CTA Briefing – Ouagadougou, Oct. 1-2, 2010
Linkages between Change and Large-Scale International
Land Transactions
Madiodio Niasse, ILC Secretariat
• Established in mid-1990s as: Popular Coalition to Eradicate Hunger and Poverty, which became ILC in 2003
• A global alliance to promote secure and equitable access to and control over land for the poor;
• About 80 member organisations, including IGOs and CSOs (farmers’ organisations, research institutes, NGOs and CBOs);
• 20 CSO members in Africa (still growing…)• The phenomenon of large-scale land
transactions at the heart of the Coalition’s mandate
The International Land Coalition
I. Understanding the broader global context
Understanding the broader context of current LSLTs
Stone Age Early civilisation
Modern Era
Planetary phase
105 104 103 102
Organisation Tribe/village City-State; Kingdom
Nation-State Global governance
Economy Hunting-gathering
Settled agriculture
Industrial system
Globalisation
Communication language writing Printing internet
Characteristics of historical eras (Raskin et al. 2002)
Political economy perspective
• Acceleration (each stage shortened by factor of 10 compared to the previous)• Globalisation of the economy increased throughputs of nat. resources• Weakening of nation-state • Emergence of global governance actors and mechanism
Holocence
Anthropocene*Pleistocene (Ice Age)
Natural sciences perspective
Climate change**
* Human activity altering the planet on a scale comparable to major geological events (P. Crutzen)
** GHG (human-induced): Key determinant of current and longer term changing climate conditions
Chemistry, Geology
Climatology
Profound changes taking place require a paradigm change to understand what is happening to “land
Land
The global market
The Earth’s natural resources
Understanding the broader context of current LSLTs
II. Climate change as driver of LSLTs?
Structural Adjust. Progs in the Agriculture sector: removal of subsidies to small holder farmers;
sharp decrease of ODA & public invest in agr; market deregulation
Vulnerability to
volatility of
internal food
market prices
Role of CC/CV in the long-term build-up to LSLTs: case of Sahel and W. A.
Recent causal links : Biofuels as climate change mitigation measure (1/2)
• 1970s: Oil crisis Rush for responses to oil dependency
Promotion of biofuels: Brazil, US, etc.
• Late 1990s: Kyoto Protocol (1997): GHG reduction targets for 2012
EU Biofuels Directive (2003)
• 2006-2007:
(a) IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report;
(b) Gore: The inconvenient Truth
EU Renewable Energy Directive (2008): 10% Biofuels target for transport by 2020
Energy Security Climate Security
BIOFUELS
By mid- 2000 : 25 million ha devoted to Biofuels:– Brazil: 8-9 million ha for ethanol (mainly sugar cane)– US: 16 million ha for ethanol (mainly Maize)– EU: 3 million ha (all biofuels, esp. biodiesel from
rapeseed, ect.)– Other: exp. Palm oil (Indonesia); Soy (Brazil)
Recent causal links : Biofuels as climate change mitigation measure (2/2)
(1) 2007-08. Bad weather conditions poor harvest in key food exporting countries (Aust, Ukr)
(2) (5) Food price hikes
Immediate causal links: Role of climate in the 2007-2007 Food price hikes (1/2)
(4) Record high Oil prices
(3) (6) Freeze/ban of food exports in many countries(7) Riots
in various
big cities in
the South
(8) GLOBAL RUSH FOR
LAND
Food
Energy
Immediate causal links: Role of climate in the 2007-2007 Food price hikes (2/2)
Based on FAO, June 2008. Soaring Food prices. Facts and perspectives..
III. Magnitude and impacts of climate-related LSLTs?
Palm oil plantation, Indonesia (FoEE, 2010)
Magnitude of LSLTs and the share of biofuels
Magnitude of LSLTs:• GRAIN : Wake-up call• Madagascar/Daewoo• IFPRI: 15-20 million
ha• World Bank: +40
million ha in less than a year (press reports)
Share of biofuels in LSLTs:
• Pre-rush: 0.5% of cultivated land
Rush period:• World Bank: 21%
of the reported deals
• FoEE: 1/3 of land acquired in Africa
• IIED (4 countries): 50%
Selected cases of reported LSLA for biofuels in Africa (FoEE, 2010)
Impacts (Subject to controversies)
• Reduced dependency on fossil fuel
• Potential for mitigating GHG: 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels
• Recuperation of degraded land: Jatropha?
• Non-land based biofuels: diversified production systems at farm level
• Access to an expanding market
• Net contributor to GHG emission: 1st generation Biofuels
• Food insecurity, especially for the poor
• Pressure on water: risks of “water wars”
• Evictions and increased landlessness
• Risk of proliferation of GMO-based biofuels
IV. Way forward
Weak Governance
Strong Governance
Improving land & NR governance: focus at national level
Obs. The strength of governance: a key factor in the NR’s susceptibility of being swallowed by the global market
Kimberly Process Diamonds
Forest
Wildlife
Mining
Water
Forest Stewardship Council
CITES
EITI
WCD / WWF
Strengthening global citizen engagement & CSR
Obs. CSR & global governance seek to compensate weak governance at national level: Do we have better alternatives?
Gen
eral
in
stru
men
ts:
GC
; E
P;
IFI’
s A
cco
un
tab
ilit
y m
ech
anim
s
Global
governance
Addressing the land-based biofuels (1/2)• Invest in climate adaptation: Diversification;
agricultural/water infrastructure• Rethink energy security strategies with priority to:
– Options with minimal effects on food security: 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels?
– Options that do not involve land acquisitions
• Strengthen land/NR governance at national/local levels
• Consider relevance/effectiveness of global governance mechanisms (CSR, citizen engagement) to guide international investments
Addressing the land-based biofuels (2/2)• Brazil:PNDB (National Prog for Development and
Use of Biodiesel):– Establishment of a “Social Fuel Stamp” to involve family
farmers in the sector– Biodiesel processing plants to accumulate stamps on basis
of raw material (soybean) purchased from small farmers– Stamps rewards in tax exemptions
• Mali-Biocarburant (Jatropha): – Works with +4000 small farmers in 3 regions (contract
farming)– Famers’ cooperative (ULSSP) holds 20% of the shares of
Mali-Biocarburant
The Case for a multi-stakeholder dialogue
http://www.gwpda.org/photos/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=13&page=2
Who wins from the “Trench warfare” logic?
What do we lose in talking/engaging with the other camp?
• You need courage to engage in a trench warfare• You also need courage to meet/talk to the other camp• Dialogue idea: a bet on the latter (Ref. presentat. ROPPA)
Thank you !
For more information on ILC: www.landcoalition.org