Social Impacts of Land Acquisition Resettlement An

23.
Social impacts of land acquisition, resettlement

and restrictions on land use
Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay
INTRODUCTION
The acquisition of land for projects and accompanying physical resettlement of people are
perhaps the most serious and contested actions of projects, creating significant social impacts
on affected people (Vanclay, 2017; Kabra, 2018). Many of the social impacts created by land
acquisition and resettlement are under-considered by projects and by social impact assess-
ment (SIA), most notably restrictions created by the project to local people’s ongoing access
to their natural and cultural resources, as well as impacts on local businesses and people’s
employment opportunities (Smyth et al., 2015). Although a range of terms is used, including
‘project-induced displacement and resettlement’ (Vanclay, 2017), in order to emphasise the
extent of impacts created by these restrictions, the overarching term to be used in this chapter
is ‘land acquisition, restrictions and resettlement’ (LARR). This chapter seeks to increase
understanding amongst SIA practitioners about the complex issues and social impacts created
by LARR.
The impoverishment of people affected by LARR has been much documented (Cernea,
1997; Downing, 2002; Scudder, 2011; Ogwang & Vanclay, 2021). A World Bank review
of over a thousand projects between 1990 and 2010, which collectively affected hundreds
of thousands of people, found that only one-third of people resettled had their income ade-
quately restored (Cernea & Maldonado, 2018). The Compliance Advisor Ombudsman of the
International Finance Corporation (IFC CAO, 2015) reported that about half of the complaints
received were about land, particularly land acquisition, compensation, and resettlement issues.
Clearly, there is much recognition that LARR is problematic (Smyth et al., 2015).
It is also evident that current environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) processes
do not adequately deal with the complex array of LARR issues and their significant human
rights implications (van der Ploeg & Vanclay, 2017, 2018; Ogwang & Vanclay, 2021). While
various standards (e.g. IFC, 2012; World Bank, 2017; EBRD, 2019; IDB, 2020), guidance
documents (IFC, 2002; EBRD, 2016), and other resource materials (ICMM, 2015; Reddy et
al., 2015) are available, the LARR process is still largely seen by developers as being just one
of many components of the overall project, and not fundamentally different, demonstrating
that there is inadequate awareness of what LARR actually entails.
Although an objective of the environmental and social standards of most development
banks is, in the wording of the World Bank (2017, p. 54), ‘to conceive and execute reset-
tlement activities as sustainable development programmes, providing sufficient invest-
ment resources to enable displaced persons to benefit directly from the project’, this
‘resettlement-with-development’ objective is rarely achieved. Furthermore, resettlement in
general and many large projects that have resettled people have attracted much international
criticism (Owen & Kemp, 2015; Cernea & Maldonado, 2018; Rogers & Wilmsen, 2020).
355
Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870
Downloaded from https://www.elgaronline.com/ at 03/14/2024 05:00:32PM
via Open Access. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
356 Handbook of social impact assessment and management
Levien (2018, p. 1) argued that ‘whether for industry, urbanization, agricultural plantations, or
extractive industries, land dispossession is now an unprecedently explosive political issue.’ As
people affected by LARR often lack voice and political agency, developers and governments
are rarely pushed to go beyond the minimum compensation required under national legal
frameworks. Furthermore, the main development banks tend to be primarily concerned about
mitigation to address losses, rather than enhancing development outcomes. Although there
are social practitioners inside companies, lending institutions, and governments who some-
times push for higher standards, the pressure to deliver land quickly for projects limits their
ability to influence real change. A key challenge to improving LARR is the power dynamics
and respective bargaining positions between and within developers and communities. Many
contextual factors, such as governance issues (corruption, authoritarianism), conflict, extreme
poverty, and resource depletion, are not adequately considered in the international standards
or LARR guidance. This chapter advocates that, to address these issues and ensure acceptable
outcomes from LARR, having an agreement-making process between the project and affected
communities is essential.
There is a strange relationship between SIA and LARR. Displacement and resettlement are
amongst the greatest social impacts of a project, and the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), which
outlines the LARR process, is often positioned as a sub-plan of the overall Environmental and
Social Management Plan. ESIA consultants are often tasked with preparing a RAP to secure
early approvals for the project. However, given that ESIA consultants seldom implement
RAPs, often they are not sufficiently competent or experienced to understand LARR risks.
Furthermore, they often recommend ineffective ‘alternative livelihoods’ solutions or endorse
cash compensation arrangements that can result in the impoverishment of affected people.
A further issue is that the information collected and timeframes for SIA generally do not
align with the needs of LARR practitioners (Rowan, 2017). The key recommendations of this
chapter are: SIA practitioners need a greater awareness of LARR; the social impacts created
by LARR need to be more strongly emphasised in SIA reports; LARR needs to be a negotiated
process with independent advice for affected people on impacts and benefits; and there needs
to be greater resources for the management of LARR.
KEY CONCEPTS RELATING TO THE SOCIAL IMPACTS FROM

LAND ACQUISITION
‘Place’ is a key concept in SIA. A concept primarily from the field of human geography,
‘place’ refers to the meanings people ascribe to ‘space’ (i.e. territory) as well as to their homes,
communities, landscapes, and favourite locations. In other words, places are spaces that are
imbued with meaning (Vanclay, 2008). The importance of place is represented in notions like
‘sense of place’ and ‘place attachment’ (Vanclay, 2012, 2020). When conceived as ‘the local
environment’, place is fundamentally important to the survival of Indigenous peoples and is
a key reason why ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent’ (FPIC) applies to all projects affecting
Indigenous peoples (Hanna & Vanclay, 2013). Projects change the local environment, disrupt-
ing people’s sense of place, and potentially interfering with people’s livelihood activities and
ability to continue to live there. When people are pushed out of the way and/or resettled to
make way for a project, the social impacts experienced are especially severe. This experience

Social impacts of land acquisition, resettlement and restrictions on land use 357
of being ‘displaced’ results in people losing their sense of place and is very unsettling for
people (Vanclay, 2017).
‘Displacement’ is a key term in the fields of migration and population studies, LARR,
development studies, human geography, and it has varying meanings in physics, mathemat-
ics (geometry), and psychology. It is much used by the World Bank and other international
financial institutions. From English grammar, the suffix ‘-ment’ indicates that ‘displacement’
is the action or process of being displaced. The most general meaning of displacement is some-
thing like a change in position of an object (or fluid) due to some external force or process.
In migration and population studies, displacement usually means the forced or involuntary
movement of people away from their home or place of living, for example, as a refugee or
internally displaced person fleeing war or disaster. In human geography and development
studies, displacement refers to the external forces and social change processes (Vanclay, 2002)
that push people out of their homes. For example, project-induced in-migration (see Chapter
26), the gentrification of neighbourhoods, and touristification can lead to poorer people being
displaced, i.e. pushed out of their homes and communities. In the LARR field, displacement
generally refers to the potential of being rendered homeless by a project and, therefore, that
an active process of resettling people is an essential part of the project. Thus, in the context of
LARR, ‘resettlement’ can be regarded as ‘the planned process of relocating people and com-
munities from one location to another as part of the project-induced land acquisition necessary
to allow a project to proceed’ (Vanclay et al., 2015, p. 92).
Some critical scholars have argued that ‘displacement’ is too neutral a term as it implies
a subtle process whereas what actually happens to people is a deliberate violent act of evic-
tion and dispossession (Owen & Kemp, 2015; Cernea & Maldonado, 2018; Levien, 2018;
Ijabadeniyi & Vanclay, 2020; Rogers & Wilmsen, 2020; Baker, 2021; Mohanty, 2022).
Levien (2018) argued that the term ‘displacement’ lacks the active and relational sense of
dispossession and makes it appear as if it just happens.
There is a complication created by the international financial institutions, which generally
differentiate between ‘physical displacement’ and ‘economic displacement’. Although discus-
sion about this occurred in the 1990s, the IFC (2002) Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement
Action Plan is likely to be the original authoritative source of this distinction, with physical
displacement defined as the ‘Loss of shelter and assets resulting from the acquisition of land
associated with a project that requires the affected person(s) to move to another location’, and
economic displacement defined as the ‘Loss of income streams or means of livelihood result-
ing from land acquisition or obstructed access to resources (land, water, or forest) resulting
from the construction or operation of a project or its associated facilities’ (IFC, 2002, p. ix).
Many projects, especially those with flexibility in siting (such as pipelines, roads, windfarms),
can have major economic displacement impacts but minimal physical displacement. The
need for resettlement practitioners and project social performance staff to address economic
displacement and related livelihood issues means that awareness of issues relating to land
acquisition must be expanded beyond physical resettlement (Esteves, 2021).
Use of the term ‘resettlement’ in the international standards to cover all LARR impacts
causes confusion in practice because, in most common understandings, ‘resettlement’ tends to
only mean moving people out of their homes, and not all the other impacts of land acquisition.
This results in a downplaying of these impacts, especially where no houses are impacted. The
word ‘resettlement’ can also be confusing because it is often applied to finding long-term
arrangements for refugees currently in temporary accommodation. To avoid overlap with

