Livelihood Restoration in Practice:

Key Challenges and Opportunities

BRITISH MUSEUM, LONDON, NOVEMBER 9, 2016

Shaza Zeinelabdin, Senior Social Dev’t Specialist

Larissa Luy, Principal E&S Specialist
IFC RESETTLEMENT HANDBOOK

• Update the existing IFC

Resettlement Handbook
(2002)
• Provide practical guidance
on implementation of PS 5
• Expand scope to include
emerging issues – e.g.
fragile and post conflict
situations, large scale
urban displacement
• Provide practical tools,
approaches, examples and
case studies
 DILEMMAS
What constitutes success: How do we assure ourselves that the livelihood
Program has met its objectives?

Government is handling resettlement & compensation and our client has no

leverage: what do we expect them to do?

How do we close the gap between national regulations and where there are
material gaps regarding the IFC PS 5?

What should you do in case the government is or has already completed the
resettlement

If resettlement happened a few years before our client was provided the land, do
they need to do anything?
 LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION: DEFINING SUCCESS

Improvement or restoration of livelihoods is the objective of most international

resettlement standards, but…

- No established paradigm for how we measure progress with restoring

‘livelihoods’
- Clarity on how livelihoods should be defined

Newmont Ahafo mine, Ghana

• RAP Completion Audit - 6 years after physical relocation:
• Living standards – significantly improved
• 75% of households had access to land/ well developed crops – livelihoods
restored or close to being restored
• 25% had not reached point of secure livelihood – illness, drug dependency, bad
luck with land, fire, drought, lack of finance, etc.
 WORKING WITH GOVERNMENT MANAGED
RESETTLEMENT PROGRAMS

How do we achieve
objectives of our standards?
The business case for client:
why it pays off to get
involved?
The business case for the
Government: why it pays off
to work with the private
sector
Partnering with government
and strengthening capacity
 PARTNERING WITH GOVERNMENT

Private sector sponsors usually cannot sustain livelihood programs indefinitely

Government capacity needs to be developed for longer term sustainability (e.g.

vulnerable peoples support; agricultural extension, SME support etc.)

CNOOC Shell Petrochemical Project, Daya Bay, PR China

- Jointly led, government executed resettlement
- Project Sponsor provided:
- Construction and operations employment
- Skills training and paid work experience
- Mentored formation of village construction companies
- Government provided:
- Provided transitional support, industrial land
- Registered those needing employment
- Provided bidding opportunities for village companies
 USE LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION PROGRAM
DELIVERY PARTNERS

Most Private Sector sponsors have no expertise in livelihood restoration

Emerging model is to partner with development NGOs, Consultants,

Buyers to design/implement multi-faceted programs

BTC pipeline
- Sponsor was oil and gas operator, not a livelihood specialist
- Used ‘umbrella NGOs’ as Project Managers,
- Local NGO, Institutions and Consultant partners to deliver programs
- All programs/sub-programs based on logical frameworks
- Performance based evaluation
 CUT-OFF DATES

Validity of census and asset surveys ~ 2 years – how do you manage a cut-off when the use-by date of
census/asset surveys has expired?

Problems where project is delayed and moratorium restricts affected peoples rights to develop for a
protracted period – compensable?

Managing customary/ancestral claims over land - the claimants live elsewhere (e.g. PNG post
clan/tribal conflict) – not present at the cut-off?

Examples
• LNG Project, West Africa - cut-off date and restriction on new development announced –
project never proceeded
• Petrochemical project, China – affected villagers subjected to a cut-off and restriction on new
development for 12 years, before the Project finally proceeded
COMPREHENSIVE LIVELIHOOD BASELINE STUDIES

Often insufficient data is collected to fully understand or describe pre-resettlement

livelihoods

Failure to account for full suite of livelihood resources that communities or households utilize
(esp. in subsistence settings) – losses are significantly undervalued

Linear project in Sub-Saharan Africa - poor data, difficult to reconstruct

livelihoods retrospectively (e.g. women’s coastal gathering overlooked by baseline)
Mozambique Gas Development Project – comprehensive agriculture, foraging,
fisheries, coastal gathering, small trading studies including value chain analysis and
gender disaggregation
 DESIGN MULTIPLE PROGRAMS -
NOT ALL WILL SUCCEED
• Livelihood restoration is an
imprecise art
• Good practice requires
multiple programs – don’t
put all your eggs in one
basket
• Sufficient dialogue upfront
with sponsors to help them
understand livelihood
implications
• Livelihood support durations
- 3-7 years
 DURATION OF LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMS

How long do livelihood programs need to be maintained?

