1.1 Introduction

1. The phenomenon of population displacement or involuntary resettlement of people has increasingly come to be seen as the most serious social impact/consequences of large dams. The displaced people form one of the sub-groups among the project-affected people and this review paper concerns them. The term displaced is meant here to cover a wide-range of groups negatively affected by the project: those affected by reservoir and project infrastructure (canals, transmission lines, roads, colony, etc.); land acquisition for rehabilitation, compensatory afforestation, and others. In the recent years, worldwide experiences with involuntary resettlement have been extensively reviewed (Cernea, 1996, Cernea and Guggenheim, 1993, Mathur 1994, McCully 1996, McDowell, 1996, Scudder 1997, Scudder and Colson 1982, World Bank 1994 and 1998). Analysis of existing research shows that in certain projects, most of the displaced people were left excessively aggrieved, while in others certain groups among the displaced end up poorer and more marginalised than others. Some of the critical problems identified in the research are (Scudder 1997): inadequate and contradictory legal and regulatory instruments used in implementation of displacement and resettlement; the lack of institutional learning to deal with the complexity of the resettlement process; the lack of opportunities for restoring and improving living standards; lack of political will on the part of governments; and a number of procedural and financial aspects. Issues such as adequacy of compensation, rehabilitation and development provisions, effectiveness of criteria and guidelines, and mechanisms to facilitate rehabilitation are also mentioned.

2. One of the key issues is the principle of eminent domain that suggests that the State in particular is the sovereign of all material possessions located in its territory and that therefore it can acquire land for all 'public purposes'. The principle of eminent domain is not only at variance with objectives enshrined in policies, criteria and guidelines meant to facilitate resettlement, rehabilitation and development of the affected people, but is considered to be violating human rights and constitutional rights in many cases.

3. The question of compensation has not received enough sustained attention. The affected people are almost always vulnerable to be losers as their resources and the biomass economy is one that has never been satisfactorily assessed and compensated. The customary rights are often not recognised and thus those who depended on such resources were not considered eligible for compensation. Often, the properties and losses fully legal and recognised are not properly valued and compensated. Cultural losses tend to be always ignored. This thematic review will to address the issue of identifying and assessing value of economic, social and cultural resources affected and appropriately compensating for the losses.

4. From the struggles of displaced people around the world has emerged the understanding that there are two separate but related issues involved in the process of involuntary resettlement. One is the forced loss of livelihoods and/or physical dislocation of life worlds and the accompanying trauma. The other concerns the matter of being adequately compensated and also incorporated as project beneficiary. The first is a political question and the second deals with its consequences. The affected people have argued that the mere possibility of a just rehabilitation cannot serve as an adequate license to force people to move. Their concerns revolved around their right to development, and demanded a role in determining development priorities. They neither had a role in determining development priorities, nor had a place in determining rehabilitation and development choices when displaced by the dam projects.

5. The experiences on involuntary resettlement have shown that people have to be coerced into moving using a carrot and the stick approach with varying proportions of either. The displaced people are viewed as a disjointed group of people affected by the project, often with considerable absence of political power. The majority of the displaced and negatively affected are rural and poor as dams get located in most-underdeveloped, poorest areas, where infrastructure is lacking, and land and political costs are lowest. Indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities and pastoral communities often inhabit the remote locations. At best their entitlements are limited to being eligible to rehabilitation. This lack of influence is perhaps one of the main reasons why there has been such a singular lack of commitment from the State to exploring options to large dams, in minimising displacement, and in providing proper rehabilitation and development of the displaced people. The struggles of the displaced people around the world have centred on the crucial point that they must have a role in development and displacement decisions.

6. The worldwide negative experiences with displacement have prompted the displaced and negatively affected people to argue that the development process must find ways to avoid displacement, and minimise and improve displacement in situations where it can not be avoided. The argument that 'just rehabilitation' is not possible is more often connected to large-scale displacement and impact. In a process where there is a compelling case for the people to accept a minimum displacement option, then efforts should be made to explore ways of facilitating 'just' rehabilitation with development. If it is accepted that the resettlement objective is to ensure improvement of the standard of living of the people (a position all sides engaged in dams debate are largely agreed upon), then people would be more likely to move, if they were satisfied that their lives would in fact improve by moving. The onus of satisfying the people is the responsibility of the State or the agency that feels the necessity to acquire the land for its purpose. What is implicit here is that the people have a right to their homesteads/livelihoods just as any agency including the State has the privilege to enter into negotiations with the concerned parties to acquire the land for the project. The State as well as the people are involved in a relationship of exchange in which neither's interests are inherently superior; and the issue of displacement requires a political resolution, and it concerns a governance principle. The important point is to devise mechanisms to ensure accountability of the State to the commitments it tenders.

