La exclusión y la inclusión en la comunicación de “la belleza”

Cernea’s IRR model is an attempt to explain why forced resettlement almost always leads to negative consequences. While the FSF explains ‘what’ happens to the people being affected in resettlement situations, and ‘how’ they respond to what happens, the IRR model explains ‘why’ resettlement leads to certain kinds of negative consequences. Additionally, similar to the FSF, which identifies a pattern of occurrences in forced resettlement and the responses it triggers in stages, the IRR model also identifies a pattern. However, the IRR model identifies a pattern related to the causes of negative consequences in resettlement cases. In this sense, Cernea attempts to answer the question, why is it that resettlement leads to certain kinds of consequences that people get exposed to in forced resettlement situations? In responding to this question, Cernea identified what he calls ‘the inherent risks’ in resettlement situations, particularly involuntary resettlement (Cernea, 2000:19). The second question that the IRR model seeks to respond to is, how can the inherent risks of resettlement be prevented from turning into reality?

33

The strength of the model to explain the consequences of resettlement lies in its multi-layered functions of prediction, diagnosis, and problem-resolution (Cernea, 2000:21-22). These, the model achieves through deconstructing the complex, multifaceted process of resettlement into different kinds of elements, elements that lead to the consequences of resettlement, reflected in the experiences of affected people (ibid.:19). When these elements have been identified, the model then prescribes measures to prevent them from materialising.

The fundamental issue with involuntary resettlement is that due to the fact that people are moved from their often longstanding resources and livelihoods, it imposes a loss of various forms of capital – socio-cultural, physical, and financial – which, in turn, inflicts disempowerment, helplessness and impoverishment on those directly affected (Dwivedi, 1997a:3). The relationship between displacement and the loss of capital will be explained further in the discussion of De Wet’s Socio-spatial analysis to resettlement. This analysis recognises that there is a direct link between people’s environment and their livelihoods; and that in many rural communities, which in many cases is where the effects of forced displacement and resettlement are felt, established livelihoods are linked to the natural environment (De Wet, 1995). However, the relationship between people’s livelihoods and their environment is not exclusive to the physical environment, it also includes the social and economic landscape.

Hence, forced and abrupt separation from their social and physical environment exposes resettlers to the eight risks identified by Cernea as: “landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalisation, food insecurity, increased morbidity, loss of access to common property resources, and community disarticulation” (Cernea, 2000:20). According to Downing (2002:8), the failure to prevent these intrinsic risks may lead to new forms of poverty amongst affected people. For Downing, these effects of resettlement are so consistent that, although they differ in severity across various cases, they are often reflected in cases of forced resettlement regardless of the sector or industry in which they takes place (2002:8). Thus, having identified the risks, specific, targeted strategies must be employed in order to reverse the risks and build towards reconstruction in forced resettlement. The reconstruction measures prescribed by the model are: “land-based resettlement, reemployment, house reconstruction, social inclusion, improved healthcare, adequate nutrition, restoration of community assets and services, as well as networks and community rebuilding” (Cernea, 2000:20). The risks, together with the recommended measures to reverse them are discussed below.

34 1. (a) Landlessness

Productive land is a fundamental asset upon which people’s livelihoods, productive systems, and commercial activities are predicated, and according to Cernea (1997:1572; 2000:23), people’s forced removal from this asset forms a “principal form of decapitalisation”. This kind of loss due to forced resettlement is even more articulated in areas where, beyond residential land, people’s livelihoods are mainly reliant on agricultural produce as in agrarian societies. According to Downing (2002:9), impoverishment from the loss of land may take four forms: (1) the initial loss of land to a development project, (2) damages to the land’s productive potential in the surrounding areas, where resettled people may no longer have access, (3) consequential losses in the productive value of land on account of environmental impacts, and (4) loss of land due to the inability of the affected people to acquire alternative land. As a contribution of this thesis, a fifth form can be added; where landless people lose access to social arrangements through which they access land use.

