recurrent natural disasters and discrimination based on
gender and other factors such as HIV+ status.

In PARPA II, this awareness translates into concern to address the specific needs of
sub-categories of different social groups seen as the most vulnerable to extreme
poverty, within the majority poor population. Issues of ‘cross-cutting’ concern identified in
the PARPA include food and nutritional security, HIV/AIDS and gender inequality.

These developments, however, fall short of a comprehensive vulnerability analysis or a

review of the approach to poverty reduction.

The approach to poverty reduction is a matter of on-going debate. In policy dialogue

between the GoM and the ‘G19’ group of donors supporting PARPA II implementation
through direct budget support, there is concern with the current patterns and distribution
of benefits from economic growth. Some donors argue that, immediately after the war,
poverty was so widespread and extreme there was little opportunity to focus on the
needs of the ‘most vulnerable’ within the vast majority poor population. With a strong
performance in growth and rising incomes, however, there is growing concern with the
huge – but un-quantified – numbers who are increasingly being left behind. .

In a recent analysis of poverty reduction in Mozambique, the World Bank identifies

serious obstacles to continued, broad-based poverty reduction (Fox 2008). Post war
poverty reduction, it argues, was largely driven by agricultural growth on the basis of
improved basic services and expanding area under cultivation. The rural poor have also
increased their income through diversifying agricultural production and diversifying their
income sources through off farm or non-agricultural activities. Men have been far more
able to achieve this than women, whose opportunities are particularly limited by labour
constraints, lack of education and lack of economic resources.

Yet increased agricultural production through expanding the cultivated area, the World
Bank argues, has probably neared its limit in terms of potential to bring about further
sustainable poverty reduction for small scale farmers. The critical constraint for the
future is resolving low productivity.

The study notes that small holder farmers who are unable to diversify their sources of
food and income tend to be the poorest. Vulnerability to droughts and floods can leave
rural households dependent on subsistence crops without food for the present, and this

7
increases their vulnerability for the future as they are forced to draw down on any
remaining assets whilst malnourishment affects health, productivity and education.

Already, the report finds that:

“Evidence is emerging that a sub-set of rural households, usually those in more
remote areas, are becoming trapped in poverty” (13)

Lack of labour and assets make the poorest rural households particularly vulnerable to
internal and external shocks, compounded by geographic isolation. Female headed
households feature strongly within this ‘sub-set’. The study argues that poor rural women
have been least able to either move out of agriculture or diversify away from subsistence
food production. This is leading to an increasing feminisation of rural poverty.
Households with disabled members, a high ratio of dependents and with elder heads of
household are also predominantly amongst the very poorest.

Additional research finds evidence of growing income inequalities in both rural and urban
areas; with particularly sharp inequalities emerging in urban areas, especially Maputo
(Boughton et al 2006; Hanlon 2007; Mlay 2006; Chr Michelsen Institute 2007). Analysis
of rural income data has suggested that from 1996-2002 all income groups experienced
an overall increase in income; but 73% of the increase went to the richest quintile, only
3% to the poorest and only 4% to the second poorest (Boughton et al, 2006, cited in
Hanlon 2007).

Response to vulnerability and chronic poverty

So far the policy response to vulnerability and evidence of chronic poverty has been very
limited, beyond short term measures to address the immediate needs of specific
vulnerable groups. There has been no significant review of the implications for economic
policy.

For instance, the agriculture sector response to food insecurity and chronic poverty in
the rural areas is encompassed within the ‘Food Production Action Plan (Plano de Acção
para a Produção de Alimentos PAPA) approved by the Council of Ministers in 2007. In
response to low production and productivity in agriculture, the PAPA sets ambitious
targets for increased food production over the next three years. This will be supported by
delivery of public services and improving market access, according to the Plan.

However, the PAPA shows no evidence of socio-economic analysis of producers in

Mozambique, 99% of whom are small-scale producers, or the differing constraints that
different farmers face. With its current approach, the PAPA is likely to further increase
inequality by focusing service provision and resources on those better-off farmers who
already enjoy market access.

