Households, livelihoods and mining-induced displacement and resettlement

G Model EXIS 110 No. of Pages 9

The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Extractive Industries and Society journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/exis

Review

Households, livelihoods and mining-induced displacement and resettlement A.B Adama , John R. Owenb , Deanna Kempc,* a

Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia 4072, Australia Honorary Senior Research Fellow Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia 4072, Australia c Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia 4072, Australia b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 28 March 2015 Received in revised form 6 May 2015

In mining and resettlement practice, one critical oversight is the conceptualisation of households in the formulation of livelihood reconstruction initiatives. While households have received considerable attention in development studies, principally in relation to sustainable livelihood activities, the substance of this research continues to evade the attention of policy makers and practitioners in the mining industry. This article highlights the importance of household level analysis in mining industry policy and resettlement practice. The authors argue that unless the material pressures and possibilities for impoverishment and improvement are realized at the household level, livelihood restoration practice in MIDR will continue to stagnate. ã2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Available online xxx Keywords: Mining Resettlement Impoverishment risk Livelihood reconstruction Households

Contents 1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mining, resettlement and the livelihood challenge . . . . State of knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Civil society cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Livelihoods, development and the role of households . . Households and the mining and resettlement landscape Global standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Corporate policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Households in MIDR planning and practice . . . . 4.3. Discursive deterrents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pathways for change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion: prospects for change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction In the opening sentences of his article on Famines, Sen (1980) writes that “Economics has been called the dismal science. But it

* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 61 407 155 558. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.B. Adam), [email protected] (J.R. Owen), [email protected] (D. Kemp).

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

may not be quite dismal enough”. While resettlement and mining does not command the same level of disciplinary recognition as economics, its standing as a dismal practice could hardly be contested. In this article the authors explore how and why the study of mining-induced displacement and resettlement (MIDR) is in such a poor state, and in particular, the lack of clarity offered in policy and practice about the function of the household unit in mitigating the immiserating effects of MIDR. Household analysis offers valuable insights about human relationships at

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.05.002 2214-790X/ ã 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Adam, A.B., et al., Households, livelihoods and mining-induced displacement and resettlement. Extr. Ind. Soc. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.05.002

G Model EXIS 110 No. of Pages 9

2

A.B. Adam et al. / The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

the sub-community level, including how people interpret and respond to the effects of project-induced displacement. According to The World Bank’s (1996, p. 92) Bankwide Review of Projects Involving Involuntary Resettlement 1986–1993, less than five percent of development-induced displacement or resettlement (DIDR) was attributable to the mining sector. This percentage does not reflect the global impact or presence of MIDR, but merely the percentage of World Bank funded projects in that sector during that period. The international scale, and total number, of involuntary resettlements caused by mining activity remains unaccounted for.1 Preliminary data provided by Theodore Downing in his now decade-old report Avoiding New Poverty: Mining-Induced Displacement and Resettlement (2002), suggests that the rate of MIDR is far greater than reported. The failure to maintain a global account of case studies and impacts of MIDR is but one part of this dismal picture. Progressive updates to social safeguards at the international level, increasing uptake of those standards in corporate policy, together with a generally improved set of legislative requirements at the national level have not served the extractive industry effectively in its ability to address fundamental social risks associated with MIDR.2 Michael Cernea, arguably the world’s most prominent displacement scholar, has insisted for over three decades on the need to drastically improve the science surrounding DIDR.3 According to Cernea (1997) a myriad of risks factors beset the entire enterprise. Institutional commitment notwithstanding, perhaps the single most prominent cause of resettlement failure is the general absence of frameworks and methods for ensuring that displaced persons are in fact socially and economically better off as a result of the exercise (Cernea, 1988; Scudder, 1991; McDowell, 1996; Maitra, 2009; Downing and Garcia-Downing, 2009; Maldonado, 2012). This general absence extends to resources, penalties and contemporary research. Evidence from the field suggests that when developers fail to invest in a comprehensive program of livelihood reconstruction activities, it is ‘impoverishment’ and not ‘improvement’ that results as the default outcome. In resettlement practice in mining, one critical oversight is the clear conceptualisation of households in formulating and operationalising livelihood reconstruction initiatives. While it is true that households have received considerable attention in development studies, principally in relation to the establishment or preserving of sustainable livelihood activities; the substance of this research continues to evade the attention of policy makers and practitioners of MIDR. The aim of this article is to examine the representation of the ‘household’ within contemporary MIDR policy and practice. Owen and Kemp (2015), argue that owing to the nature of the industry, its product and business lifecycle, and a persistent difficulty in realising corporate social responsibility (CSR) objectives, MIDR has unique factors that warrant greater attention. These factors include the nature of incremental expansion in land access, cohabitation patterns between mines and communities, patterns of leveraging for compensation and associated dependency, and the complexities of governance arrangements that congeal around mining

1 We use ‘resettlement’ to refer to the comprehensive process of planning, displacement, relocation, livelihood restoration and social integration, over time. The term ‘relocation’ is used to describe the physical displacement and movement of people from one place to another. 2 The World Bank’s Safeguard Policy 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement (2001) has served as the global reference point for DIDR for more than 15 years. Aligns with this standard, which has in turn been widely endorsed by the global mining industry. From herein, we refer to these safeguards and standards as “the global standards”. 3 We note that Michael Cernea’s work has been criticised as too linear and inputdriven (De Wet, 2006). This article does not constitute a critique of managerial approaches to resettlement. We simply reference this work due to its prominence in the field of planned resettlement.

operations (Owen and Kemp, 2015). These unique factors have direct implications for the manner in which the industry recognises and relates to “households” and by extension its basic obligation to restore livelihoods. The article is structured into seven sections. The following section provides an overview of knowledge on MIDR and describes the nature of the livelihood challenge. The third section positions households as a practical point of engagement for better understanding this challenge. The fourth section summarizes the existing global standards and their approach with respect to households. This section also outlines the industry’s approach to households in corporate policy and practice. In section five the authors explain why households are so poorly incorporated into resettlement policy and practice. In section six, we explore the implications of improved diagnostics and engagement at the household level, and in section seven we conclude. 2. Mining, resettlement and the livelihood challenge 2.1. State of knowledge The state of knowledge around resettlement and mining is poor. This condition emanates from several decades of largely undocumented practice by the sector in remote and governance-weak contexts, and an industry that has, for the most part, not engaged with a rapidly changing landscape of debate and scholarship around resettlement. Key concepts that form the basic working vernacular for resettlement experts, words such as: “dispossession”, “reconstruction”, “social disarticulation”, do not feature within the mining industry’s operating language on MIDR.4 Industry policy statements refer diligently to International Financial Institutions (IFIs) safeguards, but only in general terms. The same level of internal questioning and external engagement that observers have witnessed in relation to business and human rights, or more recently on Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), has simply not occurred for resettlement (Owen and Kemp, 2014, 2015). Outside of the minerals sector, the knowledge base on displacement and resettlement has continually expanded over almost fifty years (Gans, 1968; Colson, 1971; Mathur and Cernea, 1995; Cernea, 1997; Cernea and McDowell, 2000; Somayaji and Talwar, 2011). According to Downing (2002), this knowledge base provides “a rich vein of knowledge” with “reasonable guidelines” on how to avoid the most critical of risk areas associated with the mineral sector. Across the spread of international standards, the “core wisdom is that restoration of livelihoods and rehabilitation are more likely when all potential impoverishment risks are identified early and when organisational and financial arrangements are made to mitigate or avoid these risks” (Downing, 2002; p. 12). Much of this core wisdom is captured in a broadly agreed model of generalised impoverishment risks. More than 15 years ago, Cernea (1997) developed the Impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction (IRR) Model for Resettling Displaced Populations, which outlined eight foundational risks and a method for reversing their effects. The model’s risks include ‘landlessness’, ‘joblessness’, ‘homelessness’, ‘marginalisation’, ‘food insecurity’, ‘loss of access to common property’, ‘increased morbidity’ and ‘community disarticulation’. The IRR model has received sustained and detailed examination across a variety of disciplines and sectors. Critiques and

