(Bio)Fueling Injustice? - Europafrica

sometimes partial. 418 The findings are exaggeratedly positive, with even some
examples taken from countries outside of the scope of the study to demonstrate that
biofuels can create local opportunities. 419 Despite multitudes of reports describing in
detail certain clear negative social and human rights impact of biofuel projects in
Africa, none of them is mentioned.
These shortcomings might come from the fact that, as the authors admit, the level of
efforts put into data collection about socio-economic aspects “was limited” and they
had only “a short period of time” to do so. 420 But, more preoccupying, it may also come
from the fact that the expert consultants working on the socio-economic impact have a
background “on the bioenergy field” 421 and might not have the necessary expertise to
appreciate social issues. This lack of expertise clearly appears from mistakes in the
baseline study on what seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about basic
international labour law regarding “signature” and “ratification,” which cast doubts as to
the understanding of human rights by the authors of the report. 422 It will be of the
utmost importance that these weaknesses are corrected in the coming bi-annual
report.
In additions to these words of caution, it should be noted that this active monitoring,
though useful, cannot be the only mechanism to address the social impacts of biofuels.
Surely, if the EU waits for bi-annual reports to take action when food prices peak due
to biofuels, given the delays in reporting and decision-making, it would be too late.
Reporting, because it is done a posteriori, can thus not constitute, by itself, an
adequate way to prevent land grabbing and negative human rights impact in Africa.
Thirdly, on the environmental side, the EU has been promising for several months that
it would address the specific issue of indirect-land use change. As discussed
previously, the European Commission has not taken a decision yet on ILUC, though it
announced it would do it by mid-2011. The Commission’s argument for not acting until
now has been that the “deficiencies” and “uncertainties” associated with the modelling
of the ILUC effect make the results unsure. This delay probably reflects the hesitations
of the Commission which is, on one hand, faced with growing opposition towards
biofuels from the general public, and on the other hand, is under pressure of an
agrofuel industry which would generate up to 300,000 direct and indirect jobs, 423 and is
generally against the direct regulation of the ILUC effect. 424
7.3. EU’s justification in favour of its biofuel policy and
methodological flaws
The European Commission thus has not yet adequately tackled the negative socioeconomic
impact of its biofuel policy. The Commission has used various arguments to
defend that it should or could not do more, which eventually fall back on a similar
methodological flaw.
The general argument of the European Commission is that its energy and in particular
its biofuel strategy can be beneficial both to the EU and developing countries. It has
built a “win-win” narrative whereby the EU policy would benefit poor people in
developing countries. 425 The EU wants to “maximise the opportunities offered by
bioenergy production while limiting negative disturbances” by encouraging business
79