(Bio)Fueling Injustice? - Europafrica

More documents

Recommendations

Info

9. Conclusion: the way forward 9.1. The wrong model It has been shown how agrofuels have direct and multi-faceted impacts on local populations in Africa. It can be put back in the context of the definition of land grabbing given in section 1.2. Two essential dimensions that define when a land deal is considered as “land grab” were identified: 1) the effect of a land deal on the nonredistribution/(re)concentration of land, and 2) its effect on the character, direction and orientation of land-use change, i.e. its effect on food security and the environment. Based on this definition, agrofuel land deals for export appear to constitute the most clear-cut and some of the worst cases of land grabbing. Indeed, land grabbing for agrofuels not only leads to the concentration of the land away from small-scale farmers, but it also involves the production of non-food crops for exports on unused or food producing land, which is one of the typical negative cases. Coming back to what were identified as the main arguments in favour of biofuels (greenhouse gas savings, energy security, and rural development), it is clear that these objectives are not realised. This is in substance what the French national auditor concludes, noting that the only real positive effect of the 15 years of biofuel policies in France are on the domestic agriculture and that these biofuel policies have had little effect on other areas such as energy independence and GHG savings. 516 Thus, even by calculating the costs and benefits of biofuel policies, as suggested by a human rights expert, the dramatic social impact cannot be decently compensated by a more than uncertain putative environmental benefit. 517 In fact, as “the industrialized countries of the North are very interested in the production of the countries of the southern hemisphere” to meet their biofuel needs, 518 they use the lands of African and other countries as support to their own interests and demands, rather than to help local people. In such cases, all happens as if the EU imposed a new “Co2 imperialism” over Africa. Said differently, it seems to make little sense that up to 10% of the total cultivated land could be used for biofuel production in 2030, whereas 307 million people suffer from hunger in Africa, with Mozambique and Ethiopia leading the way on the development of agrofuels, whereas more than a third of the population of these countries is malnourished. 519 In a world where 1 billion people are hungry, it is expected that between 2011 and 2020, largely driven by biofuel mandates and support policies, 21% of the global coarse grains production’s increase, 29% of the global vegetable oil production’s increase and 68% of the global sugar cane production’s increase by 2020 will be used to fill in our tanks rather than to feed people. 520 The current support of biofuels also makes little sense, since, if the demand for food is naturally limited by human demand for food, the demand for biofuels is almost infinite without a risk of saturation of the markets before long. 521 Thus, unless the technology rapidly makes enormous progress, when policies such as in the EU start encouraging agrofuels, it creates a demand potentially without limits, and it mechanically engenders in the middle or long term an incommensurate pressure on land. This is just not sustainable. 94
9.2. The way forward: EU and its Member states have an important role to play The effect of agrofuels should be considered in the broader context surrounding access to land, 522 particularly in Africa. There is currently a huge pressure on land, driven notably by the lack of food, climate change and population growth. In this situation more than ever, smallholders play a crucial role in Africa, both because they feed the population and because they maintain a very much needed social and cultural link. It is understood in this context that the former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, qualified biofuel policies as “crimes against humanity.” If the UN mandate holder used such a strong wording, it is because agrofuel investments and their related consequences do not come out of a vacuum. The dramatic effects currently witnessed are the direct consequence of the biofuel policies in the world. This is, very probably, unintended, but the lack of intention does not exonerate the EU and its Member States from their responsibilities. Even institutions such as the European Parliament consider that food insecurity is further exacerbated by demands for agro-fuels and energy-related policies. 523 As the HLPE notes: Such a spectacular development of the biofuel industry has been made possible only because of massive public support: subsidies, tax exemption and mandatory use in gasoline. […].This massive public support for biofuels is the glaring exception to the general movement to reduce financial aid to agriculture in OECD countries. In a quite incoherent way, the European Union and United States have boosted demand for agricultural commodities, including food products, by their support for the biofuel industry, at the same time as they have reduced support to agricultural production, at home and in their overseas assistance to poor countries. 