(Bio)Fueling Injustice? - Europafrica

international private investor investments in food and feed production, biofuel
production and from the finance sector; and ecological drivers.
Indeed, the necessity to protect forests and other carbon rich areas to counter climate
change and the scarcity of water limit the potential cultivable land. 17 In any case, there
is no doubt that, for “essential” 18 human needs only, there will be a considerable
need for land in the next decades. The FAO projects that “for an estimated
population of about 9 billion people in 2050 agricultural production has to increase over
2000 levels by 70 percent globally and 100 percent in developing countries.” 19 The
amount of additional cultivated land needed to achieve this production growth is
disputed, and can vary significantly depending on the assumptions taken; however, it
is clear that most of it will be met by developing countries, and that the amount of land
needed by 2050 for food only should be counted in hundreds of millions of hectares. 20
Africa and South America together could account for 85 %t of the expansion of
cultivated land. 21 Land will also be needed for other uses, such as plantation forestry 22
or the expansion of urbanisation, which could itself demand 100 million hectares of
land by 2050, 90% of which in developing countries. 23 In this context, a World Bank
report concludes that in a context where crop yields are stagnating and where
resource constraint (in particular for water) is greater, the land rush will carry on. 24
Confirming what was found in the Monitoring report, these recent studies show the
devastating impacts these deals often have on the local population. Developing
countries under pressure commonly negotiate deals that do not benefit their country,
and a large number of commercial land investments in Africa feature unbalanced
contract protecting and benefiting investors to the detriment of the local population. 25
Creating few jobs, often with poor labour conditions, these investments are not a
solution for the otherwise important needs for agricultural development in Africa.
As was detailed in the Monitoring report, 26 in a context of high and volatile food prices,
and whereas close to 1 billion people suffer from hunger, these deals generally
threaten food security and local livelihood by imposing an export model to food
insecure countries; jeopardise land tenure and access to land; damage biodiversity
and the environment; and push deeper into poverty thousands of rural poor; thus
generating human rights violations. 27 The most affected people include vulnerable
groups, in particular women, children, indigenous peoples and poor rural farmers.
They see their rights violated, which can comprise the rights to food, housing, natural
resources, water and sanitation, health, and education. But they often have no means
of redress, injustice being a common place in the realm of land grabbing.
A study by the International Land Coalition on the impact of large-scale land
acquisitions specifically in Africa similarly notes that these investments have failed to
show positive impacts, or when they exist, they are at the macro level, whereas the
poor are the most affected by the deals. 28 Oxfam also points out that there are few
cases which have resulted in positive impacts whereas there are many examples of
land deals which destroyed livelihoods and undermined human rights. 29
As will be argued later in this report with regards to biofuels, it is important to shift
the burden of the proof to policy makers. While civil society organisations have long
been requested to demonstrate the negative impact of commercial pressure on land,
now “the burden of evidence has shifted and it is up to the proponents of land deals to
show that they work.” 30
26