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

Introduction

In October 2014, a symposium on the topic of ‘Resettlement and Livelihoods’ was held in South Africa under the auspice of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). It is estimated that over 15 million people are directly affected by resettlement each year caused by the consequences of economic development, referred to as development induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) (Terminski 2012). Resettlement refers both to physical displacement (relocation or loss of shelter) and to economic displacement (loss of livelihood) as a result of project-related land acquisition and/or restrictions on land use (IFC 2012). Land acquisition or access includes both outright purchases of property and acquisition of access rights, such as easements or rights of way (IFC 2012). Although many development projects aim to reduce poverty by building new infrastructure or by creating employment it is widely recognised that resettlement has caused the impoverishment of many impacted communities (Cernea 2003). The negative impacts have been highlighted by impacted communities and NGOs around the world, including recently in Mozambique where the government introduced new regulations to respond to accusations that resettlement was causing impoverishment (HRW 2012b).

Over 250 practitioners from 42 countries came together at the symposium to share experiences and lessons on this important issue, representing governments, private sector, academia, international financial institutions (IFIs), communities impacted by resettlement, civil society and consultants.

The symposium contributors covered a range of sectoral and geographical perspectives. In addition to a number of consultants considered leaders in the field, the programme included presentations from representatives of the following institutions:

• Governments: Angola, Mozambique, Zambia

• Civil society organisations/NGOs: Organisation for Livelihood Enhancement Services (Ghana), Organisation for Development & Gender, Centre Terra Viva, Tete Provincial Farmers' Union and Association for Judicial Assistance & Support to Communities (Mozambique), Haki Madini (Tanzania), Ibanda Women's Guild (Uganda).

• IFIs: African Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, International Finance Corporation, World Bank.

• International NGOs: CARE International, Oxfam.

• Academia: Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, University of Queensland.

• Extractives industry: Anglo American, Newmont, Rio Tinto, Shell, Tullow Oil, Vale.

This paper is a synthesis prepared by the members of the symposium programme committee. The paper elaborates on the five themes to emerge from the symposium, and proposes a set of recommendations for future practice. In recognition of the South African venue, the Kruger National Park, these themes were labelled as the ‘Big 5’ issues:

• Resettlement is failing communities.

• There is increasing alignment of standards and legislation.

• Livelihoods restoration is not being properly planned or implemented.

• Professional planning and community negotiations are key to project success.

• Resettlement practice is improving but there is a need for more practitioners trained in best practice.

The purpose of this paper is not to provide an exhaustive treatment of the issue of resettlement and livelihoods but to provide a summary of the key issues. The paper is intended to serve as a precursor to a special issue of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal on Resettlement and Livelihoods in the near future, which will deal with the substantive issues in greater detail.

The ‘Big 5’ issues

Resettlement is failing communities

The symposium heard from a wide group of stakeholders on the negative impacts of projects on communities. It is clear that, in many cases, DIDR is failing communities and leading to their impoverishment. Women are often disproportionately impacted by DIDR and the testimonies of women impacted by mining in Mozambique were particularly sobering. These women told how the resettlement process had left them without access to quality land, proper services or access to jobs and a decreased standard of living. The women also testified that their communities had been broken up and that they felt that they had no voice in the process and no power to stop it.

The symposium also heard from representatives of Mozambican civil society and Oxfam, an international NGO, about the key problems with land access and resettlement in Tete Province in Mozambique, focusing on the Benga Coal mine.5 Oxfam is currently working on a ‘Listening to the Voices’ project, supported by the International Mining for Development Centre (IM4DC, 2014), which aims to support local civil society organisations and communities to participate in decisions on land access and resettlement and to capture lessons, by providing recommendations on how to improve engagement and resettlement practice and policy.

The civil society representatives reported a number of issues with land access and resettlement practice in Mozambique:

• Mining projects often change ownership during the development of the mine from exploration, through construction, operations and closure, making it difficult for communities to hold companies to account for their commitments.

• There is a perceived ‘lack of willingness’ by companies and governments to recognise that engagement requires community involvement in decision-making and responsibility for decisions. Women are often not consulted and are rarely involved in decision-making.

• Women and children often face the greatest impacts including food insecurity, loss of land and a loss of their place in society leading to increased poverty. Consultation, sharing of information and negotiation often excludes women.

