Cameroon: Will the Cameroonian government revise the Herakles Farms contract?

Herakles Farms forest clearing for road construction. Southwest Region, Cameroon

Herakles Farms forest clearing for road construction. Southwest Region, Cameroon

Recent news out of Yaounde suggests that the Cameroonian government plans to review and revise the controversial contract (“Establishment Convention”) that granted the U.S. private investment firm, Herakles Farms, a 73,000 hectare concession in the Southwest Region.

According to press agency ECOFIN, the original contract will be nullified and replaced with a new contract. The article, posted below, points to numerous problems with the original contract. This latest development raises a host of questions, including how exactly the government will “nullify” the contract. If Herakles Farms does not agree to changes in the contract, the government of Cameroon would have to prove either that the company is violating the terms of the contract or that the contract involved corruption — a potentially long and extremely costly process.

Le Cameroun annule la première convention signée avec Herakles Farms

vendredi, 21 juin 2013 14:10

(Agence Ecofin) – Le projet de l’entreprise SG Sustainable Oils Cameroon PIC (Sgsoc), filiale de l’américaine Herakles Farms au Cameroun, qui envisage de créer une palmeraie au Cameroun va être réexaminé point par point et la première convention signée avec le gouvernement camerounais ne sera plus considéré et n’aura plus aucune valeur, a confié à l’agence Ecofin le 12 juin dernier, le ministre de l’Agriculture, Essimi Menye. « Je ne connais pas tout ce qui a été signé avant. Tout sera désormais renégocié dans les règles de l’art », a confié à l’agence Ecofin le ministre qui s’est saisi du dossier.

Contrairement à ce qui a été dit ou présenté par le passé par l’entreprise, le projet d’Herakles Farms ne s’étendra pas sur 73 000 ha, mais sur 20 000 ha. « Les responsables d’Herakles Farms sont venus d’eux-mêmes me voir la semaine dernière (semaine du 03 au 07 juin, ndlr) avec leur business plan. Un business plan dans lequel ils faisaient ressortir qu’ils ont un projet de palmeraie sur une superficie de 20 000 hectares. Ils sont venus me présenter leur projet et les zones qu’ils veulent exploiter et même les propriétaires des terres qui ont accepté de leur céder leurs terres. Donc, ce n’est pas le ministre de l’Agriculture qui a demandé qu’Herakles revoie à la baisse la superficie de son projet. Ils sont venus me voir afin que je donne mon OK pour ce projet. Et je leur ai dit qu’on va le faire, mais qu’on va revenir point par point sur les conditions de la convention », explique Essimi Menye.

Le ministre ne veut pas comprendre qu’il y a une convention qui a été signée par le passé. Interrogé sur le coût de location des terres dont l’hectare était cédé à 500 Francs CFA dans la première convention, le ministre dit que tout sera revu. « Je vous dis que je ne connais pas tout ce qui a été signé avant ou tout ce qui était fait avant. Le projet vient d’arriver sur ma table et nous allons l’examiner point par point avant de signer une convention ».

Contacté par Ecofin pour confirmer ces affirmations, Herakles est longtemps resté muet, refusant de donner un commentaire à ces affirmations. Joint à nouveau hier, 20 juin 2013, par Ecofin, le responsable de la cellule de la communication d’Herakles Farms au Cameroun est resté sur la même position, déclarant que l’entreprise américaine ne peut réagir pour le moment. « Nous sommes encore en négociation avec le gouvernement camerounais. Nous ne pouvons faire aucun commentaire sur les déclarations du gouvernement », a-t-il déclaré en promettant de nous contacter quand Herakles décidera enfin de communiquer.

Au ministère de l’Agriculture et au ministère des Forêts et de la Faune, sous anonymat, des responsables s’accordent à dire que la première convention signée avec Herakles Farms été signé par des personnes qui ne connaissaient pas l’agriculture, les forêts et l’importance de la terre.

Non à l’enlèvement du bois

C’est le 17 septembre 2009 que l’entreprise américaine avait signé avec le gouvernement camerounais représenté par le ministre de l’Economie, du Plan et de l’Aménagement du territoire, Louis Paul Motazé, une convention. Mais, ce projet est toujours controversé, même au sein du gouvernement camerounais.

« Le problème avec ce projet, explique Essimi Menye, c’est qu’ils voulaient que le bois enlevé sur la surface leur appartienne. C’est à ce moment que le ministre des Forêts et de la Faune leur a dit ’’Non’’. Le bois enlevé sur la surface ne leur appartient pas. Ils veulent juste créer une plantation. » « Figurez-vous qu’ils voulaient même s’accaparer du sable, pas seulement du bois », révèle le ministre.

Il y a trois semaines, le ministre des Forêts et de la Faune, Philip Ngole Ngwese, a publié dans la presse camerounaise un communiqué indiquant que « la signature le 17 septembre 2009 d’une convention entre le gouvernement du Cameroun représenté par le MINEPAT et la société SGSOC pour la mise sur pied d’une grande plantation industrielle de palmiers à huile et d’une raffinerie sur la superficie de 73 086 hectares dans les départements du Ndian et du Koupe-Manengoumba, n’exemptait pas ladite entreprise du respect de l’ensemble des procédures et contraintes environnementales liées à la mise en œuvre d’un projet de cette envergure, notamment celles relatives aux enlèvements de bois dans le périmètre ».

