Resettlement Policy in Large Development Projects

Ryo Fujikura, Mikiyasu Nakayama, Ryo Fujikura, Mikiyasu Nakayama

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317748540
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Economics
• Subtopic: Development Economics
• Index: Economics

Hydropower generation by construction of large dams attracts considerable attention as a feasible renewable energy source to meet the power demand in Asian cities. However, large development projects cause involuntary resettlement. Of the world's forty to eighty million resettlers, many resettlers have been unable to rebuild their livelihood after relocation and have become impoverished.

This book uniquely explores the long-term impacts of displacement and resettlement. It shows that long-term post-project evaluation is necessary to assess the rehabilitation and livelihood reconstruction of resettlers after relocation. It focuses on large dam projects in a number of Asian countries, including Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Turkey, Sri Lanka and Vietnam, which are often ignored in Displacement studies in favour of China or India. Drawing on a wealth of empirical data over ten years, it presents crucial factors for successful resettlement by analysing lessons learned. The range of countries allow for a diverse and complex set of factors and outcomes to be analysed. Many of the factors for successful resettlement recur despite the cases being different in implementation period and location. The book presents highly original findings gathered by local researchers in the field directly talking to resettlers who were relocated more than a decade ago.

This original book is a unique resource for researchers and postgraduate students of development studies, environment, geography, sociology and anthropology. It also makes policy recommendations for future resettlement programs that are of great value to development policy makers, planners, water resources engineers and civil society protest groups.

1 Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781315795775-1

Issues and brief history of dam-induced resettlement

The idea of large dam development appears to be nearly obsolete in developed countries where people generally enjoy an adequate supply of water and electricity. In the developing world, however, many countries plan to build dams, seeking a solution to insufficient and unstable water supplies—for domestic, agricultural, or industrial use. As well, most developing countries see dam development for hydroelectric power generation as a feasible option for clean energy development. While dams are generally perceived in developed countries as relics of the modernization process, developing-country governments are generally unwilling to discard the option. Dam developments, however, inevitably have adverse and irreversible impacts on the natural and human environments. These impacts are a major driver of opposition to dam construction in most developed countries. Where there is less public scrutiny and depending on their location, dams can displace people and communities when land is submerged by reservoirs. Dam construction can have impacts on communities and the social environment.

Dam-induced resettlement often changes the lives of resettlers dramatically. People often have to leave their ancestral land and homes, find new jobs in a new place, and become part of an unfamiliar or newly-built community. Even with reasonable compensation, one could imagine that it would take many years for these people to restore their livelihoods and enjoy the stability they had before resettling.

Dam-induced displacement has occurred in both developed and developing countries. For example, in the United States, the Norris Dam, completed in 1936 as the first dam under the Tennessee Valley Authority, displaced more than 3,500 households (McDonald and Muldowny 1982, p. 70). The Sup’ung Dam, built between 1937 and 1944 on the border of Manchuria and Korea (then a colony of Japan) under the auspices of the Japanese colonial government, induced resettlement of approximately 15,000 households and 70,000 people on both sides of the river (Hirose 2003). In Ghana, the Akosombo Dam displaced about 80,000 people, as the new country demanded electricity and industrial development for economic independence. In many developing countries that obtained political independence after World War II, dam construction was a symbol of modernization, and dams were often depicted on monetary notes as a display of national pride. In Japan as well, during the country’s post-war period of rapid economic growth, water and electricity supply was supported by the construction of a number of dams around the country. In 1951, hydropower provided 79.8 percent of Japan’s electricity supply, but that supply came at the cost of many cases of dam-induced displacement.

The number of people displaced and resettled by dam construction worldwide has been significant. In 1994, an analysis by the World Bank found that at the time, more than four million people were being displaced every year by the construction of over 300 dams worldwide. The cumulative toll of displacement from dams, urban development, and transportation development in the preceding ten years was estimated at 80 to 90 million people (World Bank 1994). A report by the World Commission on Dams (WCD) estimated that the all-time cumulative displacement caused by dam construction worldwide was 40 million to 80 million people (WCD 2000, p. 104).

