have is how to deal with the situation because for me this is not to be a community leader.” Nadja Gomes of JA and LDH, questioned to what extent the project monitors the 20% that community concessions (run by a community company or an association) must devolve to the broader community. She stated, “This can not be at the individual level because it is a value that can not be divided for a large number of people but it could be that there is some sort of plan, control or relation in terms of the quantity of funds or money that arrives versus the quantity of return that will go to the local population. And until what point is it that these same populations are satisfied with the new desks in the school or with how the communities will know what are the direct necessities that they have aside from them [the desks].” Ana Monge of the European Union (a key funder of key stages of the project) expressed serious concern over the issue of sharing and local leaders: “Where there was reference to community leaders taking advantage, this seems to me to be a very negative aspect. One of the actions that the project should try to avoid was these things happening. And appearing as lessoned learned, I don’t understand the framework very well, what is it that we will learn from this point? Is it that the project is trying to avoid these kinds of problems?” Laurenço Duvane, director of ORAMZambézia responded to these concerns with a lengthy explanation: “All of us know that when a logger arrives in a forest area and wants to cut or rob timber, he goes to the leader. With or without authorization this is who says where the logger is allowed to cut. I don’t like to say that in these situations, legal or not, the leader does not redistribute the income to the community…What we have verified is that in reality at times the leaders are lured by such tiny
23