|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ActionAid
www.actionaid.org.uk ActionAid
International Postnet
Private Bag X31, Saxonwold 2132, www.actionaid.org ActionAid is a registered charity (number 274467) September 2013 Cover Broken
promises The
impacts of Addax
Bioenergy in hunger
and livelihoods September
2013 Executive Summary
In 2014, the
Swiss company Addax Bioenergy will begin
exporting ethanol from a sugar cane plantation in -
99% of respondents said that hunger
was prevalent in the Addax project area -
90% said that hunger was due to the
loss of land to Addax -
99% of respondents suggested that
food production had declined in their communities -
78% of community respondents
said that they have never seen the land lease agreement -
85% of respondents said that
information provided to communities on the advantages and
disadvantages of Addax’s investment was inadequate -
82% of respondents said they are
dissatisfied with Addax’s operations. Research has further shown
that: -
land loss mitigation programmes have failed to provide many communities
with sufficient food -
compensation levels for land loss
are poor -
wages are low at a time when prices
and costs are escalating -
there was a lack of free, prior and
informed consent (FPIC) of the local communities, effectively
making this a land grab Communities feel that promises were
made that have not been met. The project is financed by a
number of multilateral and bilateral institutions. ActionAid calls on donors to demand that Addax
dramatically improves the lives of the communities in the project area
by (as a minimum): paying better wages and fair compensation;
employing local people (particularly the young) on long term
contracts; stop further land being taken for the
plantation; relinquishing bolilands (important
seasonal swamp land for growing rice); and overhauling the Farmer
Development Programme to enhance food security
after consultation with the communities (and delivering the whole programme free for the duration of the lease). If
necessary, this should be done through the renegotiation of the land
lease agreements. As importantly, Members of the
European Parliament have an opportunity at a vote during the second
week of September 2013 to change the damaging EU policies that drive
the rush for land grabs from companies such as Addax. MEPs should vote for: -
A 5% cap on the use of land based biofuels that can count towards targets in EU biofuel legislation, with a view to phase out the
use of such biofuels as soon as
possible. -
The introduction of a binding
carbon methodology that accounts for indirect land use change
(these should be feedstock specific). - The introduction of binding social sustainability criteria for all bionenergy, including wastes, residues and other biomass. Introduction
The Bombali
district of northern -
It is about to start commercial
production of biofuels, one of the first in -
By 2014, most if not all of the
ethanol produced (from sugar cane) will be exported to the EU[3];3
despite EU attempts to downplay the impacts of EU biofuel
policy on developing countries by claiming that the EU does not
import biofuels from (Africa’s) poorest
nations.[4] -
It recently received a
sustainability certificate from the Roundtable for
Sustainable Biomaterial (RSB). -
It is funded by the African
Development Bank (AfDB), five European
bilateral institutions and two other donors.[5] -
It is promoted as an example of
an environmentally and socially responsible biofuel
Addax Bioenergy has leased
57000 hectares in the Bombali and Tonkolili districts in Photo Action Aid At its height, the project
will produce some 85,000 cubic meters (85 million litres)
of ethanol a year (ethanol is blended into petrol). In
the reporting year 2011/2012, this one project would have been
enough to meet 12% of the The Addax Project
Overview Addax’s lease runs for 50 years and
originally extended to 57,000 hectares (19kms x 30kms), covering
two chiefdoms in the Bombali district and one
in the neighbouring Tonkolili
district. The land lease agreements include a provision to extend
the lease for a further 21 years.[9]
The area is bordered to the west and south by the EU drivers and institutional
donor involvement
The Sierra Leone Investment and
Export Promotion Agency (SLIEPA) is driving
much of the land investment in the country.[13]
Addax has been a beneficiary of the process and makes no secret of
the fact that its ethanol production, from one of the poorest countries
in the world will be exported to the EU[14]and