Two points must be noted on the extent of dam displacement. First, exact numbers of displaced persons are not available (Scudder 2005, pp. 21–22). This fact suggests that society as a whole has not paid adequate attention to those who have been displaced under the banner of development, or has even intentionally avoided studying the impacts. In other words, the global community has not been caring enough toward individuals.

Second, the magnitude or scale of displacement tends to be taken mainly as an administrative consideration. It is true that in developing countries, the large scale of displacement makes issues more complex. For example, the larger the displacement, the more difficulty there is in finding alternative land for displaced people to reside on and cultivate. Besides that, however, the displacement could have huge negative impacts on each individual’s life, irrespective of the total number of resettlers. One should note this point in both research and practice. This is one of the reasons why this book addresses psychological and subjective issues relating to resettlement.

The general view toward dam-induced displacement experienced a great turning point in the 1980s. Since then, related issues have attracted major attention, not only locally but also in international society. Previously, dam-induced displacement was perceived as a side effect or necessary sacrifice in the course of development or modernization. Then Indian Prime Minister Nehru’s statement, “If you are to suffer, you should suffer in the interest of the country” (Viegas 1992, p. 53), reveals the typical narrative of those times. However, by the 1980s it was well known that displacement had adversely impacted resettlers, especially in developing countries. Actions aiming for development had created poverty for some. This outcome was not only ironic, but also tragic. People began criticizing dam construction that involved resettlement.

The controversy over development plans in India’s Narmada Valley in the 1980s was one of the turning points. The government of India had conceived of a plan for water-resources development there as far back as the 1950s. In 1985, one of the dam construction plans was initiated, with support promised by the World Bank and bilateral donors, including the Japanese government. The dam was expected to benefit more than a million people by supplying water, but with more than 100,000 people to be displaced.¹ Demonstrations and protests escalated in India. Through international networks and the media, the issue was picked up and drew the attention of civil society. International non-governmental organizations (NGOs) put rigorous pressure on the World Bank and bilateral donors. Finally, when the World Bank requested that very substantial changes and measures be implemented to improve the displacement/resettlement process, the Indian government withdrew its loan requests for the dam construction.

This case can be seen as a turning point in two ways. One is that the magnitude of displacement became the focus of attention. Since this case, dam-induced displacement has become a major issue in water-resource developments in many other places. The other is that donors’ intervention in displacement and resettlement was justified and strengthened. Previously, the issue of displacement or land acquisition had been perceived purely as an internal responsibility of developing countries. For this reason, donor organizations had not participated in supporting sound resettlement, even if they financed the project that was causing displacement. Before Narmada, only the World Bank had adopted a formal policy for guiding involuntary resettlement operations. After the Narmada case, in the early’ 90s, however, all other donor agencies began to adopt policy guidelines and procedures modeled after the World Bank policy for displacement and resettlement; they also started to demand developing-country governments to prepare laws and regulations regarding land acquisition and compensation. A project causing displacement would then be carefully scrutinized in the planning process and the government would have to prepare a detailed compensation and resettlement plan so as to receive funding for projects.

Once the focus of attention turned to dam-induced displacement, did changes result? When both developing-country governments and donors are well equipped with regulations and procedures, does displacement result in less impoverishment? We know now that, unfortunately, the answers to both questions are “no.” At a glance, a change in awareness after the Narmada controversy did result in a better environment for those who are displaced by dam construction. Especially, there seems to be more communication between dam proponents and opponents in order to avoid further hardships for resettlers. A desirable cycle of attention–communication–improvement appeared to become a part of the development process. It did not work in the expected way, however. While dam-development proposals continued to appear, criticism and opposition were constantly present. Better procedures may be in place, but people are still being displ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of boxes
• List of Contributors
• Notes on Contributors
• Foreword
• Map: Locations of dams and resettlement case studies
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Planning resettlement programs
• 3 Proper implementation of original resettlement programs
• 4 Income diversification
• 5 Addressing emotional aspects of dam resettlement
• 6 Occupational change from farming to non-farming sectors
• 7 Conclusion
• Index