GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION SCHEMES AND THE RE-COLONIZATION OF NATURE IN AFRICA

GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION SCHEMES AND THE RE-COLONIZATION OF

NATURE IN AFRICA

Okoh, Augustine I. Sadiq

Dept. of Political Science

Benue State University

Makurdi, Nigeria.

[email protected]

Phone: +2349051922333

Abstract

Africa emits less than 8% of the total greenhouse gases yet

contributes 21% of the global total carbon in forest biomass.

Deforestation is high with 81.2% of the population dependent

on biomass and waste for their total primary energy supply.

Forest resources sustain traditional biomass used for domestic

purpose. In mitigating carbon emission, Africa is witnessing

increases in land deals as part of the Clean Development

Mechanism (CDM) There is a sense of déjà vu in the 'land

grabs' with Africa at risk of food and energy crisis. This

paper links Africa's impending crisis to the current GHG

reduction mechanisms such as REDD+, carbon offset, and carbon

trade schemes. These Kyoto Protocol mechanisms are perceived

guise for the re-colonialization of nature with accumulation

imperatives at heart. Resolving Africa's biofuel complex such

that we reduce competition of land used for food crops and

biofuel feedstock is the primary focus of this paper. We

uncover that despite its initial success, it is a journey to

the bottom for Africa. Therefore, an equitable emission

abatement policy in Paris Framework must enshrine climate

justice and climate stewardship as its cardinal goal failing

which the current decarbonization through financilization of

nature is a tear of the crocodile pushing Africa towards

minefield of hunger.

Keywords: REDD+, Greenhouse gases, Kyoto Protocol, Climate

change, Re-colonization, Natural capital.

Journal of Good Governance and Sustainable Development in

Africa. (JGGSDA). Vol.2, No.4 May, 2015. Website:

http://www.rcmss.com ISSN: 2354-154X(Online) ISSN: 2346-724X

(Print) Okoh, Augustine I. Sadiq 2015 2(4) 1-9

1.0 Introduction

Africa contributes approximately 8% of total greenhouse gas

emissions (IEA, 2009). With the rise of greenhouse gases,

climate extreme is endangering biotic and abiotic components

of the ecosystem. Deforestation accounts for about 12-17% of

global greenhouse gas emission (Sandbrook et al., 2011).

Deforestation is still high in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) with

81.2% of the population dependent on biomass and waste for

their total primary energy supply (Stecher, 2013). Yet,

forests sustain traditional biomass used for domestic purpose.

Forests also help to regulate greenhouse gases other than

carbon dioxide, especially methane and nitrous oxides with

these two gases contributing about 21% and 6% respectively to

global greenhouse gas emissions (Smolker, 2008).

For many, tropical rainforests still play significant role in

sustaining atmospheric temperature with the Amazon and Congo

basins responsible for regulating rainfall patterns over very

large areas of the earth’s surface (Smolker, 2008). Tropical

forests are vital for rainfall in Africa because when forests

are cut, the surface temperature rises and moisture level

drops resulting in rainfall declines. Hence, deforestation in

the tropics will influence rainfall, and water availability in

many parts of the world (Avissa and Werth, 2005). The

implication of changing temperature is grave as climate change

is the outcome of variability in atmospheric temperature

consequence of stratospheric GHG imbalance. Green houses gases

are mostly man-made contributing to carbonization of the

stratosphere (IPCC, 2007). Now that greenhouse gases emissions

have reached 400ppm in 2014, man-made climate change will be a

barrier to the attainment of reduction of GHGs as issues of

biospheric emissions are interwoven with poverty. With the

rise in climate changing events, Clean Development Mechanism

(CDM) was made part of Kyoto Protocol. This aims at arresting

GHGs consequences of industrialization and deforestation. It

is a scheme under Kyoto Protocol wherein developed countries

offset excess emissions by by initiating forest conservation

projects.

In Africa, Reduced Emission from Deforestation and forest

Degradation (REDD) is one such schemes which gained momentum

but faces series of technical and institutional challenges.

However, implementation of REDD+ scheme as Sandbrooks et al.

(2011) maintain, must take account of existing knowledge about

forest governance. This knowledge does not only include the

effectiveness, efficiency and equity implications of different

forest governance regimes but also the political processes

which determine how forest governance institutions are shaped.