Suspension d’abattage du bois

En novembre 2012, Philip Ngole Ngwese avait autorisé l’entreprise américaine à effectuer une coupe de sauvetage sur une parcelle de 2 500 ha près de Talangaye. Le 22 avril dernier, le ministre des Forêts, constatant que l’entreprise américaine n’avait pas encore respecté tous les règlements et lois en vigueur, avait suspendu l’abattage des arbres sur le site du projet à Talangaye, dans l’arrondissement de Nguti, dans la région du Sud-Ouest.

Mais, le 29 mai, Philip Ngole Ngwese, est revenu sur sa décision, contre toute attente. Dans une lettre adressée au directeur général de SGSOC dont Ecofin s’est procurée une copie, le ministre écrit : « J’ai l’honneur de vous faire connaitre que la mesure suspensive de l’autorisation d’abattage des arbres sur le site de votre projet agro-industriel sis à Talangaye, arrondissement de Nguti, région du Sud-Ouest, édictée par ma correspondance susvisée, est levée à compter de la date de la signature de la présente dépêche ».

La lettre poursuit avec des indications importantes : « Je vous rappelle à cet égard que les opérations d’abattage doivent se dérouler conformément aux lois et règlements en vigueur, sous la supervision du délégué régional des Forêts et de la Faune du Sud-Ouest ». Cette seconde phrase de la lettre du ministre est un piège, car finalement le ministre n’autorise pas formellement Herakles Farms à poursuivre ses travaux. C’est en effet ce qu’explique à Ecofin un cadre du ministère des Forêts et de la Faune (Minfof). « Le ministre des Forêts précise que pour les opérations d’abattage il faut que la réglementation soit respectée. La réglementation stipule par exemple qu’avant tout abattage, il faudrait obtenir une Autorisation d’enlèvement de bois abattus (AEB). Et c’est le ministre qui délivre ce document. Or, le ministre n’a pas encore délivré toutes les autorisations à Herakles Farms. Ainsi, suivant cette lettre, le délégué régional avant de donner le Ok pour l’abattage des arbres va demander à SGSOC de lui indiquer s’il a rempli toutes les procédures. Donc, HeraKles Farms ne pourrait pas reprendre ses travaux s’il ne se conforme pas à la réglementation », explique notre source au Minfof.

Pourquoi ce quiproquo dans les autorisations et les suspensions qui se succèdent ? Ecofin a appris que le ministre aurait signé cette lettre levant la suspension d’abattage des arbres sur instructions de sa hiérarchie, à la suite des pressions que l’entreprise américaine aurait exercé sur des hauts fonctionnaires.

Riposte des Ong

Des Ong nationales et internationales n’ont pas cessé de dénoncer le projet d’Herakles Farms au Cameroun. Selon Ludovic Miaro III, le coordonnateur régional du Programme palmier à huile du WWF en Afrique centrale explique dans un communiqué que « d’un côté, nous avons une entreprise qui opère, sans autorisations légales, sur des terres publiques, en violation flagrante des normes sociales et environnementales nationales et internationales. Il s’agit de facto d’un acte d’accaparement illégal des terres par Herakles Farms ».

« Si le projet continue, prévient pour sa part Samuel Nguiffo du Centre pour l’environnement et le développement (CED) qui a d’ailleurs demandé au gouvernement américain d’enquêter au Cameroun sur les pratiques d’herakles, les communautés locales qui dépendent de leurs terres traditionnelles et de la forêt pour leur subsistance seront expropriés, avec des conséquences négatives certaines, qui se traduirons par une augmentation de l’insécurité alimentaire et une instabilité sociale ». Avis.

Herakles Farms: Major plantation downsize in the works?

Idle Herakles Farms truck, Fabe, Southwest Region, Cameroon.

Idled Herakles Farms truck, Fabe, Southwest Region, Cameroon.

 

In the latest twist in the Herakles Farms saga, a June 8th dispatch from Reuters says the Cameroonian government has asked the company to slash the size of its plantation from 73,000 hectares to 20,000 hectares. The report also suggests the site of the new 20,000 hectare development is yet to be determined.

A 20,000 hectare development would still be among the country’s largest plantations. Socapalm (part of the Bollore Group, which also directly owns 9,000 hectares ) has more acreage devoted to palm oil, spread over several sites. Pamol and CDC each cultivate less than 20,000 hectares. Sime Darby, Cargill and others are negotiating for larger tracts of land.

Will reducing the size of the Herakles Farms plantation allow project opponents and project supporters to find common ground? That is far from certain. In any case, this is not a done deal.  Here’s the Reuters article:

YAOUNDE, June 8 (Reuters) – Cameroon’s forestry ministry has asked a company owned by New York venture capital firm Herakles Capital to slash the size of its planned palm oil plantation to 20,000 hectares from 73,000, a senior ministry source said on Saturday.

Ministry officials said on Thursday they had given the green light to Herakles Farms to continue developing its proposed plantation, covering an area more than 10 times the size of Manhattan, provided it complied with regulations.

The ministry had ordered the company to suspend development of the site in April pending a review of the public usefulness of the project, agreed in a 2009 deal with the ministry of economy, planning and territorial development (MINEPAT).

