Development, Displacement and Resettlement free essay sample

‘Development’ is a concept which is contested both theoretically and politically, and is inherently both complex and ambiguous. The term â€Å"development† encompasses continuous ‘change’ in a variety of aspects of human society. The dimensions of development are extremely diverse, including economic, social, political, legal and institutional structures, technology in various forms (including the physical or natural sciences, engineering and communications), the environment, religion, the arts and culture. Development-induced displacement  and resettlement, subset of  forced migration can be defined as forcing of communities and individuals out of their homes, often also their homelands, for the purposes of  economic development. It is associated with the construction of dams for  hydroelectric power  , irrigation purposes and many other activities such as  mining  ,creation of military installations, airports, industrial plants, railways, road developments, urbanization, conservation projects, forestry, etc. Development-induced displacement is a social problem affecting multiple levels of human organization, from tribal and village communities to well-developed urban areas. Sustainable development  refers to a mode of human development in which  resource  use aims to meet human needs while preserving the  environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come. It is the forcing of communities and individuals out of their homes, often also their homelands, for the ostensible purpose of social and human development, but which is actually nothing more than economic growth and the benefits accruing from such almost never if ever percolate down to the ones that bear its costs. EFFECTS OF DISPLACEMENT There is virtually no limit to what can be called a development project. It can range from a small-scale infrastructure or mining project to a mega hydropower plant construction; can be public or private, well-planned or ushed into. Land-based development initiatives may and often do cause physical and economic displacement that results in impoverishment and disempowerment of affected populations. Despite decades of experience and study on development-induced displacement and resettlement, the severity of the problem persists, with its adverse impacts not yet being effectively addressed. According to Cernea , an American-Romanian social scientistà ‚  ,there are eight interlinked potential risks intrinsic to displacement and they are: 1. Landlessness, Joblessness and Homelessness: Expropriation of land removes the main foundation upon which peoples productive systems, commercial activities, and livelihoods are constructed. The risk of losing wage employment is very high both in urban and rural displacements for those employed in enterprises, services or agriculture. Yet creating new jobs is difficult and requires substantial investment. Loss of shelter tends to be only temporary for many people being resettled; but, for some, homelessness or a worsening in their housing standards remains a lingering condition. In a broader cultural sense, loss of a familys individual home and the loss of a groups cultural space tend to result in alienation and status deprivation. 2. Marginalisation. Marginalisation occurs when families lose economic power and slide downwards: middle-income farm households do not become landless, but become small landholders; small shopkeepers and craftsmen are downsized and slip below poverty thresholds. 3. Increased Morbidity Vulnerability to illness is increased, and unsafe water supply and wasted systems tend to proliferate infectious diseases. . Food Insecurity. Forced uprooting increases the risk that people will fall into chronic food insecurity. Sudden drops in food crops availability and/or income are certain during physical relocation. 5. Loss of Access to Common Property. For poor people, particularly for the landless and otherwise assetless, loss of access to non-individual, common property assets belonging to communities that are relocated (forested lands, wate r bodies, grazing lands, etc. represents a cause of income and livelihoods deterioration that is systematically overlooked and typically uncompensated in government schemes. 6. Social Disarticulation. The dismantling of communities’ social organisation structures, the dispersal of informal and formal networks, associations, local societies, etc. , is an expensive yet unquantified loss of social capital. Such ‘elusive’ disintegration processes undermine livelihoods in ways uncounted and unrecognized by planners and are among the most pervasive causes of enduring impoverishment and disempowerment. Consequences of Development-Induced Displacement and Resettlement The consequences of DIDR depend largely on how resettlement is planned, negotiated, and carried out. In modern dam-building history, displacement strategies and resettlement schemes have ranged from positive to grim. Picciotto, Van Wicklin, and Rice (2001) point out that, in the cases of China’s Shuikou and Yantan dam projects, displacees’ incomes and living standards improved while satisfaction with resettlement was high. In contrast, the WFP report (1996) on Guatemala’s Chixoy Dam Project in the late 1970s points to the massacring of hundreds of Maya Achi Indians by local civil patrols and the country’s Armed Forces to make way for the dam’s construction. In most projects, the conditions of displacement and resettlement have fallen somewhere between these two extremes, although it is rare to find examples of positive resettlement experiences. Types of development projects causing displacement The types of development projects causing displacement range across a wide spectrum. These types of projects have been divided into three categories: dams, urban renewal and development, and natural resource extraction. Dams Of the types of development projects that bring about physical displacement, dams and their related infrastructure, including power stations and irrigation canals, stand out as the largest contributor to displacees. This is partially a product of the enormous scale of many dam projects – China’s Danjiangkou Dam displaced 383,000 people, while its ongoing Three Gorges Dam project will displace 1. 