Because of the economic value placed on land in Africa, REDD+

mechanisms are shaped by political processes which also

influence the shape of forest governance regimes.

Nevertheless, the introduction of REDD+ instead of preventing

forest loss and degradation, forest are now given market

values (Monbiot, 2014). By placing high value on the forest

through global carbon market, the world has now created the

incentive for further degradations through land grabs in the

name of maintaining biodiversity and planting new forests. A

plethora of biogeophysical and socioeconomic factors undermine

Africa's vast potentials to harness abundant natural capital.

Given this, food and energy consumption and production for

many countries in sub-Saharan Africa is still very low.

However, carbon emission and green growth are not just

coterminous but are also axiomatic necessities. Yet, much of

such necessities are also intricately interrelated with our

biospheric limits (Meadow et al., 1972). Once again, Africa is

caught holding the wrong end of the stick. Progress towards

post-carbon free future is weakened by the climate regime

which creates further fissure between man and nature.

The briefing of World Rainforest Movement (2015) is of the

view aspects that have marked the discussion over REDD are:

• Despite many years of debate about REDD, the controversies

over how to integrate forests into an international climate

regime remain the same as in 2007. In fact, they remain pretty

much the same as they were in 1997 when governments – for good

reasons - decided not to include forests into the Kyoto

Protocol's carbon trading mechanisms;

• All those years, a big part of negotiating time has been

spent on how to make forests fit into a financing regime – a

carbon market of sorts - with very little time and no progress

made on how governments envisage to actually tackle the

underlying causes of forest loss or respect and strengthen the

rights of forest peoples;

• Forest peoples – indigenous peoples and traditional

communities whose way of life has protected and maintained

forests against outside pressure of destruction – have been

much talked about in the negotiations but their voices,

analysis of what actually causes deforestation and experiences

of how to protect and restore forests have had at best a

marginal presence in these international climate meetings.

Yet, the proposals debated and the REDD pilot programmes and

projects already underway substantially affect this way of

life – not least because the REDD debate continues to be

characterized by the false analysis that vilifies shifting

cultivation and agroforestry as a major driver of

deforestation. This false analysis is already jeopardizing

ways of life that have protected forests against outside

pressure;

• REDD has shifted the climate debates at the UN and beyond

away from the main driver of the climate crisis: burning of

fossil fuels and the need for system change, including drastic

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, first and foremost in

industrialized countries

In this paper, we examine the above complexity in light of the

Africa's agro- food complex and the current negotiations of

post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations of finding equitable carbon

budget for all parties to the agreement. Our primary focus

here is to unearth the re-colonialization of Africa natural

capital in Kyoto mechanisms. This will then point us towards

new mechanisms for reenergizing negotiations thereby limiting

the current economization of nature in Africa.

The paper has five sections. The first section is the

introduction which we have just carried out. Next, we

conceptualize GHG abatement policies as re-colonization of

nature in Africa. The third section examines linkages of

biomass economy and neo-colonization of nature in GHG

abatement policy. In the fourth section, we look at

similarities of colonial era and eco-colonial land grabs while

the fifth section concludes on Africa's living in the

minefield of hunger in the financialization of nature drive.

2.0 Conceptual Issues

At its most basic level, REDD+ is a form of payment for

ecosystem services regarding reduction in forest loss and

degradation (Bond et al., 2009). REDD+ scheme envisages

placing economic value on forest products will act as

incentive for conserving forest reserves invariably reducing

GHG emissions. Given this, there is urgency attached to REDD+

with many developed economies struggling to 'carve-up'

Africa's forest communities for their carbon offset schemes.

Therefore, finding an enduring solution to greenhouse gases

reduction schemes is global community's albatross. The

instruments of Kyoto Protocol play crucial role in resolving

our reaching planetary limit and the parlous state of

carbonization of the ecosphere (UNFCCC, 1997). Yet, most of

such mechanisms are also carbon attenuating. The portfolio of

approaches such as carbon trading, REDD+ programme as CDM are

the main scaffolding of Kyoto Protocol. Notwithstanding, this

instruments are not totally free from carbonization of the

atmosphere. As such, much of these mechanisms also threaten to

overwhelm natural capital in Africa. Indeed, in spite

favourable arguments for reducing greenhouse gases, emissions

have increased unabated. Rather than bringing about any

meaningful cuts most of the schemes have become economic tools

for control of the livelihood assets of the poor. With this,

‘rich countries are buying poor countries’ soil fertility,

water and sun to ship food and fuel back home, in a kind of

neo-colonial dynamic (Leahy, 2009).

