Policy-induced involuntary resettlement: the case of the Mexican Rural Cities Policy

Abstract

This paper addresses the relocation of Indigenous and rural communities as a result of Mexican government policy called Sustainable Rural Cities which was implemented in the states of Chiapas and Puebla. With the justification that dispersion is a barrier to economic and social development, entire communities were relocated to settlements with pre-defined employment, small houses made of pre-fabricated materials, and no land to continue subsistence agriculture. Once praised by the United Nations, the policy was later criticized for a waste of resources, violations to human and Indigenous rights, and the impoverishment of the relocated communities. With the Mexican government granting numerous mining and oil and gas concessions, reflection on this experience is desirable to improve future involuntary resettlement. The recommendations include: creating clear policy to guide resettlement according to best practice; improving the legal definition of impact; more effective guidelines for the conduct of social impact assessment (the latter introduced in 2014) to specify cultural impacts and human rights; and requiring that social impact assessment be applied to all development projects.

Keywords:

• Free
• prior and informed consent
• Indigenous communities
• livelihoods
• involuntary resettlement
• human rights
• well-being

Introduction

The relocation of Indigenous communities has characterized Mexico’s economic development since colonial times (i.e. 1500s), when new towns (congregations) were created to concentrate dispersed Indigenous communities and distribute their territory among the Spanish population (Elias 2011). During the 1950s and 1970s, hydropower development resulted in the creation of modernization plans such as La Chontalpa (1966), Balancan-Tenosique (1972), and Uxpanapa (1975) to relocate the displaced Indigenous and rural peoples into new communities, giving them subsidies to develop agriculture. These plans failed economically and socially, and also induced extensive deforestation in southern Mexico (Hoffman 1992).

In 2007, a landslide destroyed the community of Juan de Grijalva in Chiapas. The then State Governor, Juan Sabines, launched the policy, ‘Sustainable Rural Cities,’ to concentrate inhabitants of dispersed communities, including Juan de Grijalva, in new settlements where they would have access to housing, public services, and employment. His main justification for this was the dispersion of communities being the perceived main cause of poverty and a barrier to provide public services, economic development, and a dignified life (CIPRC 2012; 2015). In 2008, landslide victims moved from their temporal camp into Nuevo Juan de Grijalva, the first rural city. The following year, Mr. Sabines introduced the Chiapas’ Sustainable Rural Cities Law, which reflected his arguments for resettling Indigenous and rural communities (State of Chiapas 2010).

Initially, rural cities were praised as an example of development (CIPRC 2012; Terra 2015; Trujillo 2015) and duplicated in the State of Puebla (Hernández 2012) as well as in Guatemala (Rodriguez 2012). Later, rural cities were criticized as being a form of government control and a land dispossession that perpetuated human rights violations (NPC and CACI 2012; Pickard 2012). By 2014, although all Chiapas’ rural cities had been abandoned (only a few residents remain in Santiago El Pinar), the Chiapas’ Government considered reactivating them (Maerker 2014).

The Sustainable Rural Cities Law is still in force, and the federal government is granting numerous mining, hydropower, and oil and gas concessions in Indigenous lands (NPC and CACI 2012; PODER 2014). Furthermore, to increase competitiveness, the Central-American Development strategy aims to unify regional development and social policy by developing natural resources and supporting infrastructure and housing projects (Proyecto Mesoamerica 2015). These policies may increase the number of cases of involuntary resettlement in the country. Against this background, this paper analyzes the experience of rural cities and suggests improvements to national policy that may limit the adverse impacts of future resettlement.

The first section describes rural cities and the goals of the policy outlined by the government (CIPRC 2012) and the corresponding Master Plan (CSMDPP 2008). The second section discusses the failures of the model, including the rights infringed by the policy. The last section uses the key issues of resettlement identified by Smyth et al. (2015) to discuss improvements in Mexican policy and legislation.

Methodology

A thorough survey of the academic literature on the Sustainable Rural Cities Policy and its impacts on resettled people produced scarce results. Consequently, the analysis is based on information publicly available at the official website (CIPRC 2012; 2015), publications by academics or civic organizations, and news releases. Digital recordings of the 2012 forum on rural cities and an independent report release (Radio Zapatista 2012a, 2012b) were used as the primary material for analysis. The recordings were analyzed to identify the issues, concerns, and specific human rights violations expressed by academics that participated in the forum, or by members of communities relocated to rural cities or targeted for relocation. No official documents on Puebla’s rural cities were found on the Internet and the author’s requests for information to the state’s government were not answered. Therefore, information on this state was obtained from information and documents provided by an anonymous informant from the Sierra Norte region (Anonymous hereafter). This person is a member of a civic group that was informing Indigenous groups about the risks of moving to rural cities. Figure 1 shows the location of rural cities in both states.

