Elsevier

Geoforum

Volume 58, January 2015, Pages 76-85
Geoforum

What can we learn from the practice of development-forced displacement and resettlement for organised resettlements in response to climate change?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.10.016Get rights and content

Highlights

  • DFDR is examined for applicability to resettlement related to climate change.

  • Flaws provide lessons for climate change related displacement and resettlement.

  • To explain these, DFDR praxis is placed in its broader political economic context.

  • Similar influences will be at play if applied to climate change resettlement.

Abstract

It is anticipated that environmental stress induced by climate change may displace some people and communities. While many people will be able to respond to such impacts, there will be groups that are unable to either adapt in situ or migrate. In such cases some degree of planned and assisted resettlement may be required. Specialists are looking for precedents to guide such resettlement, and development-forced displacement and resettlement (DFDR) has been offered. However, DFDR practice is deeply flawed, as evidenced by the large numbers of people who have been impoverished through it. Yet from these flaws come lessons. This paper analyses DFDR for its frailties, to identify these lessons and situate them within the broader political economy. We ask: why does DFDR continue to intensify impoverishment? The paper contributes to the literature on the political economy of DFDR and provides contextual considerations for planners organising resettlements in response to climate change. It is only by analysing this foundational knowledge that the intergenerational burden that has plagued so many DFDR projects can be averted.

Introduction

It is widely understood that climate change will reduce some people’s ability to make a living in their home communities. Warren et al. (2006) estimate that by 2020 climate change may expose an additional 6 million people in coastal areas to flood and that by 2085 800–1800 million people will be exposed to water resource stresses; up to 600 million more people could be at risk of hunger by 2080. It is unclear whether people will relocate in response to these stresses, and if so, how many of them there will be. People under resource stress adapt in many ways, only one of which includes migration (Hugo, 2010, Kälin, 2010), and if people do relocate, real, perceived or anticipated environmental change may comprise only one component of their reasoning.

Nevertheless, it is likely that environmental stress induced by climate change will cause the displacement of some people or communities (Barnett and Webber, 2010, Piguet et al., 2011) and those lacking resources may require assistance to move. For instance, the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014, p. 20) states that “climate change over the 21st Century is projected to increase the displacement of people”. The Cancun Adaptation Framework (2010), which was adopted by parties to the Cancun Agreements at the 2010 Climate Change Conference, invited states (in para 14f) to undertake “measures to enhance understanding, coordination and cooperation with regard to climate change induced displacement, migration and planned relocation where appropriate, at the national, regional and international levels” (UNFCCC, 2010, p. 5). Thus some scholars and policy makers have begun to examine the experiences of other kinds of displacement to guide future organised resettlements and predict their difficulties. Of interest is the forced displacement and resettlement (DFDR) of people to make way for development projects (large dams, transport infrastructure, mines, and urban expansion and reconstruction) or to restrict their access to land. This paper examines that consideration. It asks: what can we learn from the many decades of DFDR that might be useful in planning the organised resettlement of people affected by climate change and associated projects within borders?1

After introducing the literature about development-forced displacement and climate change, we begin by unpacking the key failings of DFDR praxis. These include: limited regard for the agency of the affected population as people who are themselves capable of responding to changes going on around them; the lack of interrogation of development as an approach to improving resettlement outcomes; limited consideration of the politics surrounding the identification of the affected population; and a simplistic understanding of community dynamics and livelihoods. We then place the praxis of DFDR within its broader political economic context to explain these problems. Finally, we draw upon the frailties of DFDR as lessons for organised resettlements2 in response to climate change.

Section snippets

Climate, development, displacement

Until recently the study of DFDR was largely disconnected from the study of other types of displacement (‘conflict’, ‘natural disaster’ and ‘environmental’), even though all raise issues of vulnerability, livelihood reconstruction risk and human rights violations (Cernea, 1990, Cernea, 1997, Muggah, 2003). Despite calls to share knowledge across the different types of displacement (Turton, 2006, for example) and some attempts to bridge this divide – (Hansen and Oliver-Smith, 1982, Cernea, 1990,

Problems of DFDR

Thus, although human responses to the impacts of climate change may involve several kinds of mobility, it is generally recognised that some forms of organised resettlement may be necessary if people cannot respond of their own accord (de Sherbinin et al., 2011). We look to DFDR for lessons for such resettlement, but the majority of these are to be drawn from its frailties. The evidence of operational evaluations, independent research and NGO investigations points to a strong relationship

Why does DFDR intensify impoverishment among displaced communities?

These comments about the failings of DFDR manifest a broader lacuna in understanding organised resettlement. We have indicated that DFDR generally involves top-down planning, under which certain groups are selected for relocation, and steps are taken to restore livelihoods (regarded as incomes), with little attention paid to community-wide effects. The model assumes that the state and other agencies are fair, impartial, dispassionate arbiters of what is best for society as a whole. All that is

Conclusions

This paper is premised on the idea that environmental stresses induced by climate change will displace some people and communities. While many people can respond to such impacts, some groups will be unable to adapt in situ or migrate. In such cases, planned resettlement may be required; some argue this is already underway. To this end, specialists of DFDR have offered their experiences of displacement and resettlement. Noting the similarities and differences between displacement driven by

Acknowledgements

Brooke Wilmsen and Michael Webber acknowledge the receipt of Australian Research Council (ARC) Grant DE120101037 and DP110103381, respectively, which partially supported the research reported in this paper.

The authors would like to thank Dr. Susanna Price of the Australian National University and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

References (118)

  • S.P.J. Batterbury et al.

    Fighting back: Human adaptations in marginal environments

    Environment

    (1999)
  • O. Bennett et al.