The downbeat of carbon trading practices in low income

countries as George Monbiot (2014) observes is by subjecting

the natural world to cost-benefit analysis accountants and

statisticians will decide which parts of it we can do without.

So, all that need to be done to demonstrate an ecosystem can

be junked is to show the money to be made from trashing it

exceeds the money to be made from preserving it.

Indeed, our current colonization of the markets instead of

protecting nature from reckless exploitation of man rather is

leading humanity to dire environmental straits. But the

corporate vision of green economy is unidimensional resulting

in green growth. Yet, our environmental degradation is the

outcome of overconsumption (Durning, 1992) and population

growth. With growing population, the search for new technology

has further effects on availability of resources (Ehrlich and

Holdren, 1971; Commoner et al., 1971). Hence, the Malthusian

spectre is here with us. For sure, it could also lead to

further degradation with anarchical competition over scarce

resources resulting in agroecological crisis. Increasingly,

there is now diminished sense of urgency from global community

to resolving carbon emissions. Now more than ever, the

devastation of habitats, destruction of forests and

privatization of land and resources by multinational companies

has taken root and will take ecological assets away from the

communities which depend on them. Hunger profiteers spawned by

free market dreams of wholesome control of nature are now all

over Africa with the prosaic goal of ending global hunger. But

in reality core ills of capital market competition of

production for profit is taking a new shape.

The implication for Africa is immense as biomass is the major

source of energy for the rural people. With the valuation of

nature, grabbing land meant for food production, as energy

source and as forest reserves, many African communities will

face serious uncertainties. And by placing market instruments

to determine land acquisition both for preserving forest and

planting new one, arable land meant for food production is a

new scramble for Africa. Hence it is also a re-colonization of

Africa. Instead, colonial era appropriation scheme, a new form

of dispossession by possession is taking in root in the guise

of maintaining the delicate balance of the ecosystem and

reducing carbon emissions. However, clearing virgin land to

plant new forest depletes the sink function of the forest

given vent to newer forms of life threatening climate stress.

Therefore, the gains of stabilizing atmospheric emissions are

negated by the very instruments ensuring abatement of carbon

emissions.

3.0 Linkages of Biomass Economy and Re-Colonization of Nature

in Africa

Headlines of various newspapers herald the coming of land

grabs in Africa. Some of these papers term it: 'Africa up for

grabs', 'Africa is for sales' while others characterize it as:

'Land grabs is underway' whereas others speak of 'large-scale

land Acquisitions' (LSLA). Critical to all is the acceptance

of the birth of a new phenomenon involving the act of taking

from one person by another. This process of acquisition can be

either by force or through market means and this could be

voluntary transaction or involuntary. Interestingly, the World

Bank views it as the 'rising interest in farmland'.

These discordant definitions notwithstanding, it is obvious

large swathes of arable land are increasingly grabbed.

Effectively, a new phase of Africa's land acquisition

commenced with the date for new acquisition as 2004. At first

glance one may be tempted to celebrate the increase in Foreign

Direct Investment (FDI) in the agricultural sector.

Interestingly, agricultural production have been neglected in

FDI hence one may ask why the sudden resurgence of interests

for Africa’s land and natural resources? Is it a new

phenomenon from people who are hunger profiteers? If it is

new, why then is there so much outcry from the media and civil

society? And why is it labelled derogatorily as 'land grab'?

Land grab in Africa is definitely not a new phenomenon; it is

as old as the history of the first European penetration of the

hinterlands of Africa. It is as deep rooted as the history of

capitalist social formations. However, different epochs of

history characterize European plunder variously: As

colonialism, imperialism, neoliberal approach SAP, bioeconomy,

biomass economy, sustainable development, green economy and

now as land grabs. Despite this metamorphosis, the basic tenet

of European penetration of Africa hinterland has not really

changed from its emphasis on despoliation of Africa’s natural

resources to feed people and industries of the North.

