Aligning resettlement planning and livelihood restoration with social impact assessment: a practitioner perspective

Abstract

Large infrastructure projects involving land acquisition frequently require resettlement planning to be undertaken during the environmental and social impact assessment. However, resettlement planning needs more design detail than is usually available during a social impact assessment (SIA). Resettlement planning is best scheduled after an SIA required for environmental permitting. Timing and duration also influence the effectiveness of livelihood restoration, in particular in-kind support to build social resilience. Cash compensation, as a one-time payment, is not constructive for long term livelihood restoration. Using examples from international infrastructure projects, this paper reviews where SIA and resettlement planning intersect in the project cycle and considers the implications for the timing of livelihood restoration measures.

Keywords:

• Resettlement planning
• social impact assessment
• livelihood restoration
• compensation
• social resilience
• social capital

Introduction

The resettlement planning and social impact assessment (SIA) processes both interact with people’s sense of belonging and their wellbeing (Vanclay et al. 2015). Resettlement and displacement are some of the most profound, contentious and sensitive impacts that an SIA describes, analyses and manages (Vanclay 2017). SIAs have the potential to provide the data and analysis about the conditions, options and preferences for resettlement planning (Mathur 2011). However, this potential is limited due to the inherent temporal challenges in the project approval or environmental licensing process and in the timing of resettlement planning. This paper refutes the common perception that resettlement action plans (RAPs) can be completed at the same time as SIAs. Reflecting on the objectives and timing of the SIA and resettlement planning processes based on practical examples of international infrastructure projects helps identify the challenges and risks to overall project scheduling. For instance, it is well documented that the sensitivities of resettlement are often a main source of delay for projects (Reddy et al. 2015). Resettlement planning requires clarity regarding the specific location, plot boundaries and amount of land required for a project. These details are necessary to identify land owners and users. Often the data needed for an implementation-ready RAP are not available during an SIA that is part of the assessment report for project approval or environmental permitting. Nonetheless, there are synergies and opportunities between resettlement planning and SIA, for instance the involvement of the same stakeholders and the need for socioeconomic data for both processes. Some SIA data collection activities can be improved to enhance their value to resettlement planning. Temporal elements also affect the effectiveness of livelihood restoration. RAPs often present livelihood restoration activities as an afterthought, even though the timing of support is crucial for implementation success.

This paper begins with an examination of the SIA and resettlement planning processes and how they fit into the overall project schedule. It identifies key challenges imposed by the project cycle and considers ways the SIA process inhibits and contributes to resettlement planning. Next, measures to improve livelihood restoration to address the long-term effects of community severance and to build social resilience are presented. Strategies such as staggering cash compensation payments and providing in-kind assistance at the right time in the project schedule and for the right duration are explored. The paper draws on the author’s extensive experience as a consultant in the energy, water and road sectors in Africa, Asia and South America.

SIA and involuntary resettlement

SIA is the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions and any social change processes invoked by those interventions (Vanclay 2003). SIA is typically undertaken as part of an environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) for environmental permitting purposes, with the results presented as a separate specialist chapter. The ESIA is often scheduled alongside or as part of the project’s technical feasibility study. Land acquisition and resettlement, either voluntary or involuntary, are key issues that need to be addressed by SIAs. Involuntary resettlement refers both to physical displacement (relocation or loss of shelter) and to economic displacement (loss of assets or access to assets leading to a loss of income sources or other means of livelihood) as a result of project-related land acquisition or restrictions on land use (IFC 2012). The provision of entitlements, especially compensation in cash or in-kind, is the main mechanism for addressing involuntary resettlement. Cernea (2008) highlighted that compensation money is not a net benefit for displaced people; rather it is restitution of what has been taken away. He argued that direct investment rather than compensation is needed to improve livelihoods.

This paper differentiates people affected by physical and economic displacement from people affected by other project impacts (i.e. project-affected people). The terms used in this paper are ‘relocation-affected households’ (RAHs) for the physically-displaced people and ‘displaced persons’ (DPs) for those who are solely economically displaced. In his writing about identifying households and household heads in resettlement surveys in rural African contexts, Gouws (2015) discussed the social relationships between family and non-family members of a household or compound. He wrote about the challenges for re-establishing a RAH at a new destination when multiple households live in a compound or in a single building structure.

Resettlement planning and SIA in the project cycle

SIA reports present baseline characterisation related to land use and tenure, identify likely land acquisition and resettlement impacts, and describe possible mitigation and management measures. SIAs also require consultation and engagement with affected communities, including RAHs and DPs. SIAs describe the impacts while resettlement plans provide details about how the impacts will be managed. Projects where resettlement impacts are severe (namely relocation) or significant (affecting numerous households or groups of vulnerable people) begin addressing displacement issues at the beginning of the SIA process, regardless of when resettlement planning is actually scheduled. During SIA scoping, the components that will potentially create resettlement impacts are identified at a general level. After scoping and during the assessment phase of an SIA, sometimes referred to as detailed ESIA, resettlement impacts are reported including the known amounts of land take and locations. These impacts are attributed significance using a robust methodology such as magnitude and significance criteria (Rowan 2009), and mitigation and enhancement measures are identified. Enhancement measures create new positive impacts or benefits, increase their reach or distribute them more equitably (Rowan & Streather 2011). A RAP provides more details on mitigation and enhancement measures than an SIA by describing how they will be implemented and monitored.

Lender safeguard policies require stakeholder engagement and public consultation for disclosure and discussion of impacts with affected people during scoping and when there are draft findings during an ESIA (ADB 2009; IFC 2012; EBRD 2014). Often the most-affected people are RAHs and DPs. During public consultations, when there are communities impacted by involuntary resettlement, it is not uncommon for many of the questions and issues in public forums to be about land acquisition and resettlement.