A wider issue that was identified was the limited acceptance of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as a collective right of Indigenous Peoples in developing countries by companies and governments. FPIC recognises the right of indigenous people to self-determination as enshrined in the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and their right to say no to resettlement (Hanna & Vanclay 2013). The reality of many projects is that, even in the absence of recognised indigenous peoples, FPIC should be achieved through participatory decision-making with affected communities in order to achieve a lasting agreement.

Increasing alignment of standards and legislation

The symposium heard that there is a plethora of standards, guidelines and frameworks governing social and environmental, and in particular land access and resettlement, practice. These include government legislation, IFI requirements, company policies, best practice guides and various global initiatives. However, there is ongoing convergence of standards used by the IFIs, particularly based on the International Finance Corporation's (IFC) Performance Standards, and the Equator Principles, a set of similar standards adopted by a large number of private sector banks. These standards are increasingly being used as the global benchmark for private sector projects. In 2011, 80 global IFIs were EP members (18 from emerging markets) and collectively estimated to provide 70% of global project finance in emerging markets (Equator Principles 2011). There is increasing alignment on the requirement for meaningful consultation and grievance mechanisms, the provision of compensation at replacement cost and a requirement to identify and address the needs of vulnerable groups. However, there is not yet full alignment on approaches to compensation eligibility and for common resources, livelihood restoration for some impacted communities (e.g. fishing communities) how to deal with artisanal mining and the need for land-for-land replacement instead of cash compensation, where this is practically possible. A key challenge identified was the absence of national legislation in most countries requiring livelihood restoration and a tendency of projects to rely on cash compensation and for communities to demand it. Where cash compensation is paid there are differences on the rates that should be applied, with government authorities tending to oppose generous compensation rates which might set a precedent, and civil society organisations lobbying for higher rates.

Another issue is that many companies are reluctant to commit to compliance to international standards, preferring to only ‘align with’ or ‘be guided by’ IFC standards, which can allow site teams to take shortcuts and create reputational and other risks. There is a need for updated guidance on land access and resettlement as the IFC Handbook (2002) and World Bank Sourcebook (2004) are becoming out-of-date.

Countries are also increasingly putting in place legislation to regulate land access and resettlement, but there remains significant scope for many countries to improve their legislative frameworks and bring it closer in line with international best practice. For example, the symposium heard that the government of Mozambique introduced a new resettlement regulation by decree to deal specifically with resettlement following the international outcry by civil society in 2011/2012 (Conselho de Ministros 2012). The new law includes requirements for community engagement, livelihood restoration and the provision of quality replacement land. The law was passed quickly, and although generally welcomed, some civil society organisations believe it does not go far enough (HRW 2012a). In addition, governments are making increasing commitments to support the rights of internally displaced people, including displacement induced by projects as laid out in the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa (Kampala Convention) (African Union 2010) and UN Commission on Human Rights (UN 2008).

A key challenge is that developers are generally required to comply with international standards which often have stricter requirements than domestic laws on land access and resettlement. Governments may not have the same resources as commercial companies and are concerned about establishing expensive precedents which could be demanded by communities on their own domestic projects. The aim should be to have a unified standard that aligns national legislative requirements and international standards requirements. However, where a gap between national and international standards remains, this will need to be bridged through top-up compensation and additional support for resettlement housing and livelihood restoration. The recommendation is for industry and the IFIs, such as the World Bank, to offer more support to governments to review and update their national legislation so as to achieve alignment with international standards.

Livelihood restoration is not being properly planned or implemented

A number of speakers presented some success in restoring livelihoods associated with land access and resettlement. The term ‘livelihood’ refers to the full range of means that individuals, families and communities utilise to make a living, such as wage-based income, agriculture, fishing, foraging, other natural resource-based livelihoods, petty trade and bartering (IFC 2012). However, many projects rely solely on cash compensation to support the restoration of livelihoods of impacted households.

The symposium heard that in the minority of resettlement projects where sufficient quality replacement land was provided to impacted households, accompanied by an agricultural support package consisting of seedlings and inputs, it was possible to restore livelihoods. Further conditions contributing to a successful livelihood programme included:

• Conducting detailed socio-economic baseline studies to develop a thorough understanding of every impacted household's livelihood. Many rural households have complex livelihood strategies, combining agriculture with income from employment, trading, fishing, etc.

• Undertaking comprehensive and sustained stakeholder engagement with the impacted communities on the proposed livelihood restoration packages.

• Establishing a multi-stakeholder implementation team, including community representatives, local government and civil society to review the proposed livelihood strategy and establish clear roles and responsibilities and a clear exit strategy.

• Developing partnerships with agencies with a proven track record and implementing an effective monitoring and evaluation strategy to monitor progress and make revisions where required.

