Paper short abstract:

This paper provides an illustration of the way in which impact assessment instruments create a bias that marginalises alternate, local, and indigenous ways of knowing and allow extractive projects to be undertaken uncritically in support of Mozambique’s dominant neoliberal development agenda.

Paper long abstract:

This paper takes a political ecology approach to show how a dominant and depoliticised framing of 'development' contributes to the involuntary relocation of communities in Northern Mozambique. Africa's potentially largest natural gas discoveries in the Rovuma Basin present a unique opportunity for economic growth and reduction of aid dependency for Mozambique.

Based on a document analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Rovuma Basin Liquefied Gas project, I discuss the challenges arising from implementing international impact assessment methodologies to the local cultural, ontological, and developmental context. By presenting a particular framing of underdevelopment and development, the impact assessment creates a bias where local communities are portrayed as 'underdeveloped' while the project offers them 'development'.

Scholars suggest that impact assessment methodologies and quantitative indicators grounded on a positivist epistemology tend to favour the interests of developers and the state. Quantification shifts the focus to more easily measurable objectives, such as economic and employment growth, but fails to engage with the complexities of social issues, such as wellbeing, vulnerability, and subjective and cultural meanings.

This paper provides an illustration of the way in which a dominating notion of 'development' as an excessively technical paradigm marginalises alternate, local, and indigenous ways of knowing and allows extractive projects to be undertaken uncritically in support of Mozambique's dominant neoliberal development agenda.