Project managers and resettlement practitioners view the role and integration of resettlement planning with SIA differently depending on their sector and prior exposure to land acquisition. From their experience in the mining sector where the resettlement and ESIA teams are separate, Reddy et al. (2015) consider land access and resettlement as a project within a project. In contrast, my experience working in the energy and transportation sectors is that resettlement planning is often included alongside an ESIA as part of the permitting process during feasibility. SIA staff undertake resettlement planning, frequently being asked to produce the ESIA documentation and RAP at the same time. SIA reports summarise resettlement impacts, which probably leads to the common assumption that the development of a RAP can be undertaken simultaneously with an SIA. However, my field experience suggests that the detailed surveys essential for producing a RAP are best undertaken after the SIA and feasibility study during the detailed design phase of a project. The main reasons for producing RAPs at the detailed design stage are: (i) the availability of more detailed engineering information which allows better identification of who is actually going to be directly impacted and how they will be impacted, which provides better budget estimates; and (ii) international financial institutions want current data. These reasons are considered in more detail below.

At the feasibility stage when an ESIA is undertaken, there is usually insufficient information available to know exactly who will be affected. For SIA, a general indication of the preferred scheme is normally sufficient to complete the assessment. However, specific details of land acquisition requirements for all project components – including associated facilities – are necessary for a RAP to be considered implementation-ready. To give an example: for an ESIA of a large dam project in West Africa, I worked on the SIA at the same time as the technical consultant completed the feasibility study. The draft ESIA and the feasibility study had to be completed and available for public disclosure before any details were available on where the accommodation camp would be located, which possible quarries and borrow pits would be used, where the access road would be constructed, and where the transmission line corridors and towers would be placed. These details, which directly affect land acquisition, were only known during detailed design. The general size of the accommodation camp and access road requirements were roughly quantified in sufficient detail to provide an indication of magnitude in the SIA. However, the details and estimates were not specific enough to allow resettlement field work necessary for an implementation ready RAP.

Resettlement practitioners have a duty of care to disclose relevant and accurate project information to stakeholders. Knowing the probability of effects and sufficient details is essential for constructive and meaningful consultations. To prevent creating stress and frustration among RAHs and DPs, lender guidance and handbooks (e.g. IFC 2002; World Bank 2004; ADB 2012; Reddy et al. 2015) generally advise that engagement for resettlement planning should only be undertaken when there is a high degree of certainty that they will be affected.

Most international finance institutions (IFIs) prefer that resettlement planning is completed with current data prior to making investment decisions. The timing of the lending decision is generally called ‘financial close’. Lenders need to know the number of affected people, the required budget to address resettlement impacts, and have a clear understanding of risks that resettlement poses to the project. Through their safeguard policies, IFIs require resettlement planning to be completed prior to construction. Civil works cannot begin in areas with displacement impacts until compensation has been made available and resettlement sites and moving allowances have been provided (IFC 2012). If resettlement surveys become outdated, new data need to be collected to address changed economic conditions, including inflation and speculation.

In resettlement planning, two types of RAPs can be produced: ‘preliminary’ or ‘implementation-ready’. Preliminary RAPs have information that is usually included in a resettlement policy framework, setting out the general treatment for land acquisition impacts based on the information that is known. Preliminary RAPs typically define eligibility criteria, the entitlement matrix, and implementation responsibilities, budgets and timelines. The main gap between a preliminary RAP and an implementation-ready RAP is the reporting of resettlement survey results. A preliminary RAP may have surveys of RAHs, but may not reflect final design, or it may be based on extrapolated data or satellite imagery, estimating RAHs. In comparison, an implementation-ready RAP (either an updated version or a new RAP) means that the field surveys with RAHs and DPs have been completed in the recent past. Asset losses are quantified and affected people are well-defined, allowing valuation and the determination of a full costing. These details lead directly to the first steps of implementation, namely negotiations and land agreements. The Asian Development Bank’s Sourcebook For Involuntary Resettlement (2012) refers to updating and finalising a new version of the RAP at several points in time, namely: (a) after the census and finalised assets inventory of losses subsequent to detailed engineering design and the detailed measurement surveys; (b) if there are changes in the scope of project work during implementation; or (c) if there are unanticipated involuntary resettlement impacts.

The main reason for producing preliminary RAPs is to meet project approval and financial deadlines. IFIs or other project sponsors often accept a preliminary RAP as being sufficient to present to their boards and decision-makers. In some cases, project sponsors, resettlement consultants and IFI staff may very well know that the data in the preliminary RAP are obsolete or not available. However, the RAPs are requested to be provided at the same time as the ESIA for lenders, environmental authorities or other decision-makers to approve. The preliminary RAPs are conditionally accepted on the understanding that, as detailed design progresses, an implementation-ready RAP is going to be produced. In a hydropower project in Asia, the due diligence process identified the need to revise the RAP. The revision affected the overall project schedule but minimised the impacts substantially. During the review of the implementation-ready RAP, which initially addressed 100 RAHs, resettlement specialists identified that minor technical adjustments could reduce the number of RAHs to three. In general terms, RAPs may need updating because of the various delays that occur, which mean that rates and costs are no longer current. From my experience working on ESIA and resettlement planning, Table 1 presents how elements of each process are addressed in the overall project schedule.

Table 1. Integrating SIA and resettlement planning into project schedules.