4 The Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development (MMSD) study (IIED 2002) is one of the strongest examples of where the industry engaged in a discourse of social risk, including on the topic of mining and resettlement. However, the postMMSD take up of this language on the topic of resettlement has been limited.

Please cite this article in press as: Adam, A.B., et al., Households, livelihoods and mining-induced displacement and resettlement. Extr. Ind. Soc. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.05.002

G Model EXIS 110 No. of Pages 9

A.B. Adam et al. / The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

clarifications have been offered (Mahapatra, 1999; De Wet, 2006; Buzoianu and Toc, 2013), but the framework itself has not been adjusted. Despite the strength of the IRR model in forecasting resettlement risk, available evidence suggests that global mining companies do not always identify or seek to identify known social and economic risks. A review of 21 public and private Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) reveals that only eight contained indicators of a considered approach to livelihood planning and risk identification.5 According to Cernea, without adequate risk identification, impoverishment is the most likely resettlement outcome. The focus on impoverishment is a prominent feature in the DIDR literature. Generally speaking this is attributed to the failure of developers to adequately plan or implement livelihood reconstruction programs. Our review of recent MIDR research indicates a notably high rate of failure in the resettlement of displaced people (Adjei, 2007; Aubynn, 2003; Bhatasara, 2013; Crescentia et al., 2011; Fernandes, 2007; Herbert and Lahiri-Dutt, 2004; Prajna and Sujit, 2014). In several instances researchers have made explicit links between the failure of resettlement programs and the weaknesses of the project’s livelihood reconstruction approach; but have focused their interests more on the emergence of social conflict or social movements that have followed (Abuya, 2013; Bebbington et al., 2008; Bury, 2007; Bury and Bebbington, 2013; Hilson and Yakovleva, 2007; Hilson, 2002a,b, 2010; Hilson and Ackah-Baidoo, 2011) 2.2. Civil society cases In the context of an emerging body of scholarship about MIDR, civil society campaigns offer valuable insights into the current state of industry practice. As we outline below, the industry maintains a policy position on MIDR premised on the idea of ‘improvement’; whereby it is claimed that resettlement has the potential to improve quality of life indicators for project-affected people above their pre-displacement levels. Some companies have gone as far as describing resettlers as ‘beneficiaries’ (KMT, 2009; GAG, 2003). Evidence gathered by NGO groups over the past decade suggests that MIDR is overwhelmingly detrimental to host communities. Several national and sub-national campaigns can be identified, including from South Africa (ActionAid, 2008), ChadCameroon (Friends of the Earth, 2002), Mozambique (Lillywhite et al., 2015; Human Rights Watch, 2013; Southern Africa Resource Watch, 2010), Ghana (Fian, 2009; ActionAid, 2006), Indonesia (Friends of the Earth, 2011), India (Amnesty International, 2010), Fiji (Oxfam Australia, 2004), Papua New Guinea (Human Rights Watch, 2012), Guatemala (Cordaid, 2009) and Peru (Oxfam Australia, 2001, 2002, 2003). These campaigns cover a multitude of commodity groups and companies, but with a notably larger sample of top-tier companies that are more sensitive to negative publicity and reputational damage. Notwithstanding this focus on larger companies, the common element is the presence of impoverishment risks among project displaced people. According to the data gathered in these reports, resettlers become impoverished through the dispossession of land and assets, food and water insecurity, profound breakdowns in social and kin relationships and a failure to restore household-level livelihoods. These effects correspond closely to

5 This sample is drawn from an augmented dataset collected by Owen and Kemp (2015). For the purposes of this article, a considered approach includes a dedicated and itemized budget for livelihood reconstruction activities, clear objectives and goals, an unambiguous statement of responsibility for planning, engagement and implementation, together with timelines and explicit and empirically grounded measures for assessing and responding to vulnerability.

3

those risks established in DIDR scholarship. In situations where households were been poor prior to resettlement, these cases suggest that current approaches to resettlement do not offer improvement, but rather a regressive form of development that deepens impoverishment. 3. Livelihoods, development and the role of households Throughout the vast body of literature on livelihoods and development, households are central actors. Households are conceptualised as complex units which make decisions about provisioning and whose functional objective is to support social production and reproduction (Bryceson, 2002; Bernstein et al., 1992; Deera and Janvry, 1979). Households access and hold assets, and create and participate in strategic networks to achieve social and economic goals. Given the paucity of MIDR practice, particularly in the area of livelihood reconstruction, understanding the role of households in is an important task. Household level analysis helps to anchor resettlement planning in specific social relations and organising principles. In the following paragraphs we outline some of the key concepts and conceptual linkages from the literature on household studies. In the final two sections of the article we return to the question of why household level analysis and engagement should be better incorporated into MIDR policy and practice. According to Davidson (1991; p. 14) the attractiveness of household studies can be attributed in part to its ability to “traverse this seemingly insuperable gap between individual and structure, drawing together micro- and macro-levels of analysis”. As a foundation concept, the household “is conceived of as an intermediate unit linking the behavior of individuals to the wider socioeconomic environment”. In development theory, households are also seen as the “locus of resources and labor” (Davidson, 1991, p. 14) forming the basis of highly popularised ‘assets’ orientated approaches. Chimhowu and Hulme (2006, p. 729) identify several frameworks: Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) (Carney, 1998, 1999), the Framework for Thinking about Diverse Rural Livelihoods (Ellis, 2000), Capitals and Capabilities Framework (Bebbington, 1999), and the UNDP's Sustainable Livelihoods Diamond (1999). As Chimhowu and Hulme (2006, p. 729) point out, “these frameworks have different emphasis, rather than fundamental conceptual differences”. The common conceptual footing, they argue, is that each framework attempts to “integrate assets, constraints and human capabilities” in order to “analyze the status, form, nature and condition of livelihoods over space and time”. Siegel, (2005; p. 6) defines assets as “the productive, social and locational” resources that “determine the opportunity set of options for livelihood strategies (the household’s revealed behavior)”. For Siegel, the scope and effectiveness of a given opportunity set “depends on the interface between a household’s assets and the prevailing context”. Within that context, the strategic management of assets by households can be understood as constituting its livelihood strategy Ellis (1998) and Carney et al. (1999) cited in Siegel, 2005, p. 12). Within the group of ‘assets based’ frameworks, assets are categorised into five types of capital: human, natural, social, physical and financial. These asset categories, representing the potential range of resources that households may draw upon, are further complimented by what Nussbaum (1988, 2000),Sen (1984, 1985), and Sen et al. (1987) refer to as ‘human capabilities’. The simplest expression of the idea of capabilities is offered by Sen himself (2005, p. 153), that is: “the opportunity to achieve valuable combinations of human functionings—what a person is able to do or be”. More elaborate definitions of capability draw on the notion of “entitlement”, reflecting a complex set of economic, legal,

