BIOFUELS AND LAND RIGHTS

1. BIOFUELS AND LAND RIGHTS Presented By Edward Lange

2. BIOFUELS AND LAND RIGHTSWhat are Biofuels? • Biofuels have been defined in several ways depending on what is the most common understanding within a locality or the scientific understanding of the issues involved . • The definition has also depended on the subject matter inclination of the concerned organization or individuals. Environmentalists have referred to biofuels as any fuel sourced from living matter with a view to preserve the environment while providing human needs from the ecology. • Biofuels are liquid fuels made from organic matter – typically crops

3. Who is Civil Society Biofuels Forum? • We are a group of civil society concerned with growing interest for Biofuels by stakeholders. • Our role is to advocate for a pro-poor playing ground in the Biofuels Industry • STUDY UNDERTAKEN, (Mkush,Mumbwa,Choma,Monze,Kalomo,Mungwi and Chinsali)

4. Impact of Biofuels on Land and Land Use • According to the study ,available land for biofuels production in Europe, indicates that Europe does not have adequate land to produce enough biofuels for the needs of the European market. • The study further argues that it is unavoidable for biofuel production to make use of parts of the land that was once used for food production. Biofuels crops are not always produced on newly opened land that has not been used for production of crops for other use. • Countries should be weary of the requests for big tracts of land for other use. In Tanzania, there have been requests for 50 – 100,000 hectares of land when only 5 – 25,000 hectares have been in use (Green Facts, 2010). • “Although land is an issue in developed and some developing countries, Professor Sinkala (2009) and the Biofuels Association in Zambia argue that there is sufficient land for Zambia to meet biofuel need and this can be produced wholly in the country “. • In this regard caution should be practiced when getting appeals for large tracts of land for biofuels production. Rather than rush into agreements that will just meet raw material needs for foreign countries, the benefits for the local people should be considered too.

5. Other issues Cont/ • While some organizations owned land and others contracted small-scale farmers for Jatropha production, there was little indication of abuse of local people's land rights in the study areas. • The little indication arises from the fact that some of the organizations own land under customary land tenure. • However, the contracts signed by some companies with the local farmers, bound the farmers to the contracting companies for long periods of up to thirty years. • This could meant that the land would be put to no other use than jatropha production regardless of whether the crop gave profits to the land owner or not. Although no company had imposed its contractual benefits to any defaulting farmers on this point, this was only because the companies were the first ones to withdraw or scale down on jatropha production. T • he thirty years plus contracts inherently takes away the right to land from the local legal owners for the period the contract is in force. Precaution needs to be taken in this regard to ensure that small-scale farmers, most of whom do not  appreciate the consequences of such long contract on land, are protected from possible future abuse. • The study found some foreign investors seeking land in large portions purportedly for the production of biofuels. However, there was no chiefdom in the study area that had given any huge tract of land by the time of the study.

6. Other Issues • The data collected during the survey did not show indication of abrogation of land rights of any individual. None of the farmers interviewed was aware of anyone who was displaced to allocate land to other investors in the biofuel industry.

7. Cont/ • The majority of famers (88.7%) had no criteria that they used for allocating land for biofuel production. Land was allocated according to availability (4.8%), advise by MACO (0.4%) or depending on interest (1.5%) at the time of making the decision. A few (0.4%) allocated land that was considered to have poor soils, but where food crops and trees grow well. • It was common, however, for the farmers to consider the food crops that they needed in making decision on what land was used for what crop. • As Kayula and Chitah (2009) highlight, the land allocated to jatropha vs food crops was inversely related among farmers with small land holdings. But as the land size increased jatropha was increasing allocated less land regardless of what size of land was allocated to the food crops.

8. Cont/ • The research has shown that the fears that have been raised globally about the possibility of smallholders diverting land meant for producing food crops to biofuel production, have not yet been realized in the study area, as only small amounts of land have so far been put under Jatropha production. • Furthermore, the survey has also shown that in the study areas where interviews were held, there is no evidence of the displacement of smallholders, so that land may be used for biofuel crops. There is also no evidence to suggest that women farmers have lost land that should be used to produce food crops, in order to cultivate biofuel crops. • With respect to land access, the survey shows that processors or investors access land that they own under leasehold titles for 99 years as well as land which they bought from other commercial farmers, and rent from communities (and individuals) under customary tenure. The buying and renting of land suggests that a rural land market could be emerging and will give value to rural land with the passage of time and with increased demand for biofuel crop production. • The study shows that the contracts which processors and small-holder farmers enter into, could be beneficial to both parties. While the processors are able to procure the biofuel crops from the farmers, they also provide a service in terms of guaranteed markets, provision of input support, creation of employment and support to the communities. However, there is room for improvement as the smallholders stated that they were not happy with the contracts because there were few or no follow up measures and the prices offered for their crops were low.

9. Key recommendations • Land in the rural areas and in Zambia as a whole is slowly getting some value. This trend should be recognized so that when land is allocated for large scale jatropha production, any persons resettled should be adequately compensated. In fact, government should provide plain guidelines resettling families displaced to pave way for large scale biofuel crop production. • Land access should be made more readily available to both processors (investors) and smallholder farmers in farm blocks that should be established by the government so as to promote out grower schemes for smallholder farmers. • Increased efforts have to be made at the community level to empower women with secure tenure to land so that their participation as smallholders is enhanced, in order to raise household incomes and reduce rural poverty.