Mozambique has high levels of poverty and is affected by climatic shocks and emergencies. Its northern region is relatively poorer and has been affected by a non-state armed group (NSAG) since 2017, which caused mass displacement and a humanitarian crisis.
Mozambique has five non-contributory social protection programmes to support vulnerable households and individuals in meeting their basic needs. In recent years, some social protection programmes have been adapted to extend their coverage to population groups affected by natural disasters. Although this is laudable progress, it has influenced debates on conflict-sensitive social protection as being about targeting and reaching beneficiaries in areas affected by the NSAG, rather than taking measures to prevent tensions and conflict dynamics arising as the result of social protection interventions, which may occur anywhere in the country and not just the northern region. Only the Child Grant component of the Basic Social Subsidy Programme (PSSB, Programa Subsídio Social Básico) rolled out in NSAG-affected areas has adapted its implementation to conflict-sensitive and security concerns, whereas the design of the World Bank’s Northern Crisis Recovery Project has been informed by a Risk and Resilience Assessment. Social protection programmes do not monitor conflict-sensitive concerns or the effectiveness of conflict-sensitive measures, which hampers learning about best approaches. Expertise on conflict-sensitive approaches is scattered across organisations and not centrally organised in existing social protection-related fora.
This report contains an overview of the main conflict-sensitive concerns for social protection programmes and implementation modalities in Mozambique at the regional, local, and programme levels. Key concerns include issues around: (1) targeting, registration, and payment issues due to errors and delays and/or lack of understanding of eligibility criteria, and dynamics between host and displaced communities; (2) inadequate complaint and grievance mechanisms; (3) limited coordination between implementing actors; (4) insecurity caused by the NSAG; (5) fear and trauma reported by staff and beneficiaries; and (6) potential sexual and gender-based violence dynamics due to mobile payments. Further research on the ground, particularly across the different programmes, will be needed. The report includes a set of recommendations for generating inclusive policy debate on the importance of conflict-sensitive social protection at national scale rather than exclusively in the northern region, in addition to recommendations for strengthening coordination, knowledge management, and human resources and institutional capacities. The Adaptive Social Protection Working Group may have a critical role to play in holding, mobilising, and building expertise on conflict sensitivity across social protection stakeholders.
Authors
