|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
SIERRA LEONE – Analysis of the Oakland
Institute report FROM
SOCFIN GROUP Introduction
The report is
an unfair, biased and incorrect document on the Socfinaf group activities in
general and specifically in Some
history During 2009
the Socfinaf group was approached by SLIEPA, an investment promotion agency
of the Besides the
stable political and economic situation and the favourable agro-climatic
conditions, SLIEPA documented the availability and accessibility of land,
stressing the need for foreign investment as the global and sub-regional
markets are characterized by an increasing demand-supply gap resulting in
rising prices for vegetable oil in As a result,
Socfinaf started prospection in the regions earmarked for development by the Project
objectives The 1 In
addition, good road, administrative, industrial and social infrastructure
will be created, boosting local commerce and community life. High employment,
from agriculture labourers, technically qualified personnel (technicians,
builders, carpenters, painters, accountants, computer scientists…) to local
senior staff, will make the project area a new pole of development for Summary of operational
practices After PUBLIC consultation
and visiting and informing EACH settlement, a first development area was
demarcated. And after a thorough “Environmental and Social Impact Assessment”
by an independent consultancy company (STAR) a first concession of 6500 ha
was granted by the Chiefdom. Land rates and land
compensations were PUBLICLY discussed and PUBLICLY paid out. Particular
attention was given to assure that no houses or settlements, nor rice
producing areas, were affected and that a green belt was created around each
settlement. Local chiefs and company representatives went from house to house
to explain the situation and finally only 3600 ha of the original 6500 ha
(for which the rent was paid) were retained for further development. All areas to be planted
were GPS referenced and filed so that surfaces could be correctly calculated
and compensated. The data are listed so that each landowner can reclaim land
at the end of the lease. The approach is
apparently appreciated as areas and villages that were left out in the first
phase of development are now requesting to be included in the deal. As such,
a further 5000 ha is earmarked for future development. What has been realised
so far? A fully grown oil palm nursery
has been established in the Malen area. 3600 ha of land has been prepared for
planting. All best practices were applied for land preparation and a
leguminous cover crop will provide for soil protection and nitrogen
enrichment of the overexploited, impoverished soil. Roads and bridges,
connecting communities, have been built and existing road infrastructure of
the chiefdom has been ameliorated. School infrastructure was erected and the
capacity of the local hospital has been increased. Houses are currently being
built and existing, abandoned houses were rehabilitated. Local commerce in
the Malen chiefdom is thriving and the Government decided to locate the
technical training school in the chiefdom. More than 1000 people are
working for the project, having a huge impact on local commerce and community
life: the market is bigger, a bakery was created in town and suppliers flock
to the Malen chiefdom, a telecommunication mast has been installed allowing
the isolated chiefdom to communicate with the outside world etc. 2 NGO involvement in the project As from the beginning of
the project NGO operating in the Malen chiefdom (Hunger Hilfe, Green Scenery)
made observations concerning our working procedures. At several occasions
(documented) SAC proposed to work together with the above mentioned NGO’s in
order to obtain a more harmonious and efficient development in the area. This proposal was bluntly
refused and it is therefore painful to observe that the arguments brought
forward by the Incorrect statements
and false allegations in the 1. Contrary to the statement
in the report, all communities were properly informed and this was done
publicly. All representatives of the sections of Malen signed. Lease
agreements were drafted by local legal advisers and were fully approved by
local and ministerial authorities. 2. The investment
incentives for qualified investors are not unique to Socfinaf; they are
applicable to all foreign agribusiness companies. In addition, Socfinaf
provided for an additional 75,000 US$ social development fund for the people
in the area that have no land so that the total community can benefit from
its presence. 3. We strongly deny
that there was pressure and intimidation by the company. At the specific
request of the authorities, armed police was present at the payout ceremony
as the amounts of money circulating were important. 4. Inadequate
compensation and rental fees: the payments made by Socfinaf are far above the
recommended Government rates and fees! Additionally, Socfinaf paid for 6500
ha while it is only exploiting 3600 ha! It is incorrect that other crops are
not compensated: it is documented that ALL crops (also yearly) have been paid
for. 5. Lack of fiscal
return: again Socfinaf is submitted to Government laws and regulations.
Investment incentives were approved by Government in a democratic process.
One must also realise that a plantation investment is a long-term investment
and that wealth is created for future generations. Oil palm only comes into
full production 7 years after planting. 6. Corruption: this
has to be proven by the Oakland Institute, it is far too easy to say. Western
Eurocentric accusations! 7. Destruction of
vital forest and agricultural land: false and ridiculous accusation.
Satellite images can show that there was no forest in the area. Each village
kept its food producing land, which is situated in the lower lying areas and
deltas of the big rivers. 8. Appalling working
conditions: The local labour law is applied by Socfinaf. There is indeed no
medical insurance but workers are treated for free by the company at the
state hospital and an ambulant clinic is present on the project. We apply the
country’s payment scale. Socfinaf cannot create an imbalance on the
macro-scale of the country: today a Socfinaf’s labourer is almost getting the
same pay as a teacher and in time! 9. Lack of proper
documentation: a point that can be considered, however, it is not fair to
state this point as, for the moment, the land compensation program is still
going on. 10. Destruction of
biodiversity: wrong statement. The development area is a patchwork of green
belts, oil palm plantations and low valley growth and agriculture. In fact
the CO2 fixation of the area will be more important after the oil palm
planting. 3 11. Water resources under threat: The project does
not use more water than any other agricultural project. Annual rainfall is
above 3000 mm annually. During the rainy season the valleys are inundated,
the project cannot provoke water shortage!!! 12. Irregularities and
legal flaws of the lease agreement: this is an accusation that should be
addressed to the Government. All legal procedures of Other inaccuracies in
the - The Socfin Agricultural
Corporation Sierra Leone (SAC) is not controlled by Vincent Bolloré. - Socfin SL (SAC) is not
a subsidiary of the Belgian corporation Socfin. - The main shareholder is
not Bolloré Investment. - No former colonial
companies were bought up. - The Bolloré group is
not expanding its investments in plantations. - The report forgets to
mention that the accusations formulated by a group of NGO’s in - No deforestation took
place in - Both the UN and the
FIDH reports on the group’s activities were already, point by point, formerly
and publicly denied. Conclusions: Although it can be
considered that some individuals might not agree with the approach of the
development project in the Malen chiefdom, there is however an overwhelming
majority of the local population, village elders, chiefs and paramount chiefs
that see the long-term and sustainable benefits of this agro-industrial
operation. The well balanced equilibrium between industrial plantation and
native settlements and agriculture assures a harmonious development of the
area. Allegations against the
Bolloré group, whereby presumed African dictators, the current French
president and even yacht vacations are mentioned, are in this context ad
hominem, preposterous, frivolous and irrelevant to the case. It gives the
impression of a political agenda rather than a factual report. The incorrect statements,
the amateur-like analysis of the Group’s activities, the false allegations,
the dubious attitude of the involved NGO’s make the objective reader wonder
what the final objectives of such a report are. Verification: The deputy Minister of
Agriculture, Honourable Mr. Ali Mansaray (ali_mans@yahoo.com), responsible
for the follow up of the SAC project, can be contacted to either confirm or
deny Socfin’s observations to the 4 5 Legal Action The Socfin
group reserves the right to undertake any legal action for defamation against
the authors/publisher of the above mentioned report. |
|
|
|||||||||