	Prefeasibility	Feasibility	Detailed design	Construction	Operation	Decommissioning
SIA (as part of the ESIA)	Undertake scoping and develop TORs for detailed SIA as part of ESIA	Undertake SIA, including identifying baseline socioeconomic conditions and significance of resettlement impacts	Produce environmental and social management plans and ensure linkages among RAP livelihood restoration activities and other plans including community investment, influx management, gender action plan, and skills development plan	Confirm payment of compensation prior to civil works commencing in resettlement-affected areas	Implement the environmental and social management system	Undertake decommissioning SIA if required
	Implement stakeholder scoping consultation (with answers ready about general approach to resettlement)	Implement stakeholder consultation (with answers about types and estimates of resettlement impacts, eligibility criteria, and main components of entitlement packages)		Ensure provision of preferred employment for DPs	Implement community investment activities	Find ways to use land or facilities that benefit the communities
					Phase out use of terminology which differentiates RAHs and DPs from other community members
Resettlement planning	Identify legal framework	Start socioeconomic baseline survey for RAP to inform SIA	Consult RAHs and DPs	Monitor results during and after RAP implementation. Livelihood restoration and RAP implementation monitoring can continue, even into operation depending on timing	Complete resettlement close out audits	Resettlement planning is typically not done at decommissioning
	Undertake resettlement scoping	Hold stakeholder meetings with resettlement related organisations	Take detailed measurement of resettlement affected assets
	Document efforts to minimise and avoid resettlement	Produce initial ideas for livelihood restoration	Negotiate valuation and options with RAHs and DPs
			Produce and disclose the RAP
			Implement the RAP

Source: Based on the author’s experience.

Scheduling time for resettlement implementation prior to construction

Project scheduling is complex and trade-offs must be made. The main scheduling problems for resettlement planning identified by Reddy et al. (2015) include: too many activities being undertaken simultaneously leading to competition of human and financial resources; activities not aligned to project construction schedule; activities not aligned to season; delays in training; and over-optimism. The first schedules for ESIA and RAP completion are often prepared by a bidder (i.e. consultant) during the tender development and submission process based on limited project information. Experienced bidders will specify caveats, for example relating to the RAP and ESIA scheduling. The tender process is often delayed and the number of people living in the area may change between when the bid was prepared and when the resettlement surveys take place. Even if resettlement planning schedules are updated prior to undertaking primary data collection based on the current context, field experience shows that resettlement surveys and resettlement package negotiations often take longer than expected or planned. Reasons for taking more time include the household heads being absent or busy (requiring several return visits), negotiations becoming more negative, many layers of approval for negotiation results (often with geographical distances) adding to the response time, and land tenure situations being more complex than anticipated.

An example of delays related to differences between initial surveys, final surveys and an extended negotiation period is a transportation project with land acquisition. The RAP was produced and disclosed mid-year, just in time for financial close. Project activities began immediately. Project staff undertook more detailed surveys during the next few months and then called in the relevant agency for government-led resettlement. After trying for four months to progress negotiations, the government agency recommended that a consultancy be contracted to complete the land agreements. In parallel to the contracting of the consultancy, the project designs were changed to avoid a few of the more expensively valued plots. Even still, the staff from the consultancy identified more RAHs in the same land area. A year after financial close and project commencement, the consultancy had contacted most of the RAHs, but no land agreements had yet been signed. Finding more RAHs and DPs and taking longer to negotiate are common occurrences with projects.

Project sponsors with little resettlement experience are often overly optimistic about how fast RAP implementation can occur, as the above two project examples demonstrate. In addition to not understanding how timing affects the quality of the RAP when tendering ESIA and resettlement planning activities, they often underestimate (at best) or forget (at worst) the time required for RAP implementation. Some developers consider the time used for RAP implementation as a project delay, because they view it as a side activity and not part of their core construction and operations activities. An example is a hydropower project in Asia where the sponsor hired an ESIA consultant to produce the RAP and to document the negotiation process alongside a land negotiation company which was responsible for finalising land agreements. The ESIA and RAP contract was finished prior to all land agreements being produced. The land negotiation contract was extended even though and the ESIA and RAP contract was completed. Hence the RAP had to be considered ‘preliminary’. An addendum to the RAP was proposed to document the land agreements at a later date so the project could be put forward to a board for lender approval. It was agreed that the RAP would only be considered implementation-ready with the additional information.

During due diligence assignments for lenders, I have seen some project schedules for large infrastructure schemes that include ESIA submission, contracting, and construction all starting within six months of each other. No additional time was identified for completing land agreements, securing and preparing host relocation sites, or providing employment training. Vocational skill training as a livelihood restoration mechanism is most effective for DPs when provided prior to construction. If skills development is an objective from the outset or identified during the SIA, then the timing of an appropriate skills development programme should be better managed. If skills development is identified at the end of resettlement planning as relocation and civil construction are starting, RAHs may be too busy moving to attend training programmes. Or the learning may take too long for the skills to be able to be used in the project construction. Vocational training should be scheduled several months prior to construction starting for a DP to be prepared and available for project hire. Training for sustainable livelihoods is addressed in the Chronic Poverty Advisory Chronic Poverty Advisory Network’s (2013) employment policy guide which examines policies and programmes to improve the quantity and quality of work for chronically poor people. Over the last few years there has been increasing emphasis given to ‘local content’ in SIAs and management plans (Esteves & Vanclay 2009; Esteves et al. 2012; Vanclay et al. 2015). Local content refers to the use of local skills and materials in constructing or maintaining an asset or service. Components of local content include local employment, skills development, local procurement of goods and services, and enhancing the capacity of local suppliers and contractors. Useful guidance for strategies to support and build local content have been produced by Wells and Hawkins (2008), IFC (2011), Warner (2011) and IPIECA (2016).