Figure 1. Rural Cities in the Mexican states of Chiapas and Puebla.

Key: Puebla: MEY = Manuel Espinoza Yglesias; SMT = San Miguel Tenextatiloyan; Chiapas: CP = Copainala; IX = Ixhuatlan; JL =  Jaltenango; NJG = Nuevo Juan de Grijalva; SC = Soconusco; SP = Santiago el Pinar.

The Sustainable Rural Cities Policy

The main objectives of the Sustainable Rural Cities Policy were to fight poverty, reduce the dispersion of communities, and promote economic development with sustainable use of natural resources. The policy had five components described below (CSMDPP 2008; State of Chiapas 2010; CIPRC 2012, 2015).

(1)	Urban development – People relocated to rural cities would enjoy public services and proper housing. In Nuevo Juan Grijalva, each family received a 300 m2 lot. The 100 m2 houses were built with bricks of Adoblock (90% soil material) and laminate roofing. The city had electricity, water and sanitation, solar-powered street lights, paved streets, a playground, a school, a small clinic, a community center, stores, and a communications tower (CIPRC 2012). In Santiago El Pinar, the 60 m2 houses had walls made with single panels of conglomerate wood (CERCAP 2010a; Radio Zapatista 2012a, 2012c). In Puebla, Manuel Espinoza Yglesias (pre-dating Chiapas’ rural cities) was built for Nahuatl, Totonaca, and Mestizo peoples affected by extreme rainfall in 1999. Families had to abandon their lands to live in 40 m2 houses built with poor quality materials. In 2012, Puebla built Nuevo Huixtla, officially its first rural city (Hernández 2012). Nuevo Huixtla accommodated Indigenous populations in 60 m2 houses made of soft material bricks, not appropriate for the region’s cold, humid climate. The houses had no yard and with only one meter separation between houses, posed a high fire hazard (Anonymous communication November 2015).
(2)	Social development – Public–private sector partnerships to provide services characterized rural cities. Each rural city would have Internet, telephone, banking, health centers, sports fields, schools, distance education, and water treatment. Large national companies were involved: Telmex, the main telecommunications company, provided telecommunication infrastructure and Internet services for distance education. The Salinas group, through its Azteca Foundation, built branches of its Aztec Bank, while a subsidiary of the Carlos Slim Foundation participated in the equipping of health centers (NPC and CACI 2012; CIPRC 2015).
(3)	Economic productivity – Each city had pre-established economic projects and services to replace traditional agricultural systems with more productive activities and to transform farmers into micro-entrepreneurs (CIPRC 2012; Terra 2015). The projects included green-houses and a furniture factory in Nuevo Juan de Grijalva (Radio Zapatista 2012c, 2012e), a coffee processing plant, chicken farms, and a tricycle assembly factory in Santiago el Pinar (Maerker 2014), and forestry, orchards and biofuel production in other rural cities (NPC and CACI 2012).
(4)	Environment – The Sustainable Rural Cities Policy aimed to improve land use and planning to mitigate environmental degradation and recuperate ecosystems and biodiversity. Other goals included increasing security against natural and anthropogenic risks, and adjusting urban development to the environment’s carrying capacity (CSMDPP 2008). The strategies included promotion of the sustainable use of natural resources, better management of solid waste, and use of eco-friendly technologies (CIPRC 2012).
(5)	Legitimacy and government – This component aimed to improve the efficiency in the use of public resources and to create new governance structures to foster harmonious living. This would be achieved by providing infrastructure for police services, encouraging citizens to develop a culture of payment for public services, and creating conditions to build social interactions in the new settlements (CSMDPP 2008; CIPRC 2012).

The seven main failures of the involuntary resettlement associated with the creation of the rural cities

It is generally regarded that the creation of the rural cities was a failure, especially because of the inadequate way in which the involuntary resettlement was enacted and because of the failure of projects to restore the livelihood of displaced people (Elias 2011; Pickard 2012). Puebla and Chiapas are in the region targeted by former President Vicente Fox for the Puebla-Panama Plan (PPP), which sought the economic integration of Mexico with Central America to develop natural resources and increase trade. There was strong opposition to the PPP by different sectors of the population and Indigenous people (Weinberg 2003; Collombon 2008). After the 2008 meeting of regional Heads of State, the PPP became the Meso-American Project and incorporated energy, food security, housing, and risk management as priorities (Proyecto Mesoamerica 2011, 2015), which all relate to the goals of the Sustainable Rural Cities Policy.

