Transcript Presentation - Regional Policy Briefings

CTA Briefing – Ouagadougou, Oct. 1-2, 2010
Linkages between Change
and Large-Scale International
Land Transactions
Madiodio Niasse, ILC Secretariat
The International Land Coalition
• 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
I. Understanding the broader
global context
Understanding the broader context
of current LSLTs
Political economy perspective
Characteristics of historical eras (Raskin et al. 2002)
Stone Age
Early
Modern
civilisation Era
Planetary
phase
105 
104 
103 
102 
Organisation
Tribe/village
City-State;
Kingdom
Nation-State
Global
governance
Economy
Huntinggathering
Settled
agriculture
Industrial
system
Globalisation
Communication
language
writing
Printing
internet
• 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
Natural sciences perspective
Chemistry, Geology
Pleistocene (Ice Age)
Holocence
Anthropocene*
* Human activity altering the planet on a scale
comparable to major geological events (P. Crutzen)
Climatology
Climate change**
** GHG (human-induced): Key determinant of
current and longer term changing climate
conditions
Profound changes taking place require a paradigm
change to understand what is happening to “land
Understanding the broader context
of current LSLTs
Land
The global
market
The Earth’s
natural resources
II. Climate change as driver of
LSLTs?
Role of CC/CV in the long-term build-up to
LSLTs: case of Sahel and W. A.
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
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
Recent causal links : Biofuels as climate change
mitigation measure (2/2)
Climate Security
Energy 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)
Immediate causal links: Role of climate in the
2007-2007 Food price hikes (1/2)
(1) 2007-08. Bad weather
conditions  poor harvest
in key food exporting
countries (Aust, Ukr)
(4) Record high
Energy Oil prices
(8) GLOBAL
RUSH
FOR
LAND
 (2) (5) Food price hikes
 (3) (6) Freeze/ban
of food exports in
many countries
(7) Riots in
Food
various
big cities
in the
South
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?
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)
Palm oil plantation, Indonesia (FoEE, 2010)
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)
• 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
• 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
IV. Way forward
Improving land & NR governance: focus at
national level
Strong Governance
Weak Governance
Obs. The strength of governance: a key factor in the NR’s
susceptibility of being swallowed by the global market
General instruments: GC; EP;
IFI’s Accountability mechanims
Strengthening global citizen engagement & CSR
Kimberly
Process
Diamonds
Forest
Stewardship
Council
Forest
CITES
Wildlife
EITI
Mining
WCD / WWF
Water
Obs. CSR & global governance seek to compensate weak
governance at national level: Do we have better alternatives?
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
Who wins from the “Trench warfare” logic?
http://www.gwpda.org/photos/coppermine/thumbnails.php?album=13&page=2
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