“We have asked them to forget their original deal signed with MINEPAT. The new 20,000 hectare site has yet to be determined,” said the senior forestry ministry official who asked not to be identified.

A spokesman for Herakles Farms, Franklin Sone Bayen, declined to confirm or deny the information.

“The company is still in a process of negotiating with the Cameroonian government,” he told Reuters.

Environmental groups including Greenpeace and WWF have said the project violates Cameroon’s laws and could endanger wildlife and deprive locals of their livelihoods.

Herakles Farms has repeatedly said it has fully complied with Cameroonian law and the wishes of local communities.

Though the forestry minister has sent a letter to Herakles authorising it to proceed with the clearance of the forest and planting of palms, officials said the company still requires logging permissions from the ministry.

Palm oil is the world’s most widely produced vegetable oil and is used in everything from margarine and soap to biofuel. Annual production around the world is valued at about $20 billion. (Reporting by Beaugas-Orain Djoyum; Writing by Daniel Flynn; Editing by Matthew Tostevin)

Community voices making a difference in Cameroon

 

Entrance to Lipenja nursery. Lipenja, SW Region, Cameroon.

Entrance to Lipenja nursery. Lipenja, SW Region, Cameroon.

Community opposition to the 73,000 hectare Herakles Farms palm oil project in Cameroon’s Southwest region remains strong. Last week an open letter to Herakles Farms CEO, Bruce Wrobel, appeared in a number of online publications — the latest in a series of letters and petitions from Cameroonians who do not want to see their forest transformed into a vast plantation. Recent moves by the company to sell the seedlings from several of its nurseries suggest that opposition to the project is having an impact.

Reports on the ground indicate that work in the concession area has slowed, although there’s little official information available. Local community activist, Nasako Besingi, has spoken with company employees who say they are worried about their jobs and their wages for the month. Several workers told Besingi they have been sitting idly at the nurseries for one week but have heard nothing from their supervisors or the company. Besingi describes an atmosphere of confusion in the concession area.

See our links to reports for more information on Herakles Farms.

Visit the “News and downloads” page of the SAVE-Wildlife website to view copies of letters and petitions from local attorneys, community leaders and villagers opposed to the project.

 


					

Cameroon: Are communities able to make “free” and “informed” decisions about giving away their land?

TalangayeNurs001resz

Or the corrupting influence of gifts.

The recent German-Cameroonian fact-finding mission to the Herakles Farms concession area has generated some news coverage in France.  The  AFP article posted below was published in Les Echos. Interestingly, this article refers to “corruption” and brings up the food and drink that Herakles Farms has given communities.

Corporate social responsibility is part of doing business and companies donate goods and services to communities all the time. But Herakles Farms has not yet obtained the presidential decree necessary for the implementation of its project (see our sidebar for reports on Herakles Farms). As the report from the fact-finding mission points out, the company is negotiating with villages to get land and the gifts the company doles out may influence the decisions of local populations.  In other words, villagers may not be making “free” and “informed” decisions about giving away their land.

These gifts are not insignificant. The company described its holiday gift-giving in a January press release: “Over the holidays, Herakles Farms (also known as SGSOC), a New York-based agriculture company operating in Ghana and Cameroon, donated food to 1,700 households in 38 villages located in the Nguti subdivision of Kupe-Muanenguba and in Mundemba and Toko in Ndian. In total, 11 tons of rice and 10 tons of fish were distributed to more than 8,000 individuals in the Nguti, Mundemba and Toko areas.”

That’s a lot of food to give away just to say, “Happy New Year.”  And its worth reminding readers outside of Cameroon that what may seem insignificant in the U.S. or Europe — free beer at a meeting, for example — is actually a big deal in a village where a bottle of beer is an unaffordable luxury.

The AFP article puts the word corruption in quotation marks because these are allegations, of course. But more importantly, even if these allegations are verified, what is the recourse for villagers and what are the possible consequences for the company? The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) defines bribery as “anything of value,” including money, travel, gifts and entertainment. But, the FCPA is concerned only with  foreign government officials. The FCPA says nothing about the bribery of foreign citizens — even if their consent is necessary for a project to go ahead.

The issue of “soft corruption” comes up often in this type of negotiation and clearly needs to be addressed. With millions of hectares of Congo Basin forest now earmarked for palm oil development, communities need to be able to make clear-headed and informed decisions about the future of their land. Any company that claims to abide by best practices, including free, prior and informed consent should be forbidden from providing gifts to communities during the negotiation stage. Just as government officials should not be bribed to sign deals, nor should communities.

Here’s the article from Les Echos:

Cameroun: “corruption” lors de l’acquisition de terres pour un projet américain (rapport)

Un rapport issu du ministère des forêts camerounais et consulté par l’AFP mardi reproche à la société américaine Heraklès Farms des méthodes “d’intimidation et de corruption” pour acquérir des terres pour la culture du palmier à huile dans le sud-ouest du Cameroun.

Selon le rapport, la négociation de terres par la filiale camerounaise d’Herakles Farms, la SG Sustainables Oils Cameroon Ltd (SGSOC) “se fait avec beaucoup d’intimidations et de corruption, ciblant les chefs et certains décideurs (locaux) influents”.