The fourth point is, in fact, the reason for the surfacing of new poverty, alongside old poverty, as the inability to gain alternative land inhibits the ability to recover from losses and re-establish lost livelihoods. In the state of Orissa in eastern India, for example, mining resettlement led to the loss of land reaching up to five times the pre-displacement rates (Downing, 2002a:9). Kenya’s Kiambere Hydropower resettlement reduced land holding from an average of 13 to 6 hectares (Cernea, 2000:23). As a result, people who had access to a sustainable form of livelihood and a productive system were left susceptible to a new form of poverty – landlessness. A study by Eguavoen and Tesfai (2012:54), among the people resettled on account of the Koga Irrigation Scheme, in Ethiopia, reveals how some resettlers who were once self-sufficient farmers have been reduced to a hand-to-mouth way of life, after their forced resettlement in which they lost their land.

“When we used to live in rural Enamirt, the whole city benefited from us…we had vast land where we were able to collect many crops and grazing fodder and the surplus we sold in the market here in town…now they see me buying fodder from the market and they say I am a poor immigrant” (Eguavoen and Tesfai, 2012:54).

As indicated by Ibanez and Moya (2010:168), mainly due to marginalisation and shortage of productive land, displaced households are often unable to catch up on their lost livelihoods after their forced resettlement. They are more likely to get trapped in a cycle of poverty with

35

new forms of poverty being generated. In effect, the loss of land in land-based economies may snow-ball into other kinds of disorientations such as ill-health due to high stress levels imposed on affected people (Mahapatra, 1999:203).

Landlessness can, in some cases, translate into a loss of income, and therefore, increased poverty. The Saguling Reservoir in Indonesia provides a good example in this regard, where landownership decreased by 47% after resettlement, resulting in loss of income to nearly 50% of resettled people compared to pre-resettlement (Cernea, 2000:24). The Mohale Dam resettlement project also exemplifies this effect of income losses, where some people were reliant on growing cannabis as a cash crop before resettlement, and subsequently lost income due to resettlement.

Where alternative land may not be provided for affected people, as in many cases due to the growing global land pressure, alternative means of livelihoods must be explored (Cernea, 2000:35). However, evidence suggests that opportunities for new forms of livelihoods in the new areas are often limited with the increased demand resulting from resettlement-caused influx (Lassailly-Jacob, 1996:197). Over 80% of displaced Batwa population in Uganda, forest dwellers who were displaced on account of conservation, were not compensated for lost land, including communal land, and remained landless for over six years from the time of their displacement (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau, 2003:1823). Of the majority who remained landless after their forced displacement, 66% found alternative residence squatting with private owners with no form of legal security (ibid.:1823).

(b) From landlessness to land-based re-establishment

Land-based resettlement involves a land-for-land arrangement, where resettled people who lost land to resettlement are provided with alternative land in the new areas to which they are relocated. According to Lassailly-Jacob (1996:196-197), land-for-land does not only mean that adequate surface area must be provided, but also that provided land must be adequately productive. It also means that the affected people are given full title of ownership, and are allowed to farm the way they know how, without “sophisticated” agricultural methods imposed on them, particularly in the initial stages when stress levels are still high (ibid.:198). In addition, it means that where applicable, provision of common land must follow where access to common property has been lost (Lassailly-Jacob, 1996:196).

36

However, Cernea (2000:36) asserts that the provision of alternative land is one of the most difficult aspects of resettlement to implement, due to growing land scarcity; and, therefore, it requires innovative approaches. In China’s Shuikou Dam resettlement, for example, previously unproductive land on the hills around the reservoirs were converted into flat terraces for horticulture and into forested areas (ibid.:36). This effort not only transformed the physical environment but also the socio-economic landscape. The forested areas provided work and livelihoods for approximately 20,000 resettlers (Cernea, 2000:36).

Nonetheless, transforming unproductive land into useable land does not only require creativity but also financial and human resources. In the case of Shuikou Dam, the project paid significant amounts for mechanical equipment and human capital to recover large portions of land (Cernea, 2000:36). In contexts where financial resources are lacking, such as in developing nations, land recovery measures may take a long time or even be considered infeasible owing to financial costs. In this regard, the absence of alternative land in the new areas makes land-based resettlement one of the hardest measures to achieve in rehabilitating affected people after their forced resettlement. This may consequently render all the knowledge of land and its associated coping mechanisms non-transferrable and useless in the new settlements (Cernea, 1997:1574; Downing, et al., in Downing, 2002a:9).