On the other hand, no comprehensive strategy exists to build the capacity and resilience
of the large proportion of poor and vulnerable rural households and individuals who are
marginalised or lack capacity to benefit from the market.

8
Social Protection Policy
Social protection policy to date has been a marginal addition to, rather than a central
theme of Mozambique’s poverty reduction strategy. This approach relates back to
Mozambique’s history of colonial rule and the Government’s failed attempt after national
Independence to provide free basic services to all Mozambicans. These efforts
collapsed in the midst of war and economic crisis, eventually leading the Government to
make a radical shift from centralised state planning to liberalisation. State subsidies were
removed from food stuffs and agricultural marketing, and user fees were introduced for
services.

Beyond social insurance (pension schemes) for workers, social protection was limited to
emergency response (short term distribution of aid in the face of crisis or famine); and a
gradually growing number of social assistance programmes narrowly targeted at
specific, destitute vulnerable groups. A ‘Food Subsidy Programme’ was introduced to
assist destitute people left with no means of support when food rations were abolished.

A wide array of programmes and projects now exists. A recent review of the framework
for social protection in Mozambique notes “a substantial range of state social protection
provision, although coverage is limited”.

In 2007, the Government of Mozambique approved a new Social Protection Law

outlining a three pillar social security system. The first pillar is basic social protection,
under the direction of the Ministry of Women and Social Action (MMAS), a second pillar
is social insurance under the Ministry of Labour, and a third pillar is constituted by
complementary social protection initiatives undertaken by a variety of stakeholder,
including the private and voluntary sectors.

Social assistance is largely seen as and managed separately from emergency relief and
disaster mitigation.

There is some commitment in PARPA II to expand social protection coverage; through

social insurance on the one hand, and social assistance on the other hand. The
recognition of gender inequality as a cross-cutting issue also suggests a concern with
social equity; although there are no binding measures to ensure that gender equality is
effectively promoted in practice.

The PARPA II allocates additional resources to social protection, principally for building
the institutional capacity of the Ministry of Women and Social Action (MMAS) as the lead
ministry for social assistance. Nonetheless, only 0.6% of total expenditure under the
state budget goes to direct social assistance. Existing commitments fall far short of a
comprehensive social protection policy.

Beyond the PARPA, specific policies and institutional bodies have been created in
response to regional and international rights instruments to which Mozambique is a
signatory. Thus the National Action Plan for Orphans and Vulnerable Children approved
by the Council of Ministers in 2006 responds to commitments under the UN 2001
Declaration and other international instruments on child rights. In 2006 Mozambique
signed the Livingstone Declaration on rights of the elderly and has developed a national
action plan on promoting these rights.

9
Although Mozambique is signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
however, which recognises social protection as a right, it is not treated as such in the
PARPA. At the macro level of Government policy social protection is still viewed as a
privilege.

Institutional arrangements for social protection

The division of institutional responsibilities within the state broadly reflects a linear
approach to addressing vulnerability, through different programmes of assistance to
narrowly defined categories of vulnerable group.

Social security
Social security arrangements (obligatory social protection) have been covered almost
exclusively through two parallel government systems. Pensions, sickness and invalidity
benefits for private formal sector employees are covered by the Ministry of Labour; whilst
the Ministry of Finance administers a similar scheme for civil servants. The Law on
Social Protection passed in 2007 focuses on the regulatory framework for social security
schemes and private pension funds. It pays little attention to other aspects of social
protection. The Ministry for Women and Social Action (MMAS), the Ministry with the
main remit for social assistance, argues that they were scarcely consulted in the
preparation of this law (MMAS Senior Official, personal communication).

Besides social security, formal sector employees are also covered by minimum
standards legislation providing for a minimum wage, maternity and breast-feeding rights
for women and prohibiting discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA).
Formal sector employment, however, accounts for only a little over 5% of the economic
activities of the adult population.

