Five ‘big’ issues for land access, resettlement and livelihood restoration practice: findings of an international symposium

Abstract

This paper synthesises findings of a recent IAIA Symposium on Resettlement and Livelihoods (South Africa, October 2014). Over 250 practitioners from 42 countries attended, representing governments, private sector, academia, impacted communities, civil society international financial institutions (IFIs) and consultants. Five ‘big’ themes emerged: (1) land access and resettlement practice falls short of community expectations, with negative impacts on livelihoods of displaced people, absence of meaningful involvement by communities in decision-making and inadequate benefits from projects. (2) The best practice standards of IFIs are converging. Countries are also increasingly putting in place legislation, but there remains significant scope to improve legislative frameworks and align them closer with international good practice. (3) Livelihood restoration is not being properly planned or implemented. Finding replacement land is increasingly difficult. Women, youth and the vulnerable need more of a voice and more livelihood support. Livelihood restoration is a long-term process and can be better integrated with broader community development efforts. (4) Projects need to start planning and engagement early and more thoroughly. (5) Resettlement practice is improving but requires more resources.

Keywords::

• land access
• resettlement
• livelihoods
• social impact assessment
• development
• sustainable development

Notes

^1. Email: [email protected]

^2. Email: [email protected]

^3. Email: [email protected]

^4. Email: [email protected]

^5. The impact of coal mining projects undertaken by international mining companies in Mozambique caused an international outcry in 2011/12 and was documented in a number of reports by Southern African Resource Watch (SARW) (Kabemba & Nhancale 2012) and HRW (2012b). Both Rio Tinto and Vale, the mining companies cited in the reports, provided responses, which are included in the HRW report appendices. Both companies outlined the measures they had undertaken to support the communities, and stated that they had a long-term development approach and it was too early to draw conclusions on the outcomes of the land acquisition and resettlement process.

^6. For access to the portal see: https://www.csrm.uq.edu.au/mining-resettlement