refugee resettlement, expressions like ‘development-induced displacement and resettlement’

(DIDR) or ‘project-induced displacement and resettlement’ (PIDR) are often used (Vanclay,
2017). However, this chapter seeks to emphasise the potential of projects to impose restric-
tions on local people’s ongoing access to natural and cultural resources, as well as impacts
on local businesses and people’s employment opportunities, therefore the expression ‘land
acquisition, restrictions and resettlement’ (LARR) is used.
All projects require land for various purposes and thus inevitably displace people, includ-
ing projects whose primary purpose might be improvement of local people’s wellbeing.
Furthermore, the ‘associated facilities’ that accompany projects (e.g. access routes, worker
accommodation camps, electricity supply infrastructure, processing facilities, etc.) also
require land. Sometimes, land for projects is acquired in the open market, whether by buying
what is already for sale, or by enticing land owners with a lucrative offer, both of which are
termed ‘willing buyer, willing seller’ transactions or voluntary LARR. However, voluntary
LARR transactions can expose affected people to considerable risks unless they are provided
with independent advice, and it is always recommended that the international standards are
applied to all LARR whether voluntary or involuntary. Public sector projects, however, tend
to rely on their ability to ‘expropriate’, meaning the act of using the power of the state (i.e.
eminent domain) to seize the land (and/or possessions) of people. From the perspective of
international jurisprudence, such an act is only legally legitimate when the project is truly in
the public interest, there is due process, and adequate compensation is provided (Vanclay,
2017). The expropriation of land (i.e. houses and non-movable assets) is very stressful for
local people, and all advice suggests avoiding expropriation if at all possible. Some form of
negotiated agreement would likely lead to better outcomes for the community and the project.
From a human rights and legal perspective, in any act of land acquisition, arguably includ-
ing willing buyer, willing seller transactions, the project must ensure ongoing security of
housing, and that people’s livelihoods are not negatively affected. This generally means that
there must be a process to ensure replacement housing, the prompt payment of compensation
for lost assets, and due process, including access to legal advice (van der Ploeg & Vanclay,
2018). If communities are resettled, arrangements must be negotiated to ensure that people
have ongoing access to essential public services (van der Ploeg et al., 2017). In general, the
international standards go further than the minimum legal requirements in most countries,
but most commentators consider that the standards do not go far enough in recognising and
addressing the full range of social impacts experienced from LARR (Vanclay, 2017).
One under-considered aspect of LARR is restrictions on access to and use of resources. This
can occur when projects erect barriers or impose restrictions on the use of natural or cultural
resources, or limit business and employment activities. A typical example is with highway
or railway line construction, where the non-crossable linear project creates pockets of land
that can be impossible or impractical to access. ‘Orphan land’ refers to the small parcels of
land that become unusable, mostly because of restricted access, or because they are so small
and economically unviable. Many projects create orphan land. Good practice demands that
land owners be compensated for any orphan land created. Furthermore, many aspects of
projects create major inconveniences that change the economic value of land and/or affected
businesses. Highways or railways (or blocks of land with wide frontages that prohibit entry)
can increase the distance to access a site, sometimes by 10 km or more. Such a situation is not
only an inconvenience, but represents a real cost to the land owner. If it was a business, such
a distance would likely be unpalatable to customers. Barriers can also increase the distance

for communities to access essential facilities such as water, schools, or health centres. Much
more attention must be paid to how projects impact on access to natural and cultural resources,
social infrastructure, businesses, and employment.
A final comment to make on terminology is that the people being resettled should be called
‘resettlees’. Unfortunately, for various reasons, much of the older literature has popularised
the expression ‘resettlers’. However, English grammar is clear in the meaning of suffixes. Just
like employer–employee, interviewer–interviewee, and trainer–trainee, the ‘-er’ suffix is the
person who is doing, while the ‘-ee’ suffix is the person to whom it is done. Any person moved
against their will has to be a ‘resettlee’ (even if Microsoft Word does not think it is a word!).
Furthermore, the LARR field tends to use the acronym PAPs to refer to project-affected
people. In our view, use of this acronym is dehumanising and derogatory, and normalises bad
practices (Ijabadeniyi & Vanclay, 2020). We urge all socially conscious practitioners to never
use this term.
CURRENT STANDARDS AND GOOD PRACTICE THAT APPLY TO

LARR
Projects need to comply with national legislation and conform to the expectations embedded
in international standards, otherwise they attract stakeholder attention. This is especially true
for resettlement actions. As land and housing are highly significant to people, and are human
rights issues, they are key matters addressed in international standards and national legislation.
International financial institutions have a major role in setting international standards. Any
project that borrows money has to meet the requirements of the lender. However, even where
a commercial project does not need external financing, it is likely that their stakeholders and
business partners will expect compliance with international standards (Vanclay & Hanna,
2019).
Although each major bank has its own specific procedures, there is reasonable consistency
in the requirements and expectations across the international financial institutions. Although
somewhat dated now, the IFC (2012) Performance Standards have been considered to be the
‘gold standard’ for private sector environmental and social management, with its Performance
Standard 5 (PS5) being about ‘Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement’. The objec-
tives of PS5 are (IFC, 2012, p. 32):
• To avoid, and when avoidance is not possible, minimise displacement by exploring alternative
project designs.
• To avoid forced eviction.
• To anticipate and avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimise adverse social and eco-
nomic impacts from land acquisition or restrictions on land use by (i) providing compensation for
loss of assets at replacement cost and (ii) ensuring that resettlement activities are implemented
with appropriate disclosure of information, consultation, and the informed participation of those
affected.
• To improve, or restore, the livelihoods and standards of living of displaced persons.
• To improve living conditions among physically displaced persons through the provision of ade-
quate housing with security of tenure at resettlement sites.
The objectives of the LARR standards of the other banks are generally similar to those of
PS5. Apart from the guidance documents of various international financial institutions, other

guidance on LARR is provided by the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance

