Development-Induced Displacement and Resettlement: Causes, Consequences, and Socio-Legal Context

The aim of the present report is to highlight development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) as an autonomous category of contemporary forced displacement, a catalogue of phenomena characterized by great diversification of causes and consequences, a global social problem for as many as 15 million people relocated each year as a result of economic development, and a challenge to international cooperation institutions, public international law, human rights, and the agencies involved in protection and assistance of IDPs and humanitarian aid. This publication therefore contributes to the highly developed body of research on this issue conducted primarily within the various social sciences. The beginning of extensive scientific research on involuntary resettlement caused by development projects can be dated back to the fifties and sixties of the last century. Among particularly important recent publications in this field it is worth mentioning several books and research papers. The report by Jason Stanley entitled Development induced displacement and resettlement (2004) is very useful preliminary reading, allowing one to understand the diversity and scale of this problem in the most seriously affected parts of the globe, before going on to more detailed studies. A similar, more detailed examination is found in an occasional paper by Professor W. Courtland Robinson entitled Risks and Rights: The Causes, Consequences, and Challenges of Development-Induced Displacement, prepared in May 2003 for the the Brookings Institution-SAIS Project on Internal Displacement. Its author points out in great detail the causes of DIDR, its scale, and examples of it from all over the world, as well as the implications of this problem for the promotion of human rights and international cooperation. It is definitely worth drawing attention to a couple of interesting monographs and collected papers published in recent years in the specific area of forced migrations. Among them we should mention the volumes edited by Christopher McDowell (Understanding Impoverishment: The Consequences of Development-Induced Displacement) and Chris de Wet of Rhodes University (Development-Induced Displacement: Problems, Policies and People). A very important attempt to interpret this problem on the basis of ethical considerations is Displacement by Development. Ethics, Rights and Responsibilities by Peter Penz, Jay Drydyk and Pablo S. Bose, published in 2011 by Cambridge University Press. When analyzing displacement and community problems associated with mining developments it is worth turning to the report by Professor Theodore E. Downing, Avoiding New Poverty: Mining-Induced Displacement and Resettlement. Much attention in recent years has been devoted to the problem of people displaced as a result of nature conservation projects. An important voice in this debate is the recently released Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-year Conflict Between Global Conservation and Native Peoples by Marc Dowie (MIT Press). It is difficult to overestimate the contribution of research on development-induced displacement in India undertaken over many years by Dr Walter Fernandes of the NESRC in Guwahati. The publications of Professor Anthony Oliver-Smith of Florida University are an important source of knowledge of the sociological aspects of popular resistance to development projects.

The main issue I wish to draw attention to in the following passages of this report is the autonomous character of development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) in comparison to other causes of internal displacement. Both causes and consequences of this process make it more or less similar to other categories of internal displacement. However, in many respects DIDR differs significantly from these other categories. This fact is of crucial importance because in at least some sections of recently issued publications this problem has been linked to a slightly different form of environmentally-induced displacement. I am thinking in particular of some reports from the late eighties and the first half of the nineties, and of more general monographs on social problems. Currently, however, these problems are almost always studied separately.

The second issue I want to focus attention on in this report is the highly visible diversification of DIDR's causes and consequences. I try to discuss in depth examples of all the main causes of this problem. The displacement caused by construction of dams is both the greatest and most discussed form in the literature on DIDR. As pointed out by A. Oliver-Smith, the non-dam-related causes of DIDR have been less fully analyzed and documented[31]. Analysis of the problem is based on the perception of development-caused displacement as reflected in World Bank policies on involuntary resettlement. My report devotes considerable attention to the causes of DIDR that are less often discussed in the literature, such as mining and urbanization processes. The growing scale of such projects, or the expansion of existing ones, will in fact lead to a heightened scale of displacement. I devote much attention to the displacement of indigenous people caused by the conservation of nature. The expansion of protected natural areas obviously represents an attempt to minimize the adverse environmental impact of economic development and to preserve the environment for future generations. But people responsible for developing principles of nature conservation do not always recognize the need to maintain a balance between environmental protection and indigenous people's at least minimal conditions of functioning in their environment.

