(Bio)Fueling Injustice? - Europafrica

ange of recent sources, including from international organisations, civil society and
the private sector. The bulk of the facts presented here are taken from authoritative
international sources, such as the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), and other United Nations (UN) agencies. They are introduced along other
studies which echo the voices of affected people. Some case studies are based on the
research of African farmer’s networks members of EuropAfrica and on the crosschecked
research of other non-governmental organisations. The assessment of the
respective impacts and the responsibilities is based on the international legal
framework applicable to the EU and EU Member States, on EU law, and on the actors’
own commitments.
A number of interviews with staff members of the European Commission have been
conducted in an effort to understand and take into consideration the various
approaches to the issue. It must be acknowledged that the European Commission
has generally responded in an open and constructive manner, and the authors of
this report are extremely grateful to the people interviewed for their time and support.
This report therefore combines both quantitative and qualitative data, seeking to
be as impartial and constructive as possible and to take into account various points
of view. It is the analysis of these various types of information together that allows
making conclusions on the role of European Union policies regarding land grabbing in
Africa.
It is important to note that, while this report, as the Monitoring report did, concentrates
on the role and responsibilities of the EU and EU Member States, it does not mean
that other actors in particular the African states, the African Union, other rich
countries and private investors do not have responsibilities and obligations, or
that the EU is the most responsible. In fact, there is growing evidence that many
(and even often most) of the investors in Africa are actually domestic elites, who then
have tie-ups with foreign companies and capital. 4 The various levels of responsibilities
are not mutually exclusive, and they can be examined separately as we intend to do
now for the EU and its Member States.
1.2. Definitions
1.2.1. Land grabbing
Land grabbing has been defined with various nuances, but in all definitions, land
grabbing designates land deals that inherently have a negative social and/or
environmental effect and harm individual and/or peoples’ rights. The Monitoring report
defined land grabbing as “taking possession and/or controlling a scale of land
which is disproportionate in size in comparison to average land holdings in the
region.” This definition focuses on the changes in land property relations, on the
impact of land transfer on national and local populations’ rights. It brings a slightly
different approach from other definitions which, though also valid, emphasise more the
process of acquisition of the land, 5 or the transnational dimension of land-use change. 6
This definition used in 2010 is still valid for the purpose of the present report. Recent
scientific research supports the importance to analyse the impact of land deals on the
non-(re)distribution or the (re)concentration of land wealth and power. The key is to
23