that it meets the requirements of European legislation, namely the
Renewable Energy Directive (RED).[15] The
RED is currently being re-negotiated but it requires that by 2020, 10%
of EU transport fuels must come from renewable sources. European
countries are currently planning to meet this 10% target almost
exclusively from land-based biofuels (ie food crops or other dedicated energy crops grown
on land). Together with preferential trade links to the EU and tax
incentives in The Addax project received a sustainability certificate
from the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB)[18] in February 2013[19]. At the time, RSB
announced that “Addax Bioenergy has become a
model for sustainable projects in Addax altered a number of water courses; but at the
time of the RSB audit in early 2013, one major unspecified water issue had
still not been resolved.[22]
ActionAid believes thisis the
construction of a new well in the The impacts of Addax operations
on food security and land rights
“Well, the situation is
getting worse now. Before Addax came we used to plant on those lands
and feed ourselves sufficiently... we even used to have something to give to
our friends when they came. But now we can no longer have food to
give them because Addax has said they are going to do the planting for
us, but the planting that they are doing for us is not even enough for us to eat…
So things are becoming difficult, prices are now increasing for food
stuff.” Yaema Koroma
(alias), female with two dependent children, interview with ActionAid in January 2013 Some 90 villages lie within the
area leased by Addax although pre-project studies - many commissioned
by Addax - say that only 60 villages will be directly affected. Within
these 60 villages, some 13,617 people will be affected, i.e.
through displacement in one form or another (for example from
economic activities). 50 people have been physically and
involuntarily resettled[24]
which in itself is a violation of the RSB principles. To mitigate against the loss of agricultural land, the
company developed the Farmer Development Programme
(FDP) and training whereby each affected person is ‘allocated’ 0.14
hectare of land (on average 35 metres x 35 metres).[25] Land
preparation and seeds are supplied free in the first year of the FDP. In
year two, Addax will continue to meet two-thirds of the cost
of land preparation; in year three, one-third of the cost. Seeds,
except in year one, and all other inputs are supplied at cost. After the
third year, the farmers have the option to continue to use the FDP
but they must pay the full costs.[26]
Costs incurred by Addax as part of the programme
are sometimes met by the company taking part of the rice harvest.[27] This
is a farming model – mechanised with high cost
external inputs such as fertilizers – that is alien to the communities
and provides great uncertainty for farmers as to what will happen
after the three years.[28]
This comes at the expense of promoting sustainable agriculture
approaches which are likely to be of more benefit to poor farmers.[29] But whilst the FDP has worked for
some communities, it hasn’t for others. Even if one community goes
hungry because of the activities of Addax, which it has, this is
unacceptable. In 2010, the first year of the FDP, which was focused
around the initial phase of the project, the promised ploughing, harrowing and seeds arrived too late.
Planting usually begins in May but the seeds only arrived in July
and the promised fertilizer arrived even later. As a consequence, there was “less food in
the communities as “Since Addax came
we are presently experiencing hunger, so we don’t have enough food to eat, presently our children are crying for food but we
don’t have food to give them” Edriam Gulama (alias), female with three children, interview with ActionAid in January 2013. > the late land
preparation by Addax tractor > the fact that many
communities could not afford the costs of fertilizers > the late
allocation of plots to farmers > the decrease in
FDP soil fertility because fields are in constant use for the second
and third year > the quality of the
seeds was poor or were not adapted to the type of soils > some
communities reported that different seeds varieties were mixed (seeds
were not pure). The problem of seed
type was confirmed in a 2012 independent monitoring report for Swedfund. Also, Addax sought expert advice (from a
local agricultural institute) on the selection of rice varieties,
instead of planting the varieties preferred by local people.