Project sponsors sometimes assume that existence of detailed design or a RAP means they can begin construction, leaving little time for the actual land acquisition and relocation activities. Project sponsors are allowed by lenders to begin civil construction in areas not affected by resettlement. However, in some situations, a contractor is hired to begin preliminary civil works and many unforeseen and undocumented resettlement impacts may be created. Addressing the previously-unidentified resettlement impacts may then create project delays. If the resettlement impacts are not documented, then the resources to manage them properly may not be available. For instance, I worked on international ESIA and RAP addendums for a hydropower project in Pakistan to supplement the national documents. At site, a construction contractor was already working on an access road for which the land acquisition needed to be included in the RAP. Neither the ESMP nor RAP requirements were reflected in contract clauses for the construction contractor. Hence the impacts of the access road were not being managed in the way the community leaders had been told or the way lenders were being led to believe. From the project sponsor’s perspective, such a scenario with community dissatisfaction and lower trust means the land acquisition process is more difficult to keep on schedule and within budget. Including social performance requirements in contracts via management plans such as ESMPs and RAPs is essential to encourage and monitor compliance.

Practical experience also suggests there is often a lag between production of the RAP and its implementation. Sometimes environmental authorities take much longer than statutory timelines to approve the ESIA and RAP, especially for nationally important large projects. Government officials who are responsible for managing government-led resettlement may not wish to begin their negotiation activities until permits are obtained. As well, often a new team of people (for instance project sponsor staff, a land department, or a RAP implementation organisation) is handed the RAP with the field study information to complete the land agreement negotiations. The handover and re-establishment of relations with RAHs takes time. Reddy et al. (2015) identify continuity of staff as a helpful aspect for efficient negotiations.

In summary, a practitioner faces challenges and drawbacks in completing an implementation-ready RAP at the same time as drafting the SIA. However, there are some useful overlaps and ways that the SIA process can contribute to better RAPs. The next sections present ways to use the time allocated to undertake an SIA for resettlement planning data.

Resettlement scoping makes resettlement planning more efficient

Scoping is the step after screening and prior to detailed study during the ESIA process. Scoping methods for ESIA and SIA are well documented (see for instance Lawrence 2013; Vanclay et al. 2015). However the term ‘resettlement scoping’ is rarely mentioned in terms of reference for resettlement planning. Although less recognised, resettlement scoping is an essential first part of the resettlement planning process. As in SIA, scoping for resettlement focuses on identification of potential impacts and risks. Avoiding and minimising resettlement impacts is a guiding principle of resettlement safeguard policies (ADB 2009; IFC 2012; EBRD 2014, and World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement). A lesson learned from the Inspection Panel (2016) Inspection Panel review of involuntary resettlement is that accurate scoping of risks is the foundation of successful resettlement programmes. Prior to the decision on the preferred technical option for in-depth ESIA studies, resettlement scoping determines the full range of resettlement risks as well as whether there are design options to avoid or minimise resettlement. The Inspection Panel (World Bank 2016) found the specific issues most often not properly captured while identifying risks include: (i) accurately determining the project’s impact areas (both in physical and livelihood terms); (ii) understanding the existence of longstanding legacy issues; and (iii) carrying out thorough baseline studies of affected populations.

Resettlement scoping helps sponsors, lenders and key stakeholder decision-makers ascertain whether the known potential resettlement risks and impacts are acceptable for proceeding with additional studies and activities. Currently, Overseas Private Investment Corporation seems to be one of the few lenders with an identified threshold for determining investment acceptability: their 2012 guidance notes for hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels categorically prohibit investment in projects that displace or resettle large numbers of inhabitants (5,000 persons or more). Ideally, resettlement scoping is part of deciding on options during prefeasibility. Resettlement considerations need to be balanced alongside technical, economic, social and environmental aspects. However, from my field experience, it is evident that often the social (especially resettlement) and environmental constraints are not considered until after technical and economic viability has been determined.

To avoid and minimise resettlement impacts, resettlement scoping analyses the existing information related to scale, severity and cost of resettlement impacts. These three criteria (scale, severity and cost) should contribute to decision-making among technical options (e.g. project sites) or help to reduce the negative impacts of the preferred option (e.g. the dam height and reservoir water levels). The scale of resettlement covers the spatial extent and quantity in terms of number of households, area of agricultural land, and several other resettlement-affected community features. Severity means looking at the type and intensity of impacts, for example physical relocation of households is considered more severe than other land acquisition impacts. Economic viability of the resource, type of tenure, portion of total landholding and the mix of income diversification can be reflected in severity (World Bank 2004). Resettlement costs include compensation for lost assets, replacement housing, and livelihood restoration as well as the administration costs for preparing and implementing the RAP. Using resettlement scoping and iterative design to change the scale and type of resettlement impacts and entitlements affects costs.

Resettlement scoping is usually based on secondary and non-intrusive data collection methods. Sometimes, consultation with institutional stakeholders and village leaders may contribute to resettlement scoping. However, resettlement scoping does not normally involve direct interaction with DPs, as the objective of the exercise is to minimise the number of RAHs and DPs. Data from geographical information systems are used for resettlement scoping. Drones may also be a technology that could be useful, but may create anxiety in certain communities. Typically I use recent satellite imagery layers to compare anticipated affected areas of the various technical options. Known forest reserves or other identified sensitive area boundaries can be overlaid. In most locations, imagery that is more than two years old is of limited use. With good imagery, the affected structures, roads and electricity poles can be counted and land areas can be measured. Good imagery identifies the different types of land use although planted and fallow agriculture areas need to be considered on a seasonal basis. A drawback to non-invasive analysis is that imagery cannot determine whether a structure is inhabited, used temporarily (as is the case in some nomadic or subsistence based communities), or abandoned. Furthermore, imagery does not identify the use of the structure, so for analytic purposes, structures often have to be assumed to be residential. Differentiating schools, mosques, health centres and other community facilities may not be possible. Tiny structures that may be built under trees or other building may not be noticeable in imagery. Normally they are small in number and can be countered with caveats and contingencies.

