Forced displacement can lead to new social and economic benefits in some cases. Largely, however, it is a traumatic event that leads to a decline in the standard of living and a diminished sense of wellbeing for those displaced. How does current resettlement research deal with the problems of vulnerable groups in displacement processes?

Every year about ten million people across the globe are forcibly displaced due to infrastructure projects such as dams, mines and roads. The majority of displaced people are from poor and marginalised communities and among them, women are particularly vulnerable.

As recent research conducted by the Institute of Development Studies on gender and forced displacement indicates, several male biases underline the design and implementation of resettlement and rehabilitation policies and programmes. For instance, compensation is usually directed to men, and women are rarely involved in decision-making and implementation processes of resettlement schemes. Thus, resettlement programmes often make worse gender inequalities among displaced people.

The path-breaking Impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction (IRR) model, developed by World Bank sociologist Michael Cernea, has been vital in showing how displacement risks, when ignored, evolve into processes of physical, social and economic exclusion, which results in a broad range of impoverishment risks. The IRR model refers to the risks encountered by sub-groups within a community (such as the landless and women) who suffer specific losses that might not be predicted by policy-makers and planners. Consequently, they suffer a more severe impact.

Indeed, as research among displaced women and men of the Sardar Sarovar dam in India shows, women largely have rights and control over resources in customary law or informal arrangements. For example, in the forest villages along the banks of the Narmada River, women earned an independent source of income from the sale of minor forest produce. But in Gujarat, the resettlement programme neither grasped this loss nor compensated them for it. As a result, women’s economic dependence on men increased upon resettlement.

The IRR model, by explicitly proposing eight risks, spells out how impoverishment occurs through displacement. More importantly, it highlights measures that need to be taken to diminish risks and reconstruct livelihoods. The model intends to redress the inequities of forced displacement and achieve resettlement based on the principle of equity. But the research findings suggest it does not go far enough in teasing out the dynamics of social differentiation among resettled populations, especially with respect to the reconstruction phase.

For example, it is argued that the risk of landlessness can be eliminated through land-based relocation schemes. But the elimination of risks for one group may increase the vulnerability and risks of another group. The resettlement package in Gujarat correctly endows major sons (over 18 years of age) with five acres of land. But major daughters receive nothing and married women face growing insecurity. Conflicts over land have also intensified, given the struggle for survival due to the poor quality of the land endowed and the absence of the forest and other common property resources to meet basic subsistence needs. Thus while sons may welcome being considered beneficiaries of the compensation package, many women bear greater risk.

Based on the research findings, it is recommended that:

• Agencies involved in resettlement activities need to be committed to gender justice in displacement and resettlement processes. Women and men should be considered co-beneficiaries of compensation packages and at times independent rights may need to be awarded to some women.
• In order to address inequities within communities, the IRR model may need to advocate explicit partisan interventions for vulnerable groups within displaced communities. It may also need to develop mechanisms whereby displaced people can provide their own definitions of loss, impoverishment and development and become respected stakeholders in the displacement and planning process.
• Displacement research, policy and practice should not merely focus on the risks and impact of displacement. Instead there is a need to develop institutional mechanisms that will protect and strengthen the rights of displaced women and men, including the right to information, shelter, development and even the right to veto such projects.

Source(s):
'Risks, Safeguards, and Reconstruction: a model for population displacement and resettlement’, in Risks and reconstruction: experiences of resettlers and refugees, M. Cernea and C. Mcdowell (eds), The World Bank, by Michael Cernea, 2000
‘Models and methods in development-induced displacement’, in Development and Change, Vol 33 No 4, by Ranjit Dwivedi, 2002
‘Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making’, World Commission on Dams, Earthscan, 2000 Full document.

id21 Research Highlight: 4 December 2002

Further Information:
Lyla Mehta
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RE, UK

Tel: +44 (0)1273 878736
Contact the contributor: l.mehta@ids.ac.uk

Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK

Other related links:
'Responding to displacement: Balancing needs and rights' Insights #44

'Refugee protection vs state security: is convergence possible?'

'Do refugees do more harm to fragile environments than locals? Answers from West Africa'

'Resettling refugees: improving the record of failure'

'Displaced persons crisis in Kosovo– what have we learnt?'

'Rights for the world's evicted. Are development projects harming people they're meant to help?'

See id21's links page on migration issues