Social assistance
General responsibility for social assistance rests with the recently redefined Ministry of
Women and Social Action (MMAS, created in 2005); formerly the Ministry of Women and
Coordination of Social Action MMCAS (since 1999). MMAS includes the National
Directorate of Social Action (DNAS) as well as the National Directorate of Women
(DNM) which oversees specific social assistance projects aimed at vulnerable women.
DNM also has responsibility for orphans and vulnerable children (OVCs).

DNAS is officially responsible for policy, co-ordination and oversight of social action,
whilst the National Institute of Social Action (INAS) is responsible for policy
implementation and programmes. INAS was set up in 1997, replacing the former Office
for Support to Vulnerable People (GAPVU) within the Ministry of Finance. INAS has
delegations in all the provincial capitals, and in some provinces has 2 delegations.

The division of roles and reporting procedures between MMAS and INAS is complex and
fairly confusing. Both are represented at provincial level, whilst MMAS also has district
level representation though with very limited staffing and resources. INAS delegations
(19 in all) report directly to INAS at central level; but also maintain communications with
the Provincial Directorates for Women and Social Action, responsible for monitoring
implementation of social assistance programmes. INAS depends on MMAS for political
representation, for example to the Council of Ministers. Yet, the largest INAS run

10
programme, the Food Subsidy Programme – PSA (actually a cash transfer) is funded
directly by the Ministry of Finance to INAS and funds do not go through MMAS4.

Apart from the food subsidy, INAS runs a number of other social assistance programmes
(INAS 2006). These are divided into two categories. ‘Social Assistance Programmes’ are
aimed at destitute people unable to work and include the PSA; the Direct Social Support
Programme (PASD) provides material support, generally in the form of basic food needs
and school materials for individuals in need of immediate support, including disabled
people, vulnerable children and disaster victims; and institutional support (e.g.
orphanages).

‘Socio-economic development programmes’ are aimed at the destitute with capacity to

work and include the Social Benefit for Work Programme (BST) providing income
earning opportunities; Income Generation providing cash grants or credit for individual or
household level activities; and the Community Development programme providing grants
for small-scale infrastructure such as health posts or grinding mills.

Besides provisions under MMAS, there is some social assistance provision through
sector ministries and this is managed through separate arrangements specific to each
ministry, particularly Health and Education. In Education the main approach has been to
provide an increasing range of services without charge, such as textbook provision and
removing registration fees. Specific support to OVCs is being piloted. In Health the
approach has focused on universal exemption for specific categories of illness and
population group (e.g. children under 5).

Emergency response to extreme transient vulnerability

Emergency or crisis situations related to climatic factors and events such as floods,
drought or cyclone are dealt with through a separate institutional structure; formerly
through the Department for the Prevention and Fight Against Natural Disasters
(DPCCN); now restructured as the National Institute for Disasters’ Management (INGC).

The INGC is tasked with collating and assessing information on the potential for natural
disaster (e.g. hydrometric information) and the vulnerability risk (e.g. information on the
existing food security situation in disaster-prone areas). It is responsible for co-ordinating
relief efforts, mainly donor-funded inputs such as food and basic goods. The Master Plan
(2005-09) sets out three objectives:
¾ reduce vulnerability to hunger due to drought
¾ reduce loss of life and property due to natural disasters such as floods and
cyclones
¾ minimise suffering caused by natural disaster (INGC n/d).

The INGC sees its role as not only coordinating and implementing the response to
transient vulnerability but also as providing (at least part of) the response to chronic
vulnerability in semi-arid rural areas – most of the south of Mozambique - a role which it
hopes to develop and expand over the next 10 years.

4
See Johnson & Selvester 2006; and Johnson 2006, for further details.

11
Cross-cutting issues
HIV/AIDS, food insecurity and gender equality have been defined as cross-cutting issues
that require a multi-sector response (PARPA II). A number of bodies and forums have
been set up to provide leadership and coordination – with varying degrees of success.

