No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The realisation that climate change might necessitate resettlement of people displaced initially raised interest in the experience of development-forced displacement and resettlement (DFDR). Looking back, in 1980 the first international policy on involuntary resettlement was approved to address perceived weaknesses in state property and expropriation law to safeguard people in the way of development projects. Since then international policy and praxis have brought global attention to developmentally displaced people but have not guaranteed them an effective safeguard. Recently, renewed attention has focussed on state legal and governance frameworks substantively and procedurally. Identifying four key policy objectives that resonate with climate change displacement I analyse their treatment in a data base of DFDR laws and regulations from 40 Asia Pacific states. This analysis finds overall little legal congruence. Innovative new formulations in some Asian state laws address recent public criticisms and research findings, but mostly are yet to demonstrate positive outcomes for displaced people. Pacific states increasingly abandon expropriation law to negotiate lease terms for public infrastructure projects with customary landowners that do not extinguish customary title. Any laws governing climate change relocations must protect rights, livelihoods, well-being, inclusive decision-making and community initiatives with procedures whilst not relinquishing climate-change-reducing action.

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.