La compagnie américaine se sert souvent “de bières, de whisky, des sacs de riz et de vaches”, pour que les collectivités entrent vite en négociation avec elle et la stratégie “fonctionne” puisque “des milliers d’hectares de terres” ont déjà été cédés, souligne le document.
Les auteurs de ce rapport disent s’être rendus dans 20 villages du sud ouest au mois de février et affirment que “les collectivités locales ne sont pas prêtes ou pas informées (de ce) dans quoi elles s’embarquent”.

En 2009, le gouvernement camerounais a signé avec Herakles Farms une convention de base lui donnant un accord de principe pour une concession de plus de 73.000 hectares dans le Sud-ouest pour la culture du palmier à huile.
Selon le secrétaire général du Centre pour l’environnement et le développement (CED) Samuel Nguiffo toutefois, aucun contrat de bail “n’a jamais été signé”.

“La présence de la compagnie (qui a déjà créé des pépinières et abattu des arbres pour mener ses activités) sur le lieu est illégale. Cette procédure d’acquisition des terres auprès des communautés n’est pas prévue par la loi camerounaise. Elle est illégale”, souligne M. Nguiffo. “Au gouvernement camerounais, il y a des gens qui ont obtenu des pots-de-vin” pour faciliter la signature de la convention de 2009, accuse sous anonymat un responsable de l’ambassade américaine à Yaoundé.

“Les négociations foncières doivent être arrêtées” pour éviter “de potentiels conflits sur l’utilisation des terres”, suggère pour sa part le rapport du ministère.

Début septembre, l’institut Oakland avait déjà demandé l’arrêt du projet redoutant notamment “la mise en péril d’écosystèmes uniques”.

Land giveaways: “quick-fix” development?

Forest clearing, Herakles Farms development, Southwest Region, Cameroon.

Forest clearing, Herakles Farms development, Southwest Region, Cameroon.

There are certainly many paths to economic development, but as Samuel Nguiffo points out in a recent Al Jazeera opinion piece,  signing away vast expanses of land to foreign investors — the “quick-fix” approach — is a high-risk “development” plan.

Nguiffo, Founder and Secretary General of the Center for the Environment and Development (CED) in Yaounde, Cameroon, is a tireless advocate for the communities who are rarely consulted — and sometimes not even informed — before their lands are taken away for logging, mining or large-scale agricultural projects. Nguiffo’s work, like that of Marc Ona in Gabon, has been recognized and honored internationally. Nguiffo was awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize in 1999 for his efforts on behalf of Cameroon’s rainforest and forest-dwelling communities. (And, like Ona, Nguiffo also faces lawsuits and intimidation at home.)

In the 1990s Nguiffo focused his attention on logging and the proposed Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project (the pipeline has been operational since 2003). Today, the threats are multiplied, with numerous mining and palm oil projects in development.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with mining or large-scale agriculture, but as Nguiffo writes, the reality today is that “governments are giving away land that belongs to the people who live on the land, determining their future with neither consultation nor consent.”

Like all get-rich-quick schemes, there are lots of dollar signs and promises that dazzle local decision makers. Of course some people do get rich. Unfortunately, though, it’s not those whose lands are seized by the state and handed over to foreign investors.  And, more often than not, the host governments sign away land for far less than it’s worth, and agree to deals that they later regret, but can’t change as their negotiating teams were no match for multinational corporate contract attorneys.

In the case of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline, for example, Cameroon signed a deal with Exxon Mobil that allowed the company to build an offshore marine loading terminal and a pipeline across 900 kilometers of the country, including hundreds of kilometers of fragile forest zones, for nothing more than a transit fee — of less than 50 cents a barrel. The government has tried several times to renegotiate that bad deal, to no avail. Some people got rich; most people just live with the threat of spills.

 

Samuel Nguiffo is currently being sued by the government of Cameroon for tarnishing the state's reputation when he advocated against an oil palm plantation concession.

Samuel Nguiffo is currently being sued by the government of Cameroon for tarnishing the state’s reputation when he advocated against an oil palm plantation concession.

‘Quick-fix’ development gives away more than it gets back

The “land grabbing” in Africa and elsewhere often triggers conflict, an underreported financial risk.

by Samuel Nguiffo

In Cameroon, as in many African countries, the question of economic development is not just an abstract concept. Rural communities, mostly consisting of subsistence farmers struggling to feed their families, welcome the possibility of brighter prospects.

But instead of leading to greener pastures, economic development too often consists of large-scale projects that take away property and community land, leaving farmers with little compensation. Their governments – often the ones who sold the land – either look the other way or play the role of enforcer. If the communities are compensated, it is hardly adequate, and the few resulting jobs do not pay enough to make up for the permanent loss of livelihood and way of life.

In Southwest Cameroon, for example, New York-based Herakles Farms plans to clear 73,000 hectares for an oil palm plantation that the local communities are protesting. Once the land is cleared of their crops and the surrounding forest, they will have nothing – and nothing to lose by contesting this development.

Yet the financial media is full of reports of new large-scale land transactions. An aluminium mine in Northern Cameroon, supported by a hydropower plant and two railroads, would bring the country $4bn in investment from companies in the US, Dubai and India.

