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
b
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

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: In mining and resettlement practice, one critical oversight is the conceptualisation of households in the
Received 28 March 2015 formulation of livelihood reconstruction initiatives. While households have received considerable
Received in revised form 6 May 2015 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
Available online xxx
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
Keywords:
for impoverishment and improvement are realized at the household level, livelihood restoration practice
Mining
Resettlement
in MIDR will continue to stagnate.
Impoverishment risk ã2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Livelihood reconstruction
Households

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2. Mining, resettlement and the livelihood challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.1. State of knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
2.2. Civil society cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
3. Livelihoods, development and the role of households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4. Households and the mining and resettlement landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4.1. Global standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4.2. Corporate policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
4.3. Households in MIDR planning and practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
5. Discursive deterrents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
6. Pathways for change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
7. Conclusion: prospects for change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00

1. Introduction may not be quite dismal enough”. While resettlement and mining
does not command the same level of disciplinary recognition as
In the opening sentences of his article on Famines, Sen (1980) economics, its standing as a dismal practice could hardly be
writes that “Economics has been called the dismal science. But it 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
* Corresponding author. Tel.: + 61 407 155 558.
policy and practice about the function of the household unit
E-mail addresses: a.babatuadam@uq.edu.au (A.B. Adam), j.owen@uq.edu.au in mitigating the immiserating effects of MIDR. Household
(J.R. Owen), d.kemp@smi.uq.edu.au (D. Kemp). 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 dis-
placement 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 contem-
porary 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 ‘improve-
ment’ that results as the default outcome.
In resettlement practice in mining, one critical oversight is the
clear conceptualisation of households in formulating and oper-
ationalising livelihood reconstruction initiatives. While it is true
that households have received considerable attention in develop-
ment 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 complexi-
ties 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 4
We note that Michael Cernea’s work has been criticised as too linear and input-
driven (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.
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
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 undocu-
mented 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: “disposses-
sion”, “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 arrange-
ments 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 Reconstruc-
tion (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’, ‘homeless-
ness’, ‘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
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 post-
MMSD take up of this language on the topic of resettlement has been limited.
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 identifica-
tion.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), Chad-
Cameroon (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 disposses-
sion 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.
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
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 behav-
ior)”. 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 manage-
ment 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,
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 net-
works”, 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 Garcia-
Downing, 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 liveli-
hood 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,
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
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 improve-
ment’ 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.
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 intra-
household 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, commu-
nity 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 infrastruc-
ture (i.e., houses, school buildings, roads) than what the engage-
ment 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 whole-
of-community orientated, typically via the provision of infrastruc-
ture 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.
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
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.
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 increas-
ingly 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,
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
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 deter-
mining 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. Howev-
er, 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, entitle-
ments 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
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 impoverish-
ment risks, monitoring and evaluation practice will need signifi-
cant 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, align-
ment across the various legislative mechanisms is generally weak.
Additionally, coordination between different Ministries, depart-
ments 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 impoverish-
ment 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
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
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 materi-
alization 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 compa-
nies fail to recognise the link between social risk, company-
community conflict and cost to the business (Franks et al., 2014).
With declining resources, the likelihood that resettled commu-
nities 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.
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-f50c-
4426-9505-7fde6b3382ed/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/s10668-013-
9456-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.
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
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-plan-
teberebie-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)00043-
6.
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
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.
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
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-versus-
communities-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/.