A review of a switch grass bioenergy project in the United States (Rossi and Hin — richs 2011) highlighted participating farmers’ generally strong scepticism regarding the role of large scale agribusiness and energy companies. Most project participants felt that for small scale farmers and local communities to receive substantial economic benefits from bioenergy, corporate dominance in the bioenergy industry should be avoided or restricted (Rossi and Hinrichs 2011).

These views were mirrored by communities in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa where 54 % of participants in a household survey regarding bioenergy development were not willing to produce crops for biodiesel production. One of the main objections was that local people were excluded from the project development and were asked to accept industrial scale development that could lead to further poverty (Amigun et al. 2011).

Disagreement between communities and bioenergy companies increase when the development is involuntarily imposed on the community’s locality, when technology is unfamiliar, the community has no decision making power and the development is for corporate profit rather than local benefit. The lack of community support for bioenergy projects in developing countries has completely prevented development of some bioenergy projects and caused significant delays in others (Amigun et al. 2011).

Distrust and scepticism on behalf of small scale producers can be overcome when bioenergy companies co-develop solutions to problems through two-way information flow. The focus should be on working with local partners to co­design every aspect of the bioenergy value chain instead of imposing pre-existing solutions from above (Hart 2005). In managing diverse linkages between small scale producers and bioenergy companies, techniques such as participatory rural appraisal and rapid assessment processes open up valuable ways of communicating with grassroots partners and helping with mutual learning and the creation of responsive strategies (Ham and Thomas 2008).

Tenure arrangements and assets of the small scale producers are not always clearly defined nor can they be easily turned into capital or used for collateral for loans or investments (De Soto 2000). This increases the vulnerability of the arrangements between the producer and the bioenergy company since conventional legal arrangements would be impossible. In this regard trust and social capital, rather than legal contracts, could form the basis for sustainable and fair busi­ness arrangements between small scale producers and bioenergy companies (Hart 2005).