Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
14.8 MANAGING LAND ACQUISITION AND
RESETTLEMENT
Visualizing involuntary resettlement as simple, following a straight path from A to B
understates the complexity of the process. Unfortunately, the 'line from A to B approach'
to resettlement all too often characterizes the mind set of technically oriented mining per-
sonnel who are better equipped to embrace the physical challenges of exploiting mineral
resources in remote and often hostile environments, rather than the sustainable betterment
of affected communities. The main interests, and often the only basis of i nancial rewards,
are of a technical nature. Too often resettlement is seen as an unwelcome burden to be
dealt with by imposing engineering solutions.
It follows that how resettlement is managed depends largely on the policy in place to
guide and to govern planning and execution, and on the skills and commitment of the
personnel responsible for its implementation (
Box 14.6
). In the absence of a clear com-
pany policy, resettlement is unlikely to receive the priority it deserves and requires. On the
contrary, other company policies may even prevent appropriate resettlement actions from
being implemented. Without a clear policy, resettlement will not be recognized as a prior-
ity for the project, and is unlikely to be adequately funded. There will be no clear decision-
making framework; neither will there be a consensus on the scale and requirements of the
resettlement action plan. Resettlement may be viewed as a public relations exercise or as
a nuisance to core business. However, in recent years, resettlement has increasingly been
perceived as a business risk and therefore, amongst enlightened mining groups, is being
incorporated into risk management frameworks.
Visualizing involuntary
resettlement as simple, following
a straight path from A to B
understates the complexity of
the process.
In the absence of a clear
company policy, resettlement is
unlikely to receive the priority it
deserves and requires.
Box 14.6 Common Defi ciencies in Resettlement
Programmes
•
A clear company policy on resettlement is missing and as such, resettlement is
not given the priority it deserves. At worst, resettlement is viewed as a nuisance
to core business.
•
The complexity of resettlement is underestimated. Resettlement process is overly
simplii ed. Mine management sees resettlement as a housing project, reduced
to budgets and technicalities. Internal capacity to provide i nancial or technical
assistance may be abundant, but social skills are missing.
•
Resettlement planned and implemented by technical personnel with little if any
resettlement experience, is viewed as acceptable practice.
•
Assets are transferred to communities and the host government without transfer-
ring the skills to manage them. The emphasis of resettlement actions may also be
on tangible assets. Infrastructure 'overkill' has occurred in more than one project
and is, of course, unsustainable.
•
There is a lack of capacity on the part of the host government. Institutional sup-
port is minimal. Civil servants involved in resettlement may be ill-equipped and
disinterested. In addition, the host government may lack the resources to oversee
the rehabilitation and post-rehabilitation phase.
•
Local development opportunities and income restoration for affected people are
difi cult to develop, and affected people continue to depend on the mining oper-
ation after resettlement is thought to be complete.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search