• Establishing a skills training programme early in the stages of project development and a local employment and business support programme, which maximises the economic benefits to local communities.

The speakers also highlighted the key challenges they faced when planning livelihood restoration programmes. The greatest challenge was the difficulty in finding sufficient quality replacement land on rural resettlement projects at an affordable price. Globally, land is becoming a more expensive commodity and this is more pronounced in resource projects where economic opportunities fuel an influx of migrants seeking work. An alternative livelihood strategy is to promote the intensification of agriculture on existing and replacement land. It is common to achieve early increases in productivity while the project support is being offered but this is often not sustained. This is because improved techniques are often not adopted once the project support ends. Intensification and the development of alternative livelihoods requires long-term support and associated funding. Support is often only provided for 3 years or even less whereas a 10-year timeframe would be more realistic. The focus for subsistence farmers should be to restore existing livelihoods as a safety net while supporting the development of alternative livelihoods. It is unrealistic to expect subsistence farming communities to easily develop as entrepreneurs and such approaches have proven to have a very low success rate.

Another problem is that the importance of women's livelihoods is often ignored with women being excluded from restoration programmes, resulting in their impoverishment. Projects must identify and support vulnerable households through the resettlement process and ensure that they are given additional support to benefit from the project employment and economic opportunities. However, there must be a clear exit strategy negotiated between the project, impacted communities and the authorities so that dependency is not promoted. Women, youth and the vulnerable need more of a voice on projects and more livelihood support.

There is limited guidance on restoring livelihoods on urban resettlement projects, which are creating significant impacts considering the scale of urbanisation in developing countries. Poor urban households impacted by resettlement often live in low quality housing without land titles and generally have low levels of education and skills. They are generally dependent on low-paid informal jobs dependent on access to markets. Resettlement sites are generally far from the location of the original jobs and markets, and lack of access to affordable transport can result in their impoverishment. Similar to rural households, urban households are dependent on social networks which are disrupted by resettlement as communities are often dispersed or scattered across multiple resettlement sites due to limited availability of vacant land. It is therefore critical that, within both urban and rural resettlement, social networks are understood and that impacted households are provided with security of tenure in areas that maintain community cohesion and provide access to affordable transport, markets and jobs.

A number of speakers emphasised that compensation alone is rarely sufficient for restoring livelihoods and in many cases results in impoverishment, and that benefit-sharing through project-related employment can improve livelihoods as part of an overall livelihood restoration and community development strategy. Successful examples include involving resettlers in resettlement house design and construction which has the double benefit of wages and ensuring the resettlement site reflects the preferences of the resettlers themselves. The benefit of project-related employment for affected people is that it helps restore livelihoods while fostering good relationships between the company and impacted communities. It is important, however, to plan project employment properly by developing a local skills training and employment plan to manage recruitment and community expectations, ensure safe working practices and avoid the social unrest that can be associated with employment opportunities being taken up by outsiders. However, some speakers cautioned that offering project employment as part of livelihood restoration carries risks as companies and governments can see this as adequate livelihood restoration on its own, even though it is generally only possible to provide long-term employment to a fraction of those who are displaced, especially because many lack the required skills. In addition, when most of the livelihood opportunities are focused on displaced people it can create tension with communities in the wider project area who also have to deal with project impacts such as traffic, dust and noise but who will not be displaced.

The key lesson for both rural and urban projects is that livelihood restoration is a complex process that requires a long-term commitment – a timeframe of 10 years is more realistic, and resettlement needs to be integrated with wider community development initiatives. Projects need to focus on training local people early in the process so that they have a real opportunity to benefit from employment and the economic benefits of the project.

Professional planning and community negotiations are key to project success

Presenters provided guidance for a resettlement planning process, offering the following key considerations:

• Start planning as early as possible.

• Carry out a precedent/benchmarking review (and identify lessons learnt, good and bad).

• Determine guiding objectives and principles.

• Review land take requirements and see how displacement of people can be avoided or minimised.

• Make key planning assumptions based on types and extent of displacement.

• Establish and resource the land access and resettlement team adequately.

• Develop a work plan and schedule and a budget.

• Prepare an appropriate management plan e.g. a resettlement action plan (RAP).

