2010
DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2010.512463
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Over the heads of local people: consultation, consent, and recompense in large-scale land deals for biofuels projects in Africa

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
185
0
7

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 268 publications
(195 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
3
185
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…41 Obviously, overall development is a desirable goal for poor countries such as Ethiopia, with low GDP, poor facilities, a lack of legal security, massive poverty, no welfare system, over-population, food insecurity of 4 to 10 million people every year, repression, and a shaky human rights record (according to human rights organisations as well as the US State Department reports. 42 ) But it is difficult to see why this process has to flout governance criteria and social justice precepts that were set out in the 1995 constitution and a host of other laws, why risks are taken with the environment, livelihoods and with security issues, why national debates and locally tailored alternatives in land policy are not considered, and why the customary use rights and relevant knowledge of local people are ignored (Vermeulen and Cotula 2010). 43 The current land acquisitions in Africa can indeed be termed a new 'scramble', because influential and wealthy foreign powers hasten to acquire land in order to secure their interests (future fuel needs and food market demand abroad).…”
Section: Prospect and Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…41 Obviously, overall development is a desirable goal for poor countries such as Ethiopia, with low GDP, poor facilities, a lack of legal security, massive poverty, no welfare system, over-population, food insecurity of 4 to 10 million people every year, repression, and a shaky human rights record (according to human rights organisations as well as the US State Department reports. 42 ) But it is difficult to see why this process has to flout governance criteria and social justice precepts that were set out in the 1995 constitution and a host of other laws, why risks are taken with the environment, livelihoods and with security issues, why national debates and locally tailored alternatives in land policy are not considered, and why the customary use rights and relevant knowledge of local people are ignored (Vermeulen and Cotula 2010). 43 The current land acquisitions in Africa can indeed be termed a new 'scramble', because influential and wealthy foreign powers hasten to acquire land in order to secure their interests (future fuel needs and food market demand abroad).…”
Section: Prospect and Conclusionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In recent analyses of global land grabs, biodiversity conservation and reforestation, including through REDD and comparable activities, often feature as well as more familiar ''culprits'' such as cultivation of biofuels (Vermeulen and (Vermeulen and Cotula 2010;Suiseeya and Caplow 2013). Such issues necessarily have implications for legitimacy and for equitable sharing of benefits over the longer term.…”
Section: Objective 3: Local Control and Environmental Justicementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies underline changes in agriculture, the alteration of land use dynamics, food insecurity and an increase in food prices (Azar and Larson, 2000;Rathmann et al 2010). Other research outlines several interrelated problems: the spatial relations between deforestation and biofuel production (Gao et al, 2011); the high energy and water costs of crop irrigation and production (Dalla Marta et al, 2011;Pérez et al, 2011;Williams et al, 2012); threats to biodiversity (Rowe et al, 2009;Sullivan et al, 2011); the loss of local control over territories and ecosystems and the land grab phenomenon (Cotula, 2012;Dauvergne and Neville, 2010;Duvail et al, 2012;Vermeulen and Cotula 2010); territorial disputes (Amigun et al 2011;Fernandes et al 2010); involvement and tensions with indigenous communities (Colbran, 2011;Hazlewood, 2012;Montefrio and Sonnenfeld, 2013); connections to the climate dimension (Jensen and Andersen, 2013;Tsao et al, 2012); and direct questioning of the sustainability of these REs (Levidow and Paul, 2010;Zeller and Grass, 2008).…”
Section: The Impact Of the Global Industrial Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%