of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT for
short), which were first published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
in 2012 and revised in 2022 (FAO, 2022). The VGGT outlines the principles, standards, and
responsible practices for the appropriate governance of land. However, in being pitched to
a different target audience, the VGGT are framed quite differently to the standards of the
international financial institutions, and thus reflect a different approach and purpose (Cotula,
2019).
By synthesising the various standards, a list of what is generally regarded as being good
practice in relation to LARR can be established:
● There must be a process to consider all social and environmental issues, and to develop
mitigation and management systems to address these issues.
● The mitigation hierarchy (avoid, minimise, mitigate, restore, compensate, or offset) should
be used.
● The resettlement process must be done in a way that is consistent with the rule of law, with
an adequate timeframe to enable due process, proper consideration of all the issues, and
time to prepare by the people to be resettled.
● There must be a process to identify all stakeholders, with separate consideration of the
concerns and interests of each stakeholder group.
● There should be an effective stakeholder engagement process.
● An effective grievance redress mechanism should be implemented.
● Gender awareness must be displayed throughout the process, including gender disaggrega-
tion of data, and awareness of how women and men are separately affected by the project
and by resettlement.
● Vulnerable individuals and groups must be identified and appropriate mechanisms are
implemented to ensure that they are not disadvantaged.
● The project should demonstrate commitment to continuous improvement.
● Reasonable attempts should be made to enhance benefits to local communities, and ideally
that there be some form of benefit-sharing.
● There should be an analysis of alternatives, including in relation to possible resettlement
sites.
● Resettlement must be avoided wherever possible.
● Forced eviction (as defined by United Nations, 2014) is forbidden.
● Expropriation is only to be used as a last resort; some form of negotiated agreement is
preferable.
● Where land title has been surrendered, legal title must be provided for any housing plot
and replacement land.
● Where people without legal title are being resettled, they must be provided with adequate
housing and security of tenure.
● People being resettled should be given improved housing.
● Interim temporary housing arrangements are strongly discouraged.
● Mitigation measures must be implemented and compensation should be paid before any
impacts are experienced.
● Associated facilities must be considered, with associated facilities being defined as ‘facil-
ities that are not funded as part of the project and that would not have been constructed or

expanded if the project did not exist and without which the project would not be viable’
(IFC, 2012, p. 8).
● There must be capacity in the organisation and governance structures to manage the
resettlement.
● Tangible and intangible cultural heritage should be identified and protected.
● Affected livelihoods must be restored or improved.
● There must be consideration of how essential public services will be provided at resettle-
ment sites.
● There needs to be a process to improve social cohesion.
● Living conditions and the living environment of resettled and host communities are to be
improved, including infrastructure and services.
● People should be thoroughly consulted on all relevant aspects of the resettlement. Ideally,
they have had the ability to choose from a range of options.
● Common property resources must be restored and/or appropriately compensated, and
consideration must be given to facilitate ongoing access to natural and cultural resources.
● People who occupy land prior to the cut-off date but don’t have any recognisable legal
right or claim to the land or assets are entitled to compensation at replacement cost and
support for resettlement and livelihood restoration.
A complex aspect of LARR is how compensation is provided. Often, national legislation

requires compensation for land, houses, and assets to be paid in cash (usually into a bank
account), although the development banks typically suggest that compensation should be
in-kind. There are numerous issues with cash compensation, including who the payment
is made to (often only to male heads of households), and how the payment is made (as
cash-in-hand or as a transfer to a bank account). Cash compensation is fraught with complex-
ities, including the potential for corruption, the risk of theft, the money being spent unwisely,
and women and children being disproportionally impacted by poor investment decisions of
men. The injection of large amounts of cash into a community can lead to inflation, making
the compensation less valuable. Payment in cash can lead to impoverishment because it is
rarely spent on ongoing sustainable livelihoods. Cash compensation for land cannot be seen
as a substitute for developing programmes to meet the objective of improving the livelihoods
affected by LARR.
Although the LARR process is described below, it is beyond the scope of this chapter to
explain in detail how LARR is done in projects (for this, see IFC, 2002, 2023; Reddy et al.,
2015; EBRD, 2016; Smyth & Vanclay, 2018). Nevertheless, two overarching points of under-
standing for SIA professionals are that: LARR is a process and not just a set of plans; and that
there needs to be a dialogue with the affected people to achieve good faith agreements that
comply with international standards. This is explained further below.
There are three key components (documents) in the LARR process that are part of the
general understanding needed by SIA professionals. First, the international financial insti-
tutions generally expect that a ‘Resettlement Policy Framework’ (RPF) (or sometimes just
‘Resettlement Framework’) be developed, especially for large projects. This is an overarching
statement articulating the principles, procedures, expectations, and organisational arrange-
ments, especially around compensation and mitigation that will apply to the LARR process
associated with a particular project. It is a governance document, usually negotiated between

the lender and the project, with the intention that it would be binding on any party who might
be engaged to assist in the LARR process.
Second, the main document in LARR is called the ‘Resettlement Action Plan’ (RAP). The
RAP is a working document that develops over time, and serves different stakeholders, includ-
ing the financial institution, the government’s oversight body, the consultant, the project, and
the affected community. Ideally, the RAP should be a negotiated agreement with the affected
community. In general terms, the RAP is a detailed plan about how a specific resettlement
process will be implemented in all practical aspects. The RAP includes: the legal framework
and standards to be applied; a socioeconomic baseline and community profile; reports of con-
sultations with affected people; and it outlines the strategies for: (i) avoiding and minimising
resettlement; (ii) compensation for losses; (iii) providing replacement housing; (iv) physically
moving people; and (v) ensuring that affected people have opportunities to improve their
incomes, income-producing activities, standard of living, and patterns of consumption.
The third key document is the Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP), or, in order to empha-
sise the principle of improvement in living conditions, sometimes called the Livelihood
Improvement Plan. Some lenders do not require a RAP if there is no physical displacement, but
will require an LRP to address any economic displacement. However, an LRP will be needed
in addition to a RAP (or as part of the RAP) for all projects that have physical displacement.
A Livelihood Restoration Plan should identify the full range of impacts to livelihoods as a result of
project land acquisition or restrictions to land use, identify affected persons and provide a detailed
plan for compensation and livelihood restoration. The Plan should, at a minimum, provide the follow-
ing information: (i) an introduction to the project; (ii) summary of project impacts; (iii) summary of
the social baseline; (iv) regulatory framework; (v) results of stakeholder engagement; (vi) eligibility
criteria; (vii) entitlement matrix; (viii) timeframe for implementation; (ix) organisational capacity; (x)
monitoring, evaluation, and reporting; and (xi) budget and resources. (IFC, 2012, PS5, GN56)
CRITIQUING CURRENT STANDARDS FOR LAND ACQUISITION

AND HOW THEY ARE APPLIED
Despite the many standards governing LARR and projects generally, the actual performance
of project resettlement actions is manifestly poor, and it is evident that the standards are
lacking in how they are applied, what they include, and in commitment by most stakeholders
to the underlying principles. There is also much manipulation and distortion in application
of the standards (Ijabadeniyi & Vanclay, 2020; Kahangirwe & Vanclay, 2022). The key crit-
icisms that can be made of the international standards and their application are listed below,
grouped into issues related to the substance or content of the standards, and the processes of
applying the standards.
Substantive issues:
● There is ambiguity and a lack of specificity in the language used in the standard, and
thus the standards are open to different interpretations, with projects usually choosing
least-effort options.
● The standards state that negotiated agreements are ‘encouraged’ thereby making them
optional. Arguably, negotiated agreements should be required as the default process. The
requirements should also demand that there be effective dialogue between the project and
affected communities.