Some of the current participants in the new scramble for

Africa also experienced colonial rule. In fact, driver of LSLA

has strong economic hegemonic pretentions than in their claim

of feeding the teeming global hungry population. Certainly,

the search for alternative source of food and energy are

theoretically the main basis for land grabs. Geostrategic

machinations of the investors are most important motive for

land acquisitions. And the medium through which such land

deals are implemented is through the use of force. Hence, land

acquisitions under colonial rule and under the new scramble

for Africa share one common feature: the forceful expulsion of

indigenous people from their lands. Large swathes of land are

forcefully taken from the local communities under the pretence

of turning wastelands into arable lands. Force through

military conquest replaced force using compromised

politicians. In the two instances, there are ready arm of

corrupt and unpatriotic Africans ready to render vital service

to the land grabbers.

Therefore, one will see that the resurgence of land grabs

reaffirms Nkrumah (1965) conviction of neo-colonialism as

invented to replace colonialism. In the land grabs, we witness

supplanting of the interest of African nations with those of

large bio-corporations. This new eco-colonial world order

reintegrates African nations who have escaped from the area of

control and ambit of influence of the West back into the

capitalist orbit. Africa growing acolytes of capital play

vital roles in this expropriation agenda. Even as partners in

greed, there is vast inequality in profit maximizing economic

system. The unequal relation arising from this relationship

widened the gap between the rich and poor nations creating

amiable condition for further returns on investments.

A clear example of this paradox is in Ethiopia. Ethiopia is a

country noted to have suffered from severe shocks and stress

such as: droughts, hunger and starvation over the years.

However, the country despite its highly documented food

insecurity is at the global forefront of land deals. Human

Right Watch report says it has evidence some 700,000

indigenous people in the western Gambella, oromia and Eastern

region were relocated against their will to new villages which

lack adequate food, farmland, health care and educational

facilities. The question then arises as to why Ethiopia a well

known food insecure nation is leading the charge for the

position of continental leaders in land deals? The reason is

simple. The current development aid regime ties aid strictly

to availability of enabling environment for donor to recoup

its investment. European aid to Africa witnessed a downward

spiral with the Eurozone crisis. With unstable markets donors

now want favourable conditions for their businesses to thrive.

Instead, we have a reengineering of the 'carrot and stick'

approach in the current development aid regime. This explains

why Ethiopia a food deprived nation is also the top leaders of

land lease in Africa. According to reports, 1.3 million lands

were up for grabs in 2009 alone while in 2011, a total of 4

million lands were up for sale to the highest bidder.

Correspondently, Ethiopia is a major beneficiary of

development aid. The increase in development aid contradicts

the prevalence of human rights abuses in the country. Land is

vital asset for farming activities. By leasing or selling

their land, it means they have sold their right to the hungry

poor. Clearly, then global capital's neo-colonial

preoccupation is the major driver of development aid in

Ethiopia. And so, it is not really any altruist machination as

we are made to believe. Altruism and investments are two

strange bed fellows. Just as the cross preceded the gun in the

past, development aid now precedes water and land grabs.

4.0 Similarities of Colonial era and Eco-colonial Land Grabs

Colonial land appropriation and eco-colonial land grabs share

many characteristics in common. Not only are the two epochs

reliant on force, killings, prosecution and dislocation of

indigenous people from their ancestral homes but their goal

for Africa’s natural resources remain largely unchanged. Their

similarities are:

(a) Metabolic rift

In the colonial era, colonialists participated in the actual

subjugation of the people but in the new age, the neo-

colonialists rely on local businessmen for the total control

of their own people. In the (neo) colonial era, movement of

nutrients (metabolic rift) between host country and foreign

investors is on the rise. The only difference is the scale of

debauchery which in the present dispensation is unprecedented

involving lands twice the size of United Kingdom and is also

more than total size of Italy. Nutrient recycling in the past

is skewed in favour of the investors and imperialists. In the

re-emergence of the metabolic rift in Africa, we observe the

same totalizing tendency of capital with the ability to

externalize cost to others. The current spatial dimension of

socio-ecological contradictions is therefore intrinsic to the

development of capital.