An iron mine in Southeast Cameroon, being bought by a Chinese firm planning to build port facilities and a railroad, would bring $4.7bn into the country.

And an even bigger oil palm plantation, developed by an Indian conglomerate, is expected to transform the landscape of over 200,000 hectares, a development worth more than $1.7bn.

The desire for these projects is understandable: the world needs more minerals and food, governments need revenues, and local people want jobs. But by encouraging such investments and thousands more like them around the world, governments are giving away land that belongs to the people who live on the land, determining their future with neither consultation nor consent.

Giveaways trigger land-based conflicts 

This has become known as the “land grab”, but it might be better called the “great land giveaway”. Governments, eager to capture the cash promised by large-scale agriculture, timber, or mining operations, all too willingly hand over their only resources to large multinational corporations to catalyse development. But in reality it is not the “quick-fix” they were hoping for.

Instead these projects often trigger community resistance, and governments often respond to those standing in the way of these deals with an onslaught of legal harassment, violence and worse. For example, after objecting to the actions of Herakles, the palm-oil producer, Nasako Besingi and four other Cameroonian advocates were jailed for three days in November 2012. Other activists have faced longer prison sentences. Fa’a Embolo, a village leader from Central Cameroon, spent four months in jail; in other countries they have been beaten and killed.

These stories are repeated across Africa, as weak governance and a lack of legal recognition and support for customary rights continue to inhibit any real progress.

Michael Richards, a natural resources economist, authored a report recently for the Rights and Resources Initiative examining 18 large-scale African land acquisitions in the agriculture sector. He concluded that the local communities had been lied to, subjected to coercion or political pressure, or tricked with documents that were either falsified or misleading. In 17 out of 18 cases, Richards said, local communities would have said no to the land transfers, if they had been given the information needed to make an informed decision.

Risks to investors 

But the communities and their defenders are not alone in facing risks. After the inevitable pushback from the communities whose land has been sold out from under them, a growing number of investors have lost more than they have gained. This financial risk is completely underestimated and underreported despite the widespread havoc it can wreak on corporate balance sheets.

One of the world’s largest palm oil producers, Sime Darby, was forced to suspend the development in 2012 of a planned 220,000-hectare oil palm and rubber plantation in Liberia because of protests on the part of local communities that claimed the land under customary law.

In Cameroon, by clearing rain forest and other illegally occupied lands and then arresting protesters who trespass onto the land, palm-oil producer Herakles has become the subject of a global advocacy campaign that has tarnished its reputation. The impact on the company’s bottom line has not been assessed, but the project delays do not come cheaply.

And the story does not end in Africa.

In India, Vedanta’s failed aluminium mining venture led to a negative financial outlook rating from Standard & Poor’s and other agencies. In Chile, a failed hydropower project forced SN Power to write off $23m. And in Bolivia, a failed highway project cost the national government a $332m development grant from a Brazilian development bank.

The assumption behind such investments is that they will provide rapid growth in the host countries. While in some ways effective, this “quick-fix” development exacerbates a growing gap between the rich and the poor and multiplies the risk of conflict.

These land-based conflicts could well begin to take the glow off the investment picture for the companies involved and those that finance them. But the growing appetite for land – and the growing speed of land acquisitions – means that tenure problems and the financial risks associated with them are not going to disappear.

Rather than giving away land and resources to companies to the detriment of their citizens, African governments – Cameroon included – must respect the rights of citizens and let them negotiate with investors on their own terms. And the companies themselves should be asking who owns the land they obtain on such good terms.

To do otherwise is ultimately too high a risk, not just for advocates, but also for investors, communities, and the governments themselves.

Samuel Nguiffo is currently being sued by the government of Cameroon for tarnishing the state’s reputation when he advocated against an oil palm plantation concession.

Forest protection and agro-industry side-by-side

Stand at the Yaounde International Agrobusiness Exhibition. Photo: Sialy.net

Stand at the Yaounde International Agrobusiness Exhibition. Photo: Sialy.net

 

Yesterday in Yaounde, Cameroon, it was possible to shuttle between the Forum on Forest Governance in Central and West Africa and the International Agro-business Exhibition. As the forum wrapped up the trade fair got underway, forest protection and agro-industry awkwardly coexisted, mirroring the situation on the ground.

The agro-industrial trade fair, which continues through April 8th, is a huge affair and understandably so. Food security is a pressing issue in Cameroon, a country that imports nearly a million tons of food each year including large quantities of basic foodstuffs. At the same time, half the country’s population earns a living from farming. Cameroon’s farmers urgently need access to credit and investment (in agricultural inputs and infrastructure, in particular). The government has made agriculture a priority sector and has decided that foreign investment will play a key role in developing the country’s agricultural capacity.

But the lack of clear policy directives to shape agricultural development – food crops vs. export crops, smallholder farms vs. industrial agriculture – are resulting in a system that favors foreign investment in export crops.

CDC plantations near Limbe, Cameroon.

CDC plantations near Limbe, Cameroon.

 

Palm oil is at the top of the list of new agriculture investments, but palm oil will not solve Cameroon’s food security issues. If food self-sufficiency is the government’s goal, foreign investment in palm oil need not be encouraged. Palm oil investments may bring economic benefits to the country, but they must follow strict guidelines and conditions in order for benefits to outweigh costs.