2 million. The high overall level of dam displacement is also a product of the speed with which dams have been built since 1950. The International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD) reports that the world had 5,000 large dams in 1950 and over 45,000 by the late 1990s. The Narmada Sardar Sarovar Dam Project in India, which is set to displace 127,000 people, has perhaps been the most widely researched and discussed project involving forced resettlement in history. Projects like these are often claimed to be essential for raising living standards in the region or country. Yet if people are displaced by them – as for instance people are displaced from the flood plain of a dam project – and if no attention is given to them apart from removing them, then the effect of the project on these people will be to impoverish them. The overall effect, then, would be to raise the living standards of some while lowering the living standards of others. Thus we seem to be faced with the following dilemma: if the project goes ahead, people who are displaced by it will be impoverished, while even more people may be left in poverty elsewhere if the project is cancelled. Urban infrastructure and transportation Urban infrastructure and transportation projects that cause displacement include slum clearance and upgrading; the establishment of industrial and commercial estates; the building and upgrading of sewerage systems, schools, hospitals, ports, etc. ; and the construction of communication and transportation networks, including those connecting different urban centres. Natural resource extraction Principally, this category of projects includes those having to do with mineral and oil extraction. Despite their similarity, forestry extraction projects are dealt with in the research guide focusing on conservation-induced displacement. No cumulative or annual statistics are available on the number of people displaced by natural resource extraction projects world-wide; however, anecdotal evidence and figures from World Bank projects suggest that displacement in such projects is much lower than in many dam and urban renewal and development projects. INDIAN LEGISLATIONS RELATING TO DIDR National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 The NRRP stipulates the minimum facilities to be ensured for persons displaced due to the acquisition of land for public purposes. The objectives of the Policy are: (i) to minimize displacement and to identify non-displacing or least displacing alternatives; (ii) to plan resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected families (PAFs) or project affected households (PAHs), including tribal and vulnerable households; (iii) to provide improved standard of living to PAFs or PAHs; and (iv) to facilitate a harmonious relationship between the requiring body and PAFs. Though NRRP is applicable for projects where over 400 PAFs in the plains or 200 PAFs in hilly or tribal areas are displaced, the basic principles can be applied to resettling and rehabilitating PAFs regardless of the number affected. NRRP’s provisions are intended to mitigate adverse impacts on PAFs. While key principles of NRRP are similar, NRRP excludes linear projects (which acquire only narrow strips of land). Linear impacts and temporary linear impacts (which is the likely impact of the Program) are not covered by NRRP. Further, there is no law on resettlement in the country. The law relating to the acquisition of privately owned immoveable property is the LAA discussed in the following section. b. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 amended 1984 The LAA provides a framework for facilitating land acquisition in India. LAA enables the State Government to acquire private land for public purposes. LAA ensures that no person is deprived of land except under LAA and entitles affected persons to a hearing before acquisition. The main elements of LAA are: (i) Land identified for the purpose of a project is placed under Section 4 of the LAA. This constitutes notification. Objections must be made within 50 days to the District Collector (the highest administrative officer of the concerned District). (ii) The land is then placed under Section 6 of the LAA. This is a declaration that the Government intends to acquire the land. The District Collector is directed to take steps for the acquisition, and the land is placed under Section 9. Interested parties are then invited to state their interest in the land and the price. Under Section 11, the District Collector will make an award within 1 year of the date of publication of the declarations. Otherwise, the acquisition proceedings shall lapse. (iii) In case of disagreement on the price awarded, within 6 weeks of the award, the parties (under Section 18) can request the District Collector to refer the matter to the Courts to make a final ruling on the amount of compensation. (iv) Once the land has been placed under Section 4, no further sale or transfer is allowed. (v) Compensation for land and improvements (such as houses, wells, trees, etc. ) is paid in cash by the project authorities to the State Government, which in turn compensates landowners. vi) The price to be paid for the acquisition of agricultural land is based on sale prices recorded in the District Registrars office averaged over the three years preceding notification under Section 4. The compensation is paid after the area is acquired, with actual payment by the State taking about two or three years. An additional 30% is added to the award as well as an escalation of 12% per year from the date of notification to the final placement under Section 9. For delayed payments, after placement under Section 9, an additional 9% per annum is paid for the first year and 15% for subsequent years. ADB’s Safeguard Statement, 2009 (SPS) ADB has adopted SPS in 2009 including safeguard requirements for environment, involuntary resettlement and indigenous people. The objective of the SPS is to avoid involuntary resettlement wherever possible; to minimize involuntary resettlement by exploring project and design alternatives; to enhance, or at least restore, the livelihoods of all displaced persons in real terms relative to pre-project levels; and to improve the standards of living of the displaced poor and other vulnerable groups. The involuntary resettlement safeguards covers physical displacement (relocation, loss of residential land, or loss of shelter) and economic displacement (loss of land, assets, access to assets, income sources, or means of livelihoods) as a result of (i) involuntary acquisition of land, or (ii) involuntary restrictions on land use or on access to legally designated parks and protected areas. It covers them whether such losses and involuntary restrictions are full or partial, permanent or temporary. Followings are the basic policy principle of ADB;s SPS: (i) Identification of past, present, and future involuntary resettlement impacts and risks and determination of the scope of