(Bio)Fueling Injustice? - Europafrica

According to this provision of the African Charter, African resources should be
exploited in the interest of the African peoples. Such resources include the land. Yet,
the facts exposed show that, at the moment, the use of the land for biofuel related
production is rarely done in the interests of African people; and more often to the
exclusive benefit of a small elite, foreign companies, or EU Member States.
6.3. Employment
It could also be thought that by promoting investments in the land in Africa, the EU
biofuel policy encourages rural development, leading to an increase in employment
opportunities and incomes in poor countries. This could benefit poor people and make
them better off by proportionally raising their income more than food prices. This is the
scenario that the European Commission anticipates. 319 In fact, this is a condition for
investments in commodities for export to be of interest for the local population, as
explains the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food: “It should be ensured that the
revenues accruing from the investment will be at least sufficient to procure food in
volumes equivalent to those which are produced for exports.” 320 However, this is not
the case.
While employment is a key factor for making a deal positive, and it is one of the most
important benefits identified by the local population, 321 few jobs are created by
agrofuel related investments relatively to other sectors. 322 In particular, agrofuel
plantations are not labour intensive. It is for instance known that the labour intensity of
the sugar industry is rather low. In Zambia, 7,500 people would be employed in the
sugar industry, when 200,000 people work in the similar size cotton industry. 323 When
an area where small scale farming was practiced is replaced by large scale
agricultural, many of the farmers thus end up jobless and landless. 324 This can be
called labour expelling investments rather than job creation. When a new area is
cultivated, it creates much less jobs and development opportunities than if small-scale
farming had been developed. The Oakland Institutes found that on a recently leased
land in Mali which could conservatively sustain 112,537 farm families, the land is
concentrated in the hands of 22 investors who plan to employ a few thousand
plantation workers. 325 Often, companies promise jobs to the local population which
they never deliver, and available data suggests that investments create far fewer jobs
than are expected or promised. 326
Furthermore, when agrofuel investments create jobs, they do not benefit much the
local poor. 327 The World Bank for instance highlights large-scale land deal cases
where vulnerable groups lost access to some livelihood resources but did not benefit in
terms of jobs. 328 The Oakland Institute similarly reports that many governments have
relaxed requirements for local employment and allow companies to hire unlimited
numbers of expatriate employees. 329 Skills demanded are sometimes too high, or
foreign companies prefer to use workers from their own country. 330 This is not to
mention that the labour conditions can be appalling and that the jobs provided in
mechanised agrofuel plantations are also often short-term and seasonal. 331
While this deficiency could theoretically be compensated by income from the lease or
selling of the land, provision of services from the company, or other sorts of transfers,
68