See, for example, “The Pros and Cons of Oil Palm Expansion in Cameroon,” pgs. 8-11 of Oil Palm Development in Cameroon, by David Hoyle and Patrice Levang.

“In order to amplify the positive effects and reduce the negative impacts,” write Hoyle and Levang, “there is a need for the government of Cameroon and relevant stakeholders to develop a national palm oil strategy that can steer the rapid expansion of the sector and can ensure that expanded production does contribute to Cameroon’s sustainable development goals. In order to achieve this it is vital that the government urgently engages all the stakeholders from the outset (including government departments, companies, local communities, international and local NGOs).”

The problem today in Cameroon and across the region is that no such strategy exists. And so on one side of town conference participants attend a panel on palm oil-driven deforestation while, over at the trade fair, ministers single out the palm oil sector as particularly promising with nary a mention of sustainability.

 

 

 

 

It’s not forests or food, it’s forests for food

 

Southwest Cameroon. Forest or oil palms...what will feed the planet?

Southwest Cameroon. Forest or oil palms…what will feed the planet?

 

“As world population climbs from 7 to a projected 9 billion people and emerging and developing economies demand ever more of the food and fiber that drive deforestation, many environmentalists ask with increasing urgency whether and how tropical forests can survive,” write Steve Schwartzman and Ruben Lubowski of Environmental Defense Fund. Their recent article, Can Saving Forests Help Feed the World, asks, “whether and how the world’s increasing, and increasingly rich, population can be fed unless tropical forests survive.”

Schwartzman and Lubowski’s article is one of a series in response to the question, “How do we feed the world and still address the drivers of deforestation?” The articles are available online at the Skoll World Forum website.

Noting the connection between global warming and global agricultural output, the authors note, “Putting total global greenhouse gas pollution on a fast and steady downward trend may be the only way to avoid serious risk of catastrophic disruption of world food supplies.  Tropical deforestation and agriculture together account for about a quarter of GHG emissions in approximately equal proportions. In addition, tropical forests hold some 300 billion tons of carbon.”

Those who argue that new palm oil plantations are necessary for “development,” who seek to frame the debate in terms of “jobs vs. trees,” seem to be at odds with scientific evidence.

But how to translate evidence into action? Another article in the series, Strong ‘No Deforestation’ Commitments Save Forests and Feed People, by Scott Poynton, Founder and Executive Director of the Forest Trust, makes the case for zero deforestation practices.

“We need strong ‘No Deforestation’ commitments enforced by companies throughout the supply chain with mechanisms to reward and teeth to punish,” Poynton writes. “They fit with the market and are simple: “Deforest and I will not buy your product”. This great start is made exponentially stronger when contracts are cancelled because suppliers are engaged in deforestation.”

Does that sound unrealistic? Poynton believes change is already happening: “The world’s largest food company, Nestle, the world’s second largest palm oil grower, Golden-Agri Resources and now, the world’s third largest pulp and paper company, Asia Pulp & Paper, have already made super strong No Deforestation commitments that are being implemented as we speak. Such commitments turn bulldozers off – now. They do not require workshops, meetings, millions of dollars or the creation of complex markets with thousands of mitigation measures. No Deforestation commitments send strong signals through the existing multi-trillion dollar globalized market – via global supply chains – and forests are being protected today as a direct result.”

For more on the need for zero deforestation, read Fred Pearce’s recent article on biodiversity in previously logged forests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

African governments giving land away quickly, recognizing land rights slowly

Farmer walking through forest earmarked for palm oil plantation. Southwest Region, Cameroon

Farmer walking through forest earmarked for palm oil plantation. Southwest Region, Cameroon

Two steps forward, one step back. Or is it one step forward and two steps back? In the case of land-rights reform in Africa, the pace of progress needs to pick up — and fast — to protect community access to land.

Here are details on two new reports issued in Yaounde, Cameroon, by the Rights and Resources Initiative:

Africa remains a target for land-grab developments worth billions; regional dialogue in Yaoundé focuses on the need for speed

While African governments are moving gradually towards protecting the land rights of rural people and indigenous communities, they are moving quickly to give away community forests and other lands for development. These conflicting choices are the focus of two new reports and a regional dialogue on forests, governance, and climate change.

“Governments across West and Central Africa are now in a bind and divided, with some ministries choosing to hand over natural resources to agribusiness and mining, and others seeking to protect the rights of their citizens and respect recent commitments,” said Andy White, Coordinator of Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). “Which view will win out? There is a true need for speed in safeguarding these communities before all available land is handed out for the sake of ‘quick-fix’ development and exploitation.”

“What communities on the ground in Cameroon see is no different from what is unfolding in other neighboring countries,” said Samuel Nguiffo, Secretary General of the Center for Environment and Development (CED), Cameroon. “The slow pace of good intentions—the efforts to protect communities of subsistence farmers who have no wealth except for the land that they cultivate—has been overtaken by greed and power. Real economic development brings wealth to all, not just the elite.”

RRI released two reports scrutinizing land transactions in West and Central Africa as well as the legal reforms that would protect the communities whose land is targeted by these transactions. The reports were the focus of discussion at a regional dialogue hosted by the Cameroonian Ministry of Forests and Fauna (MINFOF), RRI, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and the Commission for Central African Forests (COMIFAC) in Yaoundé. The conference also highlighted the number of commitments made by national governments and confirmed by the African Union Declaration on Land Issues and Challenges[1] in 2009 that were never enacted.