● The IFC performance standards require that, for physically displaced persons, projects
‘improve or restore their standards of living or livelihoods’ (IFC, 2012, p. 33) and for
economically displaced persons, projects ‘improve, or at least restore, their means of
income-earning capacity, production levels, and standards of living’ (IFC, 2012, p.38).
This is generally interpreted as a choice (to restore or improve), with projects typically
opting for the lower threshold. This can result in people being resettled back into poverty,
rather than the project using resettlement as an opportunity to move them out of poverty.
The standards should unambiguously require improvement in livelihoods in line with
the mission of the development banks to eliminate extreme poverty and the Sustainable
Development Goal 1 (to end of poverty in all forms).
● The standards do not strongly condemn expropriation, nor do they specify when land
acquisition could appropriately be considered as being in the ‘public interest’. There is little
mention of restricting the inappropriate use of expropriation. The standards should restrict
use of expropriation to very limited circumstances, and require negotiated agreements for
all other LARR and an up-front negotiations process for any limited expropriation.
● The standards do not specifically require benefit-sharing (or at least attempts to ensure the
enhancement of benefits). Benefit-sharing mechanisms should be a normal requirement of
all projects.
● The standards (as applied in practice) fail to adequately consider LARR impacts equally on
men and women or ensure that they receive an equal share of project benefits.
Process issues:
● There is weak enforcement of the standards and limited compliance mechanisms in how
the standards are applied.
● There is no specification in the standards as to the competence of the consultants who
provide LARR consulting services. Too many resettlement actions are done by individuals
and companies that are not adequately qualified.
● Given that consultants are paid by a developer seeking to acquire land quickly and cheaply,
consultants working in LARR tend to be biased in ways that favour the developer.
● There is no requirement for affected people to have access to independent legal and expert
advice, consequently they are often exploited, or deprived of appropriate outcomes from
projects. Capacity building and independent advice are needed to ensure that affected
people can fully understand the impacts likely to be experienced, and so that they can
effectively negotiate in an agreement-making process.
A FRAMEWORK FOR NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS TO

IMPROVE LAND ACQUISITION AND RESETTLEMENT
PROCESSES
The LARR process entails negotiating agreements with people in order to dispossess them
of their land, homes, businesses, natural resources, and cultural attachments. The alternative
to negotiated agreements would be expropriation and eviction, which potentially has serious
human rights, conflict, and reputational risks. Several global multi-stakeholder initiatives,
including the World Commission on Dams (WCD, 2000) and the Mining, Minerals, and
Sustainable Development Project (IIED, 2002), have recommended that land-use decisions

be made through negotiated democratic decision-making processes that respect FPIC and the
rights and interests of communities and other stakeholders. International standards require that
projects negotiate FPIC with Indigenous peoples, and that projects with significant adverse
impacts achieve broad community support, while negotiated agreements are encouraged
in other situations (IFC, 2012). The challenge is how to engage in good-faith negotiations
when LARR is led by developers who put pressure on consultants to understate impacts and
overstate benefits to get the project approved and for the land to be acquired as quickly and
cheaply as possible. Reddy et al. (2015) argued there was both a human rights and a business
case for negotiating with affected people binding agreements on developers to ensure that
projects have peaceful, undisturbed possession of land acquired, and the ongoing ability to
develop and operate without disruption while promoting the positive development of affected
communities.
There is considerable international experience in community agreement-making. For
example, Indigenous communities in Canada have the right to FPIC and the ability to
negotiate impact and benefit agreements (O’Faircheallaigh, 2013, 2018). Most countries in
Africa require benefit-sharing agreements to be negotiated (Wankhede, 2020). The key to
agreement-making is building trust on both sides, which requires good faith negotiations
through dialogue. Trust can be built more quickly when the dialogue is facilitated in demo-
cratic multi-stakeholder forums by an independent moderator acceptable to the community
and the project, and through the provision of independent experts to advise the community on
the nature of impacts and benefits.
Figure 23.1 presents a framework for negotiating community agreements relating to LARR
and benefit-sharing agreements for near-project communities. It was developed from good
practice and the lead author’s experience in negotiating agreements and implementing LARR.
The Social Framework for Projects (Smyth & Vanclay, 2017) is placed at the centre of the
process to emphasise that the focus on LARR should be on ensuring the wellbeing of affected
people by considering the eight key wellbeing categories.
Phase 1: Scoping and Establishment of the LARR Process
Scoping is the preliminary phase of getting started in the LARR process. It provides a pre-
liminary indication of what is involved and an understanding of the project context and likely
issues. Becoming thoroughly familiar with the project and its land acquisition needs is
essential so that the number of affected households and people can be established, and so that
alternatives can be considered. The failure to scope the LARR process properly is a major
contributor to poor outcomes from LARR.
The scoping process should collate the following information:
● Preliminary project design option maps, including for all project infrastructure and associ-
ated facilities, with areas of influence for directly and indirectly impacted people outlined.
The areas of influence should be based on the likely social and environmental impacts
rather than any arbitrary distance from the site.
● An overview of national and regional planning policies and plans for the siting of projects
and any Strategic Environmental Assessments that might be relevant.
● A review of laws and policies that will apply to the project and a gap analysis of national
laws and international standards.

A framework for community agreements in land acquisition, restrictions and resettlement

Source: The authors.
Figure 23.1

● A statement of commitment from the developer to comply with international standards and
to reach negotiated agreements with the affected people and local communities.
● An initial governance scan to determine what is really going on in the project area, and
how resources such as land, housing, and access to natural resources are accessed through
formal and informal processes, and how these resources are used.
● An identification of project interest groups and any summaries from preliminary discus-
sions with them.
● A contextual analysis to identify cumulative project impacts and any legacy land acqui-
sition and resettlement in the project area, and any history of conflict or opposition to the
project.
● A review of any government-led LARR to ensure that the people affected by legacy reset-
tlement are supported in accordance with international standards.
● Where livelihoods are dependent on natural resources, establish whether they can be
improved by access to replacement natural resources. Where existing livelihoods cannot
be enhanced, the design of the project must be revised to avoid LARR.
● The project should check whether there is broad community support for community rep-
resentatives to engage in dialogue with the company about the impacts and benefits from
the project and to inform inclusive decision-making. If community representatives do not
wish to engage in dialogue, then the project should respect that decision by reconsidering
or pausing the project. In such situations, as a trust-building measure, the project could
provide resources to independent organizations to support the communities by assessing
the impacts and benefits from the project.
During scoping, it is important not to raise expectations that could trigger speculative activ-
ities, opportunistic behaviour, or unrealistic expectations about jobs. Speculative activities
and opportunistic behaviours happen at multiple levels, from improper land deals, to hastily
constructing structures or planting ‘crops’ in an attempt to maximise compensation. LARR
practitioners need to discourage improper actions, and will need to develop strategies to
address them where they do occur (Reddy et al., 2015).
Each phase in LARR must consider the wellbeing of women, men, youth, the elderly, and
vulnerable people. The project should engage qualified experts to support these groups to max-
imise their participation in the LARR process, minimise impacts, and ensure that they share in
project benefits. Managing the LARR process properly requires use of appropriately qualified
and experienced experts, including:
● A LARR expert (who is preferably also a social specialist) with proven experience in
negotiating LARR agreements to guide the overall process.
● A core social team of local and international (where appropriate) anthropologists, commu-
nity development experts and sociologists to interface with the community throughout the
full LARR process.
● One or more qualified livelihoods experts to cover the key livelihoods impacts that may
arise in the particular project (e.g. agriculture, forestry, fishing, SMEs) to coordinate spe-
cialist studies and benchmarking to assess impacts and determine whether support meas-
ures can be designed to ensure that sustainable livelihoods are developed post resettlement.
● A technical support team to manage logistics, administration, finances, GIS, database,
communications materials, etc.

