(Bio)Fueling Injustice? - Europafrica

4.2.4. Lacking consultation of the local population and increased
mobilization
The described impacts of MSP are all the more alarming as local populations were not
properly informed about the project and were not consulted on the implementation of
the different steps. Although, according to the ESIA, the project was designed
“following a participatory approach which involved all stakeholders at various stages of
identification, preparation and appraisal,” and that “far-reaching consultations were
held with the population affected by the project,” 139 the National Coordination of
Peasants’ Organizations (Coordination Nationale des Organisations Paysannes –
CNOP) has recorded complaints from local farmers that operations started before they
were informed and consulted about the project. Furthermore, according to farmers
from the village Sansanding, local and national officials would not provide information
on the project’s details. These findings are confirmed by a report based on field work
conducted by the German Development Agency GIZ (former GTZ), that states that “no
opportunity was given to the local population to participate in the decision-making
processes” and that “SoSuMar started the development works on the site before the
ESIA was carried out and farmers’ associations were informed.” 140 According to the
ESIA, a public consultation process was conducted with several meetings held, 141 but
it seems that this was not early enough for them to get involved in basic decisions on
the overall project. The ESIA frequently refers to concerns brought forward by the
population that refer mainly to the loss of their only sources of income. It is not clear
however, if and how these concerns have been incorporated into the project planning.
The main concern of the affected peasant communities is that the Malian Government
does not recognize their existing land rights. The peasants have been living on the
lands for generations, 142 albeit, in most cases, they do not have legal titles. Although
customary land tenure practices are recognized in Mali, all the land in the country that
is not privately owned through a title (which has been accorded by the government of
Mali) belongs officially to the state. 143 Informal customary rights of the people living on
the project area are thus not protected by law, and are not recognized by public
officials. Local farmers in the project area do indeed state that they are not properly
informed by the authorities who claim that they had no rights to the land as the project
area land is part of the public property of the Malian State. According to the ESIA, the
Malian State has to compensate the population for the loss of their usufructuary rights.
As already mentioned above, it is not clear, however, how this compensation will be
measured.
Local farmers have been clearly opposed to the Markala Sugar Project from the
beginning and have mobilized to resist against their dispossession. In November 2010,
local and national farmers’ organizations have gathered in Kolongotomo for the first
national meeting of people affected by land grabbing. In the “Kolongo Appeal” 144 they
reminded the government that every Malian citizen has the right to land ownership
under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and that Mali must respect these
rights; they urged the government and the Office du Niger to freeze ongoing work to
develop disputed sites, suspend transactions and/or talks until conflicts have been
resolved, and to engage in policy dialogue with farmers by organising a national round
table to discuss investment policy for the agricultural sector. Information on the
situation in the OI and other regions of the world were also exchanged during the First
44