The resulting yields were lower than expected.[37] In interviews
conducted for ActionAid across the 10 villages
and from the focus group discussions, opinion was unanimous
that in most instances in 2010 and 2011 rice yields were low from
the FDP plots; and 99% of respondents suggested that food
production has declined in their communities.[38] Others
reported to ActionAid that farming is proving
difficult when young men are employed on the sugar cane plantation which
produces the biofuel. Whilst many of these
jobs are temporary, some coincided with critical periods for the
land preparation and planting (May-July) of the key food crop,
rice. Addax insists that the FDP is producing a surplus of rice but
the weighing of rice bags has been contested by communities and is
thus overstated.[39]
Indeed, a further monitoring report for Swedfund
in 2013 stated: “these figures [production and yields] must be treated
with a degree of caution as weighing and maintaining the integrity
of the measuring and sharing process [of rice] remains a central problem
in the field”. The report also confirms that 70% of bags were not
weighed.[40] Addax
also claims that the local people are not giving their maximum support
to the Programme.[41]
The concerns listed above, and the fact that this is a model of farming
that they are unfamiliar with, is perhaps at the heart of the
problem. Also the FDP cannot replace the full range of products,
services and sources of income that people previously gained from
the land and water[42]. July and August 2012 NGOs are not alone with regards the collection of
statements from local communities about the activities of Addax. The following are taken from an independent report written
for one of the donors, Swedfund. FDP and food security nQuestion:: We may also want to know why you do not have enough land to farm on? Respondent 1: We have given our lands to Addax Respondent 2: When Addax came, they went into our
bushes and demarcated the plots of lands they want before they came to
us. What they left for us is not enough for all of us in the
community. Gender Question: When Addax leased
the lands from you, were you paid, or were the lands forcefully taken from you or was an
agreement made? Respondent: Yes, they paid the land owners, but we
the women are faced with serious challenges as the money is only used by
the men; the money
was only used by the men - that is our grievance. The 2013 report for Swedfund also concluded: “The overall performance of
the FDP in terms of sustainability cannot be gauged until
sometime after it has been implemented for all sites within the
project area.”[43]
This brings into question as to how the RSB was able to award
a sustainability certificate for the project. Impacts
on women Women are often the main providers
of food for families, and are also more likely to suffer from food
insecurity. As such, they are at a particularly vulnerable position when
land and food rights are under threat, as they are in the areas
affected by the Addax project. Women in the areas affected by the
Addax project have indeed reported gender specific concerns (see
also : > Productive trees, such
as palm, are compensated at US$8-10 each (about €6.00
-7.50 depending on exchange rates at the time)[44]
but according to SiLNoRF, the palm trees are
worth about US$19 (€14.5) per year.[45] > The level of land compensation
is minimal, at just US$7.90 (€6.00) per hectare per
year.> > Despite the fact that
there are more women in the project area, and that many women are
land users and are equally active in farming activities, all the land
money is controlled by and paid via a small number of male land
owners or elected elders in the village. Most people, particularly land
users and women see very little, if any of this money (see 1Addax is
producing biofuels from sugarcane, meaning the
land is converted from food crop to energy crop production One woman that ActionAid interviewed said that she farmed about 15
acres (6ha) as a land user but this was taken by Addax. The
compensation money goes to the land owner who so far has given her
about 200,000 The impacts of Addax operations
on jobs and livelihoods[46][47]
Respondents also told ActionAid that jobs were promised to locals and to
young people of families that had given up their land. But in
interviews conducted by ActionAid in early 2013,
many people complained that this had not happened; and that when they
were employed, the conditions of employment were not made clear to
them (not least because contracts were not in the local language).
