(Bio)Fueling Injustice? - Europafrica

stocks in the region are also sinking, threatening food security of communities relying –
at least partly – on fishery. Moreover, the agrofuel projects compete for land that is
suitable for agriculture and for livestock keeping, thus increasing food insecurity in an
area that already relies heavily on food aid.
The analysis of the situation in Kenya, and more particularly of the case studies in the
Tana Delta, thus shows that agrofuel policies have many pitfalls. A “Jatropha Reality
Check,” commissioned by the GTZ in 2009 even concludes:
‘that smallholders in Kenya should not pursue Jatropha as a
monoculture or intercrop plantation crop at the present time. It
simply makes no economic sense for farmers, especially those
that are food insecure, to be investing in a crop that will fail to
yield positive returns. Further investments in monoculture and
intercrop plantations by smallholders should be delayed until
more research leads to yields high enough to justify the
investment. The only type of Jatropha plantation that we can
recommend for smallholders at this time is the fence.’
In the case of large-scale investments, the claim of reducing fossil fuel imports and
contributing to the reduction of wood fuel use and charcoal burning, thus protecting
forests and woodlands and improving Kenya’s CO2-emissions is not likely to come
true. Of eight large-scale projects in Kenya, more than half are explicitly
designed for export and to satisfy external demand. And even if a plantation
project is not immediately aimed at foreign markets, it is likely to export too, because
the terms of trade of the world market are very likely to be better than those of the
Kenyan national market. Only a moratorium on agrofuel exports would effectively
prevent such a scenario.
In addition to the competition for water, the other obvious pitfall is the competition for
suitable land. In Kenya most investments in agrofuels have so far been made in
the few regions of “high potential” land, thus competing with the current production
of food and cash crops. Even if only “new land” is set aside, this competes in Kenya
with the need to expand food crops in the face of the prevalent dependency on food
aid and a still growing population. Even if the focus is put on drought-resistant
feedstock such as jatropha, plantations will still compete with pastoralist’s grazing
areas in the semi-arid and arid lands and thus with national meat and milk production.
Finally, forests also are a source of livelihood, in particular for hunter and gatherer
communities (let alone wildlife). Thus the myth of “new land” or “marginal lands” that
do not interfere with food security issues of such food-insecure countries as Kenya
must be abandoned.
A more specific human rights impact assessment of two case studies in the Tana Delta
leads to the conclusion that the rights to water, housing and food are violated.
Negative impacts on the right to housing and security of tenure were documented in
most cases, with communities having been forcefully evicted and many others
continuously fearing evictions for large-scale land projects. In all communities,
availability of and access to adequate supplies of food proved to be a serious problem,
which was often related to the water and tenure issues.
48