In recent years many questions have been raised on how to handle climate change. Scientists and practitioners have recognised the importance of tackling the issue by changing to a low-carbon economy especially in the energy sector.

One of the low energy alternatives proposed is the use of 30 percent agrofuels (also known as biofuels) to replace fossil fuels in the market.

However, accusations have emerged that agrofuels compete with food production particularly in times of crises and food insecurity. The world is raising the question: where should be agrofuels planted?

In response, some policy makers have proposed that agrofuel crops should be planted on marginal lands. In farming, marginal land by definition is a poor-quality land, which is likely to yield a low return. Marginal lands are often desert fringes or mountain areas.

There are millions of hectares of marginal lands around the world, especially in Africa, which neither plays a role in food production for guaranteeing people’s livelihoods nor important for biodiversity or carbon sequestration.

Thus, many foreign companies are competing to seize the marginal lands of Africa to produce agrofuels. One potential crop often cited as ideal, planed for growing on poor soils with little water, in Africa, Asia and South America is the oilseed bush Jatropha curcas.

However, very little is known about Jatropha and there is no prior experience in growing the seed on an industrial scale. Millions of poor people living on these marginal lands are being promised jobs although there is real uncertainty about the viability of this crop.

Regardless of this uncertainty, the proposal has launched its operation in the third world and especially in Africa where many poor indigenous people are already victimized.

The project has started for example in Wolaita, Ethiopia in the Horn of Africa.

Wolaita, located in the Southern part of Ethiopia, is one of the target areas of new agrofuel developments. Referring to local NGO Eco Yeshemachoch Mahiber, Sun Biofuels, a UK company, has seized 3000 hectares of communal pastureland for a Jatropha plantation.

The government of Ethiopia and the companies have announced that agrofuel feedstock production will only take place on marginal, waste or unproductive land.

However, citing farmers in the area, the African Biodiversity Network testified that this contrasts sharply with local testimonies, i.e. developments are in reality taking place on the most fertile grazing and communal land, and on the most fertile agricultural soil. The area is one of the most densely populated in the country, 360 and 700 people living per square kilometre.

In effect, intense competition for land caused food insecurity in which about 39% of the population in this area depend on emergency food assistance, or the Food for Work programme.

This presumed development strategy has replaced the highly productive land for food production and grazing. Hence, it is claimed that all the combined effects caused an increase in food prices in the area as much as five times the amount compared to the previous year 2008.

Besides, the companies assert strongly that the earnings from agrofuel production will enhance livelihoods of the community. Nonetheless, the farmers stated that the companies have failed to commit their promises in terms of labour salary payments and did not even provide the farmers with a copy of their contract agreements.

Thus, the African Biodiversity Network is claiming: with decreased food production and rising food prices, the community is clearly more food insecure than ever, and is facing severe food shortages, exacerbated by agrofuel production on this supposedly “unproductive” land. Similarly, China is purchasing enormous amount of land in Africa.

On the back of Africa, Western and Chinese companies try now to correct years of neglecting environmental issues, which caused climate change in first place. Should African leaders and governments accept this for the sake of making money in the short term without looking into the long term consequences?

Consequences, such as the further increase of food prices and the lack of food scurity in Africa. As a result Africans might have to buy food for expensive prices from their own land in the future. – A good deal for Africa?