Rural cities in Chiapas and Puebla were built in areas where more than 70% of the population were Indigenous (National Commission for Development of Indigenous People 2006). Therefore, the imposed relocation of Indigenous peoples was perceived as modern colonialism driven not by an interest for people’s well-being, but by political and economic interests (Zunino & Pickard 2009; Elias 2011; Rodriguez 2012). These interests potentially included reducing the support for the Zapatista Army (in Santiago el Pinar), silver and gold deposits (in Ixhuatan), hydropower development (in Nuevo Juan de Grijalva and Copainala), and mining possibilities and control of peasant agriculture (in Jaltenango) (NPC and CACI 2012; Pickard 2012; PODER 2014).

In the state of Puebla, academics, Indigenous people and other sectors of the population rejected the plan to build 50 rural cities (Anonymous communication March 2015; Hernández 2011). Reviewing concessions in the Sierra Norte Region, PODER (2014) concluded that 18 municipalities were affected by hydropower projects and that 20% of the region was under existing concessions (18% for mining and 2% for oil and gas). The total length of 6 oil and gas pipelines in this region exceeds 900 km (Erick & Contreras 2015; Mendez 2015). These projects affect numerous communities because of land expropriations and destruction of natural and cultural resources (DesInformemonos 2016).

Lack of free, prior and informed consent

The absence of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) exacerbated the impacts of involuntary resettlement. Even though Mexico ratified the International Labour Organisation Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (ILO 1989) in 1990, the concept of FPIC was not introduced into national legislation until 2014, when it was introduced in the new Hydrocarbons Law (Government of Mexico 2014a). Still, FPIC only applies to oil and gas projects. The corresponding regulations (Government of Mexico 2014b) mention consultation to achieve agreement. The Hydrocarbons Law does not recognize the right of Indigenous People to have information in their language or to not consent if they consider that the project is not in their best interest.

There is a gap in social impact assessment in Mexico (Mendoza Sammet 2011). The General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (GLEEEP) (Government of Mexico 2015) does not include social or cultural impacts. The regulations of the Hydrocarbons Law narrowly define social impact assessment as the identification of the communities and towns in a project’s zone of influence, and the identification, characterization, and valorization of the project’s consequences on the population, the mitigations, and the social management plans (Government of Mexico 2014b: Article 3). The definition does not specify cultural impacts and nor does the law or the regulations mention environmental impact assessment. Given the deficiencies in impact assessment in Mexico (e.g. Mendoza Sammet 2011), there is a high risk of disconnection between social and environmental issues. Separate social and environmental assessments are unlikely to properly address the connection of Indigenous people with their territory and its resources, which is vital for Indigenous people’s livelihood, culture, and well-being (Hanna et al. 2014; Hanna, Langdon et al. 2016; Hanna, Vanclay et al. 2016).

Notwithstanding the absence of FPIC legislation when rural cities were built, the policy should have complied with national and international statutes on Indigenous rights, such as the Mexican Constitution (Government of Mexico 2012a: Article 2), the General Law of the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People ([Indigenous Languages Law hereafter] Government of Mexico 2012b), and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (United Nations 2007). The Master Plan specified that, to be sustainable, rural city projects should be developed with active participation of the affected population (CSMDPP 2008). The Rural Cities Law stated that Indigenous communities should be enabled to participate to achieve harmonious integration in the new cities (State of Chiapas 2010). In practice, both documents were ignored.

The Governor of Chiapas exploited the landslide to create a sense of urgency, enabling the people from Juan de Grijalva to be evacuated and placed in temporary camps, even those whose properties were not affected by the landslide. They were forbidden to return to their land and were not consulted about the plans for the new city (Radio Zapatista 2012a, 2012c). The people relocated to Santiago el Pinar in 2011, most of whom were Tzot Tzil Indians who did not speak Spanish, were told that there would be jobs for men and women, but were not informed about the details of the relocation (Radio Zapatista 2012d).

The Mexican legislation has several gaps that allow the practice of involuntary resettlement without proper consultation or the use of FPIC. For example, the Mining Law (Government of Mexico 2014c) does not mention impact assessment and authorizes the expropriation of lands for mining projects. Mining impact assessments are done under the GLEEEP, which considers consultation to be discretionary.

Poor legitimacy and governance

Legitimacy and good governance were missing during the implementation of the Sustainable Rural Cities policy. Most families did not receive compensation for their farmland and houses (Radio Zapatista 2012a, 2012c). Various academics and inhabitants have argued that corruption at federal, state, and local levels led to the high cost of the project and the disappearance of the funding needed to finalize construction of the remaining rural cities (Zunino & Pickard 2009; Bellinghausen 2013; Cadena 2014; Maerker 2014; Portela 2014; Trujillo 2015). The official cost of the houses in Nuevo Juan de Grijalva was 800,000 pesos (about USD 44,000), but inhabitants of Nuevo Juan de Grijalva estimated that they should not have cost more than about 150,000 pesos (about USD 8,000) (Radio Zapatista 2012a). NPC and CACI (2012) suggest that at least part of the funds could have come from the World Bank as part of the Strategic Alliance with Mexico 2008–2013 and question why the World Bank guidelines for involuntary resettlement were not applied.

