Development at What Cost? The Mphanda Nkuwa Dam and the Fight for Human Rights in Mozambique

Author: Alexandra Hever, MA

September 24, 2025

Introduction

First proposed over two decades ago, the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam is a planned major hydroelectric project to be constructed on the Zambezi River in Mozambique. After years of stagnation, the project regained momentum after the approval of a development loan by the International Development Association of the World Bank Group, whose support paved the way for the Mozambican government’s appointment in 2023 of a consortium led by Électricité de France (EDF), along with TotalEnergies and the Sumitomo Corporation, to take charge of financing, construction and operations, bringing the project significantly closer to realisation.

Though praised as a source of sustainable, reliable, and affordable energy that will boost economic growth, the project has sparked widespread concern over environmental damage, human rights violations, and lack of community consultation. Situated just 60 km downstream from the Cahora Bassa Dam—a colonial-era project with a legacy of harmful social, economic and environmental impacts—the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam raises concerns of repeating a colonial history where local communities bear the costs while receiving minimal benefits. 

Despite these concerns, and with a projected budget of approximately $5 billion, construction of the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam is expected to begin by 2030.

Environmental Risks

The planned construction of the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam raises serious environmental concerns that have not been properly addressed in the project’s current impact assessments. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for Mphanda Nkuwa was last conducted in 2011 and has been criticised for failing to adequately assess the cumulative impacts of multiple dams on the Zambezi, especially in relation to the upstream Cahora Bassa Dam. 

The Cahora Bassa Dam [Image source: South African History Online]

Justiça Ambiental (JA!), a Mozambican environmental justice group that advocates for community rights and environmental protection, have highlighted how the dam's alteration of river flows could severely disrupt the ecosystems of the Zambezi Delta.  One of the most concerning consequences is the likely decline in shrimp populations, as witnessed following the construction of Cahora Bassa, which altered natural flood patterns essential for maintaining aquatic life. These impacts directly implicate the right to a healthy environment, which was recognised as a human right by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in July 2022 and specifically includes the right to “healthy biodiversity and ecosystems.” Environmental protection is also enshrined under Article 90 of the Constitution of Mozambique, which not only guarantees the “right to live in a balanced environment” but also “the duty to defend it.” 

This environmental degradation undermines not only biodiversity but also human rights essential for the dignity and survival of affected populations. Article 25.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees everyone the right to “a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and their families, including food, clothing, and housing.” Yet with the estimated economic loss from reduced shrimp harvests linked to Mphanda Nkuwa projected at $10 million per year, this right is endangered for the fishing communities who depend on the river for food security and income. 

Moreover, mega dam projects like Mphanda Nkuwa have been shown to cause sediment trapping, a process which drives a reduction in the growth of mangroves—tropical shrubs that act as key coastal defense mechanisms. As such, this mangrove reduction in turn accelerates coastal erosion, compounding environmental degradation and further infringing on the right to a healthy ecosystem. 

Climate Risks

In addition to its environmental implications, the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam presents substantial climate-related risks. Dams like Mphanda Nkuwa are both contributors to, and adversely affected by, climate change. While often classified as clean energy, research shows that large hydropower reservoirs contribute approximately one billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, primarily due to the decomposition of organic material at the bottom of reservoirs, which emits significant amounts of potent methane gas in the process. These emissions from dams currently contribute to 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions globally, challenging the depiction of the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam as a green development project. Framing such infrastructure as climate-friendly, despite its contributions to climate change and ecological harm, not only contradicts environmental justice principles but also compromises the ability of present and future generations to enjoy a safe and habitable planet.

At the same time, hydrodams are highly vulnerable to the changing climate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified the Zambezi River Basin as experiencing the “worst” projected climate impacts among Africa’s 11 major river basins, including increased drought frequency and more extreme flooding. From a cumulative perspective, the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam’s downstream location makes it particularly vulnerable to such climate impacts; during droughts, upstream dams may retain water, reducing availability downstream, while during periods of heavy rainfall, they may release water suddenly, increasing the risk of devastating floods. This once again places risk on rights to adequate living standards, housing, food, and health as enshrined in the UDHR.

