Development projects that displace people involuntarily generally give rise to severe economic, social, and environmental problems: production systems are dismantled; productive assets and income sources are lost; people are relocated to environments where their productive skills may be less applicable and the competition for resources greater; community structures and social networks are weakened; kin groups are dispersed; and cultural identity, traditional authority, and the potential for mutual help are diminished. Involuntary resettlement may cause severe long-term hardship, impoverishment, and environmental damage unless appropriate measures are carefully planned and carried out.

The World Bank was the first multilateral lending agency to adopt a policy for Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R).

The treatment of resettlement issues beyond hydropower and irrigation projects to all types of investment operations. It emphasizes the need for:

·         Minimizing involuntary resettlement;

·         Providing people displaced by a project with the means to improve, or at least restore, their former living standards, earning capacity, and production levels;

·         Involving both resettles and hosts in resettlement activities;

·         A time-bound resettlement plan; and

·         Valuation and compensation principles for land and other assets affected by the project.

A full EA is required if a project is likely to have significant adverse impacts that may be sensitive, irreversible, and diverse. The impacts are likely to be comprehensive, broad, sector-wide, or precedent-setting. Impacts generally result from a major component of the project and affect the area as a whole or an entire sector.

·         Dams and reservoirs; Forestry production projects;

·         Industrial plants (large-scale) and industrial estates;

·         Irrigation, drainage, and flood control (large-scale);

·         Land clearance and leveling;

·         Mineral development (including oil and gas);

·         Port and harbor development;

·         Reclamation and new land development;

·         Resettlement and all projects with potentially major impacts on people;

·         River basin development;

·         Thermal and hydropower development; and

·         Manufacture, transportation, and use of pesticides or other hazardous and/or toxic materials.

The impacts are not as sensitive, numerous, major, or diverse as category A impacts; remedial measures can be more easily designed. Preparation of a mitigation plan suffices for many category B projects. Few category B projects would have a separate environmental report. Examples of Category B projects are:

·         Agro-industries (small-scale);

·         Electrical transmission;

·         Aquaculture and mariculture;

·         Irrigation and drainage (small-scale);

·         Renewable energy;

·         Rural electrification;

·         Tourism;

·         Rural water supply and sanitation;

·         Watershed projects (management or rehabilitation); and

·         Rehabilitation, maintenance, and upgrading projects (small-scale).

An EA or environmental analysis is normally not required for Category C projects because the project is unlikely to have adverse impacts. Professional judgment finds the project to have negligible, insignificant, or minimal environmental impacts. Category C projects might be:

·         Education,

·         Family planning,

·         Health,

·         Nutrition,

·         Institutional development,

·         Technical assistance, and

·         Most human resource projects.

Social analysis is a part of the EA process, and resettlement is one of five topics that are required, where they are relevant, be explicitly addressed in an EA. The five topics are:

·         involuntary resettlement,

·         new land settlement,

·         induced development,

·         indigenous peoples,

·         and cultural property

The objective of the resettlement policy is to ensure that the population displaced by a project receives benefits from it. Involuntary resettlement is an integral part of project design and should be dealt with from the earliest stages of project preparation, taking into account the following policy considerations:

·         Involuntary resettlement should be avoided or minimized where feasible, exploring all viable alternative project designs. For example, realignment of roads or reductions in dam height may significantly reduce resettlement needs.

·         Where displacement is unavoidable, resettlement plans should be developed. All involuntary resettlement should be conceived and executed as development programs, with resettles provided sufficient investment resources and opportunities to share in project benefits. Displaced persons should be (i) compensated for their losses at full replacement cost prior to the actual move; (ii) assisted with the move and supported during the transition period in the resettlement site; and (iii) assisted in their efforts to improve their former living standards, income earning capacity, and production levels, or at least to restore them. Particular attention should be paid to the needs of the poorest groups to be resettled.

·         Community participation in planning and implementing resettlement should be encouraged. Appropriate patterns of social organization should be established, and existing social and cultural institutions of resettles and their hosts should be supported and used to the greatest extent possible.