(b) Socialization of Nature

Developed economies have always redefined all means of

socialization of nature. Biofuel production is a not an

exception. In the biofuel, through REDD+ and other agro-

ecological transformations mechanisms the world once more is

confronted with the ghost from the past. In transforming the

economy to suit their purpose, the west has remained constant

to their neo-colonial appropriation. In this new dispensation,

the name of the game has changed to tally with new global

framework for dispossession. But the ultimate goal of the eco-

colonialist still remains largely unchanged. What really

changed is the number of participants swelled by an odd mix of

profiteering nations.

This new dimension has also created further complications.

Africans are now wary of erstwhile colonialists and are now

more inclined to do business with emerging nations such as

China and Arabs nations hoping they will not be more ferocious

than their former colonial overlords. But we learn from

history leopards can never wash off their spot. Thus, we

should be wary of wolf in sheep clothing. This is because all

investors expect returns on investment and as such the new

class neo-colonialists cannot be any different from the West

we so much vitiate.

(c) Cultural dislocation

The arrival of the European in the 16th century significantly

altered the economy and environment in Africa. The new

scramble for Africa has given vent to dislocation of the

cultural and ancestral heritage. What the sixteenth century

colonialists failed to accomplish has now been presented on a

platter of gold for the eco-colonialists. Resultantly, there

is heightening of socio-ecological reordering of the continent

which began in the guise of limiting harmful impact of climate

change through carbon sequestration programmes and finding new

alternate sources of energy. As in the past, greed in the

colonial era for raw materials was matched by Africa’s

unpreparedness to serve as ready source for raw materials. In

similar vein, present generation of Africa are decidedly

unprepared to shoulder the burden of the North’s ecological

guilt by turning their continent into forest reserves and

animal sanctuary.

(d) Access to raw materials

Africa's history is replete with instances of foreign

penetration disguised as civilizing mission. Then, land grabs

were the major reason for European conquests. They were

propelled by the need to control sources of raw materials

needed to fuel the Industrial Revolution. Large plantation

settlements in East Africa and Southern part of Africa were

established backed with resources from West. This explains why

colonialism was adjudged mutually beneficial in some quarters.

Yet, we know most indigenous communities who were expelled

from the lands to pave way for European settlements all fell

into penury. Colonialism were acts of rape by colonizing state

on the colony. It is characterized by large scale

appropriation of both human and non-human nature. Neo-

colonialism is the culmination of systematic political and

economic control of the people. Effectively, neo-colonialism

leads to social subjugation of African people. In the two eons

of colonialism, there is skewed access to economic and

agricultural power creating amiable condition for wholesome

rape of Africa's socio-ecologies. The major reason for (neo)

colonial presence is heightened by declining agricultural

productivity, rapid industrialization and increasing

population.

(e) Monoculture plantation

Colonial and neo-colonial farming activities are primarily

built around monoculture farmlands. Local communities in Cote

d' Ivoire, Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Togo, Mozambique,

Tanzania, Niger, South Africa, Ghana, Benin, Kenya and others

had their lands forcefully taken away as a result of the

colonial policies which evicted them to pave way for European

agricultural settlements. According to Okoh (2013) colonial

policy evicted Maasai from their land in Kenya for the

creation of plantations. Similarly, the French colonial single

product dependent economy was their hallmark in many colonies.

But as Burckhardt (2005) suggests: 'colonial imperialist,

then, changed the production patterns of colonies to suit

their own needs'. In Senegal and the Gambia, Barker (2012)

opined that the economies were streamlined to produce

groundnuts as cash crop in France. This led to the destruction

of food crops such as rice which is their dietary staples

(Okoh, 2013).

(f) Returns on investment

In eco-colonial era, large scale land acquisition was the

preferred mechanism for externalizing agro ecological

contradictions in Africa. And because capital has tendency to

radically externalize cost, it needs a single crop farms to

hurriedly yield immediate return. By simplifying land and

labour, capital has ensured returns on investment. Therefore,

there is historic link between monoculture farms in Africa.

Far from mere cultural traits accompanying European expansion,

monocultures are fundamental to early capitalists' ecological

order; this order rest basically on rapid accumulation through

simplification of nature. With the abundant cheap arable land

and cheap labour Africa presents fertile ground for their

expropriation agenda.