Sponsor perception is often that livelihood support need only be short

duration/ is easy to execute

To effect changes in traditional agricultural practices/adopt new methods takes time

(trials, demonstration, adoption, assistance in overcoming problems)

Tenke Fungurume Mining, DRC - Agricultural intensification with introduction of

irrigation, fertilizers: 7-8 yrs.
BTC Pipeline: 3 yrs. to restore production levels on good soils; >10 yrs. on alpine
grazing land
CNOOC-Shell Petrochemical Project - Rural to urban resettlement: 6-8 yrs.
 LEGACIES
Bottom line

Did past displacement result in unmitigated adverse

impacts, diminished wellbeing, and/or grievances which
may place the client social license to operate at risk?

Key questions

When did it occur, why, by whom, what process was

followed, residual impacts/ grievances?

Risk Analysis

• No significant residual impacts / displacement was

minor: no further action required. Document the historic
process

• Residual impacts identified: gap analysis + supplemental

actions required, esp. if recent (3-5 yrs.) or with ongoing
mitigation
 MONITORING & ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Monitoring is often an afterthought – not integral part of program design

Designing/ implementing livelihood restoration programs is an imprecise

science – programs often need mid-term adjustment to improve effectiveness

External factors (political, economic, natural disasters) can change the project
context, necessitating mid-program adjustments

Major Private Sector Projects (BTC Pipeline, Newmont Ahafo Gold, Chad
Cameroon, Tangguh LNG, PNG LNG)
- Internal Monitoring by Sponsor’s resettlement team
- External Monitoring by Independent Environmental and Social Consultant
- Completion Audit – by independent third party unremoved from the Project
(livelihood/resettlement completion)
- (Others: Government EIA monitoring, NGO Monitoring, High Level IAP)
 Strictly Confidential

Mizuho’s Experience with implementing Livelihood

Restoration Plans

Sustainable Development Office

Global Project Finance Department
CASE 1

Project located in Asia

Involving large scale land acquisition and loss of income of affected communities

Project affected communities include mainly farmers. Land owners given cash compensation as there was no
land available in the areas close by

Livelihood Restoration Plan (LRP) was prepared for affected communities, however it had some fundamental
issues:

• The project company did not identify a cut off date, the census was done much later and was based on
village records and not undertaken specifically by the project company

• As a result, the number of people to benefit from the project kept increasing through out the due diligence
process, no identification of number of women, aged or vulnerable households

• The project company submitted a LRP which was just an extension of their CSR activities, in which all the
project villagers could participate and it did not prioritize project affected farmers who lost their source
livelihood due to land acquisition.

• These CSR activities were working well but the activities were mainly attended by women and were only
sufficient to supplement income and not replace income from farming that had been lost

• The LRP mentioned that project company will focus on providing alternative livelihood and jobs creation,
but little information was provided on what type of jobs will be identified

• Monitoring and reporting process was not identified to measure the success/failure.
CASE 2

Project located in Asia

Involving land acquisition and loss of income of affected communities

Project affected communities include - land owners, tenant farmers and daily farmers (who rent the land from the land
owners for farming and harvesting)

• Initially, project company was to only provide compensation to the land owners and ask land owners to compensate
the tenant farmers and daily farmers accordingly. In order to be in line with the requirements of IFC PS5 they
agreed to consider tenant farmers and daily farmers as project affected communities.

• The tenant farmers and daily farmers were compensated with livelihood allowance each month (the allowance was
determined based on consultation and agreed by all the affected parties).

• This monetary compensation was provided to the farmers until the tenant farmers could harvest the replacement
land and daily farmer find another job.

• Project company found a replacement land for the tenant farmers, which the project company is going to lease from
an agricultural company and provide it to the tenant farmers to cultivate. Eventually, the plan was to hand it over to
a local NGO to manage the land.

• However, as a result of perceptions of inequality within the communities, the village head started collecting a
certain percentage of the compensation to distribute to the rest of the village.

• The affected farmers were disappointed that they did not receive the amount which was agreed upon but there was
little client could do to change this situation!
 OTHER EMERGING ISSUES
• Legacy resettlement (usually government managed)
• Forced eviction vs legal eviction
• Buffers – ‘should have been resettled, but weren’t’
• Land donation – acceptable in private sector resettlement?
• Staged resettlement (e.g. for large mines) where there is incremental loss of productive land with each
expansion
• Civil society (Oxfam, Human Rights Watch):
-Addressing cost of access to services post resettlement
-Raised challenges of engagement/consultation in repressive countries
-Incidence of reprisals against people making complaints
-Challenges of customary law vs national/ statutory law
-Predatory loan schemes targeting resettlement beneficiaries
• Clearer guidance on gender considerations in resettlement projects
• Expanding concept of marginalized groups – LGTBs
• Refugees/ IDPs
• Climate change induced resettlement
• Fragile States – special considerations
• Indigenous People & how IFC PS 5 is applied
THANK YOU!