SETSAN, the multi-sector Secretariat for Food Security and Nutrition, has a mandate to
co-ordinate all actors (state and non-state) in actions aimed at ensuring food security.
However, it has limited status and authority. Initially part of the (then) Ministry of
Planning and Finance, SETSAN was later relocated to the Ministry of Agriculture where
it is institutionally subordinate to the National Directorate for Agriculture (DNA): i.e. it is
now a department within a directorate within a Ministry. Until recently, its main function
has been gathering information on vulnerability to food insecurity in disaster affected or
disaster prone districts of the country.

SETSAN includes an information gathering department and a policy department. Each of

these works through a number of technical sub-groups which should also serve as
forums for inter-sector collaboration. To date, the information gathering arm is seen as
more effective than the policy department, generally considered to have limited
influence.

Nonetheless there are some good examples of multi-sector collaboration under

SETSAN, if not exactly co-ordination. Working groups of the SETSAN information
department include the Vulnerability Assessment Group (GAV) and the Group for Early
Warning which provide key data for INGC. They also include the food and nutrition
security and HIV/AIDS working group, SANHA, with representatives from INAS, the
National Council for the Fight Against HIV/AIDS (CNCS), and the Ministry of Health
(MISAU) department dealing with home-based care.

SANHA has overseen development of a ‘Procedures Manual’ to help social protection

programmes and activists to identify vulnerability linked to HIV/AIDS, with
recommendations for areas of activity related to food security and HIV/AIDS and
guidance on providing referral. The Manual was funded by the CNCS and piloted by
INAS; thus presenting a good example of the possibilities for cross-sector collaboration.

The CNCS has a mandate to coordinate the national response to HIV/AIDS, including
prevention, mitigation and care; however many stakeholders see it as having limited
political influence with other government institutions. Meanwhile the division of roles and
responsibilities has been unclear in relation to the Ministry of Health; especially with
increasing emphasis in the national response on access to treatment.

In terms of promoting gender equality, the National Council for the Advancement of
Women (CNAM), chaired by MMAS, has the mandate to coordinate actions across all
sectors.

Despite a wide array of programmes and coordination mechanisms, however, coverage

of social protection initiatives is extremely limited and coordination in many respects
remains weak. Pension schemes only cover workers in formal employment – less than
5% of the total workforce – whilst formal sector employment is, besides, largely male
dominated. Government funded social assistance schemes reach only a fraction of the
people that ought to be eligible according to target group criteria. Institutional

12
arrangements remain fragmented and there is lack of serious dialogue between key
players such as INGC, MMAS and the Ministry of Labour.

A recent SETSAN study finds that in general5, social assistance is not reaching the most
vulnerable population groups, namely people without any regular means of income
(SETSAN 2007).

Potential benefits of social protection – regional experience

Whislt coverage is still weak and coordination limited in Mozambique, social protection is
climbing up the agenda as a key policy instrument, not only here but throughout the
region. There is a growing realisaiton that predictable social transfers (as opposed to ad
hoc emergency aid) can have great benefits in helping to reduce poverty, risk, and
vulnerability.

There is a scattered, but growing portfolio of social protection initiatives that are proving
this point. These includes initiatives to assist the destitute poor and unable to work, as
well as the destitute poor with capacity to work.

In Lesotho, for instance, the Old Age Pension was established in 2005 and provides a
monthly grant. It is fully funded through the national budget. The pension is non-
contributory and began as an entitlement for all citizens over 70 years old. In practice, it
was found that the benefits extend beyond pensioners to other household members. On
the one hand, it reduces dependence of the elderly person. Furthermore, in a context of
high incidence of HIV/AIDS and where many orphans and vulnerable children live with
their grand-parents, the pension has helped elderly carers ensure that children have
access to health care and education. According to a recent study, some 10,000 school
children nationally received some educational support from the pension money (RHVP
2007). Lesotho now plans to reduce the age of beneficiaries to include more people.
Swaziland has also introduced a universal non-contributory old age pension.