Table 2 shows some results from a resettlement scoping exercise for a large dam in Afghanistan. Comparisons regarding resettlement impacts were made using the data. Table 2 shows considerable cost and potential socioeconomic impact associated with Location I. Location II has less cost associated with resettlement than Location III, but more RAH displacement with Location II than with Location III (485 compared with 380). The least severe impacts, where there are the least number of households to be displaced, are Locations III and IV. For hydropower projects, lowering the dam height can lower the number of resettlement impacts and construction costs, but also the amount of energy generated. Resettlement planners and social assessors need to be part of the discussion and decision-making related to trade-offs among technical, economic, financial, environmental and social issues.

Table 2. Comparison of dam locations.

Dam location	I	II	III	IV
Reservoir volume (million cubic metres)	250	250	250	250
Orchards (hectares)	32.5	21.1	78.5	83.0
Farmlands (hectares)	1,063.0	189.0	84.2	80.3
Damage to orchards and farmlands (million USD)	33.20	6.53	5.67	5.73
Residential (number of households)	2,015	485	380	380
Damage to residential area (million USD)	15.11	7.28	5.70	5.70
Total damage (million USD)	48.31	13.88	11.37	11.43

Source: Author’s work on a resettlement scoping assignment.

Using SIA primary data collection to contribute to resettlement planning

Another way of maximising the potential use of SIA activities for resettlement planning is to undertake the resettlement socioeconomic surveys (SES) during the SIA baseline data collection. The SES is normally one part of the resettlement surveys required by IFI lenders. Other resettlement survey data required are the RAH and DP household profile, asset census and the detailed measurements of affected assets. The SES establishes the baseline for monitoring how pre-project conditions and livelihoods are restored in the general project area, not just the resettlement-affected area. The SES covers issues such as distance and access to community and social services. Even when the specific location of RAHs is not known, the SES can be organised for the general resettlement area. When scheduled during SIA, the SES contributes to the resettlement survey needs for a RAP while informing the SIA baseline. This approach means the other surveys need to be completed during resettlement planning to ensure full coverage when the location of the RAHs and DPs are known. However, the benefit is that the SES serves a dual purpose, contributing to efficiencies.

An important role of SIA is to collect baseline data on current conditions. The SIA baseline details that are directly relevant to the RAP include: current land use (habitat mapping if possible or available), land tenure, identification of a land market which valuation can build on, existing skills within the community, vocational and higher education institutions and courses. Focus groups are a common method used for SIA data collection. SIA focus groups can address topics relevant to resettlement planning, for instance skills development related to project employment needs. For example, in a project in West Africa, I facilitated focus groups by providing pictures of African women doing different types of construction work needed to build a dam. Participants were asked which jobs would be acceptable for women to complete and what work conditions would be needed for females to be contracted. The data directly informed the livelihood and gender analysis in the SIA and the livelihood restoration options to be proposed in the RAP. Spatial planning workshops undertaken during the SIA are also useful data collection tools: they address influx management and can contribute to the selection of host sites for RAHs. Such workshops help identify success factors for relocating community infrastructure while gaining ownership buy-in from local government authorities responsible for maintaining any new community infrastructure included in the RAP.

Including livelihood restoration in the resettlement planning and SIA processes

The sections above looked at the interface between resettlement planning and SIAs. The next part explores how the timing of livelihood restoration influences the effectiveness of successfully resettling households. Delays in land acquisition, compensation payments, and host site identification are some inherent project administration problems that make implementation of income restoration programmes difficult (Gamaathige 2014). Livelihood restoration has its own temporal challenges, first with regards to developing restoration strategies in the RAP, and second with regards to the time it takes to implement the activities.

Strategies for restoring livelihoods often appear to have been written as an afterthought in many RAPs. Smyth et al. (2015) found that livelihood restoration is not properly planned or implemented. This could be because, during resettlement planning, the emphasis is on undertaking and finalising the field surveys rather than on identifying livelihood restoration measures. Because resettlement surveys require human and logistical resources, they are tangible and easier to focus on. In comparison, livelihood restoration requires a development perspective, creativity, and negotiation with DPs on preferences. As identified above, using focus groups to discuss livelihood restoration topics is useful. But more can and should be done during feasibility and during the SIA study. For a large hydropower project in Pakistan with IFI funding, an attempt was made to address livelihood restoration while the SIA was being undertaken, which is a less common approach. Based on the knowledge being accumulated as part of the socioeconomic baseline, specific ideas related to livelihood restoration were researched and summarised in a ‘restoration thought paper’. Each measure included a description of objectives, activities and some details (such as possible cost and agencies with the skills to deliver) to help evaluate the benefits of including the option in the RAP. Many of the measures are typical items for livelihood restoration (see the section on in-kind compensation for examples). Providing this information up front seemed like a good idea to the SIA and resettlement team. However, the project sponsor said such details should be decided at implementation not in the RAP and not as part of the entitlement package options to be discussed with DPs. My experience to date has been that if measures are not documented in the entitlement matrix of a resettlement plan, there may not be resources to include them later. At the same time, the lender suggested that the in-kind measures and support packages should be monetised and the equivalent amount given in cash. Hence the RAP reverted to a cash compensation focus with less livelihood restoration support. This response is typical among some lenders and many companies. With more documented RAP evaluations in the public domain, more stakeholders would have access to lessons learned about livelihood restoration, hopefully leading to greater willingness to innovate and less reliance on cash compensation.