resettlement planning. (ii) Carry out meaningful consultations with affected persons, host communities, and concerned non-government organizations. (iii) Improvement or at least restoration of the livelihoods of all displaced persons, (iv) Ensure physically and economically displaced persons with needed assistance. (v) Improvement of the standards of living of the displaced poor and other ulnerable groups. (vi) Development of procedures in a transparent, consistent, and equitable manner if land acquisition is through negotiated settlement, (vii) Ensure that displaced persons without titles to land or any recognizable legal rights to land are eligible for resettlement assistance and compensation for loss of non-land assets. (viii) Preparation of a resettlement plan elaborating on displaced persons’ e ntitlements, the income and livelihood restoration strategy, institutional arrangements, monitoring and reporting framework, budget, and time-bound implementation schedule. ix) Disclosure of resettlement plan, including documentation of the consultation process in a timely manner to affected persons and other stakeholders. (x) Execution of involuntary resettlement as part of a development project or program. (xi) Payment of compensation and provide other resettlement entitlements before physical or economic displacement. (xii) Monitoring and assessment of resettlement outcomes, their impacts on the standards of living of displaced persons The project recognizes three types of displaced persons namely: (i) persons with formal legal rights to land lost in its entirety or in part; (ii) persons who lost the land they occupy in its entirety or in part who have no formal legal rights to such land, but who have claims to such lands that are recognized or recognizable under national laws; and (iii) persons who lost the land they occupy in its entirety or in part who have neither formal legal rights nor recognized or recognizable claims to such land. The involuntary resettlement requirements apply to all three types of displaced persons. Development induced displacement and sustainable development Displacement without an alternative to their sustenance is impoverishment Linked to impoverishment is environmental degradation. Thus it results not merely in poverty and ecological degradation but also in the weakening of the culture that ensured renewability. Data available on displacement indicate that at least 213 lakhs have been displaced or otherwise deprived of livelihood by development projects between 1951 and 1990. By now they must have crossed 300 lakhs. Most of the Displaced Persons (DPs) are from the assetless rural poor. Tribals constitute more than 40% DPs and Project Affected People (PAP)of dams and mines and 90% of the DPs from Wild Life Sanctuaries. Dalits constitute 20% of DPs and PAPs. Most of the problems connected with displacement, resettlement and rehabilitation can be traced to the Unbalanced growth strategy. Development, which has entailed many large-scale forced evictions of vulnerable populations, without the countervailing presence of policies to assist them to rebuild their lives, has only accentuated the negative aspects of displacement, such as lack of information, failure to prepare in advance a comprehensive plan for rehabilitation, the undervaluation of compensation and its payment in cash, failure to restore lost assets or livelihoods, traumatic and delayed relocation, problems at relocation sites, multiple displacement, and neglect of the special vulnerabilities of the most disadvantaged groups ETHICS OF DEVELOPMENT INDUCED DISPLACEMENT One of the social costs of development is that dams, roads, ports, railways, mines and logging displace people. In all cases displacement raises important ethical questions. What is owed to people who are displaced? Under what conditions can development that includes displacement be justified? What kind of ethical analysis can provide justification for displacement-inducing development? Three broad theoretical perspectives that can be used to test the justification of development induced displacement are the public interest, self-determination and equality. The public interest perspective is given concrete expression by cost-benefit analysis. The criterion is that of net benefits to the population as a whole. Negative side effects, including displacement, are treated as costs and the question is whether the benefits of the project or policy exceed such costs. Questions of compensation and distribution are treated as separate, political matters. It is possible for those displaced to become worse off, for these costs to be taken into account, and yet for the project or policy to generate positive net benefits. Such a line of reasoning lay behind the statement of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, that people displaced by dams had to make such sacrifices for the good of the country. Self-determination, on the other hand, is more an issue of freedom and control. In its libertarian form, which focuses on the self-determination of individuals, displacement – at least of property owners – is necessarily immoral. There is also a communitarian interpretation of self-determination, which is violated by the coercive removal or forced migration of whole communities. This can be a promising antidote to heavy-handed and business privileging development from the top. However, it is also too crude on its own. It ignores broader public-interest considerations, such as improved living conditions resulting from the electricity and irrigation provided by dams. One way of bringing these three perspectives together is to require self-determination by resettling populations only on the basis of negotiations and consent but not as an unqualified right to veto development activities. Public-interest and distributive-justice considerations are ethically relevant. When, however, such considerations override consent, full compensation is required (if necessary, determined by fair adjudication). If a certain development proposal cannot meet these requirements, it must be deemed unjustifiable in terms of the ethical considerations employed here. Ethical analysis to displacement inducing development recognises ethical complexity, including the possibility that such displacement may be justified if certain conditions are met. The public interest and poverty reduction, on the one hand, and self-determination and individual rights protecting against harm and coercion, on the other, stand in tension with each other. The former ethical considerations may justify certain development activities and policies even when they displace people.