Seismic Risks

On top of these climate and environmental impacts, there are also seismic risks associated with the planned construction of the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam. Although Mozambique lies along the seismically active Shire Trough fault zone, poor record-keeping has hindered scientists’ ability to accurately determine the potential for large earthquakes. If struck by a significant seismic event, the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam could experience structural failure, posing catastrophic risks to downstream communities and raising urgent questions about the protection of the right to life, as enshrined in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Failure of the Mozambican government to rigorously assess and mitigate these risks to human life may represent a breach of their human rights obligations. 

Displacement

The construction of the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam is set to directly displace around 1,400 families, and adversely affect a further 200,000 subsistence farmers and fishers who depend on the river downstream. Additional displacement may also occur as a result of building transmission lines needed to distribute the dam’s electricity. The most affected communities include indigenous and tribal groups such as the Nyungwe, Nyajanja, and Sena, with the Nyungwe community facing the greatest impact.

These displacements raise serious concerns regarding the protection of indigenous rights and land tenure. Critically, the consortium agreement for the project was signed without holding a single consultation meeting with affected communities, who were only informed of the project after key decisions had already been made. Fieldwork conducted by Livaningo, a Mozambican civil society organization focused on environmental and social justice, revealed that community members lacked even basic information about the project and were unaware of the environmental and social impacts typically associated with large dams. As a result, the project has failed to uphold the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)—a key international standard requiring that indigenous communities be fully informed and consulted, and that their consent be obtained freely and in advance of any project that affects their lands, resources, or rights.

Given the current insufficiencies in consultation, safeguards and compensation, the displacement associated with the development of the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam risks violating Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states that “everyone has the right to own property” and to “not be arbitrarily deprived of it.” Yet forced relocation threatens not just land ownership but the very means by which these communities secure food, shelter, and survival.

As one woman living near the proposed dam site states, “it is not right to remove someone from a place where they don’t depend on the State to live, and put them living in misery. [...] From the [Zambezi] river, we can get many things, we don’t need to buy fish, we don’t need to buy vegetables.” 

Such testimonies highlight the impact of displacement on access to essential food, resources, and livelihoods; stripping communities of their traditional means of sustenance, and placing even greater strain on their right to an adequate standard of living (UDHR, Article 25). 

Political Risks 

The Mphand Nkuwa Dam project also raises serious political and civil rights concerns, particularly regarding transparency, participation, and freedom of expression. Despite its extensive socio-environmental implications, the Mphanda Nkuwa Hydroelectric Project Implementation Office (GMNK) has failed to meaningfully respond to human rights and climate concerns or provide requested documentation about the latest stages of the project. This lack of transparency violates the right to participation in public affairs, as outlined in Article 25 of the ICCPR, which guarantees every citizen the right to "take part in the conduct of public affairs" as well as requiring “the free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues.”

Meanwhile, political repression surrounding the project raises further human rights concerns. Members of Justiça Ambiental (JA!), who have been informing communities about their rights and the potential risks of the dam, have been accused of terrorism and warned against sharing information about the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam or other hydropower projects. 

There have also been reports of intimidation, arbitrary detention, and even bans on peaceful expression, with community members reporting being prevented from attending legal training sessions organized by JA!. In a stark demonstration of the extent of this repression, one local woman, Dona Lídia, was forbidden from even singing a simple song which she had written, expressing her concerns about the dam.

These actions clearly violate the right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which guarantees that “every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate their opinions within the law.” Furthermore, in the elaboration provided on the right to public affairs in General Comment 25, it is emphasised that citizens must be able to participate “through their capacity to organize themselves.” The prevention of collaboration between JA! and local communities, as well as the suppression of efforts to organize opposition to the dam, directly undermines this principle.

Narratives at Odds With Reality 

Despite mounting evidence of environmental harm, social disruption, and climate risk, the political and corporate actors behind the development of the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam continue to portray it as a flagship green energy project that will benefit Mozambique, its local populations and the Southern African region more broadly. Mozambique’s Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, Estevão Pale, describes the dam as a “clean energy project” that will contribute to climate resilience and socio-economic progress. Meanwhile, EDF, the majority stakeholder in the project, claims the dam will increase the country's electricity generation capacity by more than half and could power more than 3 million homes in Mozambique and neighbouring countries.

