Legal Impact Of Biofuel (Jatropha Curcas) Production On Communal Land In North-East Namibia

ABSTRACT

However, research also revealed that, despite the fact that most traditional authorities regard

other institutions as wearisome, they nevertheless seek assistance from these institutions

when faced with conflicts involving external parties such as Jatropha companies.

The research also focused on the socio-economic benefits that farmers stand to gain from

Jatropha. This emanated from the fact that many researchers question the claimed benefits of

Jatropha and believe that the current rush to develop Jatropha production on a large scale is

ill-conceived, under-studied and could contribute to an unsustainable trade that will not solve

the problems of climate change, energy security or poverty.

The ‘food vs biofuel’ debate also focuses in the study, as it is feared that Jatropha could

replace the production of crops aimed at securing food for communal farmers. Although

Jatropha is not farmed on a scale large enough to fully determine this aspect in the Namibian

context, in other countries research has shown that Jatropha is planted in direct replacement

of food crops by subsistence farmers. However, it is noted that communal farmers in Namibia

are in essence subsistence farmers, i.e. they produce what they consume, and major concerns

arise when one considers the plan to encourage subsistence farmers to plant large amounts of

Jatropha. This is made worse because subsistence farmers have very weak links to markets

and their lack of storage capacity, communication and information will make it difficult to

benefit from Jatropha.

Research also showed that some investors opt for contracts of farming as a land acquisition

method. However, the obligations in farming contracts are mostly aimed at protecting the

interests of the investment companies, whilst at the same time exploiting the farmers. It is

also clear that many of the farmers did not understand the concepts stated in the agreements

and their decisions to sign these agreements were clouded by the promise of huge profits and

other developmental agendas. It is common cause that communal land is mostly used for

subsistence farming and the introduction of commercial activities such as Jatropha, is

interfering with this mode of farming and leading to the commercialisation of the land. It is

therefore, also important to ensure that the legal framework that operates in the communal

arena is geared to protect the farmers from exploitation of their communal resources by

Jatropha investors and other communal land inhabitants.

The Jatropha experience demonstrates that although procedures under both the Communal

Land Reform Act as well as the customary law are used to allocate land for Jatropha

farming, the two are not properly geared to protect the communal farmers from exploitation

by investors. The lack of a remedial mechanism can be attributed to the lack of a harmonious

co-existence between customary and statutory law. It is therefore, recommended that the

Communal Land Reform Act be revisited by the legislature and that the Act incorporate

customary land law practices and principles. There is also need to ensure that the ever

growing gap between customary law and statutory law is bridged. However, the major

recommendation of the study is the introduction of a National Policy for Biofuels. It is

recommended that the policy will be an important tool in facilitating the farming of Jatropha

in the country.