Please cite this article in press as: Adam, A.B., et al., Households, livelihoods and mining-induced displacement and resettlement. Extr. Ind. Soc. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.05.002

G Model EXIS 110 No. of Pages 9

4

A.B. Adam et al. / The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

political and social relations and arrangements in which people are able to exercise rights and fulfill obligations. Whether linkages between entitlements and livelihood outcomes are expressed through individual units, “livelihood cells” or “livelihood networks”, households remain the central reference point of activity (Chimhowu and Hulme, 2006; p. 729). Scoones (1998; p. 5) suggests that livelihoods be defined as “capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living”. He argues that “a livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base”. The relationship between shocks, household networks and livelihood strategies is especially relevant in the context of livelihood restoration following a physical and economic displacement. Within the broader DIDR literature, the connection between development imposed shocks and household vulnerability has received little attention (McDowell 2002; Downing and GarciaDowning, 2009). In the context of mining, understanding the relationship between prior vulnerability and how households respond to the prospect of impoverishment risks should be considered a critical part of the resettlement planning and livelihood reconstruction processes. 4. Households and the mining and resettlement landscape A persistent theme in the MIDR policy and practice arenas is a lack of clarity around households. This lack of clarity begins with definitions and extends to responsibilities, rights, protections and obligations. In this section we examine the formal status of households within three distinct but related MIDR domains. These are: (i) the global safeguards on involuntary land acquisition and resettlement, (ii) corporate level policy statements developed and publicaly released by international mining companies and (iii) planning and implementation norms at the operations level. 4.1. Global standards The current suite of global standards does not provide a clear approach to household-level analysis and post-relocation livelihood restoration. In the most recent edition of the IFC’s Performance Standard 5 (PS5) and Guidance Note (2012) on involuntary land acquisition and resettlement, for example, several social units are mentioned: persons, families, households and communities. The circumstances under which different social units or themes, such as gender, take priority over others, or how these different levels of analysis relate to each other is not made clear. In an internal review of involuntary resettlement projects between 1990 and 2010, The World Bank (2014; p. 11) found that “definitions of affected populations are often inconsistent and lack uniformity” and that “resettlement instruments used different units of analysis when referring to persons, households or families”. In fact the review noted that these terms were sometimes used interchangeably. A lack of clarity about the role and positioning of households in policy has direct consequences in practice. The IFC PS5 and the guidance note refers to households as entitlement bearing units. Its treatment throughout the standard is limited to three brief mentions. In the first reference, the standard suggests that in order to better understand the gendered nature of livelihood change and resource usage, an “intra-household analysis” may be required (p. 3). In the second reference, the standard recommends that “[d]ocumentation of ownership or occupancy and compensation arrangements should be issued in the names of both spouses or heads of households” (p. 4). In the third mention, the standard suggests that “[w]here appropriate,

benefits or compensation associated with natural resource usage may be collective in nature rather than directly oriented toward individuals or households” (p. 7). While these references clearly identify households as units through which resources and entitlements may be transferred, the connection between the composition, functionality or strategizing of households and the difficult task of restoring or improving livelihood conditions is not made explicit.6 4.2. Corporate policy A review of corporate policy on mining and resettlement suggests three themes. First, that ‘diligent deferral’ can be used to describe the way in which mining companies utilise IFC PS5. Most of the larger companies, including Anglo American, Rio Tinto, Glencore, BHP Billiton, AngloGold Ashanti, Newmont and Barrick Gold, defer to the standard as their performance benchmark. The global standards are incorporated into corporate policy in their generic form, without clarification or elaboration as to how they apply to the mining industry (cf. Anglo American’s SEAT Manual, 2012). This is despite the unique characteristics of MIDR relative to resettlement in other sectors. Second, that a number of companies have ‘livelihood improvement’ as a stated aim in their corporate standards. IFC PS5 stipulates that this is a base requirement, yet some companies have re-phrased this commitment (one can only assume for emphasis). Rio Tinto (2011) for example states that: “The goal of resettlement is that the livelihoods of those resettled will be improved over the long term” and “our intention is that resettled people will be better off over time as a result of resettlement— according to their own assessment and external expert review”. In a similar vein, Glencore’s resettlement policy states that it aims at “maintaining and improving quality of life following resettlement”. Barrick Gold indicates that their policy requirements help them to deliver on their commitment to “improve or, at least, restore the livelihoods and living standards of displaced families and communities”. Thirdly, reference to households is minimal. There is no emphasis, for instance, on the importance of families and households in the livelihood restoration process; no reference to intra-household dynamics, communities or broader societal structures. In fact, the industry’s peak body, the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), completely overlooks the question of livelihood restoration. Instead, the policy simply requires member companies to “minimise” resettlement (which is not as strong as the IFC PS5 requirement of “avoiding” involuntary resettlement) and to compensate fairly for loss. The question of impoverishment risk and livelihood restoration does not rate a mention. 4.3. Households in MIDR planning and practice In this section, we describe how households are positioned in contemporary MIDR practice, and observe where they are present and absent. One useful approach is to consider how households are conceptualised at different stages of resettlement planning. In the pre-resettlement period, household-level research is typically required as part of the regulatory and permitting processes, where

6 The guidelines refer extensively to ‘households’ but do not provide clear definitions or clarify what functional differences may exist between household types in different societies and locations. The issues around connecting household composition, functionality and livelihood analysis that exist in the standard are not resolved in the guidelines.