● Various other professionals, depending on the likely impacts, including social workers
to support vulnerable people, gender experts, lawyers to advise on laws and agreements,
cultural experts, surveyors and valuers, engineers, planners, architects to advise on infra-
structure and housing, and environmental experts to advise on biophysical impacts and
biodiversity.
There should be sufficient budget and time to properly scope, plan, and implement the LARR
process. The budget and time required to undertake a LARR process will vary according to
the context of each project. To give some impression, a limited LARR process involving
physical resettlement should allow for at least one year to plan and negotiate agreements with
affected people, one year to construct alternative housing and infrastructure, and one year to
compensate and move people. Where project impacts are minor, a further one to five years is
needed to ensure that livelihoods and standard of living are improved. Complex resettlement
projects can take much longer, and achievement of improvement of livelihoods can take five
to ten years to be successful.
Phase 2: Stakeholder Dialogue
The project design and land-take should be based on dialogue between the project designers
and the affected people and local interest groups to reach negotiated agreements on LARR.
The establishment of broad community support for the project by all affected communities and
LARR for affected people should be the key objective of the project. A key challenge is that
project staff tend to consider that stakeholder engagement only needs to be done as part of the
ESIA, with tokenistic consultation where plans are presented in public meetings with limited
opportunity for affected people to provide comment. Given the severe social impacts and
human rights implications of LARR, the engagement process for LARR needs to exceed the
minimal consultation requirements of the international standards and be an effective dialogue
and agreement-making process.
For this dialogue to be effective, the project must ensure that affected people receive
unbiased information about project impacts and opportunities so they can make their own
decisions about their lives. For the project to be able to secure land in good time, trust needs to
be established with the community. This requires that affected people are provided with inde-
pendent advice on impacts, the valuation of assets, and how their grievances can be addressed.
Whether only one household is impacted or many hundreds, to avoid conflict it is important
to engage in dialogue to gain a common understanding of the impacts and reach agreement
on mitigation measures. When there are large numbers of affected people, it is not possible to
hold detailed individual discussions with each household. In such circumstances, neighbour-
hood resettlement committees can be efficient in reaching broad community agreement on
impacts and benefits. The project should also negotiate the development and implementation
of benefit-sharing agreements with local communities.
Sometimes, ‘resettlement committees’ are mandated by governments. However, these com-
mittees are generally bureaucratic mechanisms rather than include representative advocates
of the community. They rarely offer unbiased information or independent advice to affected
people. The most effective way to build community trust and reach agreement is use of inde-
pendently moderated multi-stakeholder forums, which have broad community representation
supported by independent experts. The project can also facilitate visits by the affected commu-

nity members to similar projects to enable them to see first-hand what is intended and to help
them gain an understanding of the LARR process. The process to be used should be outlined
in a Community Dialogue Plan, which builds on the Stakeholder Engagement Plan. In the
dialogue process, informal owners and users of land, temporary users, tenants, businesses,
natural resource users, vulnerable groups, and Indigenous and traditional peoples should all
be involved. It is also important to address impacts on host communities by involving them in
discussions on understanding the LARR process and how they will benefit.
During the dialogue process, the project can support the community to engage in a visioning
process (see Chapter 35) so that they can review scenarios with and without the project, and
determine their needs and future aspirations. Civil society groups can facilitate this visioning
process. It is also important that a grievance mechanism be established to manage concerns
and complaints from the community. For the grievance procedure to operate effectively and
build trust, there should be recourse to independent experts to resolve issues where the com-
munity is not satisfied with the solutions suggested by the project. When identifying interest
groups, especially community members opposed to the project, it is important to ensure that
they are protected from reprisals by groups that support the project. Information on protesters
and opponents should never be shared in any way that could jeopardise their safety or privacy.
Unfortunately, there is a terrible history of people being opposed to some projects being assas-
sinated, with over 200 environmental defenders being murdered annually (Global Witness,
2021).
Phase 3: Wellbeing Baseline Studies
Understanding the social, environmental, and economic context of each project-impacted

community is critical for assessing project impacts and the likely success of proposed mitiga-
tion measures. It is critical that affected people should be partners in the baseline studies and
not just subjects of research. It is recommended that a separate community report is prepared
by the affected people outlining what they value in their community and what their aspirations
are for their development. A comprehensive way to establish a community profile is for an
anthropologist to live with the people for an extended period, an ethnography (see Chapter
30). However, projects are generally unwilling to allocate sufficient time for ethnographies to
be undertaken. Since the 1980s, a suite of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) techniques have
been developed enabling local people to share, enhance, and analyse their livelihood context
(Chambers, 1994; Narayanasamy, 2009). While some projects use PRA techniques, standard
practice has been quantitative surveys supported by focus groups and key person interviews,
which are often inadequate to provide a full understanding of the community. At a minimum,
a project baseline should comprise: a census of affected people; quantitative socio-economic
asset surveys; focus-groups; ethnographies of Indigenous and traditional communities; and
interviews with key persons. Any entitlements that derive from LARR should be based on
a cut-off date that is agreed with the affected people in accordance with national laws and
international standards. The cut-off date must not prevent affected people from practising
core ongoing livelihood activities. Where the LARR process is delayed for over 12 months,
the project should consider new surveys to update information about assets and entitlements.
The Social Framework for Projects (Smyth & Vanclay, 2017), which was presented at the
centre of Figure 23.1, can be used to structure a co-designed holistic process involving tech-
nical experts, affected people, and other interest groups. It is critical that the ethnographies,

baseline studies, asset and valuation studies, and specialist studies be conducted by qualified
professionals, and that a secure GIS database is established to store all information. The base-
line data collected at household level should be verified with each household so all validated
assets are accurately recorded.
Phase 4: Wellbeing Impact Assessment and Management Plans
This phase involves the assessment of impacts and the development of management plans
through dialogue with the affected people. The assessment of LARR impacts is a separate
process to the overall SIA. Because of this, it is named ‘Wellbeing Impact Assessment’, also
to reflect that wellbeing should be at the centre of the analysis (Smyth & Vanclay, 2017). In
this phase, the RAP and Livelihood Improvement Plan are finalised, as well as an Entitlement
Framework, which outlines the compensation to be paid to each category of affected person
for particular types of losses. The compensation should be paid at full replacement cost – i.e.
sufficient to replace the lost asset without depreciation being taken into account and including
all transaction costs. There needs to be an assessment of risks to affected people based on
a realistic assessment as to whether the impacts will be mitigated. Unfortunately, standard
LARR practice is for RAPs to be developed with broad statements about restoring livelihoods
and community cohesion without any substantiation of how this will happen, or evidence as to
whether it is even possible.
A key challenge for LARR is its frequent treatment by projects as a sub-component of the
ESIA, especially when the ESIA is focused on gaining project approval rather than being
a process that seeks to address human rights issues and the social impacts experienced by
affected people. ESIA consultants are often tasked with preparing a RAP, as one of many
project documents needed to meet international standards, which they typically do independ-
ent of the team that will actually implement the RAP. It is important that community dialogue
forums are used to discuss impacts, with support from independent experts, and to reach
agreement on how local people understand impacts that can often be linked to a potential loss
of their identity, sense of place, and community cohesion. Too often, these consultants make
recommendations in the RAP that are unrealistic, impractical, or not based on any evidence of
likely success and/or that are likely to result in the impoverishment of affected people. Best
practice dictates that the precautionary principle should be applied during impact assessment,
and that mitigation should be implemented wherever there is a possibility of a significant
impact even though there may not be conclusive evidence that it will actually occur (Vanclay,
2003). Ideally, mitigation should involve modification to the project to avoid resettlement
through redesign of the project rather than rely on compensation. RAPs generally do not
present results-chains demonstrating how predicted outcomes will occur, and, to mitigate the
loss of land, they typically rely on high-level recommendations such as ‘provision of alterna-
tive livelihood training’. Arguably, the RAP should present a ‘theory of change’ for each key
mitigation measure. The theory of change should present evidence based on a benchmarking
of similar projects about the likelihood of the expected outcomes from mitigation activities.
Where similar interventions have failed elsewhere, then the project should be redesigned to
avoid the impacts.
The international standards set a low bar in only requiring restoration of livelihoods and
making improvement optional. Consequently, developers also set low targets, which can lead
to resettling people back into extreme poverty. Developers tend to see livelihood improve-