Another important task undertaken by this paper is analysis of the factors influencing the extreme variation in standards of resettlement practice. These standards are derived from a number of sources, the most important being: the form of government, dynamics and principles of economic development and environmental protection policies, property rights, the level of respect for human rights, the level of development of institutions of civil society, activities of NGOs, the relation of government to social inequalities, the problem of poverty and of communities on the margins of society, and antagonisms of economic, social, ethnic or religious origin. The listed factors affecting the nature and consequences of the implementation of resettlement are of course not exhaustive. Sometimes even implementation that seems appropriate from the point of view of relocated and affected communities can lead to further social problems. The actors responsible for the planning and implementation of resettlement, and for further assistance to resettled people, are not the only entities bearing responsibility for the success or failure of resettlement. A great deal depends on the activities and attitudes of communities displaced or affected by development projects. For many years, attention has been drawn to the importance of displaced and affected people as central actors in the process of displacement. A passive attitude, manifested in reluctance to adapt to the economic model in the new place of residence and in lack of integration with the host culture, can lead to long-term negative consequences.

Development-induced displacement is a socioeconomic issue associated with loss or significant reduction of access to basic resources on which communities depend. Physical abandonment of the existing residence is secondary to the loss of access to material resources such as land, pastures, forests and clean water as well as intangible resources such as socio-economic ties.

The diverse nature of displacement caused by development aggravates the difficulty of classifying the problem. In many areas of the world, the physical displacement of the population from the project area is unaccompanied by appropriate instruments of social support. In such cases, therefore, we should rather speak of unplanned forced evictions caused by development projects than of planned efforts to resettle and subsequently support those affected. As an example of development projects accompanied by brutal evictions, we can mention the creation of the Block 5A pipeline in Sudan as well as the villagization and collectivization measures in African countries, which have many elements in common with the worst Soviet practices. An important part of my analysis, and a premise of the discussion on the theoretical aspect of the problem, is comparison of development-induced displacement with the other categories of internal displacement.

Another issue explored in depth in this report is the consequences of development projects in terms of the situation of the individuals and populations displaced and affected by them. Important support for this kind of analysis can be found in studies conducted from the mid-fifties onward on the basis of applied anthropology and sociology, which generated theoretical models applied specifically to research on this issue. Among them we can list Colson-Scudder's four stage model from 1982[32] and the Impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction (IRR) model developed by Professor Michael M. Cernea during the nineties[33]. However, we should note that in recent years DIDR has attracted increasing attention from specialists in many scientific disciplines. Before asking about the social consequences of certain development projects, it is worth considering the merits of these studies' premises. DIDR is a problem often analyzed by experts from the field of economics and applied development. However, it is essential to move away from the perception of this problem solely in the economic context centring on profit and loss accounts. We are still observing a lack of studies combining the analysis of economic viability with examination of the social consequences of development projects.

The next problem I wish to draw attention to is the ethical controversy associated with development projects and consequent involuntary resettlement. Development as a goal of public policy should be oriented towards the increased well-being of the global population. The several forms of marginalization of already excluded groups as a result of the displacement seem ethically unacceptable. One justification for the implementation of development projects and forcible removal of people from their native lands is the argument that the project will lead to more efficient use of land and thus generate more income than before for the mainstream of society. Local communities are thus deprived of their land in the name of economic development for larger groups of people or to serve the interests of the state. Remember, however, that the definition of national interest can change dramatically, depending on the faction in power, the current model of governance, or specific political conjunctures. Deterioration of the people as a consequence of the implementation of development projects often has multigenerational or even irreversible effects. The problem is that affected communities generally do not participate in the decision to carry out a development project, nor do they share in the profits from its operation. It seems, therefore, necessary to carry out by law, and by the strengthening of civil society, action for the empowerment of displaced and affected communities as autonomous and self-determining actors who must share in any benefits arising from the implementation of development projects. Unfortunately, the authorities in many countries, not to mention the private sector, continue to reflect the viewpoint typical of conquistadors, namely, that such benefits should belong to a body which can make better use of them for its economic and social development. Land should not be viewed solely as a source of economic profit for private business or selected groups of society, in isolation from its importance as an area of realization of individual economic interests, social interaction and cultural identification.

