It is now widely agreed that anything less than consciously planned and implemented development for resettled people will leave them worse off. Compensation is not up to the task of restorative, let alone just, resettlement. But what happens when, as in the case of smaller scale, but widely occurring, projects involving resettlement, the "development" projects do not give rise to significant new resources, thereby effectively making resettlement with development impossible? Smaller scale villagization type projects with an agricultural/land reform/political reorganization agenda are widespread in Africa. They have been/are imposed in recurring fashion on rural areas by succeeding governments, typically involving short-range resettlement, limited capital investment and assistance, and loss of local autonomy in relation to land use. The paper provides case studies from South Africa and Zimbabwe. It will be shown how these ongoing interventions and responses have directed the developmental, social, and resettlement dynamic in the resulting settlements—as well as raising crucial implications for whether, and how, we are best to apply international resettlement policy in such situations.
The right to compensation and rehabilitation for those displaced by projects is a generally recognised principle of multilateral development institutions and, increasingly, of national governments. There is no such consensus of the concept of benefit-sharing—neither its definition nor realisation. This paper advances this discussion: reviewing past performance of benefit-sharing and anticipating its future rationale, timing and delivery. Drawing upon country laws and project reviews for hydropower, it also briefly examines prospects for another revenue generating sector: mining and non-revenue generating urban projects. It addresses the question: should benefit-sharing be limited to monetary benefits derived only from projects generating revenue during the project operations phase or should a broader concept of benefit-sharing prevail? The authors compare both financial and resettlement logics of each form. In anticipating an uncertain future, they conclude that centralising partnerships and negotiated consent with the resource losers can lead to workable, durable, ethical and effective benefit-sharing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.