At the conference, attendees deliberated on stalled progress in land rights. Two examples emerged from their discussions that illustrate a trend—for every bit of progress, additional measures undercut the momentum for change:

  • In Liberia, the Community Rights Law (CRL) of 2009 was lauded as a major innovation for the region because it recognized customary ownership of land. The country’s Land Commission is seeking to further codify these rights. But large-scale developments have been negotiated or are planned for nearly three quarters of the country, rendering these rights moot before they are permanently established.
  • In Cameroon, a new forestry law currently being finalized strengthens and expands community forest rights, but maintains regulations and taxes that discourage the development of small forest-based enterprises run by local communities, preventing communities from profiting off of the resources they maintain. The government is also revising the Land Law of 1974, providing a new opportunity to improve community land rights. However, if done without consulting local peoples, this revision can increase risk, conflict and uncertainty given that billions of dollars in foreign direct investment are destined for mining and agriculture in Cameroon by 2015.

“Across Africa, weak governance and a lack of legal recognition and support for customary rights are inhibiting any real progress,” said Michael Richards, a natural resources economist and author of the report examining 18 large-scale African land acquisitions in the agriculture sector. “Most cases revealed a lack of consultation with and consent by communities in affected areas; coercion or political pressure; protests, which were sometimes violent; community dissatisfaction or anger; misleading or falsified documents; legality doubts; and low transparency. If a free, prior, and informed consent process had been followed, it seems probable that in 17 out of the 18 cases I looked at, the communities would not have given their consent.”

The conference in Yaoundé comes as government-led, large-scale land transactions across Africa continue to disregard or override the rights of communities that live on the impacted lands. This in turn leads to even greater unrest and strife on the continent. In Liberia, for example, Sime Darby (the world’s largest palm oil producer) suspended the development in 2012 of a planned 220,000 hectare oil palm and rubber plantation because the communities that lost their land protested; the company’s ensuing pushback triggered local unrest and riots.

Although the acquisitions vary in size and purpose, a number of crosscutting themes showed up in Richard’s analysis:

  • In nearly all countries examined, local communities receiving little to no compensation in these transactions faced some form of coercion or political pressure, triggering ardent protests and violent clashes.
  • Women failed to prosper in transactions that took away access to community lands. Income from fruit trees in Ghana and Mali disappeared, sources of firewood and medicinal plants in Zambia and Mozambique vanished, and land rights were lost without compensation in Sierra Leone.
  • High levels of water pollution and the nearly unlimited water extraction rights often granted to these concessions jeopardized downstream livelihoods in Cameroon, Mali, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone.

“So much human tragedy could be averted if land rights in Africa didn’t erode so soon after they are established,” said Phil René Oyono, independent expert and author of the second RRI report. “The fact that 13 of 26 countries in the region have undertaken some level of reform since 2009 is great, but the challenges that African governments face are steep and progress is slow. In Gabon, for example, the new land law passed in 2012 revises the structure of land tenure rights mainly to provide a more flexible regime for commercial transactions on the land. We must convince governments that they will not find success in this quest for development by turning over their natural resources for plunder.”

“Yes, there has been a surge of new laws and reform processes since 2009,” added Samuel Nguiffo, “but these efforts are too slow and do not meet the challenges presented by rapid development and exploitation in the extractive sector. Africans will not sit idly by as our future is handed over to the highest bidder.”

Often times, projects intended for economic development meet with violent resistance and disastrous consequences:

  • In Cameroon, foreign investors are using coercion to initiate the conversion of two 60-70,000 hectare concessions from mostly forested land to oil palm plantations. Thousand have been displaced and drinking water sources have been polluted. Murder, rape, and the destruction of tombs and houses plague communities opposed to one project. The second faced legality concerns involving a restraining order against the investor and a delayed environmental impact assessment.
  • In Ghana, a project converting forest and crop land into jatropha (a plant used to make biodiesel) plantations resulted in harsh migrant-native farmer conflicts over lost jobs and income, along with the clearing of 780 hectares. US and Ghanaian investors leading another project used political pressure to turn farm and fruit land into rice plantations, resulting in legal action, the displacement of many locals, water pollution, over-grazing, and erosion.
  • In Rwanda, a Ugandan sugar company converted 3,150 hectares of swampland used for food and cash crops into sugar cane fields—despite claiming it would not do so when acquiring the land. Defense forces were brought in as thousands of locals who were pushed into low-paying jobs as a result responded with violence and arson.

“Handing land over to these companies has been justified by local and national governments as attempts to bring economic development to all corners of Africa,” said Andy White. “But you cannot sweep away established communities and transform the environment without calamitous collateral damage. This is not development. Until the pace of land rights reform gets in front of the pace of development, Africa will never get out from under the ‘resource curse.'”

RRI has released two new analyses highlighting the wide-ranging impacts and risks of land and concession deals in Africa, with a particular focus on Central and West Africa.

The analyses were released at the Thirteenth Dialogue on Forests, Governance and Climate ChangeHarmonizing Tenure and Resource Policies in Central and West Africa’s Changing Landscape, held in Yaoundé, Cameroon on March 5-7, 2013. Read the press release in English or French.

