Climate colonialism:
biofuel plantations, rights
and the environment
Ian Bryceson
Department of International Environment and Development Studies
Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB)
Mot en ny global orden? En forskningspolitisk konferanse
Holmen Fjordhotell, 3. – 4. juni 2009
• Global energy consumption and CO2 emissions trends?
• What are the recent trends in global biofuel production?
• What are the impacts of biofuel plantations?
–
–
–
–
–
–
income sources, rural development, industrialisation, exports?
land tenure and rights?
water access and rights?
food prices and security?
deforestation, biodiversity?
water, soil and air quality?
• Do biofuels actually reduce CO2 emissions?
• What challenges for global research agenda on biofuels?
• Are there possibilities for ecologically benign and socially
just biofuel production?
• What characterises climate colonialism?
Source: OECD & !EA, 2008
Source: SIO & NOAA, 2009
Assuming that fossil fuels cause CO2 rise …
• So instead of fossil fuels – biofuel production and use
does not result in a net increase in global CO2 levels in
the atmosphere and oceans.
• How and where can and should one produce biofuels?
• Important research questions arise:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
bio-technical,
economic,
ecological,
social,
political,
urgent need for interdisciplinarity,
local and global perspectives,
historical, short and long term future considerations.
Main forms of bioenergy and biofuels
• Solid biomass fuels
– fuelwood, charcoal, agricultural and forestry wastes, etc.
– majority of households in developing countries
– energy self-sufficiency
• Bioethanol
– ethanol from sugar cane, maize, wheat, sugar beet, etc.
– main producers Brazil and USA (85%) – new large plantations
• Biodiesel
– vegetable oils from rape seed, jatropha, soya, oil palms, etc.
– main producers European Union (75%)
• Second generation biofuels
– cellulose wastes, household wastes, algae, etc.
– expected to become viable later than 2020
Growing biofuel demand and land acquisition
• Biofuel to reduce fossil fuel dependence in USA, EU,
China, India, Brazil, etc. CDM and energy security drivers.
• Economic incentives and subsidies make potential
ventures appear lucrative to commerce and industry.
• Some donors appear keen to fund biofuel projects as
"climate-friendly" commercial ventures with "win-win"
opportunities – increased exports and rural development.
• Poor developing countries are seen as sources of:
–
–
–
–
cheap land (with the assumption that unused land is plentiful)
cheap labour (therefore inexpensive to implement measures)
suitable climatic conditions (assuming copious water available)
weak legislation and regulations (quick and easy decisions)
Recent globalised land-grabbing for food production
Source: GRAIN, 2008
Land-grabbing for biofuel plantations in Africa
– early evidence, diverse forms, unclear trends
Kenya
– Munguti (2008), Mathenge (2009)
Madagascar
– Jung-a et al. (2008), Olivier (2008), Hervieu (2009)
Mozambique
– AIM (2007), IRIN (2007), Cotula (2008)
Sudan
– Hazaimeh (2008), Rice (2008)
Tanzania
– ABN (2007), Haki Ardhi (2008), Sulle (2009), Madoffe et al. (2009),
Benjaminsen & Bryceson (2009), Benjaminsen et al. (2009)
Land-grabbing for biofuel plantations in Africa
– international agencies and organisations' concern
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ABN (2007). Agrofuels in Africa. 36 pages.
FAO (2008). Biofuels: prospects, risks and opportunities. 138 pages.
GRAIN (2007). Agrofuels special issue. 60 pages.
IFG & IPS (2007). The false promise of biofuels. 35 pages.
IIED (2008). Fuelling exclusion? The biofuels boom and poor people’s
access to land. 82 pages.
IIED (2009). Land grab or development opportunity? 130 pages.
IFPRI (2009). Land grabbing by foreign investors in developing
countries: risks and opportunities. 4 pages.
Oxfam (2008). Another inconvenient truth: how biofuel policies are
deepening poverty and accelerating climate change. 58 pages.
Sida SwedBio (2009). Biofuels – potentials and challenges for
developing countries. 4 pages.
Biofuel plantations in Tanzania – emerging
issues and struggles (a)
• Small-scale Jatropha production appears to have several
local and national potential benefits and with few negative
impacts
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
potential increased income for small-scale farmers
energy is important for intensification of agricultural systems
promotion of small-scale industrial development
beneficial employment opportunities (respecting workers' rights)
reduction in dependency on imported oil (global price fluctuations)
possibilities for regional trade in biofuels
reduction of pressure on wood-fuel from forests
Biofuel plantations in Tanzania – emerging
issues and struggles (b)
• Large-scale sugar-cane production may offer quick profits
to foreign investors (the "winners"), but serious negative
consequences for local farmers, pastoralists (the "losers")
and ecosystem functions
– loss of land rights and access to natural resources: alienation and
marginalisation (there is no excess under-utilised land – a myth)
– loss of access rights to water: conflicts and hydrological problems
– food price increases: food insecurity and exacerbation of poverty
– deforestation and biodiversity loss: lasting environmental losses
and negative climate impacts
– water, soil and air pollution (pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, etc.):
key ecosystem services reduced
– dubious processes and politicised debates: new alliances and
power relations (may quickly lead to political instability)
Biofuels in relation to the South, the North
and the emerging powers
• Poor people in developing countries stand to gain from
some forms of biofuel production, but they may suffer
serious losses due to other forms of biofuel production.
• USA and Brazil are the major producers of bioethanol,
and EU is the major producer of biodiesel. Is this
significant climatically or lastingly viable economically?
• China, India, Saudi Arabia and UEA are pioneering in
land-grabbing for food production – biofuel production
interventions may follow.
Per capita annual emissions of CO2
– comparing Norway and Tanzania
According to UNDP's latest HDI report for 2008:
• Norway
• Tanzania
- 19.1 Mt CO2 per capita per annum
- 0.1 Mt CO2 per capita per annum
… a ratio of 191 : 1
• Where might one focus attention on reducing emissions?
• What is actually being achieved by current actions?
Our conclusion on "klimakolonialismen"
We (Tor A Benjaminsen and myself) examined four European
projects in Africa (two on biofuels and two on carbon sequestration).
In all four projects examined, large areas of land were transferred
from poor people to foreign companies – some force and coercion.
Such measures were considered by project proponents and funders
to have both developmental and climatic benefits.
Some people argue that area-intensive mitigation is a necessary
precautionary principle, even if poor Africans have to bear the costs.
Others defend such projects because they hope that countries in the
North may thus avoid serious cuts in their own emissions. Both
attitudes should be termed as climate colonialism.
(Kronikk i Dagbladet, 28th January 2009)