524 As was demonstrated in this report, this incoherence constitutes a breach of the PCD obligation under the Lisbon treaty, but also a violation by the EU and its Members States of their respective legal obligations regarding human and fundamental rights. Behind the formal legal analysis, there is a reality, people suffering, people fearing of losing their livelihood, and people risking their way of life, at any time. And besides their legal obligations, EU countries have a moral obligation. The share of official development assistance of OECD countries going to the agricultural sector has sharply decreased in the last three decades, moving from 17% in the 80s to about 6% today. 525 This is what the UN Special rapporteur on the right to food reminds us: To a large extent, the rush towards farmland in developing countries is the results of our own failures […] to adequately invest in agriculture and rural development in developing countries. 526 While acknowledging the difficulty to measure social effects and get precise data, this report presents very clear trends about the negative consequence of the EU biofuel policy. And this not an abstract view made for the purpose of this report; it is an opinion shared by many organisations, including NGOs but also international organisations, states and other actors who oppose biofuel mandates and subsidies. If 95
Page 1 and 2:
(BIO)FUELING INJUSTICE? Europe’s
Page 3 and 4:
Executive summary Adding value to t
Page 5 and 6:
The EU has various strategic intere
Page 7 and 8:
or animal feed is turned over to gr
Page 9 and 10:
Methodology: combining authoritativ
Page 11 and 12:
Detailed recommendations To the EU
Page 13 and 14:
d. Support sustainable small-scale
Page 15 and 16:
plans, so that biofuels mandates an
Page 17 and 18:
5.2. Linking Europe biofuel policie
Page 19 and 20:
List of boxes, figures and tables T
Page 21 and 22:
RAI Principles for responsible agri
Page 23 and 24:
ange of recent sources, including f
Page 25 and 26:
2. The evolution since 2010: the ri
Page 27 and 28:
2.2. A growing opposition Faced wit
Page 29 and 30:
Commonwealth Development Corporatio
Page 31 and 32:
Mozambique 10% ethanol and 5% biodi
Page 33 and 34:
- standards for distribution of bio
Page 35 and 36:
To summarise, the EU and its Member
Page 37 and 38:
4. Case studies Three case studies
Page 39 and 40:
squirrels which damaged between 60%
Page 41 and 42:
not, or not adequately, consulted,
Page 43 and 44: The Markala Sugar Project will also
Page 45 and 46: Peasants’ Conference against Land
Page 47 and 48: unit is “currently providing majo
Page 49 and 50: 5. How European biofuel policies dr
Page 51 and 52: iofuels between 2003 and 2006 (6.6
Page 53 and 54: iofuels production should thus alwa
Page 55 and 56: ecological and social impacts in pr
Page 57 and 58: occur in these regions.” 232 Howe
Page 59 and 60: 5.2.4. Making land a bankable inves
Page 61 and 62: 6. The social, human rights and env
Page 63 and 64: While agrofuel related crops are gr
Page 65 and 66: should be remarked however that the
Page 67 and 68: project”. In particular, the repo
Page 69 and 70: it has nevertheless been shown abov
Page 71 and 72: deductions to the company.” 348 G
Page 73 and 74: mechanisms in African countries to
Page 75 and 76: specialised in EU affairs suggests
Page 77 and 78: climate change in June or July 2012
Page 79 and 80: sometimes partial. 418 The findings
Page 81 and 82: Another argument of the EU for its
Page 83 and 84: 8. The EU and EU Member States’ v
Page 85 and 86: However, whereas the Commission spe
Page 87 and 88: esources towards this goal. 479 Yet
Page 89 and 90: conclude with absolute certitude wh
Page 91 and 92: When potential negative impacts are
Page 93: Access to remedies ETO Principle 37
Page 97 and 98: Sources ActionAid and Friends of th
Page 99 and 100: European Commission and Joint Resea
Page 101 and 102: environmental data for the biofuels
Page 103 and 104: Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) o
Page 105 and 106: United Nations Special Rapporteur o
Page 107 and 108: AFRICAN NATIONAL OIL CORPORATI ON S
Page 109 and 110: ITAL SENEGAL SARL BBE SA (BERTOLA B
Page 111 and 112: LONHRO Agriculture (Subsidiary of L
Page 113 and 114: Annex III. Jatropha related project
Page 115 and 116: services delivery project of the Di
Page 117 and 118: Source: Africa Europe Faith and Jus
Page 119 and 120: GERMANY Flora EcoPower ETHIOPIA Oro
Page 121 and 122: Investor country SWEDEN Sekab UNITE
Page 123 and 124: SWEDISH SEKAB Bioenergy Tanzania Lt
Page 125 and 126: KINGDOM BELGIUM Felisa Investor cou
Page 127 and 128: Finally, a number of cases studies
Page 129 and 130: political, economic and social back
Page 131 and 132: Endnotes 1 A. Graham, S. Aubry, R.
Page 133 and 134: 31 For an overview of the intrsumen
Page 135 and 136: 68 The Commission is preparing a "E
Page 137 and 138: 100 Merian Research and CRBM, “Th
Page 139 and 140: 149 FIAN Germany, “Land Grabbing
Page 141 and 142: 193 C. Bowyer and B. Kretschmer,
Page 143 and 144: 230 J. W. van Gelder with L. German
Page 145 and 146:
264 P. B. Matondi and P. Mutopo,
Page 147 and 148:
298 L. Cotula, “Land deals in Afr
Page 149 and 150:
342 Bread for All, “Concerns of B
Page 151 and 152:
375 K. Havnenik, “Grabbing of Afr
Page 153 and 154:
419 E.g. “While inheritance laws
Page 155 and 156:
456 European Commission, “Increas
Page 157 and 158:
international organisations” in J
Page 159 and 160:
521 United Nations Special Rapporte
Page 161:
http://www.fian.org/resources/docum
show all

(Bio)Fueling Injustice? - Europafrica

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?