The Political Economy of Gas as a Transition Fuel in Mozambique’s Crisis-Shaped Energy Future
This paper argues that in Mozambique, compound crises have transformed natural gas from a temporary transition fuel into a permanent stabilisation asset through fiscal, institutional, and discursive mechanisms that create transition lock-in by compressing policy horizons and raising the cost of reversing extractive commitments.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the global effort to move away from burning coal and oil, natural gas is often held up as a helpful middle step. The idea is that gas burns cleaner than coal, so countries can use it to keep their lights on and their economies growing while they build up solar and wind power. This concept works well in theory, but it assumes a country has a stable government, a steady budget, and the luxury of planning for the distant future. In places where the state is constantly fighting to survive, the rules change. When a nation faces a mix of violent conflict, devastating storms, and deep debt, the pressure to find immediate solutions can turn a temporary bridge into a permanent road. This is the story of how a fuel meant to be a stepping stone can become a trap, not because of the technology itself, but because of the desperate circumstances that surround it.
A researcher looked closely at Mozambique to understand this dynamic. Since the discovery of massive natural gas reserves off its coast, the country has been promised a future of wealth and stability. However, this promise has unfolded alongside two crushing crises: a long-running rebellion in the north that threatens the safety of the gas fields, and frequent, powerful cyclones that destroy homes and strain the national budget. The researcher wanted to see how these overlapping emergencies shaped the country's energy choices. They did not just look at the gas pipes or the money; they looked at the words used by leaders, banks, and companies to justify their decisions. By studying 159 documents written between 2015 and 2025, including government reports, international bank reviews, and corporate announcements, they traced how the narrative of "gas as a transition fuel" shifted into something else entirely.
The study found that in a crisis, the logic of long-term planning collapses. Instead of viewing gas as a temporary tool to be discarded later, decision-makers began to treat it as a vital asset for immediate survival. When a country is in debt and facing a security threat, the promise of future gas revenue becomes a way to borrow money today. This creates a powerful pressure to keep the gas projects going, even if the money hasn't arrived yet. The researcher identified three ways this happens. First, the government ties its entire financial future to the gas, making it impossible to stop without risking bankruptcy. Second, the institutions built to protect the gas fields and manage the money become permanent fixtures, outlasting the emergencies that created them. Third, the story told to the public changes: gas is no longer described as a bridge to a green future, but as the only way to restore order and rebuild after disasters.
The documents revealed a pattern where other energy options, like solar or wind, were not necessarily rejected, but were pushed aside. The argument was always that the country must finish the gas cycle first, and only then could it afford to switch to cleaner energy. This "sequencing" sounds reasonable, but it effectively locks the country into a fossil-fuel path for decades. The researcher noted that this was not a conspiracy, but a result of how crisis changes decision-making. When leaders are focused on stopping violence or rebuilding after a flood, they prioritize immediate stability over long-term transformation. The gas projects, backed by security forces and international loans, became the anchor of the nation's recovery plan.
This lock-in effect was confirmed by events that happened just as the study was concluding. In late 2025 and early 2026, despite the ongoing violence and the fact that the country was still in debt, major investments in new gas projects were approved, and suspended operations were restarted. The security measures put in place to protect the gas fields became part of the normal state of affairs, rather than a temporary fix. The country continued to move forward with its gas expansion, not because the crises had ended, but because the gas had become the very thing holding the country together. The researcher found that the crisis did not just delay the transition to green energy; it fundamentally altered the path, making it much harder to turn back.
The paper concludes that calling natural gas a "transition fuel" is not enough to make it one. Whether a fuel is truly transitional depends on whether the country has the power and the plan to stop using it when the time comes. In Mozambique, the combination of debt, insecurity, and the need for immediate recovery has made that stop incredibly difficult. The gas infrastructure has become a stabilizing force for the government, but it has also become a cage that limits the country's ability to choose a different future. The study suggests that for other nations facing similar struggles, the lesson is clear: if a country relies on fossil fuels to solve its immediate crises, it risks building a future where those fuels are the only option left, long after the crisis has passed.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.