The first publication, Social and Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Large-Scale Land Acquisitions in Africa – With a Focus on West and Central Africa, analyzes 18 country case studies that are among the best-documented large-scale land acquisitions in terms of their impacts in the said region.

The second paper, a policy brief on Land and Forest Tenure Reforms in West and Central Africa: A Preliminary Assessment of Progress Made Since the Yaoundé, 2009 Conference examines the implementation of recommendations relating to large-scale land acquisitions from the International Conference on Forest Tenure, Governance, and Enterprise, held in 2009 in Yaoundé, Cameroon.

Both papers are available in both English and French. To download them and for more details, click here.

Yaoundé, Cameroon (7 March 2013)

###

[1] http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/AssemblyDecisionLand.pdf

The Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) is a global coalition of 14 Partners and over 120 international, regional and community organizations advancing forest tenure, policy and market reforms. RRI leverages the strategic collaboration and investment of its Partners and Collaborators around the world by working together on research, advocacy, and convening strategic actors to catalyze change on the ground. RRI is coordinated by the Rights and Resources Group, a non-profit organization based in Washington, DC. For more information, please visit www.rightsandresources.org.

 

Plantation life

Workers' camp, Ndian Estate, Mundemba, Southwest Region, Cameroon

Workers’ camp, Ndian Estate, Mundemba, Southwest Region, Cameroon

The Southwest Region of Cameroon, where the U.S.-based Herakles Farms has started development of  a controversial 73,000 hectare palm oil project, is no stranger to plantation agriculture. It is home to most of the country’s largest plantations, many dating to the colonial period.

The communities in and around the Herakles concession area have long co-existed with industrial plantations. Historically plantation operators brought in workers from other regions — a practice that continues to a certain extent today — but over the years many locals have also been employed on the plantations.

Workers' camp, Ndian Estate, Mundemba, Southwest Region, Cameroon

Workers’ camp, Ndian Estate, Mundemba, Southwest Region, Cameroon

Many people in the area ask why they would want or accept another plantation when plantation agriculture has usurped their lands and brought them nothing. The plantations have been around for decades yet the surrounding areas have neither electricity nor decent roads. Worker housing built over fifty years ago is dilapidated, yet still in use. According to local sources, the average salary for a PAMOL plantation worker is approximately US$70 per month. (Cameroon’s minimum wage is approximately US$ 57 per month.)

Workers' camp, Ndian Estate, Mundemba, Southwest Region, Cameroon

Workers’ camp, Ndian Estate, Mundemba, Southwest Region, Cameroon

Governance and local development specialist, Herve Sokoudjou, writes:

The main “benefit” of oil palm cultivation, according to promoters of the crop, is the generation of employment (planting, maintenance and harvest). Yet most jobs are only temporary. Workers on industrial plantations experience the same problems as other agricultural workers in the country: extremely low wages and poor work conditions. Besides, the establishment of these plantations has often been preceded by the expropriation of land of neighbouring villages without adequate compensation. According to Cameroonian law, peasants do not have customary rights to land, and thus expropriation does not require indemnification by the state. Already in colonial times, land was expropriated from peasants and then transferred free to new settlers. After national independence, this practice continued but for the benefit of local elites, including palm plantation firms or the elites who have recently established medium-scale plantations. Since colonial times, therefore, peasants have been losing land to the state …. Palm plantations located near villages also often threaten subsistence crop development and access to forest products by much of the community.

Read more here: New reports: African governments giving land away quickly, recognizing land rights slowly

Forest riches, continued

Barkcloth and the wood used to make it. Lipenja II, Southwest Region, Cameroon

Lipenja II, Southwest Region, Cameroon

Checking out barkcloth and the wood used to make it in Lipenja II, one of the villages located inside the Herakles Farms palm oil concession area. Lipenja II is surrounded by dense forest. There’s a dirt road that connects Mundemba to Fabe and Lipenja, but from  Lipenja to Lipenja II there’s nothing more than a narrow motorcycle track the villagers have cleared themselves. Although Lipenja II is only about 55 km (35 miles) from Mundemba, the trip to Lipenja II takes well over two hours during the dry season.

In Lipenja II the forest is the source of food and income for everyone. The villagers have their farm plots inside the forest, where they grow food crops and cocoa. They gather fruits, nuts, honey, bark and plants for food and medicine. The women sell bush mango seeds to Nigerian traders who travel throughout the area. The forest is everything, people say.

The villagers in Lipenja II are opposed to the Herakles Farms project. The company says it will not go where it is not welcome. But many questions remain. Will the voices of the villagers be heard in what has been a “top-down” and secretive project from the start?  And if the project respects the villagers’ wishes, how much forest will be left standing around Lipenja II and what will that mean for the future of the village?

People in Lipenja II are vocal about the need for development. They want a decent road to connect their village to Mundemba (and beyond), so they can get perishable crops to market. There’s no radio or mobile phone coverage in Lipenja II and villagers want improved communications. They want jobs. But they don’t want projects imposed from outside that take away what is most valuable: the forest.

Barkcloth. Lipenja II, Southwest Region, Cameroon

Barkcloth. Lipenja II, Southwest Region, Cameroon