Please cite this article in press as: Adam, A.B., et al., Households, livelihoods and mining-induced displacement and resettlement. Extr. Ind. Soc. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.05.002

G Model EXIS 110 No. of Pages 9

A.B. Adam et al. / The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

prospective developers formulate environmental and social impact assessments (ESIA) and related RAPs.7 The definition of “household” used in each case of resettlement planning and implementation has immense consequences, for legal, social, economic, practical and ethical dynamics at inter- and intrahousehold levels. MIDR resettlement planners must be aware of the importance of the criteria used in defining the household in determining resettlement outcomes, including any safeguards built in to the entitlements to manage risks for women or other household members. If quality baseline information is otherwise unavailable, these processes will usually involve household surveys to gather census and other basic demographic data, such as asset inventories, land use and livelihood assessments. This information provides mining companies and regulatory agencies with information for understanding how land, labor and other forms of capital are organised and allocated locally. In practice, this information is used to establish criteria to determine eligibility cut-offs and entitlement levels for resettlement packages. These studies can also inform future stakeholder engagement, community development and livelihood restoration strategies, although the application of this knowledge in this way is not always evident in practice. Regulatory frameworks for MIDR position households as the point of engagement for agreeing compensation for loss of land and other assets. Developers are required to engage with affected persons as a condition of the global standard, but this does not automatically mean that all members of a household will be consulted or engaged in a negotiation process. Cernea’s (1997) IRR model which is now considered the dominant model contains some potential for assisting communities in predicting, diagnosing and problem solving around known resettlement issues. However, utilising these functions requires communities to have advanced knowledge (or consistent access to third party specialists) at the outset of the planning process, which again is not always the case. For mining companies, engagement occurs primarily to secure land access. Developers seeking to achieve compliance under the global standard need to demonstrate a basic level of knowledge of local land tenure systems or the social factors underpinning the regulation of economic goods within the community. In many instances, compensation for land or assets will be channeled through the household head, but an analysis of how households distribute or utilise assets or resources within or among themselves is not strictly required. Following physical relocation, households require special attention and engagement. Under the global standard, developers are required to take the lead in resettlement planning and implementation. This includes making a determination about the quantum of resourcing and engagement the company will devote to the resettlement, and to households in particular. One prominent tendency is for companies to place a greater emphasis on the building of “houses” as opposed to the development of “households”. What we mean here is companies are more able to understand the resources needed to provide physical infrastructure (i.e., houses, school buildings, roads) than what the engagement and livelihood needs are of displaced households. This proposition is generally evident in DIDR as developers find housing and other physical infrastructure the easiest risks to fix (Cernea, 1999). Most mining company-led livelihood interventions are wholeof-community orientated, typically via the provision of infrastructure and social services. While these interventions clearly have a developmental function, evidence from four decades of DIDR research demonstrates that physical infrastructure on its own is

7

Or equivalent planning mechanisms.

5

insufficient to protect, restore or promote household-level livelihood activity (Robinson, 2003; Mcdonald et al., 2008; Maldonado, 2012). Livelihood assistance programs in MIDR are often delivered on an ‘opt in’ basis, where household units elect which programs to engage in to support their recovery. Presently little is known about how households who are under stress of MIDR make these decisions, and even less is known about what happens to those households that are not in a position to engage— or what provisions are in place to cope and recover with the trauma of relocation. A review of RAPs from our sample reveals that most companies declare their intention to support vulnerable and otherwise ‘at risk’ groups, however, the degree to which this support is provided, or is indeed effective, has not been documented. There are several practical explanations as to why households are not brought more sharply into focus in mining. To begin with, the results of household surveys and other routine social monitoring activities collected by mining companies are often presented in aggregate form based on thematic or trend data. In the process of reporting on changes in the social context, the needs of individual households and the dynamic interactions between them become less prominent. Emerging forms of social analysis in mining, such as human rights impact assessments (HRIA) and gender impact assessments (GIA), do not focus on intra or inter household relations either. The values bias in these models means that they prioritise individual or collective rights; which includes rights bearing cohorts, as ‘workers’, ‘women’ or ‘ethnic minority’ groups, but typically not households.8 Households are positioned as the backdrop to gender relations or human rights enjoyment (Wheelock, 1996; Nathan, 2009). Another possible explanation for the neglect of households in MIDR relates to resourcing. In mining, resettlement planning is considered to be a specialist activity, undertaken by external experts with some corporate oversight. Based on our sample of 21 RAPs, six projects did not state which department had oversight of the various activities. A further eight indicated that the responsibility would sit with the equivalent of a community relations department with the remainder allocated to ad-hoc steering committees or government agencies. Following physical relocation, responsibility for resettlement and reconstruction will largely sit with companies. Despite this, operations tend not to resource community relations departments for household-level engagement—the focus is geared toward the community. Under the current approach, the onus is on households to come forward or ‘speak up’ if they have issues, enabling companies to respond to households ‘as needed’. Evidence suggests that this lack of focus limits livelihood restoration and recovery (Nathan, 2009). Another challenge emerges when households do not want companies or governments to engage them due to discontent or loss of trust. Households may well direct those actors to work through representative groups in order to protect their collective interests and keep other parties at a distance. At this point, the opportunity to work with households to support the recovery process, let alone explore possibilities for livelihood improvement, becomes limited, if not impossible. In summary, households tend to have a presence in the early phases of mine planning, drop out in the programmatic phases, and re-appear when external drivers draw corporate attention back to households for the purposes of responding to grievances or mitigating reputational or production risks. When communities and civil society groups draw attention to collective issues,

8 That the rights of these groups is important is not at issue here. The issue is that current and emerging forms of social analysis tend to overlook the social and economic group that is central to livelihood restoration—that of the household.

Please cite this article in press as: Adam, A.B., et al., Households, livelihoods and mining-induced displacement and resettlement. Extr. Ind. Soc. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.05.002