Human rights considerations contained in the report are focused on two main aspects. The first is identification of key rights of the displaced, especially in the context of planning and implementation of development projects. The provisions of the Declaration on the Right to Development adopted in 1986 by the United Nations General Assembly should be treated as one point of reference in considering the following issues. The document stated that "every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised". Self-determination of indigenous people and the right to maintain their own model of life and economy are basic principles that determine the intact functioning of indigenous people in their current territory. Among other important rights in the context of people displaced or affected by development projects we should include the right to land and access to common resources, the right to cultural identity, the right to environmental protection and to more suitable forms of development. Rights directly associated with the resettlement process include: the right not to be displaced, the right to participation in the decision-making process concerning resettlement, and the right to rehabilitation. Despite the concept of indigenous people's rights having been intensively promoted since the nineties, populations in many countries around the world are experiencing more and more the negative individual and community consequences of development.

The second issue I wish to draw attention to is the protection of displaced and resettled people within public international law documents. The so-called third generation of human rights indeed plays a positive role by pointing out the need to take into account the situation of vulnerable communities. However, there is only a very limited possibility of these principles' full implementation, together with control of negative practices, in countries characterized by low standards of respect for human rights. Problems of development-induced displaced people also play a limited role in the binding and non-binding documents adopted so far in relation to protection and support for IDPs. The international organizations and agencies which carry out these policies still pay little attention to this problem. It seems necessary to achieve at least a partial adjustment of the emerging system of protection and assistance to IDPs so as to pay more attention to the problems of persons displaced by long-term environmental changes and development projects.

The report also devotes much attention to the activities of international institutions on behalf of development-induced displaced people. For almost forty years, this problem has played a significant role in the activities of the World Bank and regional development banks. These institutions, which draw attention to development projects implemented with the help of their loans, should promote standards of sustainable development rather than contribute to the drastic deterioration of displaced or affected communities' economic conditions. The guidelines and policies of involuntary resettlement, adopted within the purview of the World Bank since 1980, have served as a tool for developing better mechanisms of planning and investment, which could eliminate or significantly minimize its negative social costs and impoverishments. Research activities of the World Bank, however, have not been accompanied by action on the part of agencies dedicated to human rights and humanitarian aid. UNHCR activities in the area of assistance and support for IDPs are currently limited to relief of those displaced by internal armed conflicts and natural disasters. The displacements caused by implementation of development projects and long-term environmental changes are usually characterized by a lower level of human risk. Perhaps because of the slow onset of the negative social consequences of DIDR, the UNHCR treats these cases as matters of internal policy for selected states.

The last issue I want to draw in-depth attention to in this report is the usefulness of the concepts of human security and human development in the analysis of DIDR and its social consequences. Internal displacement as a security issue and factor influencing conflicts is a subject already well-discussed in the literature. The attention of specialists is particularly focused on the relationship between environmental change and displacement and security issues, as well as on the relationship between security and conflict-induced displacement. Securitization of the issue of environmental change and consequent demographic processes is observed already in the early nineties thanks to authors such as Astri Suhrke, Thomas Homer-Dixon, Arthur H. Westing and Norman Myers. The usefulness of the concept of human security as a tool for interpreting the problems facing development-displaced people has already been highlighted by a small number of authors (e.g., G. Bharali, 2006; G. Caspary, 2007; B. Terminski, 2012 and 2013). Resettlement due to the implementation of development projects often leads to a decrease in the levels of all the most important categories of human security emphasized in the UNDP Human Development Report of 1994 (economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security). For further analysis we can include two more forms of human security: cultural security and gender (in)security. Analysis of the problem of development-induced displacement yields a good match with the key features of the concept of human security (people-centred, multi-sectoral, comprehensive, context-specific, prevention-oriented).

To a limited extent we can also apply the other significant concept of recent years in analyzing the consequences of development-induced displacement. I am thinking inter alia of the concept of human development advanced since the late eighties (Brundtland Report, 1987). However, let us remember that the concept of human development is focused on improving the well-being and welfare of whole communities and large groups. Many of the development projects carried out in recent years have not only failed to increase the well-being of resettled people, but have actually furthered their multigenerational marginalization. Many of the ongoing projects lead to a reduction in all aspects of human development for the affected communities (equity, empowerment, cooperation, sustainability, security, and productivity). We can analyze the consequences of development projects for the people displaced or affected by them using many more theoretical approaches. Particularly important, however, are the approaches of sociology, applied anthropology and development studies.

1. An overview of development-induced displacement and resettlement

The last century was a period of unprecedented economic development in many areas of the world. Although it led to an improved quality of life in many regions, just as often the consequence was the deterioration of living conditions and various forms of marginalization of the poorest and already excluded communities, such as indigenous people, outside the mainstream of society. The development of democracy and political empowerment of local communities increased the number of beneficiaries of economic development. In ancient Rome and some Asian empires the main beneficiaries of economic development were the rulers and the closed circles of the elite. As observed especially in the twentieth century, the greater democratization of social relations meant that economic development would serve the interests of a much larger proportion of the population.