No consideration of human rights issues

Despite being somewhat spread out in their original communities, people were supported by an efficient community network and had access to education, water, and electricity, and health services in nearby towns (CERCAP 2010a, 2010b, 2010c; NPC and CACI 2012; Radio Zapatista 2012c, 2012d). The ways in which the relocation to rural cities resulted in violations of their human and Indigenous rights are discussed below (also see van der Ploeg & Vanclay 2017a).

Right to adequate housing

Residents of Santiago El Pinar indicated that the houses were suitable for only one or two occupants and not for a family, which often included grandparents. The drywall construction material did not support nails, to the dissatisfaction of many people, and one year after this city was inaugurated, many of the houses were leaking because of the poor quality of the materials used. There was also no yard to grow food. The small kitchen did not allow for the use of the type of fire needed to make tortillas, the basis of the Indigenous diet (CERCAP 2010b, 2010c; NPC and CACI 2012; Radio Zapatista 2012e; Maerker 2014). In Nuevo Juan de Grijalva, families had to use the yard to expand the house (CERCAP 2010b).

Right to basic services

There were no improvements in the right to water, health, or sanitation. In Nuevo Juan de Grijalva, the clinic only provided vaccinations. Other services, such as ultrasounds for pregnant mothers that the government advertised, were not provided (Radio Zapatista 2012c). The clinic in Santiago el Pinar had staff and equipment but no patients, because the inhabitants of the city were moving away to seek employment elsewhere (CERCAP 2010a, 2010b, 2010c; NPC and CACI 2012a; Radio Zapatista 2012d). Velazquez (2012) denounced the poor living conditions in Santiago el Pinar: people needed to walk up to six hours to get water, which otherwise was only available during visits of senior officials. The lack of water and drainage in the city made the bathrooms in the houses useless. The hospital lacked medications and residents could not get treatment for eye problems caused by exposure to smoke when cooking inside the houses. Many houses did not have electricity. Those that had it had to pay 400 pesos (about USD 22) every second month, which was very expensive since the minimum daily salary was around 59 pesos and the houses only had three light bulbs and no electric appliances.

Rights to liberty and security, information, freedom of opinion and expression, and peaceful assembly

Some men from Nuevo Juan de Grijalva and their lawyer were incarcerated for three months when they went to the municipal offices to claim the compensation due for their lands. The authorities wanted those men to sign statements that they did not write, and without reading them. Apprehension orders were issued for many men and women from the community (Radio Zapatista 2012a, 2012c). These arbitrary detentions infringed people’s rights to liberty and security, and the right to have access to a legal remedy as established in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948 (Articles 7, 8 & 40) and the Mexican Constitution (Articles 14, 18 & 19). Authorities did not comply with the duty of public servants to respect the right of peaceful protest.

Disregard for Indigenous rights

To justify relocation, the policy focused on the perceived lack of development of Indigenous people (e.g. State of Chiapas 2010; CIPRC 2012; 2015). In their report, NPC and CACI (2012) concluded that the Sustainable Rural Cities Policy affected the rights of the relocated people. Two reasons are that the implementation was flawed, and that the policy and the Master Plan failed to consider that most of the population to be relocated were Indigenous and that their rights should be protected. Besides the lack of engagement, people were not given sufficient time to discuss the situation and understand the trade-offs (Radio Zapatista 2012a).

Right to use Indigenous languages

Tzot Tzil speakers did not understand the content of official documents that they had to sign that were provided only in Spanish, nor did they comprehend that relocating implied renouncing their lands (Radio Zapatista 2012a, 2012d). The government did not comply with its duty to provide information in the language of Indigenous people about all programs, works or services directed to them, and also contravened their right to conduct any matters in their Indigenous language (Indigenous Languages Law, Articles 8, 9 & 13).

Right to education and to not be subjected to forced assimilation

Providing education services and employment may have been well intended, but the impacts were not analyzed. NPC and CACI (2012) considered the possibility that the plan’s education program was a tool to eradicate Indigenous culture. That the Master Plan (CSMDPP 2008) and rural city projects (CIPRC 2012; 2015) did not consider Indigenous languages and culture supports comments that using telecommunication to provide education exposed children to different values, further undermining their Indigenous culture (NPC and CACI 2012). The imposed change in economic activities also facilitated the assimilation of adults into a different culture and lifestyle. For example, instead of taking care of children, the house and other traditional roles, women had to get together to prepare food and make small products to sell outside the community to earn money because men could not find employment. Leaving the children unattended for a large part of the day worried the women (Radio Zapatista 2012a). In summary, the relocation to the rural cities disrupted the traditional family life, eliminated social networks, and imposed a new form of community organization. The resettlement became a form of forced assimilation by affecting their culture, identity, social cohesion, livelihood, and the persistence of their traditional knowledge.