Table 1 reveals that nearly a half of those employed are not
locally (displaced) people but come from a distance greater than 20 km
from the project. per month);[48]
if a family has lost their land or the FDP is not working and/or still
being implemented, the wage could provide their only
income. Wages at this level are not sufficient to cover their daily
food needs let alone other daily expenditure such as housing, clothing
or school fees, especially when considering the costs associated
with the FDP if farmers choose this option. In early 2013, ActionAid interviewed many people as to how much it
would cost to feed
* In May 2013, Addax reported that it had a workforce of
about 1,500 workers split 50% as permanent workers and 50% as casual
workers47 Impacts of low wages
on food security The company has supplied hundreds
of jobs, pumping millions of “Before we were
eating up to 10 cups of rice [per family, per day] because of
the produce we were getting from our farms. But since Addax came, we can no longer eat that amount of rice we used to eat. Now we
are eating 5 cups we cannot even imagine to get 6 cups because our source
of getting money is very slim.” Zaria Conteh (alias), female farmer
with nine children, interview with ActionAid in January 2013 All this is at a time when daily
costs have risen massively over the past few years since Addax
started operations. Respondents for another study in the Addax area reported that
the prices of bush meat (per cut) and a cup of pepper, groundnuts or
beans had all risen 300% compared to before the company arrived.
The price of plassas (leafy greens) per tie
had risen between 150% and 400% over the same time period.[49] Many
farmers also now have additional costs associated with the FDP, and this
will continue if farmers have few other options. So despite Addax
reporting that average household incomes have improved by 200%
since 2010,[50]
the massive increase in local costs in part explains why so many people
are finding it difficult to subsist. In addition, many of these
jobs are temporary and casual as shown in Table 1. Many people told
ActionAid that the company was failing to
employ a significant number of young local people on long term
contracts, that Addax was paying low wages and failing to provide
adequate information about employment conditions. In mid June
2013 there was a strike at the plantation. The issues of contracts, end of term benefits and regular wage
payments were central to the worker’s grievances.[51] Broken Promises
The lack of free,
prior and informed consent Addax conducted
consultation processes, undertook numerous pre-assessment studies
(some of which went further than the performance requirements of
international donors), produced land maps and has dialogue with
stakeholders. However, a key aspect of sustainability is the
principle of ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC); the right of all
stakeholders to be consulted in a timely, appropriate and ‘informed’
way is of paramount importance on which consent or veto is based. These
are all key requirements of the RSB certification. To the company,
it appears that consultation and ensuring that a small number of people signed-off
the land lease agreements constituted consent. From the survey conducted
for ActionAid, only 66% of respondents said
they attended consultation and stakeholder meetings. Moreover, there was
essentially no dialogue at these meetings as speaker after speaker from
the company or public officials reinforced the benefits of Addax’s
investments to the country and hostcommunities. Consequently,
85% said that information provided to communities on the advantages
and disadvantages of Addax’s investment was inadequate.[52] The
land lease agreements were signed by few elected elders, such as the
Paramount Chiefs and Chiefdom Counsellors. But
78% of the community respondents have never seen the agreements.[53]
The land leases seen by ActionAid were also in
English, not the local language Temne.[54]
One of those who signed the land lease agreement said he did not understand
it.[55] Addax
could argue that the details of the land lease agreements were meant for the
signatories only and they should have been responsible for consultation
with their communities. This would however have been an abrogation
on the part of the company that is not allowed under the RSB certification.
Here it is the responsibility of the feedstock producer, feedstock
processor and/or biofuel producer to comply
with the requirements to meet FPIC.[56] The
company arranged for a lawyer to represent the communities, paid for by
the company: “landowners and local authorities were represented by
a respected law firm of their choosing to ensure negotiations were held on
a level playing field”.[57]
As the RSB audit says, this was done to “represent their interests and
to ensure that the lease agreements were well understood by all
affected.”[58] This
claim stands in sharp contrast with the claims of landowners and local
people. 75% of community resident respondents claim that they never
saw the lawyer that was supposed to represent them. Only 2% believe that
they were well represented by the lawyer.[59] To
illustrate this point, the leases include the wording: “The Company …
shall be entitled to have exclusive possession over all that forms
part [of the] Demised Premises including villages, rivers, forests and
all other forms of environment.”[60]
But the local NGO SiLNoRF states that
community members would have The Addax project is using up vital water resources,
and changing water courses. Photo ActionAid : > What jobs would be
provided to them and over what period? This issue remains largely unresolved
as noted in the RSB audit - there was a “lack of understanding of
conditions of employment agreements”.[62] > What land would be taken,
including the most productive low-lying seasonally flooded land for
rice (‘bolilands’) and when it would be taken?