As a result, the alternative practice is to compensate lost land with cash grants, which, however, has been proven to be ineffective in re-establishing livelihoods. There is enough evidence to suggest that the money received for compensation of land is rarely used to replace the lost land or to purchase other fixed assets; the general practice is to use it for immediate needs such as food, school expenses, clothing, etc. (Mburugu, 1994:53; Slater and Mphale, 2009:15). Although other reasons for not being able to replace land have to do with growing land scarcity, as in the cases of Lesotho and India, resettlement comes with extra expenses that people incur, and oftentimes insufficient provision is made to cover immediate expenses. This leaves affected people under immense pressure to use compensation money, regardless of its purpose, to cover immediate losses. Hence, Scudder (2005:32) asserts that in stage two, living standards can be expected to drop significantly.

In addition, land-based rehabilitation is further complicated by other socio-legal dynamics. Land tenure systems can be very complex in some societies, where traditional systems established at the local level come into contact with legal systems at the national level. Rao

37

(2005:39) cites the example of Santhal Pargana, India, where some tribal groups are considered illegal occupants of the land they have been cultivating for years and depend on, on account of the state level Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act of 1949. In this context, the people in question are not regarded as owners of the land they occupy. In many cases, compensation for land is based on “ownership” as recognised by national laws, and not necessarily the “right” to use land. Moreover, access to land for landless people may come in the form of social arrangements that afford them land use, yet this may not be recognised for compensation purposes (Bartolome, et al., 2000:9; Jackson and Sleigh, 2000:233). Although resettlement policies now typically provide for compensation for people who may not have conventional entitlements to land but whose livelihoods are dependent on it, the implementation of this policy prescription remains rather obscure (The World Bank, 2013: Section 15(b)). The findings from the studied Chandil case in India will attest to this assertion.

2. (a) Joblessness

The risk of job losses in resettlement situations is especially high in urban areas, but it also applies to rural areas where people are employed in agriculture or manual labour (Cernea, 1997:1573). Yet, recovering from lost jobs in the new areas can be extremely difficult and costly. According to Cernea (2000:24), job losses can occur in three ways: (i) in urban areas, in the industry and services sector, (ii) in rural areas, where landless labourers lose access to employment by landowners or to land use through such arrangements as sharecropping, and (iii) small enterprise owners such as craftsmen and shopkeepers may also lose access to markets due to involuntary resettlement and displacement.

In a study which was undertaken in Jebba, Nigeria, Olawepo (2008:119) shows how families who were resettled due to the construction of the Jebba Lake Basin were economically displaced, and how that affected and limited their informal economic activities. In this regard, the hardest hit were those who were resettled to areas further away from their original places, who subsequently lost their occupations as fishermen, hunters and farmers (ibid:119).

The challenge with certain kinds of job losses such as self-employment in small enterprises is that, in many cases compensation is not channelled towards recovering lost livelihoods. Instead, compensation may be granted for lost assets alone. This is exemplified in the Madagascar Tana Plain project as cited by Cernea (2000:24), where small enterprise owners such as those who ran workshops, food stalls, and artisan units, were not compensated for

38

their lost livelihoods, resulting in significant impoverishment among the displaced. When people are forcibly displaced, not only do they lose assets that facilitate their businesses, but also “established markets and clientele” (Mathur, 2013:18).

Although in some cases the development project that induces resettlement may provide employment to some resettled people, this is usually on a temporary basis, and not adequate in re-establishing livelihoods in the long-term. China’s Three Gorges Dam provides an example in this regard, where many people were employed in the project during the construction phase, which increased income levels significantly during that period, but the living standards drastically declined when many lost their jobs when construction came to an end (Wilmsen and van Hulten, 2017:100).