Open spaces and access to the territory are crucial for Indigenous learning and the persistence of traditional knowledge. For example, Del Villar (2012) explains that living in disperse communities is an intrinsic part of the culture and livelihood of the Raramuri people of northern Mexico. They are adapted to walk very long distances and use walking as a meditation. Their traditional knowledge and cosmology have developed through contemplation and observation along their trails, when they shepherd their animals or go to visit other families or communities. The open space and walking allow children to learn from adults and elders.

The Mexican Constitution and the Indigenous Languages Law specify the State’s duty to provide education in the language of Indigenous people and to protect the Indigenous culture and languages. However, the government has not acted in compliance. Based on an index of ethnolinguistic replacement, Ordorica et al. (2009) reported that Mexico’s Indigenous languages fall in the category of slow extinction, with 34 language groups already in the category of extinction.

Right to self-determination

In rural cities, jobs were restricted to pre-determined economic projects that employed very few people. To receive land compensation, the men from Nuevo Juan de Grijalva had to change their land tenure from communal to private, and hand over their land titles to the authorities. Most did not receive compensation for their titles (Radio Zapatista 2012a, 2012c). This nullified the original social-organization, eliminating the need for community consultations, and contravened the rights to own property individually or in association with others, and not be arbitrarily deprived of it.

The World Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement Sourcebook (World Bank 2004) specified that involuntary resettlement should be avoided when feasible. Mexico had endorsed the UNDRIP, which includes the FPIC principle. However, the policy and its projects were imposed without any consideration being given to FPIC, which Hanna and Vanclay (2013) consider intrinsically linked to the right to self-determination. The policy infringed several rights stipulated in the UNDRIP, such as the self-determination to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development (Article 3), the right to strengthen their own institutions (Article 5), the right to not be forced to assimilation or destruction of their culture (Article 8), the right to not be forcibly removed from the territory or relocated without their FPIC (Article 10), and the right to fair compensation and to participate in defining redress mechanisms (Articles 10 & 11). Moreover, the relocation infringed their rights to redress for being deprived of their means of subsistence and development, not to be deprived of their lands, territories and resources without their FPIC, and their right to receive freely agreed compensation in the form of lands (territories and resources equal in quality, size, and legal status) or in monetary form (Articles 20 & 28).

Impoverishment

In their original communities, people could satisfy their basic needs, and their land holdings provided adequate sustenance. In contrast, in the rural city they had to buy everything since they could not produce their own food, and they had to pay more for public services (CERCAP 2010a; NPC and CACI 2012; Radio Zapatista 2012a, 2012c, 2012d, 2012e). Before relocation, Juan de Grijalva was one the most prosperous communities in the region. After relocation, the families in Nuevo Juan de Grijalva became impoverished (Radio Zapatista 2012a, 2012g).

In Nuevo Juan de Grijalva, the factory employed only 150 people, leaving most of the population jobless (Radio Zapatista 2012a). The government acquired 30 hectares of land nearby and built 8 greenhouses (each to engage 10 men) to produce hot peppers and tomatoes, which a government agent would on-sell. However, after some time the men were not paid for the produce they delivered, so they sold their remaining produce to intermediaries who paid a low price. Over time, the men did not receive enough revenue to cover their costs and living expenses, thus after two years most greenhouses were abandoned (Radio Zapatista 2012e). Agricultural, industrial and commercial projects in other cities were also unsuccessful (Maerker 2014). Many men decided to commute back to the original Juan de Grijalva to continue to farm there to provide food for their family, despite the government’s prohibition of this and the presence of armed forces. Each trip took hours and cost a considerable amount (Radio Zapatista 2012a).

Rural city promoters ignored the recommendations of Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. After visiting Nuevo Juan de Grijalva, he urged for an exhaustive evaluation of the experiences of this city and Santiago el Pinar before the establishment of more rural cities. He emphasized that subsistence agriculture was important to provide food, a diverse diet, and a safety net for families protecting them from fluctuating market trends. He expressed concerns about the poor viability of the economic projects and the population’s lack of training to commercialize their products. Finally, he indicated that any cost and benefits of the rural cities should be analyzed together with alternatives to ensure the families had access to health services, education, and other forms of employment (De Schutter 2012).

Rural cities were considered as progress (e.g. CIPRC 2015; Terra 2015) based on the indicators for public service provision, employment, and other poverty indicators used by the National Evaluation Council (2013) such as daily income, access to electricity, education, housing, and access to water, sanitation and health services. However, this illustrates that indicators can give a false impression of progress or good governance, hiding the trade-offs and impacts that people have to endure.