As the AfDB states: “the Addax land selection
strategy was based on avoiding the lower lying swamp lands which are
currently used for rice production by local people” (this is given more
consideration in the next section).[63] > The way that the FDP would
work? The report for Swedfund in 2012
confirmed that: “In a few cases, insufficient consultation with villagers
has meant that the FDP, and the respective roles of Addax and local
people in its implementation, have not been made sufficiently clear
to locals”.[64] > What would happen
regarding the provision and building of social amenities such as schools
and medical clinics? In addition, a requirement of the
RSB certification demands that informed consent should have a
specific gender perspective. Women are not allowed to own land (but may use
land) and therefore were not party to the negotiations and many were
simply not consulted by the company as to whether they gave their
consent. The absence of free, prior and
informed consent (FPIC), and a gendered perspective are key
components in the lack of sustainability of the project and makes the
Addax plantation a land grab as defined by the Tirana Declaration.[65] Communities
allege to have been misinformed In
interviews with ActionAid in January 2013, respondents
voiced a number of issues that they said had left deep resentment within
the project area; some of these are in relation to the ‘promises’
the respondents say were made to the communities in return for allowing
the project to proceed. When people agree to give up their land, affected
communities place great faith in the project or the company to help lift
them out of poverty. The provision of jobs and social amenities are
key in this respect. But it appears that any
promises made were not written down. Even if promises were not made by the
company itself, Addax failed to control expectations on the ground. It
appears the promises respondents referred to may have come from
public officials.[66],[67] Respondents
told ActionAid that promises were made
regarding the building of schools and medical clinics but these have not
materialised. Addax claims that it should be
the responsibility of the District and Chiefdom councils to which some
of the land compensation is paid.[68] One
further issue is the use by the company of bolilands.
The 2012 report for Swedfund confirms there is
a presumption against the use of bolilands.[69]
Clearly, the issue of bolilands was discussed
with communities; but here the communities’ expectations may again have been
raised – that the company would avoid these areas and confine its
activities to other land, but hasn’t.[70]
There is still widespread belief in communities that Addax is going to
use bolilands for only three years, which
terminates in 2013.[71]
One village is still resisting the taking of bolilands
by the company.[72] Conclusions and recommendations
The project is far from sustainable
and is undermining communities’ rights. Many people told ActionAid that because their land has been taken,
the failure in places of the FDP, poor wages and job insecurity as local prices
and costs rise, they now simply do not have enough to eat. Of those
interviewed for ActionAid, 99% said there was
hunger in their communities and 90% said this was due to the loss
of land to Addax.[73] Overall,
82% of respondents said they are dissatisfied with Addax’s operations.
But the vast majority (96%) want Addax to stay
and make amends.[74] ActionAid calls on donors to demand that Addax
dramatically improves the lives of the communities in the project area
by (as a minimum): > paying better wages and fair
compensation > employing local people (particulrly the young) on long term contracts > stop further land being
taken for the plantation > relinquishing bolilands; and > overhauling the Farmer
Development Programme to enhance food security
after consultation with the communities (and delivering the whole programme free for the duration of the lease). If necessary, this should be done
through the renegotiation of the land lease agreements. Additionally,
Members of the European Parliament have an opportunity at a vote during
the second week of September 2013 to change the damaging EU policies
that drive the rush for land grabs from companies such as Addax. MEPs should vote for: > A 5% cap on the use of
land-based biofuels that can count towards
targets in EU biofuel legislation, with a view
to phase out the use of such biofuels as soon
as possible. > The introduction of a
binding carbon methodology that accounts for indirect land use
change (these should be feedstock specific). > The introduction of binding
social sustainability criteria for all bionenergy,
including wastes, residues and other biomass. |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[1] ActionAid has written to Whitestone SL Ltd outlining our
concerns in the way that the company acquired the land and the size of the
area; Whitestone has not replied andActionAid has not
been able to make any further contact. No land clearance has yet taken place
[2]Addax Bioenergy is a subsidiary of Addax and Oryx Group (AOG) based in the British Virgin Isles.