ments as discretionary, a social investment, or as a gesture of corporate social responsibility,

rather than being an essential part of LARR. Clearly, LARR must result in livelihood improve-
ments to bring affected people above the national poverty line.
The international environmental and social standards require E&S consultants to assess
impacts and advise on mitigation, but these consultants seldom have competence in design-
ing livelihood improvement strategies. E&S consultants often propose simplistic alternative
livelihoods programmes or cash compensation, which have been shown to fail in practice,
and have often resulted in the impoverishment of affected people and serious human rights
impacts. The provision of cash compensation rather than in-kind replacement can be attractive
to poorer communities, but poor investment decisions by affected people can result in them
being rendered homeless and/or without an ongoing viable livelihood. Unrealistic assumptions
are often made about the availability of land for purchase or livelihood opportunities in host
communities. It is important that experts with sufficient skills and experience in the affected
livelihoods (agriculture, forestry, fishing, etc.) engage with the affected people to understand
whether their livelihoods can be improved through the project and what is feasible. Where
there are significant risks that livelihoods cannot be improved, then a project redesign must be
considered. Where conditions allow for livelihood improvement that is demonstrated through
benchmarking the outcomes of similar projects elsewhere, then a livelihood improvement plan
should be co-developed with the affected people with sufficient time and financial and human
resources to achieve improvement.
A significant problem in LARR is where projects adopt a community-wide approach to live-
lihood programmes and fail to consider the individual needs of each household. Elite capture
and speculative behaviours are also significant problems (Ogwang et al., 2019). Elite capture
occurs when individuals with higher political, social, or economic status gain disproportion-
ate benefits. A consequence of this is not only increasing inequity, but also that vulnerable
households may end up impoverished or landless, especially if there is no special mechanism
to ensure that the needs of vulnerable persons are specifically considered. To implement the
LARR process effectively, it is essential that RAPs and livelihood improvement commitments
are based on the reality of each affected household, the assets they will lose, their capacity to
cope with the process, and to adapt to the new situation. This requires that there be individual
household plans, which outline the assets, mitigation measures, compensation, replacement
assets, livelihood support, and other entitlements they will receive.
Successful livelihood improvement requires maintenance of social cohesion, and access
to quality land, natural resources, employment, and markets, which are largely determined
by the location of resettlement sites. The Social Framework for Projects (Smyth & Vanclay,
2017) can be used to assess the key economic, social, and livelihood factors that need to be
considered in resettlement site selection. It is recommended to develop a series of options, and
to engage in dialogue with the affected people and host communities to consider their prefer-
ences in the selection of an optimal site.
The design of houses and infrastructure and layouts of resettlement sites is also a signifi-
cant problem. Much resettlement has used standard designs that were inappropriate in terms
of the aspirations of affected people and local culture, and not suited to local environmental
conditions. It is critical that a transdisciplinary technical team, together with social and envi-
ronmental experts, work closely with the affected people to develop designs that are culturally
appropriate and easy to maintain.

Phase 5: LARR Agreement-Making
Whether for one household or a whole village, the development and signing of agreements –
to accept the loss of home, land, business, and/or access to natural resources in exchange for
specified benefits and support as set out in the RAP and Livelihood Improvement Plan – is
a significant part of the LARR process. The IFC (2012) performance standards recommend
negotiated agreements and require broad community support for the LARR process. The
content of the agreements will vary according to national legislation and individual household
circumstances, but it is key that proof of broad community support is achieved, which should
result in at least 80 per cent of the community agreeing to the LARR management plans.
Ultimately, households can accept a proposed compensation agreement, delay, or refuse to
accept. They may request reconsideration of the deal, lodge a complaint, protest through
various channels (Hanna et al., 2016), and/or take whatever legal recourse is available to them.
Protests can cause delays and costs to the project, so it is important that the agreement-making
process is seen to be fair. Ideally, multi-stakeholder dialogue forums should be implemented in
which independent experts outline to affected people the key impacts and proposed mitigation
measures. The project should negotiate LARR agreements with affected households and com-
munity benefit agreements with local communities so that the project will have certainty about
broad community support and so the community can hold the project to account. Affected
people and their leaders have a right to protect their own human rights and can choose to say
no to a project land acquisition, restrictions, and resettlement process. Should the community
decide that there is not broad community support for the project then further dialogue should
take place on whether the project can be redesigned to minimise impacts or be relocated and
it this is not possible then the project should not proceed to expropriation unless it meets very
narrow criteria for public good.
Phase 6: Implementation Management Systems
When the project moves from planning to the implementation phase, project plans must be con-
verted into implementation work packages, each of which will be subcontracted out. While the
processes of managing baseline data collection, stakeholder dialogue, and agreement-making
are usually driven by the project’s social team, LARR implementation is usually supported by
technical experts with skills in construction, valuation, as well as appropriate livelihood areas
such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, etc. The construction of houses and resettlement infra-
structure will require the tendering and contracting of works based on designs agreed upon
in LARR negotiations. The project will need to develop a construction management plan to
allow for the timely, effective, and safe implementation of the construction process. The con-
struction management plan must consider the management and supervision skills required, as
well as: health, safety, and security; worker transport arrangements; procurement and storage
of materials; worker accommodation; environmental protection; and insurance arrangements.
Statutory authorities will have to be approached to obtain building permits for the resettlement
housing and approval for the resettlement sites.
To ensure effective outcomes, it is critical that the RAP and Livelihood Improvement Plan
are translated into implementation plans that are adequately resourced. To enable local enter-
prises to fairly participate in the tendering process, some capacity building may be needed.
There usually is a need to review and revise the RAP and livelihoods budgets to ensure that the