However, these optimistic narratives obscure a more complex truth. Mozambique’s history as a net electricity exporter, with the majority of energy generated by the Cahora Bassa Dam sold to South African energy firm Eskom, casts doubt on the dam’s capacity to improve electricity access for ordinary Mozambicans. Research has already shed light on existing inequalities in regional electricity access, showing households in Mozambique spend twice as much powering basic appliances than households in South Africa.

Moreover, EDF’s commitment to “work closely with all stakeholders before implementing the project” contrasts with the absence of any meaningful consultation with local communities on the Zambezi river. This reveals a troubling pattern of human rights violations in EDF’s development projects, as the company is already facing a lawsuit under the French Duty of Vigilance Law for violating the Indigenous Unión Hidalgo community’s right to FPIC in its Oaxaca wind farm project.

The dissonance between official narratives and projected impacts exposes a broader pattern of human rights failures in the hydropower sector. As highlighted by a joint statement by four UN Special Rapporteurs in 2021, a new wave of large dams supported by Southern-focused international financial institutions and funded through green financing instruments like climate bonds, routinely overlook UN recommendations on housing, water, and the protection of human rights defenders. This underscores the importance of vigilance, transparency, and critical inquiry in assessing community benefits and claims of sustainability by those implementing development projects. 

Conclusion 

The Mphanda Nkuwa Dam is presented as a beacon of sustainable development and regional progress. However, a closer examination reveals a project fraught with environmental, climate, seismic, social, and political risks which have been downplayed or ignored by project actors. Mozambique and its corporate partners have a duty to address these risks and uphold international human rights standards through rigorous environmental and seismic assessments, transparent decision-making, legally binding safeguards, and above all, meaningful consultation with affected communities.

Finally, as a pivotal case at the crossroads of development, climate policy, and human rights, the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam project serves as a global reminder that development must not come at the cost of human dignity, civic freedoms, or the health of the planet.

---

Glossary

• Beacon - A symbol of hope or guidance.

• Biodiversity - The variety of plant and animal life in a particular habitat.

• Breach - A violation or failure to comply with a law or obligation.

• Catastrophic - Extremely harmful or disastrous.

• Climate Bonds - Financial instruments designed to fund climate-resilient or environmentally beneficial projects.

• Compound - To make a problem worse by adding to it.

• Consortium - a group of companies or organisations that work on a shared project.

• Crossroads - A critical point of decision or change.

• Cumulative - Growing or increasing over time due to successive additions.

• Decomposition - The breakdown of organic matter.

• Degradation - The deterioration or decline of the environment.

• Disseminate - To spread information widely.

• Dissonance - A conflict or inconsistency between two things.

• Ecosystem - A biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment.

• Enshrined - Officially protected or recognized, often in legal or constitutional frameworks.

• Flagship - A leading or important project.

• Fraught - Filled with (typically problems or risks).

• Hindered - Obstructed or delayed.

• Hydroelectric - The use of flowing water to generate energy.

• Implicate - To show or suggest involvement in a problem or issue.

• Infringing - Violating or encroaching upon rights or laws.

• Insufficiencies - Lacking, or not enough in quantity or quality to meet a need or standard.

• Legacy - The long-lasting impact of past events.

• Mitigate - To reduce or lessen the severity of something.

• Momentum - The force or speed gained by a moving object or progressing project.

• Potent - Strong or powerful.

• Relocation - The act of moving people from one place to another.

• Rigorously - Thoroughly and accurately.

• Sediment Trapping - A process where dams prevent sediment from flowing downstream.

• Stakeholder - A person or group with an interest or concern in a project.

• Stagnation - A prolonged period of inactivity or lack of progress.

• Substantial - Significant or considerable in amount.

• Sustenance - Means of maintaining life, especially food.

• Transparency - Openness and accessibility of information.

• Undermine - To weaken or sabotage something.

• Upstream - Located closer to the source of a river.

•