7. Some of the crucial issues in this process include the following:

• While planning for dam projects involving displacement, what would be the benchmarks for the 'to be displaced people' to be satisfied that their lives would indeed improve after the move? What would be the nature of these regulatory frameworks facilitating negotiation between State and the displaced people? How can issues of transparency and accountability of the State be ensured? How can people's participation in the creation of such regulatory arrangements and accountability mechanisms are ensured?
• What mechanisms are needed to ensure the interests of vulnerable groups are adequately represented and protected in the process of negotiated exchange of livelihoods? How can the mechanism be strengthened to prevent the powerful and dominant sections from manipulating the process to serve their own interests?

8. The past experiences show that typical resettlement programmes are: often prepared late in the project cycle; under financed; devised using insufficient understanding of peoples' social, cultural, economic, psychological conditions and environment in which they were located; implemented with a very short time frame, with limited objective of restoring previous income levels, and too often terminated even before all displaced people were resettled and rehabilitated. In such a process involving limited entitlements, in certain projects, most of the displaced people were left excessively aggrieved, while in others, certain groups among the displaced ended up poorer and more marginalised than others.

9. Thus, the emerging argument is that involuntary resettlement should be viewed as an opportunity for facilitating development, with a focus on establishing sustainable livelihood avenues. In this formulation, the resettlement and rehabilitation programme is being articulated within the framework of clearly defined long-term development goals.

10. Resettlement and rehabilitation is thus regarded as an inter-generational a process with long time perspective (Scudder 1997). The framework dealing with successful dam induced resettlement is a four stage model that begins with initial planning and identification of the population that is to be affected and resettled. The second stage is characterised by the coping and adaptation efforts following which is the stage of community formation and economic development. The last stage is marked by the resettler institutions eventually taking over the responsibility from the facilitating agencies. An understanding of what it takes to programme and implement involuntary resettlement as a long-term development opportunity may be addressed through this review.

11. Some of the issues in the forefront of development, displacement and resettlement debate have been identified above. The Commission seeks to find answers through review of existing knowledge base to the aspects listed below. The fundamental tasks are: to define a resettlement programme with sustainable development orientation, and articulating essential elements of a policy framework, criteria and guidelines to successfully implement such a resettlement programme.

12. Based on the review of recent best practices relating to resettlement, rehabilitation and development of displaced and negatively affected people, assess:

• What constitutes a 'successful' displacement, resettlement, rehabilitation and development programme? What are its essential principles and components?
• What are the financial and institutional constraints to a successful resettlement programmed in development mode? How such constraints have been overcome?
• How legal and regulatory instruments facilitating displacement and involuntary resettlement have performed in safeguarding Constitutional and basic Human Rights of affected people?
• How customary rights and access to common property resources are valued and compensated?
• How social and cultural empowerment of the displaced people achieved in the process of resettlement? How integration of relocated communities into wider political economies accomplished?
• What are those critical elements ensuring sustainability and consolidation of the gains of the resettlement process?
• What are the experiences and lessons learned in dealing with reparation to displaced and other negatively affected people?

13. Based on the above, in order to achieve development of the displaced and other negatively affected people, suggest:

• While planning for dam projects involving displacement, what would be the benchmarks for the 'to be displaced people' to be satisfied that their lives would indeed improve after the move? What would be the nature of these regulatory frameworks facilitating negotiation between State and the displaced people?
• Essential elements of social impact assessment framework with provision of application of such framework to dam and non-dam options.
• Basic elements of economic development and social opportunity in ensuring sustainable livelihoods and improved living standards. Can suitable framework and indicators be developed for the same?
• How future resettlement policy, institutional framework, decision making process and instruments can incorporate participation, gender, equity, accountability and sustainability concerns. How can these be benchmarked?
• What are those specific steps needed to ensure that the interests of groups like women and children, indigenous peoples, dalits and ethnic minorities are protected in the process?
• Legal instruments, incentive frameworks and remedial action to ensure accountability on part of governments and facilitating agencies for implementing criteria and guidelines and accomplishing negotiated resettlement goals.

14. All case studies will deal with the displacement and resettlement issue. The case study results will clarify some of the issues raised in the thematic review, while the thematic review findings will help in substantiating and generalising the case study findings.

15. The output from this thematic review will complement the following thematic reviews:

III.1 Economic, Financial and Distributional issues
V.1 Planning approaches
V.2 Environmental and social assessment for large dams
V.4 Regulation, Compliance and Implementation
V.5 Consultation and Decision Making Process.

16. A brief review on outcome of displacement, resettlement, rehabilitation, reparation and development work at regional/continental level will add to the WCD output on global review;

17. Best practices in relation governance, policy and regulatory frameworks in facilitating DRRRD, and the extent to which "successful" resettlement and development of displaced have been achieved will provide valuable inputs to look at options.

18. Output emerging out of aspects under scope of work 2.2; will provide inputs to output 2 and 3.