(Bio)Fueling Injustice? - Europafrica

it “strictly complies with the investment standards of the World Bank and the African
Development Bank, the European Union criteria and the principles of the Roundtable
on Sustainable Biofuels of the Swiss Polytechnic Institute”. The project should “create
over 2000 permanent jobs, and procure professional training, food security and
infrastructure development in one of the poorest regions of Sierra Leone. The project
already employs more than 700 people.” 341
Yet, as the project itself states, it will supply the European and domestic markets with
bioethanol, the export dimension being in itself problematic. A report by Bread for All
“raises the issue of producing biofuels for export in a country which is not food selfsufficient
and where malnutrition affects one third of the population and is responsible
for one of the world’s highest child and mother mortality.” 342 This risk of seing all
biofuel produced being export is real, as confirmed by another report by the Oakland
Institute, which states Addax’s Managing Director, Nikolai Germann, according to
whome there is no market for ethanol in Sierra Leone and that less than 10% of
ethanol will stay for local use in plants. 343
Other aspects of the projects questioned by the Bread for All report include the
environmental impact of the project (see Box 3), and several legal matters: “A Human
Rights Impact Assessment of the Land Lease Agreement (LLA) highlights that all
disputes have to be referred to London. This amounts to a denial of justice given the
financial impossibility for landowners to fund their travel and legal representatives.
Another clause of the Land Lease Agreement (LLA) is controversial as it might be
used as a basis to deny compensation to landowners. Further, one clause of the LLA
may be used so as to prevent pastoral communities from accessing land without
remedy or compensation. In other words, there is a gap between the IFC Performance
standards, which the project is applying, and human rights law. This is particularly true
regarding due diligence procedures and grievance mechanisms.” 344 The Oakland
Institute adds that community consultation was inadequate, based on fieldwork in 2009
which revealed that many impacted people were unaware of the project. 345 Oakland
Institute’s fieldwork and interviews with the impacted communities also “did not find
measures in place to ensure adequate compensation for affected individuals”. 346
These two organisations also fear a negative impact on the right to housing, due to
planned evictions and on the right to food. All these aspects of the project are all the
more questionable according to Bread for All as its costs will be financed up to 52% by
public development banks.
One of the most striking dimensions of this “model” project however is the unequal
sharing of value added of the project, which can be seen in the table below. 347
“The main beneficiary of this project is the company: Addax will receive an annual
return of USD 53 million while the 2,000 low paid workers will receive 2% of value
added (7% if one relies on the company’s assertion). Landowners who leased their
lands will receive as lease fees 0.2% of value added (this corresponds to less than
USD 1 per project affected person and per month). Even the District Councils,
Chiefdom Administrators and the Government will get comparatively small amounts
(and yet these small amounts are enough to ensure sufficient political support to the
project, see Chapter on “Corruption and Collusion”). It is to note that Addax will pay no
or little taxes as the Government of Sierra Leone granted several tax exemptions and
70