Additionally, the loss of occupations that derive value directly from the land may be difficult to counteract, even in cases where alternative employment is secured (Mahapatra, 1999:203). Where livelihoods are based on deriving value from what the land yields, most capable family members are more likely to be involved in the work, but where an alternative form of employment is implemented, only one or two members of the family may find employment, with other members remaining without employment (ibid.:203). This may not necessarily translate into improved living standards for the whole family because, unlike land, which tends to provide for the family as a whole, salaried employment only rewards one person.

The effects of unemployment may be so severe as to go beyond poverty and reduced standards of living, extending to other forms of social-ills. In a study conducted by Mankodi (in Mahapatra, 1999:204) with regard to resettlement in the Ukai Project in Gujarat, India, incidences of social ills such as alcohol abuse and gambling were reported to have increased after resettlement owing to “the imposed idleness”. Criminal activities are also more likely to increase in cases where unemployment rates are high, and this includes situations where unemployment has been imposed by forced resettlement and displacement.

(b) From joblessness to reemployment

Reemployment requires investment in the areas where people are resettled to, particularly those in which a significant number of people are moved into one area, increasing the demand for job opportunities. This may be achieved through the establishment of enterprises or community development projects. However, Cernea (2000:24) asserts that this requires serious commitment on the part of not only the implementing authorities but also other key stakeholders such as government and the private sector.

39

Although a multi-stakeholder approach may be effective in creating employment opportunities in cases where people lose their jobs to forced displacement, the success of such efforts is subject to an enabling socio-economic and political environment. This means that their success is dependent on the context in which the enterprises, services, or community development projects are implemented. Such initiatives cannot escape the contextual dynamics on the ground, and are more likely to mirror such dynamics. In the Mohale case, where community development projects were initiated in rural and peri-urban areas, mainly in the form of small enterprises, a lack of management skills, limited markets, and limited resources – all characteristics of the economic landscape in rural settings – contributed to the failure of such initiatives to provide employment and re-establish livelihoods.

Reemployment may also be forged through skills training, such as in the case of the Chandil Dam resettlement. However, skills training alone is not sufficient to counter the risks of impoverishment in a form of joblessness. If skills training is to be effective in improving livelihoods, it has to be accompanied by employment (Cernea, 2000:37). The Dudichua Coal Project in India enabled the employment of nearly 60% of displaced farmers through skills training (ibid.:37). Conversely, the Vindhyachal Super Thermal Power Project in India provides a less convincing case, where, of the 56% of the affected families studied, only 21% were gainfully employed (Mahapatra, 1999:204).

3. (a) Homelessness

Like the loss of land, the loss of a home is a fundamental form of impoverishment, which can have severe repercussions for those affected if not immediately reversed. When people are forced to move out from their homes, they lose their “natural and man-made assets” (Cernea, 2000:25). In all cases where people are physically resettled, they lose their homes. If this form of loss is not recovered through the provision of a new home in the new area, it marks the beginning of impoverishment, and can spill over into other kinds of impoverishment. For some resettlers, the loss of a home may also symbolise cultural and identity displacement (Cernea, 1997:1573; Cernea, 1998:50; Sapkota, 2001:150). A home is a place where rituals and cultural activities are performed, and one that provides a sense of belonging for those who reside in it. When forcefully relocated, the sense of loss is usually more than just the loss of a physical structure, but also has psychological and cultural effects (Cernea, 1997:1573).

40

The feeling of the loss for some people may be so severe that the provision of a new home may not be sufficient to make up for the loss. Some respondents in the Mohale Dam resettlement case stated that if it was not for inundation, they would go back to their old homes, even years after physical relocation took place, despite new houses having been provided for them. In the Kariba case, one of the terms proposed by the resettled people to the government at the time of their resettlement was that the people should be allowed to reoccupy the land which was not inundated after the dam had filled (Colson, 1971:23). This is indicative of the kind of attachment that people tend to have with their ancestral homes, which may make the effects of their loss more significant.

Although the effects of homelessness may be long-term for some resettlers, Cernea contends that this kind of loss tends to be only temporary for others (2000:25). In fact, where there is