·         Resettles should be integrated socially and economically into host communities so that adverse impacts on host communities are minimized. The best way of achieving this integration is for resettlement to be planned in areas benefiting from the project and through consultation with the future hosts.

·         Land, housing, infrastructure, and other compensation should be provided to the adversely affected population, indigenous groups, ethnic minorities, and pastoralists who may have usufruct or customary rights to the land or other resources taken for the project. The absence of legal title to land by such groups should not be a bar to compensation.

Resettlement and outlines of the main point’s planners should consider when preparing a resettlement plan. Depending on the magnitude of displacement and other factors, the resettlement plan will normally contain a statement of objectives and policies, an executive summary, a budget, a timetable coordinated with the physical works of the main investment project, and provision for:

·         Organizational responsibilities;

·         Community participation and integration with host populations;

·         Socioeconomic survey;

·         Legal framework;

·         Alternative sites and selection;

·         Valuation of and compensation for lost assets;

·         Land tenure, acquisition, and transfer ;

·         Access to training, employment, and credit;

·         Shelter, infrastructure, and social services;

·         Environmental protection and management ; and

·         Implementation schedule, monitoring, and evaluation.

The foregoing is meant to be an indicative, not authoritative, discussion of the World Bank’s involuntary resettlement policy. For more information, visit the World Bank’s Public Information Center or the Environmental Management for Power Development page supported by the World Bank and other sponsors.

Case studies:

The Case study of a village to be affected by the indira sagar pariyojana

Indira Sagar Pariyojana (ISP) has been under planning and construction since decades. Work on the project has gained momentum in the last decade. Since then, the construction has been on and off depending on the availability of funds. On 24 April, 2002, an announcement was published both in Nai Duniya and Dainik Bhaskar1 stating that the village Jabgaon would be inundated with water in the coming monsoons owing to the increase in the height of the dam. The village was being asked to evacuate the area by 20 May, 2002. In March 2002, with the release of funds from the Center to the Narmada Hydro Development Corporation, a decision was taken to increase the height of the dam to 212 m by June 2002. In fact since October 2001, there was a sudden spurt in announcements of the Section 4 notices of land acquisition in the regional Hindi newspapers making it evident that the project would soon be underway again. Meanwhile there had also been reports in the press that the rehabilitation had been lagging behind.

Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, which had been following the events in the history of the construction of this dam, decided to attempt to bring to fore the ground realities regarding the status of resettlement and rehabilitation of villages affected by this project. It was thought that the situation would be analysed at 3 points in time: pre-monsoon, monsoon and post-monsoon. Accordingly, 2 visits to this village had been undertaken: the first in the first week of May and the second in the third week of August. There have been less than normal monsoons this year and therefore while the village has not been submerged, some farms had been flooded.
The Kendra is a centre set up to monitor, analyse and research water and energy related issues, with a special focus on the latest developments resulting from the liberalisation, globalisation and privatisation of the economy. The Centre is located at Badwani, a district town in Madhya Pradesh five kilometers from the banks of Narmada. While the focus of the work is on water and energy issues, this will be in the larger context of equitable, just and sustainable development.

Uttaranchal’s disaster management

Uttaranchal’s location and geographical features render it vulnerable to minor changes. Hence any activity disapproved by mountain ecosystem triggers a disaster. One cannot stop disaster happening but can certainly take some steps to reduce its effects. If disasters cannot be averted, then reduction of losses of any type caused by disaster becomes a focal point of the policy for disaster management. To devise Uttaranchal’s disaster management mechanism for reduction of effects of disaster, i.e. damage to property and loss of life and the rapid and effective rescue, relief and rehabilitation of the victims.

The study reveals that 83 villages in Uttaranchal need rehabilitation but, to date, Uttaranchal has no resettlement and rehabilitation policy. In India only three States, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab, have state-wide resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) policies. Other States have issued Government Orders or Resolutions, sometimes sector-wide but more often for specific projects. The study is based on secondary data; however, sufficient care has been taken to consider all important factors while suggesting Rehabilitation Policy for Uttaranchal State. A disaster of rare severity requires a high level of resettlement and rehabilitation assistance from the State. Sound Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy helps the Government to tackle the problem immediately and efficiently.