Legal empowerment for local resource control

66
central state to local governments – although evidence suggests that little
practical use has been made of it. Also crucial is the extent to which local
governments depend on the central state for access to financial resources.
Reform to strengthen the nature and broaden the content of the resource
rights vested with local resource users can increase local resource control.
Where recognition of ownership is not an option, this can be done through
reducing the number and scope of conditions attached to the legal protection
of use rights, such as productive use requirements; through the application of
safeguards for expropriation (compensation, non-discrimination, public
purpose and due process) to the taking of use rights; and through reducing
central state control over local government decision-making.
Land rights and rights over valuable resources
Even where stronger and/or broader land rights are vested with local
groups, their practical implications may depend on the extent to which they
entail greater control over valuable resources (timber, minerals) located
above or below the land. As discussed above (chapter 2.2.2), this is rarely
the case. However, in some countries, greater protection of land rights has
been accompanied by devolution of (some degree of) control over other
resources.
In Mozambique, for instance, a substantial portion of Mozambique’s land
area is covered by forests (78% according to Sitoe et al, 2003), and timber
often constitutes the most valuable resource on the land. As a result, the
livelihood implications of vesting land rights with “local communities” are
affected by the interface between land legislation and forestry legislation
(Forest and Wildlife Act 1999 and its Regulations). Forest legislation does
accord some degree of protection to local tree rights. But it is more cautious
than the Land Act in the scope of the rights it vests with “local communities”.
In part, the Forest and Wildlife Act reinforces the provisions of the Land Act,
as it follows the same definition of “local community” (article 1(5)) and as it
requires landholding communities to be consulted before forest concessions
are issued (article 17(2)). In other words, local users and outsiders are
expected to negotiate terms and conditions under which local users may
benefit from the outside investment. In addition, local communities are to
benefit from 20% of the forest tax revenue flowing from timber exploitation
in their land. This reinforces the resource use rights of local communities,