(Bio)Fueling Injustice? - Europafrica

it has nevertheless been shown above that the added value of the deals go essentially
to the investors, rather than the local population. The Oakland Institute affirms that in
many large-scale land deal cases, the benefits of new employment are negligible in
comparison to the costs for the host governments in terms of the infrastructures it has
to furnish and the loss of income it incurs to be able to attract the investor. 332 The
discourse about job creation further masks the fact that, even if land deals did create
some salaried employment, the eventual benefits accruing from these jobs could in no
way compare with the multiple benefits to all family members and to the community as
a whole generated by family-based agriculture rooted in the local economy, including
but not limited to food production for domestic consumption.
In addition, the labour conditions practiced by these large investors are often below
international standards. This is generally true for large-scale farming driven by
agribusiness. Bad labour conditions can happen as a result of the imbalance of power
between investors and hosts states, the latter sometimes including restrictions on
labour rights and exemptions from labour laws to attract investments. Several
countries have for instance withdrawn union recognition. 333 The Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation concludes its analysis of biofuels by stating that given
the high risk of forced labour, child labour and dangerous working conditions in
agrofuel plantation, social criteria including better working conditions should be a
component of the standards for biofuel production and trade. 334 The EU policy however
does not have any such safeguards. Yet, these poor working conditions in agrofuel
plantations have been amply documented in Africa, whether in a sugar cane plantation
in Rwanda, 335 or in agrofuel production in Tanzania and Mozambique. 336
6.4. Distribution of income and revenues
Particularly shocking is the repartition of the added value of the land deals
between the different actors. It is known that investments in the land are not
beneficial to local people particularly in Africa, where most investments are export
driven, with limited opportunities for developing countries to benefit from added
value. 337 The case of Addax Bioenergy, a Swiss company producing agrofuels for
export to the EU is one striking example (see Box 4). Of course, not all deals are
similar. In its study of 12 large scale land deal contracts, including for agrofuel
production, the IIED highlights two agrofuel contracts with better terms. However, most
of the deals reviewed “may not be fit for purpose”, and there is “a substantial risk that
local people may internalise costs without adequately participating in the benefits”. 338
BOX 4 THE ADDAX BIOENERGY PROJECT, OR HOW THE “BEST” DEALS CAN
HAPPEN TO NOT DISTRIBUTE ADDED VALUE FAIRLY
Addax Bioenergy is a Swiss company developing a sugarcane plantation and
production of bioethanol and renewable electricity at Makeni, in Sierra Leone.
According to the company, “The project works started in 2010 and production will
commence in 2013. It is financed by African and European Development Finance
Institutions.” 339 Addax Bioenergy wants this project to be an ethical model, as it
ambitions that it could become “a benchmark in responsible investing.” 340 It claims that
69