    Displaced: The Human Cost of Development and Resettlement

    (2012)
  • T. Bisht

    Negotiating impoverishment risks through informal social structures and practices

  • R. Black et al.

    Migration as adaptation

    Nature

    (2011)
  • K. Brown et al.

    Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental change: lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters

    Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

    (2011)
  • Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, 2014. Home Page. <www.csrm.uq.edu.au> (accessed 1...
  • M. Cernea

    Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development

    (1985)
  • M. Cernea

    Internal Refugee Flows and Development-induced Population Displacement

    J. Refugee Stud.

    (1990)
  • M. Cernea

    The Economics of Involuntary Resettlement: Questions and Challenges

    (1999)
  • M. Cernea

    For a new economics of resettlement: a sociological critique of the compensation principle

    Int. Soc. Sci. J.

    (2003)
  • M. Cernea

    Financing for development: Benefit-sharing mechanisms in population resettlement

    Econ. Polit. Weekly

    (2007)
  • M. Cernea et al.

    Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees

    (2000)
  • A. Chakrabarti et al.

    Dislocation and Resettlement in Development: From Third World to the World of the Third. Routledge Studies in Development and Society

    (2010)
  • R. Chambers

    Settlement Schemes in Tropical Africa

    (1969)
  • P. Chatterjee

    Innovative Approaches for Involuntary Resettlement: Lunawa Environmental Improvement and Community Development Project

    (2009)
  • Conservapedia, 2011. Benefits of Capitalism....
  • B.A. Costa-Pierce

    From Farmers to Fishes: Developing Reservoir Aquaculture for People displaced by Dams

    (1997)
  • E.J. Croll

    Involuntary Resettlement in Rural China: The Local View

    China Quart.

    (1999)
  • M. de Landa

    A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity

    (2006)
  • A. de Sherbinin

    Assessing displacement and resettlement due to climate change mitigation and adaptation projects

  • A. de Sherbinin et al.

    Preparing for resettlement associate with climate change

    Science

    (2011)
  • C. de Wet

    Development and population displacement: can everybody win?

    Econ. Polit. Weekly

    (2001)
  • C. de Wet

    Development-induced Displacement: Problems, Policies and People

    (2006)
  • D. Dickinson et al.

    Environmental resettlement and development, on the steppes of Inner Mongolia, PRC

    J. Int. Dev.

    (2007)
  • T.E. Downing

    Mitigating social impoverishment when people are displaced

  • Downing, T., Scudder, T., 2008. Letter to Board of Directors, Asian Development Bank. Re: ADB Safeguard Policy Update:...
  • J. Drèze et al.

    The Dam and the Nation: Displacement and Resettlement in the Narmada Valley

    (1997)
  • J. Drydyk

    Development ethics and the ‘Climate Migrants’ ethics

    Policy Environ.

    (2013)
  • J.S. Dryzek

    Designs for environmental discourse revisited: a greener administrative state?

  • J. Ferguson

    The Anti-Politics Machine

    (1990)
  • E. Ferris

    Climate change and internal displacement: a contribution to discussion

  • Ferris, E., 2011b. Planned relocations, disaster and climate change. In: Conference on Climate Change and Migration in...
  • C.R. Foust et al.

    Revealing and reframing apocalyptic tragedy in global warming discourse

    Environ. Commun.: J. Nat. Cult.

    (2009)
  • B.A. Galipeau et al.

    Dam-induced displacement and agricultural livelihoods in China’s Mekong basin

    Hum. Ecol.

    (2013)
  • P. Ganderton

    Benefit-cost analysis of hazard mitigation: the current state of what counts and how to count it

    Mitig. adapt. Strateg. glob. chang.

    (2005)
  • A. Gandhi

    Developing compliance and resistance: the state, transnational social movements and tribal peoples contesting India’s Narmada project

    Glob. Netw.

    (2003)
  • V.K. Gidwani

    Capital, Interrupted

    (2008)
  • M. Gill

    Dams and resettlement as development: a case for building good practice

    Eastern Anthropol.

    (2000)
  • J. Gupte et al.

    Disjunctures in labelling refugees and oustees

  • T.B. Gurung et al.

    Cage fish culture: an alternative livelihood option for communities displaced by reservoir impoundment in Kulekhani, Nepal

  • Cited by (116)

    • Urbanization through resettlement and the production of space in Hangzhou's concentrated resettlement communities

      2022, Cities
      Citation Excerpt :

      This research highlights that the political inclusion of the resettled in resettlement projects should be prioritized. This should go beyond the “tokenistic rather than meaningful participation” (Wilmsen & Webber, 2015, p. 78). As highlighted in previous sections, the social contradictions between villagers and the imposed urban form and governance structure are major obstacles to inclusive resettlement.

    • Unsustainable development, disasters and displacement: Revisiting the governance challenge

      2022, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
      Citation Excerpt :

      Refs. [1–3]. Meanwhile, how development projects could lead to displacement is well-documented in the forced migration field [4–6]. The link between unsustainable development model pursued since the industrial revolution, which resulted in massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, and acceleration of climate change is now established as scientifically ‘unequivocal’ [7]; p.5).

    • A place-based framework for assessing resettlement capacity in the context of displacement induced by climate change

      2022, World Development
      Citation Excerpt :

      Most importantly, unlike other resettlement programs, most climate-related programs to date have occurred as ad hoc responses to disaster events. In the future, a much more proactive approach to long-term relocation and resettlement is needed (Wilmsen & Webber, 2015). Several approaches have been used to study socioeconomic consequences of resettlement.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text