estimated costs are current, given that there is usually significant inflation around resettlement
projects. The schedule for the RAP and livelihood plan should be reviewed to ensure there is
sufficient time for effective implementation.
Phase 7: LARR Implementation
In this phase, resettlement houses are built and people are moved to the new location. It is
important that there be ample assistance for this process. LARR implementation is often where
the process fails to deliver, especially when projects take short-cuts in order to get their project
underway. Pressure from developers to have affected people move into temporary resettle-
ment should be resisted for many reasons, especially because projects can often be delayed
and affected people can sometimes become stranded in temporary accommodation often with
significant disruption to their livelihoods for years while they wait for the project to restart.
The mitigation programmes outlined in the RAP are also rolled out in this phase. Financial
management training should be organised for affected people prior to paying large amounts
of compensation.
A significant problem is where contractors are tasked with managing the LARR process but
lack the capacity to implement what has been agreed. The project needs to ensure that all con-
tractors have the appropriate skills, including employing community liaison officers to engage
with affected people about construction impacts and to negotiate additional land acquisition
due to re-routing or changes to project design. However, the developer must maintain a core
social team during and post construction to ensure that the LARR process is implemented
according to the RAP and to ensure continuity of institutional capacity throughout the process.
To facilitate the project to proceed rapidly, the LARR process is often compressed into an
impossibly short timeframe, which can lead to significant problems after the land is acquired
and people are resettled. Often, resettlement housing suffers from building defects due to
inadequate foundation work, rapid construction, or use of poor-quality materials. There are
often problems with maintenance of community infrastructure, such as drainage, roads, water
supply, or sewage. It is important to establish buy-in by the government agencies responsible
for the ongoing maintenance of those services. It is also critical that the government agrees to
staff any new educational or health facilities that are provided as part of the LARR process.
Phase 8: Monitoring and Close-Out of LARR and Project Construction and Operations
Only when the LARR process has been completed should the project commence construction
on land where people were living. Good practice requires that the project maximises local
content through local employment and local procurement. Once the affected people have
been moved into their new houses and have received compensation and other benefits, many
projects are keen to quickly close-out the LARR process. However, experience has shown that
affected people need support over an extended period of time, with livelihood improvement
often taking up to ten years where people had land-based livelihoods. Where the LARR
process has been top-down and affected people have had limited autonomy, this can lead
to them becoming passive rather than actively involved in managing their own life going
forward. This tends to lead to a downward spiral and an ongoing need for support. It is far
better to assist and empower people in making their own decisions and taking some level of
responsibility for their lives.

A thorough monitoring of the LARR process and outcomes is needed, with corrective action
where issues are detected. Monitoring is an ongoing task that uses systematic collection of
data on specified indicators as well as general signals of wellbeing to provide management
and other stakeholders with an indication of the extent to which the RAP objectives have been
met. The monitoring process should begin at the very start of the project, with appropriate
indicators developed to establish the project baseline, against which progress can be measured
(see Chapter 37).
A key monitoring challenge is that the ESIA baseline is often inadequate for the level of
detail needed for LARR. Thus, LARR experts must be involved in establishing a joint ESIA/
LARR baseline data collection system to ensure that all appropriate information are gathered
and recorded in a way that can measure changes in the wellbeing of the affected people over
time. Good practice is that affected people are also involved in monitoring the LARR process.
This can be done by building the capacity of trusted community representatives to observe and
measure progress throughout the project lifecycle. Depending on the success of the livelihood
improvement programmes, and when the monitoring reports give some sense that things have
normalised, after five or more years a ‘close-out audit’ should be done. The close-out audit is
a formal process undertaken by an independent LARR expert to establish to all stakeholders
that resettled people are adequately established in their new situation, their living standards
and livelihoods have been improved, and that the project has properly compensated affected
people for any lost assets and for the inconvenience and suffering incurred. Should this not be
confirmed by the audit, then the close-out must be postponed and additional support provided
until such time that this would be the case.
CONCLUSION
Land acquisition for projects displaces people, and creates many social impacts on the lives
of those who are affected. Attempts to address these impacts through planned resettlement
and livelihood improvement programmes, although sometimes well intentioned, have largely
failed to lead to improvement in the wellbeing of affected peoples. In worst-case situations,
people have been impoverished by project-induced displacement, and have sometimes been
rendered homeless. SIA practice has generally failed to adequately acknowledge the extreme
harms wrought upon people forced to move to make way for projects. Worse still is that some
SIA practitioners have been complicit in human rights harms by maintaining a pretence that
LARR impacts can be readily mitigated or redressed, and by their writing of Resettlement
Action Plans that are manifestly inadequate.
Whether LARR is actioned by government or a private sector developer, there are some
key principles that apply. First, expropriation must be avoided. Expropriation is alienating and
debilitating, and will always lead to negative outcomes. LARR processes should only proceed
on the basis of a negotiated agreement. Second, because of the potential severity of the harms
created, resettlement must be avoided wherever possible. Much more effort should be made by
projects to consider how project design might be changed to avoid the need for resettlement.
If resettlement can’t be avoided, perhaps the need for the project should be reconsidered.
Third, LARR should only be done by experienced and qualified LARR experts. It would be
professional negligence and malpractice for unqualified people to take a lead role in writing
or implementing Resettlement Action Plans. Last but not least, much more resources and

effort must be put into improving resettlement outcomes. Affected people must be provided
with improved housing and infrastructure, and adequate support to re-establish community
structures, and to improve their livelihoods.
REFERENCES
Baker, A. (2021). From eviction to evicting: Rethinking the technologies, lives and power sus-
taining displacement. Progress in Human Geography, 45(4), 796–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0309132520910798
Cernea, M. (1997). The risks and reconstruction model for resettling displaced populations. World
Development, 25(10), 1569–1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00054-5
Cernea, M., & Maldonado, J. (eds) (2018). Challenging the Prevailing Paradigm of Displacement and
Resettlement: Risks, Impoverishment, Legacies, Solutions. London: Routledge.
Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World
Development, 22(10), 1437–1454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90030-2
Cotula, L. (2019). Land Rights and Investments: Why the IFC Performance Standards Are Not Enough.
The Land Portal. https://landportal.org/file/47596/download
Downing, T. (2002). Avoiding New Poverty: Mining-Induced Displacement and Resettlement. London:
International Institute for Environment and Development. https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/
pdfs/migrate/G00549.pdf
EBRD (2016). Resettlement Guidance and Good Practice. London: European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development. http://www.ebrd.com/documents/environment/pdf-resettlement-guidance-and
-good-practice.pdf
EBRD (2019). Environmental and Social Policy. London: European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development. https://www.ebrd.com/environmental-and-social-policy.pdf
Esteves, A.M. (2021). A people-centred approach to assessing livelihoods impacts. Impact Assessment &
Project Appraisal, 39(6), 478–495. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2021.1930833
FAO (2022). Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and
Forests in the Context of National Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organization. https://www
.fao.org/3/i2801e/i2801e.pdf
Global Witness (2021). Last Line of Defence. https://www.globalwitness.org/documents/20190/Last
_line_of_defence_-_low_res_-_September_2021.pdf
Hanna, P., & Vanclay, F. (2013). Human rights, Indigenous peoples and the concept of free, prior and
informed consent. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, 31(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14615517.2013.780373
Hanna, P., Vanclay, F., Langdon, E.J., & Arts, J. (2016). Conceptualizing social protest and the signif-
icance of protest action to large projects. Extractive Industries & Society, 3(1), 217–239. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.10.006
ICMM (2015). Land Acquisition and Resettlement: Lesson Learned. London: International Council
on Mining and Metals. https://www.icmm.com/website/publications/pdfs/social-performance/2015/
guidance_land-acquisition-and-resettlement.pdf
IDB (2020). Environmental and Social Policy Framework. Inter-American Development Bank. https://
idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=EZSHARE-110529158-160
IFC (2002). Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan. Washington, DC: International
Finance Corporation. https://commdev.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/publications/IFC-Handbook-for
-Preparing-a-Resettlement-Action-Plan.pdf
IFC (2012). IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. Washington, DC:
International Finance Corporation. https://www.ifc.org/performancestandards
IFC (2023). Good Practice Handbook: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement. Washington,
DC: International Finance Corporation. https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2023/ifc-handbook
-for-land-acquisition-and-involuntary-resettlement.pdf

