The Global Biofuel Production and its impact on the Land Tenure of the Rural Poor (eBook)

Seminar paper from the year 2012 in the subject Ethnology / Cultural Anthropology, grade: 1, University of Luzern (ethnologisches Seminar), course: Land Grabbing, language: English, abstract: The global biofuel production has been rapidly increasing since 2007-08 and with it the new demand for land, which has a strong focus on Africa as it has weak land rights protection. Most foreign investors, who intend to buy land for the biofuel production take advantage of the lack of proper property rights in several African countries. Therefore, many of the rural poor, who depend on land for their living, suffer from expulsion or dispossession. In summary, it can be said that the formalization of land titles only serves the poor, when secondary rights as for example for women, herders or migrants, are respected by the state or the foreign investors when allocating, buying or leasing land. In addition, during the processes of allocating, buying or leasing land, the state as well as the foreign investor should give whole local communities (not only local elites) the possibility to negotiate over the future use of the land they tilled for years. From the four land tenure reforms outlined, where land based wealth and power transfers occurs, the two best possible solutions, which serve the poor, would be the redistribution and the distribution of land. In my opinion, the preferable one of this two solutions is distribution as this solution is less conflict-prone. In the present paper two case studies are used to show how (as in the case of Ghana) local elites or foreign investors make decisions without consulting local communities or, that simply changing laws or introduce policies is not enough to protect the land rights of the affected local communities (as in the case of Mozambique). Even if local communities are compensated for loss of their land rights, many agreements between communities and investors emphasize one-off compensations rather than long-term benefit sharing, such as job creation or leasing incomes and the agreements usually involve very small payments compared to for example the value of the forest concessions acquired by investors.