Predictable social transfers shift spending power from upper income groups to the poor.
In South Africa, social transfers have reduced the poverty gap by 47 per cent. Data from
the South African Income and Expenditure Survey of 2000 meanwhile indicated that a
full uptake of the state old age pension, disability grant and child support grant would
reduce the Gini coefficient from 63% to 60%.

Predictable social transfers provide a stimulus for economic growth. They allow
households to plan ahead and can save households from drawing down on their key
productive assets when there is a crisis. In Ethiopia, following years of repeated
emergency appeals in response to drought and famine, the Government with the support
of a long term commitment from donors set up the Productive Safety Nets Programme.
This includes a subsidy for poor people to participate in public works. The public works
are planned together with the local community and involve water shed management,
bringing long term benefits to the entire community through improved water
management and soil fertility. This is helping to reduce vulnerability and raise incomes in
the long term.

5
The one exception is the INAS Food Subsidy Programme, reaching 140,000 mainly elderly destitute
people.

13
Obstacles to a comprehensive social protection programme in Mozambique

Despite a growing body of positive regional experience in the development of broad

social protection policies and programmes, this endeavour still faces many challenges in
Mozambique. These include: lack of political will, limited awareness and analysis around
the causes, consequences and extent of vulnerability as well as the potential social and
economic benefits of social protection; institutional barriers; budgetary limitations; and
perceived political risk.

Political resistance
Obstacles to a more coherent and comprehensive approach to social protection in
Mozambique include lack of political will and a commonly held view of senior politicians
and civil servants that the poor should help themselves out of poverty. In part, this
reflects the colonial heritage and the lack of tradition or experience of the state in playing
a social protection role. It also reflects a fear that undeserving people will become
dependent on hand-outs – suggesting limited analysis of the causes of vulnerability in
Mozambique as well as an undifferentiated view of the poor who are and are not able to
work.

There has been particular resistance to cash transfers. In 2007, for instance, MMAS
applied for World Bank funding for a programme to support OVCs. This programme was
initially envisaged as a cash transfer programme; but MMAS later retracted:
“On reflection we realised a cash transfer might not be used for the intended
beneficiaries, eg fathers might drink the money and children might gain bad
habits through access to cash at too early an age” (Chair of the OVCs Working
Group).

Similarly, despite positive evaluations of a one-off cash transfer to flood victims in 2001,
funded by USAID, the INGC argues that “this was a disaster”. According to its Director,
cash transfers were not appropriate as emergency relief because it would confuse
people and they would consume the money on unnecessary goods rather than invest it
wisely.

Analytical limitations
There is no broad analysis of vulnerability in the PARPA (as distinct from poverty) or of
its structural and institutional causes.

Broadly speaking, government stakeholders are not as yet well versed in the economic
arguments for social protection and to some extent this is seen as a luxury that can only
be afforded after investments in ‘development’. This attitude is compounded by the lack
of a comprehensive evidence base on vulnerability and the case for social protection,
government officials’ limited technical knowledge in this area and lack of exposure to
experience from other countries.

Related to this, there is enormous reluctance to institutionalise social protection as a

right: both on economic and political grounds. Within the PARPA model, of poverty
reduction through growth, social protection is not yet seen as making any contribution to
growth. On the contrary it is seen by many as detracting from the opportunities for
growth, particularly regarding social assistance to the destitute and unable to work.

14
The conundrum is further reinforced by tightly capped limits on public services spending
and the civil service wages bill under financial agreements with the IMF; as well as weak
fiscal solvency of the Government. Projections for tax revenue suggest the GoM falls far
short of any mid term possibility to fund essential social services from domestic revenue.
Meanwhile, the continued heavy dependence on foreign aid contributes to wariness
about institutionalising new policies on the back of donor money that may be withdrawn
or discontinued.

