Land Acquisition and Resettlement - Mining and the Environment: From Ore to Metal - page 592

The complexity of traditional land rights, of course, also provides opportunities for anti-
mining advocates to oppose a mining project. The economic value of land and the ore, they
argue, cannot be the decisive factor for land compensation or mine development. To local
communities, they say, land has its own 'priceless' cultural dimension, an important charac-
teristic of community identity. Clearly, mining often does affect cultural values, which may
not be exchangeable for economic or i nancial benei ts. Undoubtedly, the feeling of loss of
cultural values has caused community dissatisfaction in more than one mine development, a
feeling that may reappear repeatedly. However, the indiscriminate use of cultural values as a
blanket argument to oppose mining per se, or to create cultural values that do not exist, will
ultimately hinder much needed development, and the development of civilization as a whole.

Entitlement, Form and Magnitude of Compensation

According to IFC PS 5, displaced persons and communities should be compensated for loss
of assets at full replacement cost, and other assistance should be provided to help restore or
preferably improve their livelihoods and standard of living. A standard approach to compen-
sation should apply throughout the project, and it should be transparent. Where feasible, loss
of land should be compensated by provision of new land of equal or better value and utility.
Physically displaced persons should be offered a choice of options for adequate housing,
with security of tenure. For persons who are economically displaced, including those with-
out legally recognized claims, loss of assets or access to assets should be compensated at full
replacement cost, including the costs associated with re-establishment. Other assistance
should be supplied, as necessary, to restore or improve income earning capacity which, in
the case of a mining project, could include project employment. Displaced persons and
communities should receive opportunities to benei t from the project.
In dei ning the compensation package, it is of course easier to deal with titled land than
it is to deal with the uncertain boundaries of traditional or cultural land rights, uncertain
both in terms of legal status and tribal ownership, or to the informal occupation of land or
use of resources by squatters ( Box 14.4 ). To the discredit of the mining sector as a whole,
uncertainty of land status and land rights has been misused in the past, by some junior
mining companies to deny compensation. Quite simply they lacked the necessary i nancial

Where feasible, loss of land
should be compensated by
provision of new land of equal or
better value and utility.

It is easier to deal with titled
land than it is to deal with
the uncertain boundaries of
traditional or cultural land rights,
uncertain both in terms of legal
status and tribal ownership,

Box 14.4 Some Examples of Incomplete Assessment of
Entitlements and Eligibility

• Social-economic baseline data are incorrect or incomplete. Affected people with
no formal legal entitlements are overlooked. Communal land tenure customs are
not addressed. Traditional land rights are not recognized.
• Entitlement is solely viewed as cash entitlement. If 'land for land' compensation
is planned, land available for resettlement may be marginal and unsuitable for
land use compatible with previous skills.
• Emphasis of compensation schemes is on compensating for loss of physical assets
such as land, vegetation or structures, not on developing sustainable value.
• Inl ux of people associated with mine development is not considered.
•

Little support for host communities is provided. Pressures on local resources and
services are not accounted for.