G Model EXIS 110 No. of Pages 9

6

A.B. Adam et al. / The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

companies are once again distracted by the aggregate nature of the problem and may even be prevented from substantive engagement with the household unit. 5. Discursive deterrents In the paragraphs above, we have outlined the status of households and livelihood reconstruction across a range of policy and practice domains relating to MIDR. We have also described several of the practical considerations that inhibit conceptualisation of and engagement with household units by mining companies. In order to understand the wider context in which these considerations are made, we need to examine recent discursive trends that have become influential in shaping the sector’s response to social issues in mining. We take the ‘business and human rights’ discourse as an example of an influential discourse in extractive industries in recent years. While we recognise the broader contribution of this discourse in calling attention to the industry’s social impacts, our intent here is to draw attention to its limitations with respect to households. Over the past decade, human rights has become an increasingly prominent discourse in mining and social responsibility (ICMM, 2011). Founded on the notion of a universally fixed and inalienable set of entitlements, a human rights perspective conceptualises human beings as individual entities that should be treated and respected equally (UNGA, 1948). With its legitimacy in the international arena, this discourse enables a re-framing of mining as an industrial activity with significant implications for project-affected people. This challenges the idea that mining's contributions to macro-economic development are of primary relevance. The human rights discourse attempts to create a level of parity between commercial priorities and the principles of equal access to fundamental social, environmental, political, and economic goods that are embedded in the human rights discourse. This is of immediate appeal when discussing MIDR. This echoes the sentiments of DIDR scholars who have emphasised equity and social justice in development for a matter of decades (Mathur, 2013; Oliver-Smith, 2010; Cernea and McDowell, 2000; Cernea, 1997). Dispossession of property or disrupted access to social, cultural and economic goods naturally calls into question how basic rights of affected persons will be protected and upheld (Robinson, 2003). In such cases the rights of each person are clearly of importance. Aside from the long standing debate over universalisms and cultural relativism in the determination of rights (Mullender, 2003), there are other challenges in the application of human rights in mining. The human rights discourse in mining is often used as a battleground between civil society campaigners and corporations. While campaigns can successfully highlight cases of human rights deprivation, they can at the same time become a campaign against the developer, inasmuch as (or more so) than a campaign for the rights of affected persons. Another limitation is that in practice, human rights apply to individuals, which does not immediately invoke a focus on households. In mining, the household often becomes a backdrop to the analysis of human rights impacts, rather than serving as a unit of analysis. International human rights law has more recently come to recognise collective rights (e.g., UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2008). Traditionally, the notion of collectively held rights has applied to community or societal level goods. Individual household members are considered to be rights holders, but the focus of analysis and investigation is ultimately directed away from household level groupings, again at a higher level of aggregation. Whether it be the methodology for uncovering and presenting cases or the championing of rights,

there is an aggregating effect in the human rights analysis that can be disadvantageous when examining household livelihood issues. Premised on the rights of indigenous and landed persons, the notion of ‘free prior informed consent’ (FPIC) has also received increasing levels of attention in the resource sector. Many of the legal and social nuances associated with ensuring ‘informed consent’ have yet to be fully considered by scholars and policy makers. A recent article by Owen and Kemp (2014) suggests that the successful integration of FPIC into resource development scenarios hangs on a number of complex ‘conditionalities’, which neither governments nor the mining industry have so far responded to with clarity. One conditionality that is especially relevant is the need to demonstrate clear processes of participation and representation (Owen and Kemp, 2014; p. 95). This poses a similar methodological challenge to that raised by the broader human rights discourse insofar as the underlying principles are of direct relevance to rights of dispossessed persons, but that the social units of analysis within the framework may not reflect how communities or groups of individuals approach day-to-day questions relating to resource ownership and use. Despite the fact that FPIC is now an international level discourse, the operationalization of the framework is still very much in its preliminary stages. How for instance, FPIC would be deployed at various points within a mining project lifecycle is still an open question. Determinations and advice on the type and level (i.e., complete consensus, majority, representative) of consent needed for which categories of activity is also an outstanding area for debate and consideration. At the project level, there is a need to clearly differentiate potential causes and consequences associated with consent being withheld or withdrawn. While households may not be the social unit of choice in establishing whether a community has indeed provided ‘consent’ to being physically and economic displaced, they are nonetheless critical to determining whether that consent is in fact durable. In sum, mining companies have engaged with the business and human rights discourse as society itself has demanded an ability to influence decisions about major industrial developments. However, attention tends to be directed at aggregate issues and collective rights, rather than examining the household. It is from this position that we advocate for a greater focus on households as a unit of analysis and engagement in MIDR. Grassroots work must engage individuals and collectives, but it must not do so at the expense of understanding household-level rights, interests, needs, entitlements and dynamics. In the section to follow, we consider the implications of adopting this approach, and the implications of not doing so. 6. Pathways for change A review of available evidence on MIDR cases suggests a global pattern of poor planning and implementation practice with affected persons being worse off as a result of their displacement. As we noted earlier, the absence of a significant public record of MIDR cases is a barrier to researchers undertaking a global and historical comparative analysis of resettlement patterns and events. This limited evidence base also prevents researchers from forming strong conclusions about the current state of practice. On the evidence available, there are nonetheless firm indicators suggesting that MIDR, and within that, livelihood reconstruction, is a failed space. The prevailing claim by the sector is that MIDR is an opportunity to improve the livelihood status of project affect persons. There is a clear point of disjuncture between the industry’s claims of “improvement” and the evidence provided by researchers and NGOs. Our reading of this disjuncture is that the

Please cite this article in press as: Adam, A.B., et al., Households, livelihoods and mining-induced displacement and resettlement. Extr. Ind. Soc. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.05.002

G Model EXIS 110 No. of Pages 9

A.B. Adam et al. / The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

industry’s policy position does not reflect the material dimensions, but rather a meta-claim about the net benefits of mining. We argue, therefore, that any improvement pathway for the sector must begin with a substantial engagement with the material dimensions of livelihood restoration in MIDR. An improved pathway would consist, at minimum, of: (i) improved regulation, (ii) improved science and (iii) improved practice that does not overlook material issues at the level of households. Improvements in MIDR practice landscape is reliant on ‘soft law’ or voluntary forms of regulation. We have argued that these laws do not provide the basis for responsible resettlement practice. Voluntary regulation increasingly depends on what Li (2014) describes as ‘technologies of accountability’ to determine social performance. In the area of resettlement these technologies are reflected in such instruments as IFI audits and internal corporate assessments. These technologies are limited in scope and conform to standard audit protocols (Kemp et al., 2012). Such technologies also rely on external ‘experts’ and do not address the inherent power disparities between developers, governments and resettled people. If voluntary forms of regulation are to remain the primary modality for safeguarding against resettlement and impoverishment risks, monitoring and evaluation practice will need significant development and strengthening. A more participative and accountable monitoring logic must be pursued in parallel to standard audit routines that includes a cross-section of social groups, including households. At the same time, most jurisdictions have some form of legislation or ‘hard law’ relating to DIDR. The challenge is that these laws are often incomplete in their coverage of potential issues or that the legislation merely reflects an effort at the national level to harden the ‘soft law’ that exists at the international level. We identify four issues. First, the majority of national legalisation in developing countries does not explicitly demand that investors either identify or provide an extensive management plan to monitor or mitigate complex resettlement risks. Second, alignment across the various legislative mechanisms is generally weak. Additionally, coordination between different Ministries, departments and levels of governments continues to create pockets of uncertainty with room for poor practice to sneak between the administrative cracks. Thirdly, and consequently, enforcement is rendered difficult. There are few penalties for breaches and too often, companies that perform poorly in this area will not face sanctions. Fourth, regulatory capacity within governments to oversee complex cases of MIDR continues to lag. Unless these issues are addressed, the practical distinction between ‘hard law’ and voluntary forms of regulation will remain soft. Our call for an improved MIDR ‘science’ is for a much improved base of knowledge from which communities, policy makers, litigators and resettlement practitioners can draw upon. While there are numerous gaps, our concern is that any new exercise in knowledge building must account for households. This includes diagnostics and analysis on the relationship between households and the social, political, environmental, economic and historical context within which they reside. It also includes the roles, responsibilities and relationships within households that have a bearing on livelihood reconstruction (or mitigation of impoverishment risks as an absolute minimum requirement). An improved ‘science’ would also require improvement in systems and processes for acquiring and sharing knowledge on MIDR and livelihood restoration. The current body of knowledge is largely drawn from case studies documenting the most egregious failures or worst case scenarios. While the profiling of such cases provides important insights into an under-researched field, clearly more research is needed to develop a more expansive picture of processes, events and experiences. Further, and in addition to establishing a more rigorous science around MIDR, we argue that it