Cash compensation as the main preference for project sponsors and RAHs

Resettlement practitioners are well aware that resettlement is a sensitive process. However, resettlement planning efforts often focus on the budgets, and wellbeing aspects receive less or little attention. Smyth et al. (2015) documented that many projects rely solely on cash compensation to support restoration of livelihoods. This is despite safeguard policies indicating a preference of land-for-land. Cash compensation is preferred by many stakeholders involved in planning and implementing RAPs. For project sponsors and government land officials, a paper trail showing that the allotted money has been transferred is frequently used to show that resettlement responsibilities have been met when cash compensation is the focus of a RAP. It is often easier and takes less time to make a payment than to identify alternatives that RAHs find acceptable.

Worldwide field experience (Diaho & Molapo 2012; Mariotti 2014) shows that RAHs often prefer cash compensation because it is tangible, the amounts sound large, and because they have doubts that the government or project sponsor will follow through with promised additional support. Another lesson from the Inspection Panel report on involuntary resettlement (World Bank 2016) is that compensation needs to be timely and based on sound valuation methodologies. Cash compensation sounds immediate and concrete to RAHs. Yet there is ample evidence that poor households use one-off cash compensation payments for short-term spending or on items that do not support their future wellbeing, leading to longer-term impoverishment (Diaho & Molapo 2012; Mariotti 2014; Reddy et al. 2015). Problematic examples include situations where one spouse signs for cash compensation when the other spouse is unaware of the amount received or has no ability or authority to gain access to it. Women’s participation in decision-making about cash compensation can be undermined when their name is not included in the payment process. Diaho and Molapo (2012) identified the risk of violence in instances where spouses do not get along or disagree on how cash compensation should be used. From undertaking due diligence reviews on RAPs, it is evident that some resettlement consultants prefer cash compensation, probably because it is often logistically easier and requires less time than a land for land approach. As well, RAP consultants may have ethical stances that RAHs and DPs should make their own choices. As part of the ethical dilemma, the resettlement consultants may be concerned about limiting the provision of cash to provide in-kind items as the lender’s response to the restoration thought paper showed in the previous example. Other development programmes, for instance related to soldier demobilisation or emergency response, face similar dilemmas and also make decisions between provisions of money or in-kind support.

Mitigation measures, such as financial training and staggering payments, can offset some of the negative impacts of cash compensation. Financial training should be provided whenever cash amounts that greatly exceed normal household budget are to be given. However, it is noted that a few short classes provided to poor and illiterate households will not likely have a significant impact on their spending behaviour. To increase the effectiveness of budget training, a project in Lesotho organised one-on-one sessions with households to provide financial counselling (Diaho & Molapo 2012). Internationally, there are many organisations that provide financial literacy courses directly targeted to participants. See for instance the training materials of HERfinance (at http://herproject.org/herfinance), an organisation that builds financial capability of low-income workers.

Staggering payments is another method to manage cash compensation beneficially taking into account temporal elements. The International Finance Corporation Performance Standard 5 (IFC 2012) for resettlement indicates in a footnote that ‘staggered compensation payments may be made where one-off cash payments would demonstrably undermine social and/or resettlement objectives, or where there are ongoing impacts to livelihood activities.’ Lenders typically require cash compensation to be paid prior to civil works commencing. RAHs worry about staggered cash schedules and not getting the last payments (Mariotti 2014). Yet relevant experiences suggest that staggered payments can be useful for ensuring the re-establishment of socio-economic conditions. In Pakistan after the devastating earthquakes in 2005, the government used staggered payments to help households rebuild. Payments linked to house construction achievements, namely getting the plot, building the first floor, and putting on the roof. In a resettlement setting where RAHs choose cash compensation to find their own new home or building, tying cash payments to evidence of key reestablishment conditions could be useful. Including a payment for departing from the current location could help manage a key RAP risk where land agreements have been signed but RAHs do not want to leave.

Addressing social resilience in RAPs

While financial training and staggered payments are ways for cash compensation to be more effective, in the end, cash compensation often is provided as a once-off payment. This section considers the benefit of including in-kind support rather than cash compensation to address the full range of resettlement effects, including emotional responses and changes to ‘social capital’, namely the life-sustaining informal networks of reciprocal help, local voluntary associations, and self-organised mutual service. Cernea (1997) argued that a loss of valuable social capital compounds the loss of other types of capital, i.e. natural, physical, and human. Rarely is lost social capital financially valued in asset inventories although sometimes it is reflected via the inclusion of ‘disruption allowances’ in a RAP’s entitlement matrix. This discussion recognises timing and duration as important elements for in-kind support to help RAHs and DPs adjust and re-establish livelihoods. Impressions and responses to being resettled commence as soon as RAHs and DPs hear about a project. Perceptions start early and change over time based on rumours, information disclosure, consultation, surveys and negotiations. A lack of information about what to expect, especially for relocation, can contribute to negative RAH and DP reactions. For the Three Gorges Dam resettlement, Xi et al. (2015) found that RAHs mobilised their support networks more efficiently and were able to cope better with resettlement when they knew what to expect compared to those who did not.