Dispersion may be one of the factors that make traditional agriculture more sustainable than modern industrialized agriculture. Traditional agricultural systems sustain the well-being of peasant communities and promote a sustainable use of biodiversity. When managed properly, these systems can be economically viable and more productive than other mechanized agricultural systems (Altieri 1999; Ek Dzib et al. 2012). Traditional agricultural systems, like those practiced by Indigenous communities in Mexico, use a diversity of plants and animals in the land that belong to each family and use adjacent lands to gather mushrooms, wild edible plants, or other products (Ek Dzib et al. 2012). With its focus purely on economic development, the Sustainable Rural Cities Policy considered the dispersion of Indigenous communities as a barrier to social development, ignoring the benefits of traditional agricultural systems for peasants and the environment.

Failing to restore livelihoods has characterized other relocation plans (Cernea 2003; Smyth et al. 2015). The Sustainable Rural Cities Policy and Master Plan ignored past experiences in southern Mexico. For example, during the 1970s, the resettlement to Uxpanapa, Veracruz and La Chontalpa, Tabasco, of Indigenous and rural peoples displaced by infrastructure development used subsidies to involve new residents in extensive agriculture projects. The funding allocated to La Chontalpa was insufficient and its distribution was obstructed by poor coordination among the different agencies. This ultimately led to the impoverishment and disintegration of the relocated communities; 75% of participants in La Chontalpa’s agricultural plans did not generate enough income to feed their families and pay the debts (Arrieta 1994). The subsidies to convert forested areas into agricultural lands contributed to the high deforestation and biodiversity loss observed today in both states (Anta and Carabias 2008; Pinkus-Rendon & Contreras-Sanchez 2012; Sarukhán et al. 2009). The failure of rural cities reflects a lack of institutional learning and the repetition of the story of self-sufficient communities becoming impoverished and disintegrated after resettlement. This reaffirms that the relocation to accommodate resource development contributes to the impoverishment of the displaced people (Cernea 1997; Downing 2002) and that the improper planning or implementation of livelihood restoration is a major issue for resettlement (Smyth et al. 2015).

There was no evidence of any type of impact assessment being carried out for rural city projects, even though the GLEEEP indicates that urban development plans are subjected to environmental assessment. The Master Plan recommended that the carrying capacity of the ecosystem be considered for the locations where the cities would be established (CSMDPP 2008), but it did not specify the need to evaluate the environmental and social impacts of the plan or each new city.

Lack of adequate justification and lack of risk prevention

People in Nuevo Juan de Grijalva and Copainala were threatened with cuts to the funding they received from government agricultural programs and the removal of public services if they would not relocate to the new rural cities (NPC and CACI 2012; Radio Zapatista 2012a, 2012f). Many inhabitants of Nuevo Juan de Grijalva doubted that the landslide that the government was using as justification for the resettlement had natural causes. This was based on their experience with previous landslides, their knowledge of the terrain, and comments from a public officer. Also, before the landslide, they observed what they considered to be suspicious behavior, specifically planes flying over the hill that collapsed and foreign people visiting the area at night (Radio Zapatista 2012a). One objective of the Sustainable Rural Cities Policy was to reduce disaster risks by relocating disperse communities (CIPRC 2012, 2015); however, no evidence was found that risk assessments were carried out to justify the relocations. Other researchers (NPC and CACI 2012; Pickard 2012; Radio Zapatista 2012b) have argued that the landslide was used to create a sense of urgency and to induce fear in the population so that people from areas targeted by economic interests would agree to relocate.

From a national development perspective, not having Indigenous people living in or near areas where mining, hydroelectric or oil and gas projects could be located would eliminate the need to establish mechanisms for FPIC. It would also eliminate the need to give just compensation for impacts that could not be mitigated and the need to share the benefits of development with the communities. Removing these issues from the agenda in impact assessments would simplify the project approval process. Since the resettlements, in Puebla, three pipelines carrying oil or natural gas from Veracruz State to Hidalgo, Tlaxcala, or Mexico states are already in operation and four more have been proposed (Erick & Contreras 2015; Mendez 2015). In the Sierra Norte, the town of Tetela de Ocampo has been opposing the gas pipeline that affected sacred and archeological sites. After TransCanada announced operations in the region, communities in the surroundings of Necaxa and Huauchinango organized public meetings and voiced concerns about potential displacement, harassment by public servants, and the destruction of sacred sites (Anonymous, conversation March 2016).