In fact, monoculture is part of the origin of modern slavery

dating as far back to the fifteen century. The imperative of

community production then and in the now is simplification

rather than variation. Effectively, short run profit-

maximizing strategy is favoured over long term ecological

sustainability.

From the foregoing, simplification of nature can be said to

create enabling environment for swift metabolism with the

current globalizing forces paving the way for a new ecological

drain.

(g) New form of slavery

Since labour process through low skill is abundant in Africa,

slavery is still possible largely to the extent that the

physical organization of the land itself is progressively

simplified. An example of such simplification is in Mozambique

where poor farmers are now slaves tied with their family into

100 years contract. But as the actual farmers who entered into

the contract will not be alive the contractor will then force

children of the poor farmers to carry out the contract slated

to end in 99 years time. Given this, slavery has never really

ended in Africa but mutated to a more devastating form.

Conclusion

Africa is living in the minefield of hunger. With the

economization of nature, Africa is tiptoeing towards minefield

of hunger hoping for a miracle to bail the continent from

impending food insecurity. The continent is fervently hoping

for a miracle to reduce the impact of imminent hunger because

of their wasteful ecological reordering. Africa is forever a

continent searching for a deus ex machina to extricate her

from hunger. Given this, it can be said the continent is

toying with future generation's wellbeing hopeful present

agroecological deteriorations do not undermine its ability to

meet the challenges of life. In subletting their lands to

foreign investors, they are now firmly planted in the

minefield of hunger. In doing so, they have actually succeeded

in transferring from the public to private the responsibility

of managing food insufficiency of the continent to others. The

situation is further aggravated in the unholy matrimony of

merging developed countries' carbon deficits with Africa

forest reserves as surety for their ecological profligacy. In

this marriage, we have successfully conscripted Africa into

the West’s green debt reconciliation agenda. The major

characteristic of this is superlative appropriation,

subordination of man to technology and unequal exchange

between poor and rich nations.

Clearly, global hunger for biofuel will fuel hunger while land

grabs, grabs economy of Africa for the investors. To extricate

Africa from this strangulating land grabs is a complex task.

The fallacy of biofuel production is now debunked by the

saturation of stratospheric emissions of GHGs from biofuel

plantations, which is now adversely reconfiguring global

economic and agricultural space. Within Africa the euphoria of

land grabs as expedient for socio-economic transformation is

clearly a myth. In recent years, Africa has unearthed how the

so-called beneficent dominion of wastelands has turned

beneficent returns to shareholders in foreign lands. In this

ill-conceived beneficent dominion of nature, Africa is

sneaking toward non-reversible corporatization of agriculture.

Consequently, the family farmers who constitute the bulk of

Africa's population are now dependent on Northern industries

and emerging economies for all their food requirements. Little

wonder then that the North places high premium on Africa's

lands. However, land deals emanating from these so-called

benevolent investors with benign mastery of nature at heart

are actually devoted strictly to repression of nature and not

its liberation.

Given the above, deterioration of soil and degradation of

family farmers and workers are mutually relational. And so for

liberation of the farmers to take place, we must first

liberate nature. The liberation of the nature and the

liberation of the worker we resolve the contradictions of

biomass economy. By liberating nature from the eco-colonial

land grabs, we liberate man. However, such liberation is only

possible if we can simultaneously restore the general social

metabolism and the socio-ecological metabolism to equilibrium.

By and large, capital's immanent tendency towards biophysical

degradation will compound Africa’s ecological rift. Big

agribusinesses are threats to Africa’s natural capital as it

is also a threat to their profit and accumulation. This is,

due in the main, to activities of biocorparations in Africa

who as main actors of the eco-colonial era will not prevent

themselves from impairing conditions of growth in Africa.

Rather, Africa’s growth will be impaired by condition arising

from her incessant need to grow. In same manner, capital’s

accumulation through land grabs will in the long run

jeopardize the natural conditions of production through rapid

industrial growth favouring short term gains.

GHG mitigation is the solution for cutting carbon emissions

globally. Yet, within Africa several overlapping processes are

underway and have reached the level of a spectre. Indeed, the

spectres of land grabs are here with us. A spectre of land

armed robbers is fuelling outrage and outbursts across Africa.

In the land grabs, we are now witnessing the corporatization

of Africa’s food production and the dislocation of indigenous

communities.