7

is critical that the science gleaned from case studies be made more readily available to stakeholders. Progressive improvements and incorporation of evidence into policy and programming decisions is incumbent on the evidence being made available. Similarly, household level decisions about whether or not to accept (or how to manage) the likely negative effects of MIDR should be based upon quality information worthy of a decision of that magnitude. As we have outlined, the industry’s current approach to MIDR relies on a generic, derivative, aspirational policy framework. Configured this way, and without a grounding in the material dimensions of resettlement, impoverishment risks cannot be effectively avoided or mitigated. While undertaking a household level analysis cannot provide a full and all-encompassing read on the potential range of resettlement risks, households do reflect through their membership and collective experiences the materialization of resettlement risks and consequences. Unless the material pressures and possibilities for impoverishment and improvement are engaged at the level of households, livelihood restoration practice in mining and resettlement will continue to stagnate. 7. Conclusion: prospects for change In the current environment, prospects for change are not strong. Contemporary standards, including The World Bank’s Social Safeguards, are presently under review, with concerns that the framework could be diluted in order to create a less cumbersome compliance framework for investors and developers. Given that these standards provide the primary point of reference for mining industry policy, any weakening of the framework is likely to have negative flow on effects in the both regulation, science and practice. Further cause for doubt relates to the economic climate. The majority of civil society cases referenced in this article were documented by NGOs during the ‘commodities boom’; that is, at a time when companies had fewer budgetary constraints in securing funds, resources or expertise to service livelihood restoration in resettlement. Current projections indicate that the industry is entering an especially tight market with falling commodity prices and escalating production costs (Ernest and Young, 2013). Pressure to reduce cost means that many companies are cutting budgets, including in the critical area of livelihood restoration. Cuts to resettlement spending may promise to alleviate costs pressures for companies in the short-term, however recent research suggests that most companies fail to recognise the link between social risk, companycommunity conflict and cost to the business (Franks et al., 2014). With declining resources, the likelihood that resettled communities will agitate and protest will increase. An improved future prognosis for MIDR hangs on greater effort and responsibility across all stakeholder groups. Fragmentation in the regulatory domain has clear knock on effects in the practice domain. Comprehensive, coherent, and deliberate changes are needed if the sector is to move beyond the current impasse of dismal practice built on a poor knowledge base with poor public visibility. Transparency around how policy makers and mining personnel engage and formulate responses to the material dimensions of MIDR is essential. Our call for household level research within and across mining companies is but one step in this direction. References Abuya, W.O., 2013. What is in a Coconut? An Ethnoecological Analysis of Mining, Social Displacement, Vulnerability, and Development in Rural Kenya. Afr. Stud. Q. 14 (1–2), 1–21.

Please cite this article in press as: Adam, A.B., et al., Households, livelihoods and mining-induced displacement and resettlement. Extr. Ind. Soc. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.05.002

G Model EXIS 110 No. of Pages 9

8

A.B. Adam et al. / The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

ActionAid, 2008. Precious Metals: The Impact of Anglo Platinum on Poor Communities in Limpopo. ActionAid, South Africa. ActionAid, 2006. Gold Rush: The Impact of Gold Mining on Poor People in Obuasi in Ghana. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from http://www.actionaid.org.uk/sites/ default/files/doc_lib/gold_rush.pdf. Adjei, E., 2007. Impact of Mining on Livelihoods of Rural Households. A Case Study of Farmers in the Wassa Mining Region, Ghana. (MPhil, Development Studies). Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Amnesty International, 2010. Dont Mine Us Out of Existence: Bauxite Mine and Refinery Devastate Lives in India. Amnesty International Publications, London. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA20/001/2010/en/0a81a1bc-f50c4426-9505-7fde6b3382ed/asa200012010en.pdf. Aubynn, E.A., 2003. Community Perceptions of Mining: An Experience from Western Ghana. (MQ87714M. Sc.). University of Alberta, Ann Arbor, Canada http://search.proquest.com/docview/305251952?accountid=14723; http:// cf5pm8sz2l.search.serialssolutions.com/?&genre=article&sid=ProQ: &atitle=Community+perceptions+of+mining ABI/INFORM Complete; ABI/ INFORM Global; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.. Bebbington, A., 1999. Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty. World Development, 27(12), 2021– 2044. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00104-7. Bebbington, A., Humphreys Bebbington, D., Bury, J., Lingan, J., Muñoz, J.P., Scurrah, M., 2008. Mining and Social Movements: Struggles Over Livelihood and Rural Territorial Development in the Andes. World Development, 36(12), 2888–2905. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.11.016 Bernstein, H., Crow, B., Johnson, H., 1992. Rural Livelihoods: Crises and Responses. Oxford University Press in association with the Open University, Oxford. Bhatasara, S., 2013. Black granite mining and the implications for the development of sustainability in Zimbabwe: the case of Mutoko communities environment. Dev. Sustain. 15 (6), 1527–1541. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-0139456-y. Bryceson, D.F., 2002. The Scramble in Africa: Reorienting Rural Livelihoods. World Development, 30(5), 725–739. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00006-2. Bury, J., Bebbington, A., 2013. Subterranean Struggles: New Dynamics of Mining, Oil, and Gas in Latin America, 8. Austin University of Texas Press. Bury, J.T., 2007. Livelihoods, Mining and Peasant Protests in the Peruvian Andes. J. Latin Am. Geogr. 1 (1), 1–19. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/lag.2007.0018. Buzoianu, C., Toc, S., 2013. Misunderstanding opportunities: (post-) resettlement issues in the Recea neighbourhood of Alba Iulia. J. Comp. Res. Anthropol. Sociol. 4 (1), 21–40. Carney, D., 1998. Implementing a sustainable livelihoods approach. In: Carney, D. (Ed.), Sustainable Rural livelihoods: What Contributions Can We Make? Department for International Development, London. Carney, D., 1999. Approaches to Sustainable Livelihoods for the Poor. Overseas Development Institute, London. Carney, D., Drinkwater, M., Rusinow, T., Neefjes, K., Wanamali, S., Singh, N., 1999. Livelihood Approaches Compared: A Brief Comparison of the Livelihoods Approaches of DFID, CARE, Oxfam, and UNDP. Department for International Development (DFID), London. Cernea, M., 1997. The risks and reconstruction model for resettling displaced populations. World Development, 25(10), 1569–1587. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00054-5. Risk and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees. In: Cernea, M., McDowell, C. (Eds.), The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Cernea, M., 1988. Involuntary resettlement and development: some projects have adverse social effects. Can these be prevented? Finance Dev. 25 (3) . The Economics of Involuntary Resettlement: Questions and Challenges. In: Cernea, M. (Ed.), The World Bank, Washington, D.C. Chimhowu, A., Hulme, D. 2006. Livelihood dynamics in planned and spontaneous resettlement in Zimbabwe: Converging and Vulnerable. World Development, 34(4), 728–750. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.08.011 Colson, E., 1971. The Social Consequences of Resettlement: The Impact of the Kariba Resettlement Upon the Gwembe Tonga, Vol. 4. University of Zambia Manchester University Press, Manchester Published on Behalf of the Institute for African Studies. Crescentia, M., Victor, M., Sophie, M., 2011. Involuntary displacement and resettlement to make way for diamond mining: the case of Chiadzwa villagers in Marange, Zimbabwe. J. Res. Peace Gender Dev. 1 (10), 292–301. Cordaid, 2009. Mining conflicts and indigenours peoples in Guatemala. Retrieved November 14, 2014. from Cordaid https://www.cordaid.org/media/ publications/Mining_Conflicts_and_Indigenous_Peoples_in_Guatemala.pdf. Davidson, A.P., 1991. Rethinking household livelihood strategies. Res. Rural Sociol. Dev. 5, 11–28. De Wet, C. (Ed.), 2006. Development-Induced Displacement: Problems, Policies and People. Berghahn Books, United States. Deera, C.D., Janvry, A., 1979. A conceptual framework for the empirical analysis of peasants. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 61 (4), 601–611. Downing, T.E., 2002. Avoiding New Poverty: Mining-Induced Displacement and Resettlement, Vol. 52. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, U.K. Downing, T.E., Garcia-Downing, C., 2009. Routine and dissonant cultures: a theory about the psycho-socio-cultural disruptions of involuntary resettlement and ways to mitigate them without inflicting even more damage. In: Oliver-Smith, A. (Ed.), Development and Dispossession: The Crisis of Forced Displacement and Resettlement. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.