Institutional barriers
Institutional arrangements for social protection in Mozambique are “fragmented and
complex” (Selvester & Johnson 2006). There is an ambiguous distribution of
responsibilities between different Ministries and subordinate institutions, whilst
institutional rivalries exist that to some extent seem to inhibit coordination.

In terms of transitory vulnerability provoked by natural disasters, the Government is

taking strides towards a more consistent approach based on disaster preparedness and
longer term mitigation instead of relying solely on emergency aid. The National Institute
for Disasters Management (Instituto Nacional de Gestão das Calamidades - INGC) now
draws up an annual contingency plan. Its five year Master Plan includes commitment to
improved water management and supporting the diversification of income sources in the
semi-arid zones of the south in order to reduce vulnerability to drought and floods. It is
not clear, however, how this strategy is coordinated with the other responsible
government institutions and programmes.

This issue seems to reflect a wider coordination problem, whereby emergency relief,
agricultural policy and social policy interventions tend to run in parallel rather than
complementary ways. The Government’s post-floods reconstruction plan in 2007, for
instance, was drawn up by the INGC but apparently involved little consultation with
MMAS, the CNCS or other relevant actors.

MMAS is the key ministry holding the mandate for social assistance. Despite a wider
Government commitment to build MMAS capacity, it is still a marginal ministry in current
Government plans and budgets.

These institutional problems are compounded by other factors, including a lack of

technical capacity for analysing and using the evidence base for policy making, planning
and advocacy; as well as weak formal mechanisms for co-ordination.

New opportunities

In spite of all the difficulties, several factors suggest that this is a critical time for
promoting a more coherent approach to social protection. There is growing concern with
vulnerability and chronic poverty as a long term brake on poverty reduction. The legal
environment is fairly favourable and there are a growing number of allies within
Government and in partner institutions prepared to invest in a new and broader
approach to social protection.

There is a gradual realisation that further significant poverty reduction will require a more
concerted effort to address extreme vulnerability; and that social protection could play a

15
key role in that. There is also emerging awareness that social protection has economic
as well as social and stability benefits.

Through the PARPA mechanisms (working groups and the Joint Review process) GoM
and its partners are reflecting on the need to address vulnerability. The Poverty Analysis
and Monitoring (PAMs) group in particular has sought to pull together a more
comprehensive analysis of existing poverty and vulnerability studies covering
Mozambique, as the basis for appropriate policy and programme responses.

The Ministry of Planning and Development has carried out preliminary modelling work on
the likely economic costs and benefits of expanding social protection. The International
Labour Organisation (ILO) is supporting MPD and MMAS for economic modelling of
social protection programmes.

The legal environment in theory is supportive of social protection. Mozambique is

signatory to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights which recognises social
protection as a right, and is signatory to a number of other international agreements that
further enshrine this right for specific groups, including declarations on child rights, the
rights of the elderly and gender equality.

An informal working group on Social Protection, including MMAS, INAS and a number of
lead donors, is acting as a forum for debate on the way forward.

Most significantly, MMAS has initiated the development of a Basic Social Protection
Strategy for Mozambique. This offers a critical opportunity to develop and build
consensus around a wider vision for social protection.

In operational terms, there is strong potential for increased donor support – both on the
technical as well as financial side. For instance, In partnership with INAS, the
international NGO HelpAge is helping to expand the existing food subsidy programme in
two pilot districts. One of the aims is to test a new model for reaching isolated
beneficiaries at minimal cost (through community based mechanisms); another is to test
potential for reaching OVCs as indirect beneficiaries. Donors are conscious, however, of
Government reluctance to receive short term funding for long term social protection
commitments. The British Government through its Department for International
Development (DFID) recently entered a 10 year agreement to support INAS plans for
scaling up the food subsidy programme.

