Land Acquisition & Involuntary resettlement

In recent years there has been a significant increase in the attention given to investments that acquire rights over the use of land in emerging markets. The focus of attention has been primarily on agribusiness and plantation investments but any investment that acquires land rights at scale, or which affects the livelihoods of prior land users needs to consider impacts on local communities and individuals whether or not they have formal title to the land.

Involuntary resettlement refers both to physical displacement (relocation and/or loss of home) and economic displacement (loss of access to resources for income generation or means of livelihood) due to land acquisition. Land acquisition involving involuntary resettlement, restrictions on land use and/or economic activity can have significant adverse impacts on communities and companies. It requires careful attention.

The guidance provided on this page does not apply to resettlement resulting from voluntary land transactions (i.e. market transactions in which the seller is not obliged to sell and the buyer cannot resort to expropriation or other legal compulsory procedures if negotiations fail). It also does not apply to impacts on livelihoods where the project is not changing the land use of the affected groups or communities. However, even in those cases in which this guidance does not apply, social impacts should always be assessed and managed, even if compensation is not applicable.

Indigenous People

There is no universally accepted definition of Indigenous Peoples. Here they are considered to be groups of people with identities that are distinct from mainstream groups in national societies. They may be referred to in different countries by terms such as ‘indigenous ethnic minorities’, ‘aboriginals’, ‘hill tribes’, ‘minority nationalities’, ‘scheduled tribes’, ‘first nations’ or ‘tribal groups’.

Indigenous Peoples typically have the following characteristics: (i) self-identify as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and are recognised as such by others; (ii) a collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories, making use of natural resources in these habitats and territories; (iii) customary cultural, economic, social or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society or culture; and (iv) communicate in an indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region.

Indigenous Peoples are often among the most marginalised and vulnerable segments of the population

In many cases, their economic, social and legal status limits their capacity to defend their rights to, and interests in, lands and natural and cultural resources, and may restrict their ability to participate in and benefit from development. Indigenous Peoples are particularly vulnerable if their lands and resources are transformed, encroached upon or significantly degraded. Their languages, cultures, religions, spiritual beliefs and institutions may also come under threat. As a consequence, Indigenous Peoples may be more vulnerable to the adverse impacts of project development than non-indigenous communities. This vulnerability may include loss of identity, culture and natural resource-based livelihoods, as well as exposure to poverty and disease.

Risks:

Unless it is well executed, involuntary resettlement can cause significant material business risks:-

Loss of social licence to operate, resulting in construction or development delays and/or disruption of operations due to social unrest and tensions with local communities, as well as legal claims from local communities (which can delay or even halt the granting of permits and licences).
Fines and penalties.
Implementation and construction delays resulting in increased compensation costs compared to the costs if the process had been properly managed from the onset (including project design and construction).
Longer and more complex E&S due diligence (ESDD) by lenders and investors.
Loss of access to international markets if poor or inadequate land acquisition and compensation practices are evident.
Damage to reputation as a result of adverse media and/or NGO attention.

Opportunities:

Good land acquisition management and compensation processes can have the following benefits:

Early and proactive involvement by companies in resettlement activities (even where it is not directly or exclusively their responsibility) can lead to cost-effective, efficient and timely implementation of resettlement, and improved livelihoods for those affected by resettlement.
Continuous and transparent engagement with local communities can help the company identify actions/measures which could both improve the livelihoods of local communities and benefit the company (e.g. increasing the pool of trained workers, winning local community support and/or creating out-grower programmes).

Providing opportunities for Indigenous Peoples can also benefit the company.

For example, providing training and education can help Indigenous Peoples to meet their social and economic goals, which can help to enhance social licence and also provides a larger pool of skilled and educated workers for the company.

Additional Resources:

2012 Performance Standard 5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement.

Threats to Indigenous People

Here is an extract from the Op-ed: “The uncontacted tribes of Brazil face genocide under Jair Bolsonaro”

“Genocide is defined by the UN as “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Large-scale mass genocides rightly receive global attention, yet countless others go unreported and unpunished because the victims number only a few hundred, or even a few dozen.

Right now, deep in the Amazon rainforest, a small tribe of survivors is on the run. They are the Kawahiva, an uncontacted tribe of just a few dozen people, the victims of waves of horrific attacks which have pushed them to the brink of extinction. We know almost nothing about them, except that they are fleeing chainsaws in a region with the highest rate of deforestation in the Amazon. Brazil’s first ever investigation into the genocide of an uncontacted tribe was launched in 2005, and 29 people suspected of involvement in killing Kawahiva were detained but later released, including a former state governor and a senior policeman. The case stalled for lack of evidence.

The Kawahiva’s territory lies near the town of Colniza, one of the most violent areas in Brazil, where 90% of income is from illegal logging. Survival International, the global movement fighting for the rights of tribal people, has recently called for increased police protection for the team responsible for protecting the Kawahiva’s land. FUNAI, Brazil’s Indian Affairs Department, has been prevented from properly carrying out its work in the area due to violence from illegal loggers and ranchers, leaving the tribe exposed.

Preventing a genocide of uncontacted people is not a priority for Bolsonaro. He once said: “There is no indigenous territory where there aren’t minerals. Gold, tin and magnesium are in these lands, especially in the Amazon, the richest area in the world. I’m not getting into this nonsense of defending land for Indians.””

Land Acquisition & Involuntary resettlement of Indigenous People