The most fundamental goal of economic development seems to be to advance the welfare and well-being of the people. Those responsible for policy development, however, should reflect on three fundamental questions: what is the purpose of economic development, who benefits from it, and by what means should it be implemented?

The ultimate goal of human development, including economic development, should be the expansion of individual and collective freedom. The vast majority of social transitions known from historical records were aimed at the empowerment of the individual within a society of independent actors determining their own fate. The purpose of the Neolithic revolution, with the rise of the first urban settlements and the civilizations located in river basins, was to increase the freedom of man, understood in the context of minimizing adverse human effects on the environment. Also, modern conceptions emphasize the importance of economic development as a means of increasing the well-being of all members of society. Economic development should therefore have a positive effect on emerging categories such as human development, human security and human rights. Unfortunately, however, the principles expressed here are still very far from realization in many parts of the world. Economic development is not undertaken to improve the lives of all the inhabitants of a country, but to serve the interests of government, private business or narrow social elites. Economic development, rather than contributing to the expansion of personal and communal freedom, in many regions becomes a cause of progressive enslavement and marginalization of an increasing number of people. Thus it leads to human rights violations on a growing scale, accompanied by several forms of social exclusion.

The megaprojects, such as irrigation programs and large dams, have become symbols of economic development in many countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Apart from their obvious economic and social functions they have played a propaganda role, affirming the worth of the existing political system. In relatively wealthy countries such as India and China, special economic and propaganda value was attached to the construction of large dams. Socially costly megaprojects were among the basic tools of Mao Ze Dong's brutal project called the Great Leap Forward, implemented between 1958 and 1961. As the primary instrument of this bloody program of industrialization and collectivization, Maoist growth-oriented and natural resources-intensive economic policy demanded the construction of at least six hundred large dams each year. India also sought to base its economic development on the construction of big dams, symbolized by the construction of the longest man-made dam in the world—the Hirakud dam. African countries also perceived the realization of such projects as an important tool of economic development. A phenomenon very specific to this part of the world is the policy of collectivization and villagization. Both its overall vision and standards of implementation often reflect the worst of the Soviet experience.

Implementation of large development projects therefore serves the broad economic interests of the country and so maximizes the well-being of all its citizens. The construction of large dams is a typical example of projects implemented for public purposes. Their creation may lead to an increase in the amount of available energy and lower its price, in turn contributing to the speedier economic growth of the whole nation. In addition, these projects may yield other economic benefits such as the creation of thousands of new jobs and income from tourism. However, the increased energy security and well-being of urban residents cannot be achieved through the violation of the most fundamental areas of human security of displaced and affected people. Unfortunately a number of economic development policies of developing states regard involuntary resettlement as a necessary and unavoidable cost of development, and the people affected by it as victims of a just cause. We should also point out that sometimes the benefits of large development projects do not contribute in any way to an increase in the welfare of citizens but only serve the interests of authoritarian governments.

The general assumption that economic development enhances the well-being of the whole society inspires no controversy today. The problem seems to be an often simplistic understanding of society in various parts of the world. In many developing countries there are fixed traditions of economics and law hedged round by strong social divisions. Communities in a weaker economic or social position are not always seen as full-fledged citizens on a par with the dominant social groups who benefit from economic development. The particular problems of persons displaced by development projects in the countries we have observed are characterized by deeply entrenched social divisions and the existence of groups outside the mainstream of society. Over the centuries and up to the present day, such groups have paid and are paying the largest individual and community costs of economic development. Due to their low economic status and poor social position, they are seen as victims of progress by the authorities responsible for implementation of development projects that involve discriminatory practices. Even appropriate mechanisms for implementation planning and support for the displaced cannot solve all their problems without a significant change in perception of their position and erosion of negative cultural traditions. Economic modernization of developing states should be accompanied by an attempt to expand the group of beneficiaries of development to the widest circles of society. This requires, however, a very strong transformation in the perception of the members of these groups. Even the adoption of appropriate legislation and greater political empowerment of previously marginalized groups will not completely eradicate the problems. Discrimination against certain social groups is in fact strongly established by tradition, culture and religion.