BIO-FUEL :Policy considerations with regard to access to land

ON balance, many advocates of land rights especially for poor people are wary of the ongoing drive by investors to take up as much land as possible for growing biofuel feedstock. There are many arguments but many revolve around the observations that the promised goodies (employment, higher incomes, improved rural infrastructure) may not materialize. On the contrary societies stand to lose their land and therefore their identity. Land grabbing is likely to be the norm and environmental damage is likely to increase. Governments are therefore enjoined to be very careful before accepting the sweet arguments from the biofuel lobby. A recent publication (“Fueling Exclusion? The Biofuels Boom and Poor People’s Access to Land”, available on the internet) lists eight areas which all those with a stake in the ongoing growing of biofuels debate should take into consideration. One, Governments need to develop robust safeguards in procedures to allocate land to large-scale biofuel feedstock production where they are lacking (which is the case in most instances) and – even more importantly – to implement these effectively. Safeguards include clear procedures and standards for local consultation and attainment of prior informed consent, mechanisms for appeal and arbitration, and periodic review. Unfortunately, many times land is granted to investors either without consultation with communities, or on the argument that this is idle or unowned land, or on the argument that the land belongs to the state, or that it has been identified for investment. The case of the Tanzania Investment Centre is now being cited by international researchers on land rights. Under the Tanzanian Investment Act 1997, the TIC is mandated, among other things, with identifying and providing land to investors, as well as with helping investors obtain all necessary permits (article 6). This entails identifying land not currently under productive use and directly allocating it to investors. Under this arrangement, the land is vested with the TIC and transferred to the investor on the basis of a derivative title (under article 19(2) of the Land Act 1999). After the end of the investment project, the land reverts back to the TIC (article 20(5) of the Land Act).These conditions were put in the Act to prevent the transfer of land to non-Tanzanians on the one hand, but to make it available to investors on the other. In order to perform this function, the TIC has set up a “land bank” of 2.6 million ha identified as suitable for investment projects out of which some 1.1 million hectares (or 42% of the total land available for investment) is considered available for investors interested in agriculture. The TIC has been active in identifying and negotiating access to land for foreign biofuel investors. One example is a 9,000 ha area for jatropha cultivation for a British firm in Kisarawe District. The TIC has been working with the Kisarawe District Council and the 11 villages that currently occupy the land, so that they move and let the investor take up the land. There has been haggling over compensation but the fact that villagers are to be displaced cannot be good news. While the role of investment promotion agencies in identifying “idle” lands may help bring under-utilised land into production, it may also create risks of dispossession. Where forms of local resource use are perceived as low productivity, land may risk being classified as idle or under-utilised, and therefore available to prospective investors, despite the economic, social or cultural functions it performs for local people (see Section 2.2). Transparency in how this land is identified and allocated is important. Villagers be they agriculturalists or pastoralists must be educated thoroughly before they are considered to be in position to let go of their land or of land to which they have common access. Two, it has been argued that large-scale privately owned plantations are not the only economically viable model for biofuels feedstock production. Producers’ associations, governments and investors may want to explore alternative business models such as joint equity in production and processing. Policy instruments based on financial incentives can help provide for inclusion of small-scale producers in the biofuels industry. Specific biofuels feedstocks may be more or less suited to extensive or intensive production. Biodiesel feedstocks that require harvesting by hand, specifically jatropha and palm oil, are the most suited to small-scale cultivation. Smallholders in West Africa and South-east Asia have a long history of cultivating palm oil while jatropha has traditionally been grown for its oil or as a hedge in India and throughout dryland Africa; both crops continue to be harvested by hand even in large-scale commercial plantations. Bioethanol feedstocks such as sugarcane and maize, on the other hand, can accrue sizeable cost savings through large-scale mechanized harvesting. Even though both of these crops are grown commercially by small-scale farmers (e.g. outgrower schemes for sugarcane exist in Kenya, Tanzania and South Africa), economic incentives to concentrate production will be much stronger than for oilseed crops (jatropha and oil palm) where labour remains an important input. Three, as already hinted to in an earlier article, governments need to be extra-careful before they apply the concepts of idle, under-utilised, barren, unproductive, degraded, abandoned or marginal lands (depending on the country context) and are required to avoid allocation of lands on which local user groups depend for livelihoods. Indeed, it is difficult to see whether if the interests of all land users, including agriculturalists, pastoralists and hunters and gatherers are taken into consideration, there is such a think as idle or marginal land. Similarly, productive use requirements in countries in which security of land tenure depends on active use (mise en valeur in French speaking countries; or development in English speaking countries) need to be clarified so as to minimise abuse. The Tanzanian definition of land development under the Land Acquisition Act 1967 is possibly the worst in the world, where clearing, or fencing is not regarded as development. Land which is left fallow, under local systems of land management such as the ngitiri of Shinyanga could easily fall into the category of idle land. In fourth place, land access for rural people requires policy attention not only to land tenure but also to the broader circumstances that determine land use and agricultural economics. Relevant policy areas include taxation and subsidies, regional and international trade, and standards for environment and labour. Five, international policy arenas are also influential on the impacts of biofuels expansion on land access. Certification criteria, such as those under development by the European Union, should incorporate free prior and informed consent, based on secure land tenure of local residents, as a fundamental requirement, disallowing production on contested land. In such respects, governments in poor countries should be seen to come out in support of their peoples, instead of being quick in meeting the requirements of the investors in the hope that there are quick-fix gains to be realized. Attention may need to be given to eligibility rules regarding land use change under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol and its successor negotiated in Bali, Indonesia. International governance of trade and investment should continue to be a major determinant of the economic potential of different forms of land use in producer countries. Six, relevant policies, laws and institutions are important -- but in contexts characterised by strong power asymmetries they are likely to achieve little if they are not accompanied by sustained investment in building people’s capacities to claim and secure their rights. The picture one gets from scanning the situation in eastern Africa is that people know little of their rights and even if the do know, they have little powers of defending them. That is why we can see natural resources such as forests, wetlands and so on being given away without a murmur from the adversely affected peoples. Seven local, national and international NGOs and civil society organizations need to intensify their efforts in defending the rights of the poor and in holding governments and industry to account regarding their promises on protection of land access and food security generally and to specific communities. Finally, “biofuels” is a catch-all term for a set of very different crops and cropping systems, end-products, policy goals (e.g. commercial production versus energy self-sufficiency), business models (different combinations of ownership and benefit-sharing among large-scale and small-scale operations) and local contexts -- all of which significantly affect land access outcomes. A better understanding of this diversity will promote a more balanced and evidence-based debate. Fortunately, there is no shortage of reading materials and for a to exchange opinion. If we have to into putting land for biofuel feedstock growing we should go in from a positin of one who is fully informed.