Resettlement is a demographic change process (Vanclay 2002). Cernea (1997) refers to forced displacement that tears apart the existing social fabric as social disarticulation. He talks about communities becoming dispersed and fragmented, the dismantling of patterns of social organisation and interpersonal ties, and kinship groups that become scattered. Although the concept of community severance is commonly considered in transportation related SIAs (Stolp et al. 2002), it is also relevant to resettlement planning. The transportation sector defines community severance as a traffic barrier effect, whereby local communities are separated by transport infrastructure or road traffic (Marsh & Watts 2012; Anciaes et al. 2014). Bradbury (2014) cites three key severance effects: physical barriers, psychological or perceived barriers (perceived danger), and social impacts (such as the disruption of community cohesion and inhibition of social interaction). From a resettlement perspective, a more apt definition for community severance is when residents are separated from facilities, services, resources or social networks within their community because of changes to land use, infrastructure, access and movement. The act of relocating households, especially when a significant proportion of a village or a household which plays a key local role in social connectedness is affected, is community severance. Marsh and Watts (2012) define social connectedness as the social interactions, relationships and networks that individuals, households, groups and neighbourhoods have with others and the benefits these relationships can bring to the individual as well as to households, groups, neighbourhoods, communities and society. Social connectedness is considered part of social cohesion.

Encouraging social cohesion through personal and community resilience is a way of addressing community severance. Keck and Sakdapolrak (2013) proposed that social resilience is the capacity to respond, which evolves by incorporating learning and adaptation, culminating in knowledge about importance of power, politics and participation in the context of increasing uncertainty and surprise. They presented three capacities to build social resilience: (a) coping measures to help people cope with and overcome immediate threats with resources that are directly available; (b) adaptive measures that people use from past experiences to anticipate future risks and adjust their livelihoods accordingly; and (c) transformative measures to support people’s ability to access assets and assistance from the wider socio-political arena to participate in decision-making processes and craft institutions that improve individual welfare and foster societal robustness for addressing future crises. Coping is considered short term, while adaptive and transformative capacities are long term. From my field experience, livelihood restoration and RAPs need to better support coping and adaptive capacities. Addressing mental and spiritual stability as well as social cohesion values along with the physical tangible needs of RAHs will create more successful resettlement outcomes. RAPs can improve socioeconomic conditions, an objective of lenders’ resettlement safeguard policies, if adaptive capacities are considered along with coping.

When livelihood restoration contributes to or targets the ownership, access and use of various socio-economic resources, there is opportunity to build social resilience. RAPs can address the tangible and intangible concepts of wellbeing using the impoverishment risks and reconstruction framework of Cernea (1988, 1997). The impoverishment risks identified by Cernea are widely cited regarding what resettlement should not do; but, they can also be used to consider ways to help with wellbeing and livelihood restoration. Table 3 identifies typical in-kind support and livelihood restoration measures and how they contribute as social resilience builders and as strategies to avoid or minimise impoverishment risks.

Table 3. Using in-kind livelihood restoration measures to address Cernea’s impoverishment risks.

Impoverishment risk to strategic direction	Typical restoration measures	Experiences or comments
Landlessness to land-based resettlement	Support in identifying land	Gender aspects are essential: female spouses must be included
	Provision of tenure security (registered ownership)	Begin early to register ownership
Joblessness to reemployment	DP hiring preference during construction	It is essential that training is contractually required prior to or at the beginning of construction so it can be used on site
	Direct employment on project
	Skills development training
	Microfinance provision
Homelessness to house reconstruction	House for house	Consult on design, including useable toilet facilities
	Register ownership
	Provision of housing materials	Use earthquake resistant or flood protection building techniques
	Preferred electricity rates	Construct a sample design
Marginalisation to social inclusion	Welcome team and moving ceremonies
	Payment to facility for children to attend school
	Community facilities designed by both RAHs and host village members
Increased morbidity to improved health care	Vaccinations for people and animals	Medical screening is often undertaken for workers on projects but is rarely part of RAPs prior to moving RAHs
	Vector protection such as mosquito nets, spraying of new houses	Health micro insurance packages are becoming more common
	Health insurance provision
	Health packages, including menstruation materials for women and girls
	Emergency healthcare
Food insecurity to adequate nutrition	Food packages	Providing food packages in an ongoing manner is helpful while adjustment is still occurring
	Crop insurance
	Support for home gardens	Diminishing the package size and spreading out frequency helps to prevent reliance
	Project support for clearing trees, levelling, access routes, soil stabilisation, fencing	Subsistence farmers’ households should not miss a season’s harvest
	Support for seeds, seedlings, fertiliser, irrigation, veterinary care, agriculture extension advice, fishing, hunting and gathering, higher value crops, access to micro credit, storage and marketing
Loss of access to restoration of community assets and services	Designing in common areas
	Biodiversity offsetting plans to include resettlement areas
	Handover agreements lead by a handover committee
Social disarticulation to networks and community rebuilding	Funds for construction bees/workshops that encourage collective labour	Influx management plans should include counselling services to address vice behaviours
	Spatial planning focus groups
	Annual influx management workshops	Using the counselling services to help with vulnerable RAHs has synergies
	Counselling services to address vice behaviours as well as mental health

Source: Cernea (1997) together with the author’s experience and drawing on a range of other sources including Reddy et al. (2015), ICMM (2015).

Temporal elements for in-kind compensation and assistance

Timing is essential for providing successful in-kind compensation and assistance like the options given in Table 3. For example, during RAP negotiations and just before moving, displaced people can benefit from prepaid phone cards for contacting the team and letting families and friends know where they are going. Preventive health services such as vaccinations for children and livestock before the move may help prevent sickness induced by the stress of moving to a new place. Time can run out for DPs to take advantage of preferential construction job provision, if RAP implementation is undertaken simultaneously with construction commencement. This is particularly the case for short-term construction that can occur with access road construction, wind and solar projects, irrigation rehabilitation and transmission line installations. Ensuring RAHs and DPs benefit from job opportunities requires contractual commitments with the construction company, upfront provision of training, and identification of job interest during the resettlement surveys.

