Africa: 'Bad Energy, Development Policies Contribute to Famine, Conflict in Africa'

December 6, 2011
Source
Afrique en Ligne

Oakland, US -  While individuals across the US and EU offer support to victims of famine and conflict in Africa, their countries' energy policies and development agendas take food and other resources away from Africans, while also harming the environment. This is the finding of a research released Tuesday by the Oakland Institute in the United States. According to a statement made available to PANA here by the Institute, the research demonstrates that land grabs--largely unregulated land deals involving foreign corporations and speculators--continue to be promoted as a 'development' solution for African nations.

Development agencies including USAID and the World Bank Group are often the architects of these deals that promise benefits for Africans but fail to deliver.

Furthermore, the research shows that US and EU energy policies that tout the benefits of agrofuels and carbon credits--key elements of these land deals--are actually making climate change a bigger problem.

'The energy policies of these governments--along with the growing Western market for agrofuels--is harming both the people of Africa and the environment,' Oakland Institute Executive Director Anuradha Mittal said.

'This approach of 'developing' Africa is neither just nor sustainable. It is displacing people by taking over their land and natural resources that produce food and provide livelihoods while making climate change worse,' Mittal said.

The Executive Director noted that people can follow the supply chain to identify the bad actors--who claim benefits for Africa but seldom deliver: so-called developers who determine how land will be used (such as Iowa-based based AgriSol Energy and Texas-based Nile Trading Development), companies that grow non-food crops on the land (including Sun Biofuels and Addax Bioenergy), and groups that buy up agrofuels and timber (including major western airlines such as Lufthansa).

The second phase of the 'Understanding Land Investment Deals in Africa' report series focuses on these issues as well as the specific nations of Mozambique, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Zambia.

The reports expose documents and actors promoting policies behind the deals that create additional food insecurity; promise jobs but fail to deliver them; tout the promise of agrofuels and create loopholes that help foreign investors but further impoverish many African nations.

'In our research of over 50 land deals in seven African countries, we did not find the evidence that such investments will provide fair financial returns for the countries or their populations,' Oakland Institute Policy Director Frederic Mousseau said. 'Even the IMF has said that the generous tax incentives should be minimised since these tax holidays and other breaks are saddling local governments with more burdens than benefits.'

The Institute said previous reports in this series were instrumental in stopping one shady land deal in Southern Sudan by exposing how corrupt U.S. investors were trying to enrich themselves through an exploitative agreement.

However, land grabs across the continent continue, despite widespread opposition.

Environmental impacts also are detailed in the reports and include problems such as displacing food crops to grow agrofuels such as jatropha--reducing the amount of food available and requiring twice the water that cereal needs to grow; clearing native forests and grassland to replace to replace them with tree plantations and promoting the use of agrofuels, which researchers are now saying increase, not decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

The impacts also include harming lakes and rivers, the lifeblood of many African nations, and possibly driving them to extinction.

It said waterways like the Niger River have decreased by 10 percent in just 10 years, while in Ethiopia, the construction of a large dam and the irrigation of adjacent sugar plantations will result in Kenya's Lake Turkana, the world's largest desert lake, to drop by two metres in the first year, increasing salinity levels, adversely impacting fish stocks, and condemning the lake to a not-so-slow death.