IFC CAO (2015). Land. Washington, DC: International Finance Corporation Compliance Advisor
Ombudsman. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/373621478091619931/pdf/108863-WP
-CAO-AdvisorySeries-LANDr4-PUBLIC.pdf
IIED (2002). Breaking New Ground: Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development. London:
International Institute for Environment and Development. https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/
pdfs/migrate/9084IIED.pdf
Ijabadeniyi, A., & Vanclay, F. (2020). Socially-tolerated practices in environmental and social impact
assessment reporting: Discourses, displacement, and impoverishment. Land, 9(2), 33. https://doi.org/
10.3390/land9020033
Kabra, A. (2018). Displacement, resettlement, and livelihood restoration: Safeguard standards in prac-
tice. Development in Practice, 28(2), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1418296
Kahangirwe, P., & Vanclay, F. (2022). Evaluating the effectiveness of a national environmental and
social impact assessment system: Lessons from Uganda. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal,
40(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2021.1991202
Levien, M. (2018). Dispossession without Development: Land Grabs in Neoliberal India. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mohanty, B. (2022). Forced displacement studies in India: An overview. In N. Chowdhory & P. Banerjee
(eds), Gender, Identity and Migration in India. Singapore: Springer, 139–164.
Narayanasamy, N. (2009). Participatory Rural Appraisal: Principles, Methods and Application.
London: Sage.
O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2013). Community development agreements in the mining industry: An emerging
global phenomenon. Community Development, 44(2), 222–238.
O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2018). Using revenues from Indigenous impact and benefit agreements: Building
theoretical insights. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 39(1), 101–118.
Ogwang, T., & Vanclay, F. (2021). Cut-off and forgotten? Livelihood disruption, social impacts and food
insecurity arising from the East African crude oil pipeline. Energy Research & Social Science, 71,
101970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101970
Ogwang, T., Vanclay, F., & van den Assem, A. (2019). Rent-seeking practices, local resource curse,
and social conflict in Uganda’s emerging oil economy. Land, 8(4), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/
land8040053
Owen, J., & Kemp, D. (2015). Mining-induced displacement and resettlement: A critical appraisal.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 87, 478–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.087
Reddy, G., Smyth, E., & Steyn, M. (2015). Land Access and Resettlement: A Guide to Best Practice.
New York: Greenleaf.
Rogers, S., & Wilmsen, B. (2020). Towards a critical geography of resettlement. Progress in Human
Geography, 44(2), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518824659
Rowan, M. (2017). Aligning resettlement planning and livelihood restoration with social impact assess-
ment: A practitioner perspective. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, 35(1), 81–93. https:///www
.doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1271541
Scudder, T. (2011). Development-induced community resettlement. In F. Vanclay & A.M. Esteves (eds),
New Directions in Social Impact Assessment. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward
Elgar Publishing, 186–201.
Smyth, E., Steyn, M., Esteves, A.M., Franks, D., & Vaz, K. (2015). Five ‘big’ issues for land access,
resettlement and livelihood restoration practice: Findings of an international symposium. Impact
Assessment & Project Appraisal, 33(3), 220–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2015.1037665
Smyth, E., & Vanclay, F. (2017). The social framework for projects: A conceptual but practical model
to assist in assessing, planning and managing the social impacts of projects. Impact Assessment &
Project Appraisal, 35(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1271539
Smyth, E., & Vanclay, F. (2018). Land acquisition, resettlement and livelihoods. In R. Therivel &
G. Wood (eds), Methods of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (4th edn). Abingdon:
Routledge, 546–576.
United Nations (2014). Forced Evictions (Factsheet 25). https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/
download-manager-files/Forced%20Evictions.pdf

Van der Ploeg, L., & Vanclay, F. (2017). A human rights based approach to project-induced displace-
ment and resettlement. Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, 35(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14615517.2016.1271538
Van der Ploeg, L., & Vanclay, F. (2018). Challenges in implementing the corporate responsibility to
respect human rights in the context of project-induced displacement and resettlement. Resources
Policy, 55, 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.12.001
Van der Ploeg, L., Vanclay, F., & Lourenço, I. (2017). The responsibility of business enterprises to
restore access to essential public services at resettlement sites. In M. Hesselman, A. Hallo de Wolf, &
B. Toebes (eds), Socio-Economic Human Rights in Essential Public Services Provision. Abingdon:
Routledge, 180–202.
Vanclay, F. (2002). Conceptualising social impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(3),
183–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00105-6
Vanclay, F. (2003). International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment & Project
Appraisal, 21(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766491
Vanclay, F. (2008). Place matters. In F. Vanclay, M. Higgins, & A. Blackshaw (eds), Making Sense of
Place. Canberra: National Museum of Australia Press, 2–11.
Vanclay, F. (2012). The potential application of social impact assessment in integrated coastal zone
management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 68, 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012
.05.016
Vanclay, F. (2017). Project-induced displacement and resettlement: From impoverishment risks to an
opportunity for development? Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal, 35(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10
.1080/14615517.2017.1278671
Vanclay, F. (2020). Reflections on social impact assessment in the 21st century. Impact Assessment &
Project Appraisal, 38(2), 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1685807
Vanclay, F., Esteves, A.M., Aucamp, I., & Franks, D. (2015). Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for
Assessing and Managing the Social Impacts of Projects. Fargo, ND: International Association for
Impact Assessment. https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/SIA_Guidance_Document_IAIA.pdf
Vanclay, F., & Hanna, P. (2019). Conceptualising company response to community protest: Principles to
achieve a social license to operate. Land, 8(6), 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8060101
Wankhede, V. (2020). Benefit Sharing in the Mining Sector in Africa. New Delhi: Centre for Science and
Environment. https://www.cseindia.org/content/downloadreports/9866
WCD (2000). Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision Making. The Report of the
World Commission on Dams. London: Earthscan. https://www.ern.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/
2016/12/2000_world_commission_on_dams_final_report.pdf
World Bank (2017). The World Bank Environmental and Social Framework. Washington, DC: World Bank.
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/383011492423734099/pdf/The-World-Bank-Environmental
-and-Social-Framework.pdf


Social Impacts of Land Acquisition Resettlement An

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Impacts of Land Acquisition Resettlement An

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

23.

Social impacts of land acquisition, resettlement

KEY CONCEPTS RELATING TO THE SOCIAL IMPACTS FROM

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

refugee resettlement, expressions like ‘development-induced displacement and resettlement’

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

CURRENT STANDARDS AND GOOD PRACTICE THAT APPLY TO

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

guidance on LARR is provided by the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

A complex aspect of LARR is how compensation is provided. Often, national legislation

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

CRITIQUING CURRENT STANDARDS FOR LAND ACQUISITION

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

A FRAMEWORK FOR NEGOTIATING AGREEMENTS TO

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

Phase 1: Scoping and Establishment of the LARR Process

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

A framework for community agreements in land acquisition, restrictions and resettlement

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

Phase 2: Stakeholder Dialogue

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

Phase 3: Wellbeing Baseline Studies

Understanding the social, environmental, and economic context of each project-impacted

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

Phase 4: Wellbeing Impact Assessment and Management Plans

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

ments as discretionary, a social investment, or as a gesture of corporate social responsibility,

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

Phase 5: LARR Agreement-Making

Phase 6: Implementation Management Systems

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

Phase 7: LARR Implementation

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

Eddie Smyth and Frank Vanclay - 9781802208870

You might also like