[3] See
https://www.addaxbioenergy.com/uploads/PDF/Addax_Bioenergy_FAQ_June_2013.pdf. and https://www.swedfund.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ABSL-2011-Annual-Independent-Public-ES-Monitoring-Report.pdf.
[4] Stina Soewarta, 2012. Speech at European Development Days, October. DG Development and Cooperation (DevCo).
[5] The five European development funds are: The
Netherlands Development Finance Company (FMO); the Belgian Investment Company;
the Emerging Africa InfrastructureFund (UK DFID);
Deutsche Investitions- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft
mbH (DEG) and Swedfund; the
two other donors are the South African Industrial Developmen
Corporation and the Infrastructure Crisis Facility Debt Pool, managed by Cordiant (Canada).
[6] Øyvind Vessia – Policy Officer, Renewables and CCS, DG Energy, panel debate Biopact November 2012.
[7] See DFT, 2012.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biofuel-statistics-year-4-2011-12-report-5.
[8] Study for ActionAid on the
Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on Food
Security and Livelihoods in
[9] See https://farmlandgrab.org/uploads/attachment/ADDAX%20-%20Land%20Lease%20Agreement.pdf
[10] AfDB, 2010a. Addax Bioenergy Project:
Executive Summary of the Comprehensive Policy Framework and the Pilot Phase
Resettlement Action Plan.
https://www.afdb.orgfileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Environmental-and-Social-Assessments/Addax%20Bioenergy%20-%20RAP%20summary%20-%20Final%20EN.pdf.
Pages 9 and 10
[11] Baxter, J., 2013a. Farmland – the new ‘blood diamonds in
[12] . https://farmlandgrab.org/uploads/attachment/ADDAX%20-%20Land%20Lease%20Agreement.pdf
[13] The SLIEPA is part of the Removing Administrative
Barriers in Sierra Leone (RABI) programme of World
Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC). SLIEPA wasestablished
in 2007 and is also financed by the
[14] See also
https://farmlandgrab.org/uploads/attachment/ADDAX%20MOU0001.pdf15
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009L0028:EN:NOT
[15] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009L0028:EN:NOT
[16]http://www.addaxbioenergy.com/uploads/PDF/Addax_Bioenergy_FAQ_June_2013.pdf
[17] https://www.swedfund.se/en/?case=addax-bioenergy-sierra-leone
[18] https://rsb.ora
[19] https://advancedbiofuelsusa.info/addax-bioenergy-earns-first-african-certification-by-roundtable-on-sustainable-biofuels-rsb
[20] Ibid.
[21]https://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/sustainability_schemes_en.htm
[22]RSB, 2013a. Addax Bioenergy Sierra Leone, Executive Summary of Public Audit. https://rsbservices.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Addax-RSB-public-certreport-130214-FINAL.pdf
[23]SiLNoRF, 2013. Annual Monitoring Report on the Operations of Addax Bioenergy by the
[24]SiLNoRF, 2013. Ibid
[25] AfDB, 2010b. Addax Bioenergy Project:
Executive Summary of the Environmental, Social and Health Impact Assessment.
https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Environmental-and-Social-Assessments/Addax%20Bioenergy%20-%20ESHIA%20summary%20-%20Final%20EN.pdf.
Page 11
[26] AfDB, 2010b. Op cit. Page 11.
