Biofuel demand driving Africa “land grab” – report

ABIDJAN, (Reuters) – Biofuel demand is driving a new  “land grab” in Africa, with at least 5 million hectares (19,300  sq miles) acquired by foreign firms to grow crops in 11  countries, a study by an environmental group said yesterday.

The contracts by European and Asian companies for land to  grow sugar cane, jatropha and palm oil to be turned into fuel  will involve clearing forests and vegetation, taking land that  could be used for food and creating conflicts with local  communities, Friends of the Earth said in the study.

Proponents of biofuels argue they are renewable and can help  fight climate change because the growing plants ingest as much  carbon dioxide from the air as the fuels made from them emit  when burned.

Critics say there is a risk of the crops infringing on land  that could be used for growing food and that destruction of  rainforests to make way for palm oil and sugar outweighs any  carbon benefits gained from the use of such fuels.

“The expansion of biofuels … is transforming forests and  natural vegetation into fuel crops, taking away food-growing  farmland from communities, and creating conflicts with local  people over land ownership,” Mariann Bassey, a Friends of the  Earth Nigeria activist, said in a statement.

The report said Kenya and Angola each had received proposals  for the use of 500,000 hectares for biofuels and there was a  similar plan to use 400,000 hectares in Benin for palm oil.

Rice farmers had been forced off their land for a sugar cane  project in Tanzania, it added.

“The competition for land and the competition for staple  food crops such as cassava and sweet sorghum for agrofuels is  likely to push up food and land prices,” the study said.

Other studies have suggested biofuel expansion would not be  harmful and could even be beneficial for African agriculture.

Last month, researchers from Britain’s Imperial College,  carbon trader CAMCO, and the Forum for Agricultural Research in  Africa (FARA) said biofuels would boost investment in land and  infrastructure.

They said this could have a positive effect on food  production, and if properly managed would not mean destroying  natural forests.