Declining health and well-being and loss of a sense of community

Most people in rural cities affirmed that they were better-off in their original communities where they were surrounded by family and friends and had strong social networks (NPC and CACI 2012; Radio Zapatista 2012c, 2012d, 2012e). In Nuevo Juan de Grijalva, people affected by the landslide felt that the authorities took advantage of their state of shock and grief for friends and relatives killed in the landslide (NPC and CACI 2012; Radio Zapatista 2012a). In the new cities, they felt that they were surrounded by strangers. Other residents came from communities not affected by floods and had not lost anything; their different interests and backgrounds caused divisions and tensions in the new cities (Radio Zapatista 2012a). Aguilar et al. (2013) concluded that, in Nuevo Juan de Grijalva, the loss of community traditions, confinement to small spaces, unemployment, and constant police surveillance shattered community structure and kept the population in a perpetual state of fear.

In the rural cities, residents became more sedentary and unable to produce their own food or have access to high-quality, diverse and affordable food and medicinal plants. Changing from a diet based on corn, homegrown animals, and gathered edible and medicinal plants to a diet based on wheat and processed foods can affect individual and community health (Halseth 2015). For example, in Canada confining Aboriginal peoples to reserves changed their traditional diet, medicines, and livelihood to a sedentary lifestyle and a diet based on wheat and processed foods (Earle 2011; Halseth 2015). The failure of the rural cities affected Indigenous rights to social and health services, denied the people the opportunity to enjoy a high standard of physical and mental health, and severed access to the use and conservation of medicinal plants, animals and minerals vital for them (e.g. United Nations 2007: Article 24).

Family and community relationships are crucial for mental health and well-being. Farming has an important role in family and community life (Del Villar 2012). Caring for animals and helping in the harvest allow children to develop a sense of responsibility, but more importantly, to acquire a sense of place and belonging while learning from parents or elders. Communal festivities and traditions contribute to the maintenance and renewal of social networks that determine social cohesion. The mental health impacts of the relocation were ignored. Those affected by the landslide lost family, friends, lands, livelihood, and the community that supported them. All the relocated people lost their connection to the land and the ecosystem services that contributed to their well-being. In rural cites, people could not enjoy the benefits associated with self-sufficiency, such as the ability to provide for the family, a sense of identity and belonging, self-esteem, and physical activity.

The dispersion of Indigenous communities may be an intrinsic part of their cosmology, identity, and livelihood. For the Raramuri people, an Indigenous group from northern Mexico, being confined to densely populated centers would result in cultural, health (physical and mental), and psychological impacts that would destroy their identity, family and community cohesion (Del Villar 2012).

Community cohesion is important for healing. Kamani-Fard et al. (2013) state that participating in the design and development of new housing projects is key for communities affected by disaster to cope with the losses, heal from grief, and develop a restored sense of place. Ampuero et al. (2015) studied the well-being of Robinson Crusoe Island inhabitants after a tsunami. They concluded that family and community relationships were strongly linked to the natural environment and to the participation in economic and traditional family activities such as hiking, camping, and fishing; the preservation of those relationships and activities was the main factor for recovering and healing after the tsunami. In Nuevo Juan de Grijalva, people were deprived not only of their land, family, and the community relationships that supported them and were part of their culture, but also of their right to participate in the reconstruction of their community. The availability of these conditions would have helped them heal from the trauma of the disaster. Instead, they had to deal with the fear of being apprehended for claiming the compensation for their lands.

Improving the sustainability of resettlement in mexico

Smyth et al. (2015) summarized the five current key issues pertaining to resettlement and livelihoods:

•	resettlement is failing communities
•	livelihood restoration is not properly planned or implemented
•	more alignment of national legislation and international standards is needed
•	negotiation and professional planning are vital for success
•	resettlement practice still needs to improve.

As discussed above, the first two issues were clearly evident in the establishment of the rural cities. The relocation contributed to impoverishment and community disintegration, and also failed to restore people’s livelihoods. The three remaining issues indicate areas in need of improvement in Mexico and are discussed below.

Policy alignment

The impacts of the relocations, including the violations of human rights, resulted from a government intervention that involved various levels and agencies. Various tools for corporations to respect human rights through the supply chain have been developed (van der Ploeg & Vanclay 2017b). They generally require top managers and companies to have real commitments, training, monitoring, and grievance mechanisms in place. Similar accountability mechanisms are needed for government institutions and public servants to ensure that national policies and laws, and their implementation, align with international statutes that protect human and Indigenous rights. Such mechanisms should include training to raise awareness of human and Indigenous rights, and clear processes for FPIC (aimed at consent, not just consultation, see Hanna & Vanclay 2013).

