Chapter 6: Conclusions
6.1 Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations
6.1.1 Description of the project of growing Jatropha curcas at Mpaka
The government of Swaziland made an effort to fo llow t he advice o f taking precaut io ns before embarking o n t he industry o f bio fuels, as all t he SADC countries had been called to( RHVP 2007), by commissioning the bio-energy feasibility study through SWADE in August 2005 which, in May 2006, appraised feasibility of producing biodiesel. This was followed by the drafting of the Bio-Energy Strategy and Action Plan for Swaziland by the government through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy, however before the strategy and action plan were in place, in April 2006 the government through the Ministry of Enterprise and Employment signed an MOU with an investor on biofuels, D1 Oils Swaziland, a company incorporated in the Kingdom of Swaziland which was based on growing Jatropha curcas as feedstock for processing into biodiesel. Whilst the government of Swaziland was cognisant of the fact that caution and proper planning had to be taken before getting into the biofuels industry it would seem it was under pressure to get into the industry of biofuels sooner and hence could not wait for the completion of the preparatory stages or there was lack of coordination between the different government ministries. Therefore the company D1 Oils began its operations immediately after signing the MOU with the government.
When the project started getting bad publicity as the two NGOs, Yonge Nawe (Friends of the Earth) and Africa Co-operation Action Trust (ACAT) raised issues concerning the growing of jatropha and the way D1 Oils was dealing with farmers amongst other issues, the government could not defend the project and itself which resulted in the suspension of further plantings on April 2008 pending the carrying out of a Strategic Environmental Assessment for growing Jatropha curcas, after acknowledging through the Ministry of agriculture that before the project was undertaken there was no Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken on growing Jatropha curcas. For reasons that the researcher could not establish, the investor lost interest on the project and closed operations in Swaziland leaving the poor farmers in rural areas uninformed and disempowered.
New approaches to rural development emphasize the importance of macro-level policy and institutions on the livelihood options of local communities and individuals, including the
130 very poorest. They also stress the need for higher-level policy formulation to be based on insights gained at the local level (Carney 1999). It was noted in the terms of reference (TOR) that were given to the consultants that were to carry out the feasibility study for biofuels for the country of Swaziland that there was no provision for consultation with rural communities to find out how t he y t h in k such a development may affect their livelihood options so that the policies pertaining to the biofuels industry would be developed in such a way that they give maximum possible benefit from such developments to the rural households as advocated for in rural development (Jumbe, Msiska and Mhango 2007).
Knowledge of rights and information about the way government functions has been observed to be lacking in rural areas (Carney 1999). This, according t o Carney (1999), makes it hard for rural communities to exert pressure for change in systems which have often discriminated against them. Before the conclusion to stop further plantings of Jatropha curcas in Swaziland, the communities were a g a i n not consulted a n d neither was there a n y consideration shown in terms of how such a verdict would ultimately impact on the livelihood of the households that had been involved in the activity. Even after so much time has passed since the verdict was passed in parliament, government has not made an effort to get to the grassroots to address the rural communities about how and why such a decision was taken, what the implications of such a decision were to the rural community members who were involved in the project and what possible options were available to them.
There has been no recognition of the investment in terms of time, effort and resources that the households had put into the activity of growing Jatropha curcas, hence why they were not even considered as stakeholders worth consulting in coming up with such a decision or even addressing after the developments. In the meantime the farmers do not have information and they do not know how they may obtain it and stated by literature they have not mobilised to seek for answers either. It is recommended that the government through the relevant ministries addresses the farmers at grassroots level on the state of affairs concerning the project.
The bad publicity that the project was subjected to was exacerbated by the fact that government gave D1 Oils a go ahead with its project without the carrying out of an Environmental Impact Assessment (SIPA Interviewee). Because this procedure had been overlooked or not enforced in
131 order to comply with exist ing legislature, it was difficult for the company (D1 Oils) to defend itself from the allegations that were levelled against it and against the plant Jatropha curcas by the two NGOs Yonge Nawe and Africa Co-operation Action Trust (ACAT) Swaziland. It was also difficult for the government to act in a way that would be contrary to the existing requirements that are provided for by the existing legislature.
There is need for proper coordination of the offices for investment promotions and the other government ministries and departments. As pointed out in the results, clear institutional arrangements and clear coordination mechanisms are critical policy issues that ought to be addressed to reduce institutional conflict and even duplication of efforts. Sasovele (2010) pointed out that bioenergy development projects are projects that go beyond the energy sector and as it has been proven in the case of Swaziland they even go beyond the sector of enterprise and employment, calling for their development and decision making process to be a process that involves all relevant sectors and stakeholders including NGOs.
Proper enforcement of relevant legislature and regulatory requirements to protect poor rural populations who are powerless and protect government itself from such an embarrassing situation where it had contradicted itself through its different organs losing the confidence of the investor and risking loss of confidence by its own citizens. The EIA process is a process which would have allowed all stakeholders to present their views and fears about the activity of growing Jatropha curcas before the commencement of the D1 Oils Swaziland’s project during the scoping.
A sense of accountability and duty of care is important to all the sectors and departments which are stakeholders in development projects especially when a new technology is to be introduced to rural areas where there is a relative lack of knowledge and capacity to acquire it. None of the households had a computer which obviously means no internet connectivity showing a huge limitation to independent knowledge acquisition.
The government ought to also streamline its operations with current trends in theory and practice of development and also utilise the expertise within non-governmental organisations that are involved in rural development especially in projects that are to involve rural populations if it has to realise objectivity and positive contribution towards poverty eradication and the other
132 millennium development goals.