The failure to actively involve impacted communities in true decision-making was identified as one of the primary weaknesses in achieving successful resettlement projects. Projects are not engaging with all relevant stakeholders and are concluding agreements with community leaders who may not be fully representative of the affected communities. Many of the agreements reached fail to include issues such as loss of livelihoods, vulnerable persons, security of tenure and broader community development. The lack of informed agreement by affected communities can often create problems during implementation when individual households hold out for higher compensation or refuse to move. Projects need to consider whether individual household-level discussions or group-level discussions are more appropriate to the project circumstances. Group-level discussions followed by individual household sign-off can be effective because they create more transparency and consistency. A key issue is that communities have limited capacity to understand the impacts of projects and their rights and responsibilities in the process. It is important for government and projects to build the capacity of communities to understand the process. Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are increasingly playing a role in building community capacity and advocating on their behalf so that they are empowered to demand their rights. Projects should partner with CSOs who are seeking to play a constructive role in empowering communities so that the agreements that are reached are based on full community understanding and participation.

There are a number of components/activities involved in implementing a stakeholder engagement and community negotiation process. Practitioners facilitating these processes should:

• Undertake stakeholder identification and analysis, taking into account results of displacement impact assessment, etc.

• Undertake a risk and opportunity assessment.

• Assess community interests, expectations and likely responses to the proposed engagement process, and mitigation and assistance measures.

• Develop and analyse potential engagement scenarios.

• Develop a Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Negotiation Plan (these are internal plans).

• Create the right atmosphere to encourage deliberation – ‘Set the Scene’.

• Ensure consultative forums are truly representative of communities, etc.

• Put in place a Grievance Mechanism which should include a suitable Dispute Resolution Procedure in the event of a negotiations deadlock.

• Determine suitable mechanisms to record engagement and agreements.

• Determine required capacity building of all parties to allow impacted stakeholders to make informed decisions.

• Put in place measures to build the capacity of the communities and government to understand their rights and responsibilities, including supporting CSOs to independently empower the communities to fully participate in the process.

• Prepare presentation materials.

• Prepare a list of anticipated key questions and answers.

• Undertake internal ‘strategic planning and dry run’ workshops to ensure the negotiating team is ready.

• Make necessary administrative arrangements e.g. translation, transport, refreshments and audio–visual equipment

• Put in place clear feedback loops internally and to affected communities and other relevant stakeholders.

There are cases that point to an improvement in practice and projects that are using effective and innovative processes to adequately plan land access and resettlement and engage and negotiate with communities and other stakeholders. Nevertheless, there is still significant scope for improvement.

Resettlement practice is improving but more practitioner guidelines are required

While it is clear that many projects are still being implemented to a very poor standard, it emerged that resettlement practice is improving on a number of fronts:

• The IFIs are working to align standards which will remove much of the confusion around what best practice guidance practitioners should follow on projects.

• Civil society is becoming more prominent in partnering with IFIs and industry to promote best practice and advocate on behalf of impacted communities.

• Project developers are becoming more aware of the need to ensure the early and active participation of impacted communities in the process, and the business case for undertaking resettlement properly.

• Some projects are allocating considerable resources to resettlement.

The IAIA Symposium on Resettlement and Livelihoods provided a rare forum for practitioners, government, civil society, communities and industry to come together and discuss improving resettlement practice. During the symposium it was confirmed that there are a number of very useful resources available on resettlement practice, including the IFC's Resettlement Handbook (2002) and the World Bank Sourcebook on Involuntary Resettlement (2004), but there is a need for further resources on livelihood restoration, artisanal mining and Indigenous Peoples. The symposium heard about a number of new resources, including the Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining's Mining Induced Displacement and Resettlement Portal,6 a recently published book, Land access and resettlement: a guide to best practice written by Intersocial (Reddy et al. 2015) and the World Bank's Centres of Excellence for resettlement education.

Conclusion

While examples of good practice were shared during the symposium, the consensus amongst practitioners is that many projects are still being implemented to a very poor standard. Even in those instances where ample resources have been allocated, there are limited examples of long lasting success and very few projects are in a position to prove that the livelihoods of impacted communities have improved. RAPs are often well designed but not properly implemented. It is important for proponents to work closely with specialists during the planning process, to ensure the RAP is an implementable document. Equally, the staff that will be responsible for the RAP's implementation must be familiar with and have ownership of the action plan agreements that were reached and call on the support of specialists where required.

The arguments presented and debated amongst symposium participants demonstrated a strong collective desire and justification for strengthening the effectiveness of resettlement practice. This paper has drawn on their rich experiences and reflection to propose a concise and clear set of recommendations for ensuring the challenging and complex process of resettlement is seen as successful from a project, community and government perspective.

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