The negative effects of the Sustainable Rural Cities Policy illustrate the need to use Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and/or sustainability appraisals to evaluate the impacts of laws, policies, plans and programs. Currently, the GLEEEP limits the application of environmental impact assessment to projects and does not consider socio-economic impacts. The GLEEEP and derived laws need to be updated to include SEA in its strategic modality (Noble 2000). In the 2000s, the National Commission of Electricity used SEA for two projects (Montañez-Cartaxo 2014). However, those were isolated cases and to date SEA is not required by national legislation. Government plans involving the relocation of communities, even if they aim to improve their conditions, should be assessed for their social, environmental, and economic impacts. The environmental and resource development regulatory framework needs to be updated to include FPIC and expand the definition of impact to include the impacts on Indigenous people’s rights, health, and culture.

Negotiation and planning

Maiti (2009) indicated that India’s resettlement policy follows the World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.12. He indicated that grievance mechanisms must be established to address the concerns of people affected by relocation or of individuals who perceive that their needs have not been properly addressed. He also indicated that the implementation and effectiveness of the mitigation measures must be independently monitored and evaluated based on long-term indicators. In Mexico, grievance mechanisms should be in place for all projects to prevent the harassment that communities face when they reject projects, regardless of whether they involve relocation. A resettlement policy applicable to all development sectors is needed in Mexico. Such a policy should emphasize respect for human rights and Indigenous rights, especially FPIC, to ensure that affected communities have the right information to decide on the resettlement and, if they agree, to participate in designing the restoration of their livelihood, community life, and culture.

Authorities need to recognize the right to self-determination and that it must be implemented through participatory processes to ensure that housing, livelihood projects, and cultural life remain equivalent or superior to what people had in their original location (e.g. World Bank 2004). Impact-benefit agreements are not common in Mexico but could be a useful tool; however, Hanna and Vanclay (2013) warn that having an impact-benefit agreement does not imply that the conditions of FPIC are met. Smyth et al. (2015) argue that compensation alone is rarely enough to restore livelihood. Therefore, communities need proper training and legal support to negotiate fair agreements and get more benefits from the resources in their territories. Communities have the right to share the benefits of development and not just to be compensated for their losses.

Training in best practice

Smyth et al. (2015) highlight the need for more guidance on resettlement practice, especially on Indigenous people and livelihood restoration. They also suggest that consultants facilitating stakeholder engagement and community negotiations should implement measures to build the capacity of communities and governments to understand their rights and responsibilities. In Mexico, there is need to train consultants and authorities on impact assessment best practice (Mendoza Sammet 2011), including social impact assessment and mechanisms for FPIC. Training should not be focused on consultants only. Government officials and policy-makers also need training and guidance to understand how their decisions may have negative impacts or infringe human rights and Indigenous rights. Indigenous communities also need training to understand their rights, the best practice for impact assessment, and to know what to do if consultants or public servants violate their rights or do not follow best practice.

In addition to the five issues discussed by Smyth et al. (2015), the impacts of relocations on well-being also need to be considered beforehand. Analyzing impacts on health, well-being, and ecosystem services should be explicit in the GLEEEP and Hydrocarbons Law. The right to health should not be interpreted only as having access to public health services. It must consider all the elements that contribute to individual and community well-being, including a healthy and culturally appropriate diet, and physical and mental health. The connection to the land and its resources provide Indigenous and rural communities with tangible and intangible ecosystem services that need to be well understood and recreated when planning resettlement.

Conclusion

The relocation of Indigenous and rural communities to rural cities resulted in the disintegration of their communities and the impoverishment of relocated families. Contravening the principles of national laws, international statutes and best practice, policy-makers ignored the dependencies of communities and individuals on their social and environmental systems. The relocation was imposed without free, prior and informed consent, and violated their human and Indigenous rights, including the right to be properly informed about the proposals in their own language. The failures of the rural cities demonstrate the need to foster institutional learning to avoid repeating the mistakes of past resettlement projects.

Changes in environmental and resource development legislation are needed to reduce the impacts of involuntary resettlement. First, the GLEEEP needs to require the assessment of policies, plans, programs, and projects. Assessments should compare alternatives to enhance benefits and mitigate the potential negative impacts on the economy, society, and the environment as much as possible. Second, laws and regulations should be updated to: (1) expand the application of FPIC to all sectors; (2) require integrated environmental and social assessments instead of separated ones; (3) the assessments should adequately include impacts on physical and mental health, culture, well-being, human rights, Indigenous rights, and on ecosystem services. Third, a policy to guide involuntary resettlement should be enacted. Such policy should clearly define roles and responsibilities. Also, it should require participatory processes for FPIC and grievance mechanisms that are easily accessible to individuals and communities. Fourth, training and accountability mechanisms for institutions and public servants should be implemented and evaluated to ensure that policy implementation is transparent, participatory, and free of corruption and violence. Finally, unavoidable relocations should be clearly justified and accepted by affected people through FPIC. They must be involved in the analysis of alternatives and at all stages of decision-making.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the anonymous informant for her contribution to this paper and the reviewers for their helpful suggestions to improve the draft.