[27]Study for ActionAid on the
Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on Food
Security and Livelihoods in
[28]SiLNoRF, 2012. Annual Monitoring Report on the Operations of Addax Bioenergy by the
[29]SiLNoRF, 2012. Op cit. Page 13
[30]Anana, M et al, 2012. Independent Study Report of the Addax Bioenergy Sugarcane-to-ethanol project in the Makeni Region in Sierra Loene. SiLNoRF, Bread for all and others.
https://www.brotfueralle.ch/fileadmin/deutsch/01_Service/Medien_Texte/Mediencommuniques/Independent%20Study%20Report%20Addax%20Final.pdf.
Page 32.
[31] Addax communication with Bread for
All, May 2011 in https://www.breadforall.ch/fileadmin/deutsch/2_Entwicklungpolitik_allgemein/C_Wirtschaft%20und%20MR/11_08_Bread_for_all_response_to_the_statements_of_Addax.pdf.
[32] Study for ActionAid on the
Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on Food
Security and Livelihoods in
[33]
[34]SiLNoRF, 2013. Op cit. Pages 11, 12 and 18.
[35] Study for ActionAid on the
Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on Food
Security and Livelihoods in
[36]SiLNoRF, 2012. Op cit, pages 12-13 and SiLNoRF, 2013. Op cit. Page 19.
[37]
[38]Study for ActionAid on the
Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on Food
Security and Livelihoods in
[39]SiLNoRF, 2013. Op cit. Page 18
[40]
[41]Study for ActionAid on the
Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on Food
Security and Livelihoods in
[42]
[43]
[44] AfDB, 2010a. Op cit. Page 12. I.e. 683 trees
were compensated at a cost of approximately US$7,000
[45]SiLNoRF, 2012. Op cit.
[46]
[47]See SiLNoRF, 2013. Op cit. Page 11
[48] Calculating the daily .wage from Addax ‘pay advice’ is confusing as it
includes a basic wage but then adds on Housing, transport and medical
allowances. But the pivotguard pay advice seen by ActionAid gives the rate per hour as 1519.88 leones for an 8 hour day.
[49] Baxter J., 2013b. Who is benefitting?
The social and economic impact of three large-scale land
investments in
[50]
[51] See also Study for ActionAid
on the Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on
Food Security and Livelihoods in
[52] Study for ActionAid on the
Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on Food
Security and Livelihoods in
[53] Study for ActionAid on the
Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on Food
Security and Livelihoods in
[54] See https://farmlandgrab.org/uploads/attachment/ADDAX%20-%20Land%20Lease%20Agreement.pdf
[55] See also SiLNoRF, 2013. Op cit. Page 15
[56] See RSB, 2013b. https://rsb.org/sustainability/rsb-sustainability-standards/
[57] See https://www.swedfund.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Addax-Bioenergy-Fact-Sheet-April-2012.pdf.
[58]RSB, 2013a. Op cit.
[59] Study for ActionAid on the
Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on Food
Security and Livelihoods in
[60] See https://farmlandgrab.org/uploads/attachment/ADDAX%20-%20Land%20Lease%20Agreement.pdf
[61] SiLNoRF, 2013. Op cit. Pages 14 and 15.
[62]RSB, 2013a. Op cit.
[63] AfDB, 2010a. Op cit. Page 10.
[64]
[65]The Tirana Declaration was produced by 150
international civil society organisations who defined
land grabs against five criteria. These can be found at: https://www. landcoalition.org/about-us/aom2011/tirana-declaration
[66]Baxter, J, 2013b. Op cit.
[67] Group interview with Clive English, Addax Bioenergy, July 18 2013
[68] Study for ActionAid on the
Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on Food
Security and Livelihoods in
[69]
[70] SiLNoRF, 2012. Op cit. Page 12; see also Baxter, 2013b. Op Cit.
[71] Study for ActionAid on the
Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on Food
Security and Livelihoods in
[72] See SiLNoRF, 2013. Op cit. Page 16.
[73] Study for ActionAid on the
Impact of the Operations of Addax Bioenergy on Food
Security and Livelihoods in
[74] Ibid