Decentralisation is another factor to be counted. The on-going process of

decentralisation in Mozambique presents excellent opportunities to manage appropriate
social protection programmes at local level. It opens the possibility of including social
protection measures in district development plans. The existing ‘Local Investment
Budget’ aimed at funding initiative to support food security and employment also
provides a model for funding social protection programmes, that contribute to the same
ends.

Conclusions
In the context of slowing economic growth and evidence that poverty reduction is also
slowing or may be reversed, the Government of Mozambique is becoming more aware
of chronic poverty and that large groups of the population are unable to escape the

16
poverty trap. This is raising increased debate around what can be done and promotes
renewed thinking on social protection.

There are a number of important initiatives. The new Social Protection Law focuses
heavily on social insurance under responsibility of the Ministry of Labour and has much
less to say about basic social protection. However, INAS is already well advanced with
the development of an institutional strategy for social protection.

At another level, MMAS is now developing a national strategy on basic social protection.
This provides an excellent opportunity to get broad consensus on a wider vision for
social protection that aims at more than just a palliative for the poorest of the poor but
aims at long term support to reducing vulnerability and is also an integral part of the
Government’s poverty reduction strategy.

Many obstacles remain. These include analytical limitations around the causes,
consequences and extent of vulnerability as well as the potential benefits of social
protection; institutional barriers; budgetary limitations; and perceived political risk.

Yet these issues need to be addressed if Mozambique is to develop a coherent strategy

for social protection, to reduce vulnerability, build resilience and effectively address the
growing challenge of chronic poverty.

References
• Blin, Sarah 2007: ‘Social protection and its relevance for local governance: a working
paper’, CARE Mozambique
• Boughton, Duncan et al 2006: ‘Changes in rural household income in Mozambique
1996-2002’, Ministry of Agriculture and Michigan State University
• Chr Michelesen Institute 2007: ‘Social Relations of Urban Poverty in Maputo’
• Fox, Louise et al 2008: ‘Beating the Odds: Sustaining Inclusion in Mozambique’s
Growing Economy’, The World Bank, Washington DC
• Government of Mozambique (GoM) 2006: ‘Plano de Acção para a Redução da
Pobreza Absoluta – PARPA II, 2006 – 2009’, final version approved by the Council of
Ministers, 02/05/06
• Jonhson, Karen & Selvester, Kerry 2006: “A Strategic Review of the Framework for
Social Protection in Mozambique” Report commissioned by DFID – Mozambique
• Government of Mozambique (GoM) 2006: ‘Plano de Acção para a Redução da
Pobreza Absoluta – PARPA II, 2006 – 2009’, final version approved by the Council of
Ministers, 02/05/06
• GoM 2006(a): Plano Nacional De Acção Para A Pessoa Idosa (2005 – 2010)
• Ministry of Planning and Finance 2005: ‘Has Economic Growth in Mozambique been
Pro-Poor?’ James, Robert; Arndt Channing & Simler, Kenneth, Ministry of Planning
and Finance, Mozambique; Purdue University & International Food Policy Research
Institute
• Ministry of Planning and Finance 2005(a): ‘Determinantes da Pobreza em
Moçambique’, Bruing Maximiano, Arndt Channing & Simler, Kenneth, Ministry of
Planning and Finance, Mozambique

17
• Ministry of Planning and Finance 2004: ‘Pobreza e bem-estar em Moçambique:
Segunda Avaliação Nacional’, MPF, IFPRI, University of Purdue
• Hanlon, Joseph 2007: ‘Is Poverty Decreasing in Mozambique?’; paper presented to
the inaugural conference of IESE, Maputo 2007
• PARPA Joint Review 2007: HIV/AIDS Technical Working Group Aide Memoire
• Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme (RHVP) 2007: ‘Social Transfers’
• Vaux, Tony; Mavela Amandio; Pereira, Joao; Stuttle, Jennifer 2006: ‘Strategic
Conflict Assessment: Mozambique’, DFID Mozambique

18