Ellis, F., 1998. Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. J. Dev. Stud. 35 (1), 1–38. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220389808422553. Ellis, F., 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, NY. Ernest, Young, 2013. Business risks facing mining and metals 2014–2015. Retrieved January 10, 2014 from Ernest and Young; http://www.ey.com/Publication/ vwLUAssets/EY-Business-risks-facing-mining-and-metals-2014%E2%80% 932015/$File/EY-Business-risks-facing-mining-and-metals-2014%E2%80% 932015.pdf. Fernandes, W., 2007. Managing the social and environmental consequences of coal mining in India, Dhanbad. Paper presented at the International Mining Conference, Delhi, India. Franks, M.D., Davis, R., Bebbington, J.A., Ali, H.S., Kemp, D., Scurrah, M., 2014. Conflict translates environmental and social risk into business costs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (21) . http://www.pnas.org/content/111/21/7576. Friends of the Earth International, 2002. Traversing Peoples Lives: How the World Bank Finances Community Disruption in Cameroun. Friends of the Earth International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Friends of the Earth International, 2011. Memory, Truth and Justice for Heroes in the Resistance Against Mining Oil and Gas. Friends of the Earth International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Fian (Producer), (2009, November 14, 2014). The case of the AngloGold Ashanti Iduapriem Mine in Ghana. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=P7Mz4hsCEpk. Gans, H.J., 1968. People and Plans: Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions. Basic Books, New York. Ghanaian Australian Goldfields Ltd., 2003. Resettlement Action Plan: Teberebie South East Waste Rock Dump. Retrieved November 15, 2014 from https://www. csrm.uq.edu.au/mining-resettlement/elibrary/resettlement-action-planteberebie-south-east-waste-rock-dump. Herbert, T., Lahiri-Dutt, K., 2004. Coal sector loans and displacement of indigenous populations: lessons from Jharkhand. Econ. Polit. Weekly 39 (23), 2403–2409. Hilson, G., 2002a. Land use competition between small- and large-scale miners: a case study of Ghana. Land Use Policy 19 (2), 149–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0264-8377(02)00003-0. Hilson, G. (2002b). An overview of land use conflicts in mining communities. Land Use Policy, 19(1), 65–73. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(01)000436. Hilson, G., 2010. ‘Once a miner, always a miner’: Poverty and livelihood diversification in Akwatia, Ghana. J. Rural Stud. 26 (3), 296–307. doi:http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.01.002. Hilson, G., Ackah-Baidoo, A., 2011. Can Microcredit Services Alleviate Hardship in African Small-scale Mining Communities? World Development, 39(7), 1191– 1203. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.10.004. Hilson, G., Yakovleva, N., 2007. Strained relations: a critical analysis of the mining conflict in Prestea, Ghana. Polit. Geogr. 26, 98–119. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.09.001. Human Rights Watch, 2013. "What is a house without food?" Mozambique's Coal Mining Booms and Resettlements. Retrieved November 15 from 2014; http:// www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/mozambique0513_Upload_0.pdf. Human Rights Watch, 2012. Gold’s costly dividend: Human rights impacts of Papau New Guinea’s Pogera gold mine. Retrieved November 15, 2014 from http:// www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/png0211webwcover.pdf IFC, 2012. Performance Standards on Environment and Social Sustainability Performance Standard 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement. Retrieved November 13, 2014. from http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/ 115482804a0255db96fbffd1a5d13d27/PS_English_2012_Full-Document.pdf? MOD=AJPERES ICMM, 2011. Voluntary principles on security and human rights: implementation guidance tools. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://www.icmm.com/ document/2199 International Institute for Environment and Development and The World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2002. Breaking New Ground: Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development. Earthscan publications Ltd., UK Retrieved October 10, 2014, from http://pubs.iied.org/9084IIED.html. Kemp, D., Owen, J.R., van de Graaff, S., 2012. Corporate social responsibility, mining and audit culture. J. Clean. Prod. 24 (0), 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2011.11.002. Kingamyambo Musonoi Tailings SARL, 2009. Samukonga resettlement action plan. Retrieved September 05, 2014, from http://www.miningresettlement.org/ elibrary/kmt-samukonga-resettlement-action-plan. Li, T.M., 2014. Land's End: Capitalist Relations on an Indigenous Frontier. Duke University Press. Lillywhite, S., Kemp, D., Sturman, K., 2015. Mining, Resettlement and Lost Livelihoods: Listening to the Voices of Resettled Communities in Mualadzi, Mozambique. Oxfam, Melbourne. Mahapatra, L.K., 1999. Testing the risks and reconstruction model on India’s resettlement experiences. In: Cernea, M.M. (Ed.), The Economics of Involuntary Resettlement: Questions and Challenges. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, D.C, pp.151–180. Maitra, S., 2009. Development induced displacement: issues of compensation and resettlement—experiences from the narmada valley and sardar sarovar project. Jpn. J. Polit. Sci. 10 (02), 191–211. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S1468109909003491. Maldonado, J.K., 2012. ANew path forward: researching and reflecting on forced displacement and resettlement: report on the international resettlement