Significantly, irreversible processes of change are

undermining local food production and food security in favour

of capital-intensive labour. This is ensuring production of

food and other goods mostly for foreign market. Evidently,

land grabbing is the antithesis of land reforms as it takes

away land from the poorest of the poor (PoP) and concentrates

land in the hand of the richest of the rich (RoR) thereby

undermining self-sufficiency of the family farmers. It is also

affecting African Union 'Green Revolution initiative now

threatened by the very process which should bring about

change. Consequently, Africa’s food security is on the

balance. The turn of events of the so-called 'responsible

agricultural investment' has become 'irresponsible

agricultural disinvestment'. A continent at the threshold of

agricultural boom is now a continent headed for agricultural

doom. The question for policy in the years to come is whether

in liberalizing food production, Africa has succeeded in

liberating man? In the eco-colonial push for land by the

industrial and wealthy countries in the name of cutting GHG

are we not now annexing Africa's key non-human nature? Or we

are building resilience of the poor to cope with climate

risks? These are issues for further research.

References

Avissar, I. R. and Werth, D, (2005), “Global

hydroclimatalogical teleconnections resulting from

tropical deforestation,” Journal of Hydrometeorology 2005, 6(2):

134-145

Barker, J. P. (2012), A Rentier class: Economic aspects of the

colonial legacy in Senegal,” In

Bond, I., Grieg-Gran, M., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S.,

Hazlewood, P., Wunder, S. & Angelsen, A. (2009).

Incentives to Sustain Forest Ecosystem Services: A Review and Lessons for

REDD. London: International Institute for Environment and

Development.

Commoner, B., Corr, M. and Stamler, P. (1971) “The Causes of

Pollution,” in T. D.Goldfarb (ed.) Taking Sides: Clashing

Views on Controversial Environmental Issues, 3rd edn., Sluice

Dock, Conn.: Guilford.

Durning, A.T. (1992) How Much Is Enough?, Worldwatch

Environmental Alert Series, New York: W. W. Norton.

Ehrlich, P.R. and Holdren, J.P. (1971) “Impact of Population

Growth,” Science 171:1212– 17.

IEA (International Energy Agency) (2009), “2009 Energy Balance for

Africa”, www.iea.org/stats/ balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=11.

IPCC- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate

change 2007: The physical science basis, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Malthus, T. (1798) (1973). An essay on the principle of population.

London: J. M. Dent.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L. Randers, J. Behrens, W.W.

(1972). The limits to growth. Universe Books New York.

Monbiot, G. (2014). Put a Price on Nature? We must stop this

neoliberal road to ruin SPERRI Annual Lecture, hosted by the

Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute at the

University of Sheffield. Available

at:http://www.guardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/jul

/24/price-nature- neoliberal-capital-road-ruin

Nkrumah, Kwaame. (1965). Neo-colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism.

New York: International Publishers. Leahy 2009).

Okoh, A.I. S. (2013). Political economy of climate change in Africa,

German: Lambert Academic Publishing. Available at:

http//www.amazon.com/Political-Economy-Climate-change-in-Africa/dp/

3659373117 ISBN:978-3-659-373114

Sandbrook, c., Nelson, f., William, M.A. and Agrawal, A.

(2010). Carbon, Forests and the REDD paradox. Fauna & Flora

International, Oryx, 44(3), 330–334

doi:10.1017/S0030605310000475

Accessed at: http://www.journals.cambridge.org

Smolker, R.; Tokar, B. and Petermann, A. (2008). The Real Cost of

Agrofuels: Impacts on food, forests, peoples and the climate A Publication

of Global Forest Coalition and Global Justice Ecology

Project, with Institute for Social Ecology

Stecher, K., Brosowski, A. and Thrän, D. (2013), Biomass Potential

in Africa, A Publication of IRENA and DBFZ

www.irena.org/....IRENA-DBFZ_Biomass%20 Potential%20in%Africa. pdf

UNFCCC. (1997). “Kyoto Protocol to The United Nations

Framework Convention On Climate Change,” Accessed at:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf Retrieved on 23rd

January, 2015.

World Forests Movement (2015). REDD: A Collection of

Conflicts, Contradictions, and Lies. A briefing of the World

Rainforest Movement, Monte video, Uruguay.