(Bio)Fueling Injustice? - Europafrica

esources towards this goal. 479 Yet, the efficiency of these valuable efforts is
challenged by the support to agrofuels in its current form, which encourages
investments for export to the EU.
The EU took particularly clear development commitments towards Africa. The
Union has developed a number of partnerships and programmes with African countries
and the African Union. The EU for example finances an Energy Facility which aims
amongst other things at improving access to energy services, in particular for the
poor. 480 With respect to agriculture, the European Union wants to give priority “to
intensification approaches for small-scale farmers that are sustainable, ecologically
efficient and respect the diverse functions of agriculture” and it wants to encourage
investments that “maximise the social, economic and environmental benefits for the
country.” 481 Besides its incoherence with general objectives of the EU development
cooperation, the EU biofuel policy’s coherence with its development efforts specifically
in Africa is therefore questionable.
These incoherencies may reflect oppositions of views within the European
Commission itself. As shown throughout this report, the potentially negative social
impacts of agrofuels development have often been highlighted by the European
Commission. For instance, the concern that biofuel production in third countries may
not respect minimum environmental and social requirements was anticipated by
European Parliament and the Council in the recital of the RED. 482 Yet, the EU biofuel
policy was still adopted, generating, as academics analysed, a basic tension between
the energy security, environmental protection and rural development objectives of this
policy. 483 It has been reported that these tensions were known in the European
Commission, and provoked much dissent amongst staff across several Directorates-
General. It seems that DG Development finally did not gain a significant role in shaping
the EU biofuel policy, and development objectives (and thus PCD) have probably been
the losers. 484
8.2. A violation of the EU and EU Member States’ extraterritorial
obligations
It has been seen in section 6 that the human rights of African individuals, groups and
peoples can be harmed as a result of agrofuel-related production. This does not
automatically mean that the countries and entities that promote biofuels, like the EU
and its Member States, are, or are the only ones, responsible. Various actors, from
the African States to international financial organisations, might bear some
responsibility, to varying degrees. The aim of this part is to clarify whether, and to
which extent, the EU and EU Member States violate international human rights law
through their biofuel policy.
8.2.1. Extra-territorial obligations of the EU and EU Member States
The responsibility of the EU and EU Member States for the impacts of the biofuel
policy in Africa also arises from their human rights obligations under international law.
EU Member States have clear human rights obligations emanating from the treaties
they have ratified. In particular, as mentioned earlier, all EU Member States have
ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
87