Please cite this article in press as: Adam, A.B., et al., Households, livelihoods and mining-induced displacement and resettlement. Extr. Ind. Soc. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.05.002

G Model EXIS 110 No. of Pages 9

A.B. Adam et al. / The Extractive Industries and Society xxx (2015) xxx–xxx conference: economics, social justice, and ethics in development-caused involuntary migration, the Hague, 4–8 October, 2010. J. Refug. Stud. 25 (2), 193– 220. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fer036. Mathur, H.M., Cernea, M.M., 1995. Development, Displacement, and Resettlement: Focus on Asian Experiences. Vikas Pub House, New Delhi. Mathur, H.M., 2013. Displacement and Resettlement in India: The Human Cost of Development. Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge. Mcdonald, B., Webber, M., Yuefang, D., 2008. Involuntary resettlement as an opportunity for development: the case of urban resettlers of the three gorges project, China. J. Refug. Stud. 21 (1), 82–102. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrs/ fem052. McDowell, C., 2002. Involuntary resettlement, impoverishment risks and sustainable livelihoods. Australas. J. Disaster Trauma Stud. 2 36.31KB. McDowell, C., (Ed.). 1996. Understanding impoverishment: the consequences of development-induced displacement (Vol. 2). Providence, RI: Berghahn Books. Nathan, D., 2009. Social Security, Compensation and Reconstruction of Livelihoods. Econ. Polit. Weekly 44 (30), 22–26. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40279306. Nussbaum, M.C., 1988. ‘Nature, function and capability: Aristotle on political distribution’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy (suppl. vol.), 145–184. Nussbaum, M.C., 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press, New York; Cambridge, Eng. Oliver-Smith, A., 2010. Defying displacement: Grassroots Resistance and the Critique of Development. University of Texas Press, Austin. Owen, J.R., Kemp, D., 2014. ‘Free prior and informed consent’, social complexity and the mining industry: Establishing a knowledge base. Resour. Policy 41 (1), 91– 100. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.03.006. Owen, J.R., Kemp, D., 2015. Mining-induced displacement and resettlement: a critical appraisal. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 478–488. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2014.09.087. Oxfam Australia, 2004. Mining Ombudsman Case Report: Vatukoula Gold Mine, Fiji. Oxfam, Australia. http://resources.oxfam.org.au/pages/view.php? ref=99&search=fiji&order_by=relevance&sort=DESC&offset= 0&archive=0&k=&curpos=15. Oxfam Australia, 2003. Mining Ombudsman Annual Report 2003. Oxfam Community Aid Abroad. Victoria. Oxfam, Australia. Oxfam Australia, 2002. Mining Ombudsman Annual Report 2001–2002. Oxfam Community Aid Abroad. Victoria. Oxfam, Australia. Prajna, P.M., Sujit, K.M., 2014. Coal Mining and Local Livelihoods. Econ. Polit. Weekly . Mullender, R., 2003. Human rights: universalism and cultural relativism. Crit. Rev. Int. Social Polit. Philos. 6 (3), 70. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 1369823032000233564. Robinson, W.C., 2003. Risks and Rights: The Causes Consequences and Challenges of Development-Induced displacement. The Brookings Institution-SAIS Project on Internal Displacement, Washington D.C. Rio Tinto, 2011. Communities Standard. Rio Tinto. http://www.riotinto.com/ documents/ReportsPublications/Communities_standard.pdf.

9

Scoones, I., 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis, Vol. 72. Eng Institute of Development Studies, Brighton. Scudder, T., 1991. A sociological framework for the analysis of new land settlements, In: Cernea, M.M. (Ed.), Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. Second ed. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington, D.C (Revised and Expanded ed.). Sen, A., 1980. Famines. World Development, 8(9), 613–621. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0305-750X(80)90053-4 Sen, A., 1984. Rights and capabilities. In: Sen, A. (Ed.), Resources, Values and Development. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 307–324. Sen, A., Muellbauer, J., Hawthorn, G., 1987. The Standard of Living. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, New York. Sen, A., 1985. Commodities and Capabilities. North Holland, Amsterdam. Sen, A., 2005. Human rights and capabilities. J. Hum. Dev. 6 (2), 151–166. doi:http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649880500120491. Siegel, P.B., 2005. Using an Asset-Based Approach to Identify Drivers of Sustainable Rural Growth and Poverty Reduction in Central America: A Conceptual Framework.. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3475. The World Bank, Washington D.C, pp. 1–30. Somayaji, S., Talwar, S., 2011. Development–induced Displacement, Rehabilitation and Resettlement in India: Current Issues and Challenges Retrieved from http:// UQL.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=683941 Southern Africa Resource Watch. (2010). Coal versus Communities in Mozambique: Exposing poor practices by VALE and Rio Tinto. Retrieved November 14, 2014 from; http://www.sarwatch.org/resource-insights/mozambique/coal-versuscommunities-mozambique-exposing-poor-practices-vale-and-rio The World Bank, 1996. Resettlement and development: the Bankwide review of projects involving involuntary resettlement 1986–1993 (S. D. papers, Trans.). Environment Department Working Papers. The World Bank. The World Bank, 2014. Involuntary Resettlement Portfolio Review (Resettlement Implementation), Social Development, World Bank, June, 2014. The World Bank. http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/pubdocs/publicdoc/2015/3/ 96781425483120443/involuntary-resettlement-portfolio-review-phase2. The World Bank, 2001. Operational Policy on Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). The World Bank. http://web.worldbank.org/external/default/main? Email=Y&contentMDK=20064610&menuPK=64701637&pagePK= 64709096&piPK=64709108&theSitePK=502184. United Nations, 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/IMG/ NR004388.pdf?OpenElement. United Nations. (2008). 61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People 2007. Retrieved January 30, 2015, from http://www.un.org/ esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf Wheelock, J.,1996. The household as a focus for research. J. Econ. Issues 30 (1),143–159. UNDP, 1999. Sustainable Livelihoods. United Nations Development Programme, New York. http://www.undp.org/sl/.

Please cite this article in press as: Adam, A.B., et al., Households, livelihoods and mining-induced displacement and resettlement. Extr. Ind. Soc. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.05.002