Assistance packages aimed at supporting RAHs to re-establish after relocation need to be agreed ahead of time. Packages might include thermal blankets, water storage and purification equipment, solar lamps, cooking utensils, a tool kit, health kit, children’s activity pack, or a starter food kit. For families who have subsistence livelihoods, the basic needs that take time (usually water, food and firewood collection) must be provided while relocation is taking place. Frequently women are in charge of packing up and unpacking from the old and new locations so finding ways to minimise their subsistence tasks during the move is helpful. Livelihood-related equipment can be provided after basic need provision is met, for instance bicycles, sewing machines, scales for measuring trading goods and improved stoves. In an urban project in India, DPs were provided with transit passes for commuters for a period of time (Koenig 2014).

Seasonal aspects are also fundamental to supporting livelihood restoration. Reddy et al. (2015) emphasise that it is often critical for RAHs to not miss a season’s harvest. Projects can organise transportation for field preparation before moving or delay agriculture support to RAHs until after construction if construction job opportunities are provided. From their experience, Reddy et al. (2015) recommend that agricultural support is provided in kind with extension support rather than as cash compensation. Another livelihood restoration measure that resettlement planners should consider for reinstating agricultural production is micro insurance. RAPs could include budget to pay the full amount for a few years of micro insurance for each RAH and then phase out support paying less and less amounts, with the rest paid by RAHs. Several countries are piloting weather-based crop insurance packages for small holder farmers.

Helping the vulnerable cope

Both RAPs and SIAs identify vulnerable people. The agreed project definition for vulnerable people should be used consistently by both. Various practitioners (Vanclay 2014; Reddy et al. 2015) suggest that SIA baseline studies are often not thorough enough in identifying vulnerable households or their special needs. Finding ways for livelihood restoration to make resources available to vulnerable DPs that capitalise on the informal structures, networks, and social practices in their communities will help achieve more successful outcomes mainly because they should last longer than the project timeframe. Bisht (2014) argued that informal assets should be identified during pre-displacement social surveys and included in resettlement planning and implementation so that RAHs can participate in the resettlement process and lessen the magnitude of stress, trauma, marginalisation, and hopelessness associated with physical displacement and resettlement. Based on a case study in India, Bisht (2014) described how subsistence communities are reliant on their environment for construction materials (stones, slates and timber) and on their neighbours for collective labour to build houses. At the new resettlement sites, the same building materials were not available and RAHs did not have skills for using the new materials. As well, the dispersal of households meant that traditional collective practices such as labour sharing were not continued. Cash compensation can erode useful reciprocity practices that contribute to social cohesion.

Resettlement assistance needs to properly target vulnerable RAHs and DPs, partly by being aware of their access to and ownership of resources, including common property resources. A recent USAID (2015) study looked at agricultural production as a pathway out of poverty and identified the importance of distinguishing between a wage earner and a self-employed farmer. This distinction is important for RAPs as the vulnerabilities and livelihood restoration needs are different. Agricultural wage earners are more vulnerable because they are landless. The study purports that a wage worker can benefit from better working conditions, job security and higher wages and a self-employed farmer will more likely be interested in receiving support in the form of credit facilities, better market access, input provisions, irrigation systems, or extension services. However, livelihood restoration activities that focus on the latter – which are common elements of conventional agricultural development projects and programmes – will provide few benefits for RAHs or DPs that do not own their own land and rely on providing farm labour.

As part of livelihood restoration that takes into account social cohesion elements for vulnerable people, the term ‘transitional hardship programmes’ is used by Reddy et al. (2015) and ICMM (2015). Reddy et al. (2015) recommend that specific staff should be responsible for working with vulnerable RAHs and encourage having an approved limited time support plan to help restrain attitudes of hopelessness and passivity. From many years of field experience, Reddy et al. (2015) identify that restoration of livelihoods, let alone improving them, is difficult. My experience supports this finding. Livelihood support is often only provided for three years, whereas a 10 year timeframe would be more realistic (Smyth et al. 2015). The World Bank (2004) recognises that income restoration involves a series of steps over time, and may take many years and remain incomplete when the project is formally completed. Finding ways to phase project support so it is replaced with social resilience is important, especially for vulnerable people.

Conclusion

By using real life examples from the field, this paper identified temporal aspects as being crucial to the effectiveness of resettlement planning and implementation. Lack of project detail during feasibility makes it challenging for implementation-ready RAPs to be prepared in the same timeframe as SIAs. Resettlement scoping, undertaking the socioeconomic baseline studies required for resettlement planning during SIA baseline data collection, and identifying preliminary livelihood restoration measures from the SIA findings are the best synergies between RAPs and SIAs. A preliminary RAP building on the SIA can help key decision-makers understand the resettlement risks and the main approaches to managing them. However, to begin civil works in resettlement-affected areas, an implementation-ready RAP is required. Being over-optimistic about the time required for resettlement planning and RAP implementation can be a major source of delay in the overall project schedule of large infrastructure projects.

Timing issues are also relevant for the effectiveness of compensation and livelihood restoration. The scheduling of cash and in-kind livelihood support affects the coping ability, resilience, and overall wellbeing of affected people. While project sponsors, displaced people and often resettlement consultants tend to prefer cash compensation, inclusion of in-kind support helps reduce social capital loss, community severance and creates social resilience. Careful timing of in-kind assistance is essential for it to be useful. Coping capacity is most needed during the physical act of relocation. Approaching livelihood restoration with an appropriate timeframe that fully considers coping and development will make the resettlement process more effective.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Acknowledgements

I’d like to thank Michael MacDonald, Tom Streather, Pierre Gouws, Frank Vanclay, Deanna Kemp and an anonymous reviewer for constructive suggestions.