Читать книгу Development-Induced Displacement and Resettlement: Causes, Consequences, and Socio-Legal Context - Bogumil Terminski - Страница 7

Contemporary studies on forced human mobility are based on three distinct and very different systems of analysis. They are distinguished not only by different conceptual grids but also by their origins and objectives. Each of these theoretical regimes describe migration differently. Migration studies have primarily pointed out the demographic aspects of population mobility and its further economic and social consequences. The nature of refugee studies is significantly determined by the provisions of international conventions adopted within the UN system a dozen years ago. However, many areas of contemporary refugee studies are not limited to legal analysis but include a significantly wider range of sociological and political considerations. Nevertheless the provisions of refugee conventions provide the general legal framework of reference in this discipline. Research on internal displacement represents the youngest system of analysis of forced internal mobility.

Traditionally understood, migration studies are the oldest system of analysis of human spatial mobility. They were created in the late nineteenth century on the basis of economy, geography and historical demography. Research into evolution, investigations of the decline of ancient empires, and geographical determinism had a large impact on the foundations of migration studies. In later decades, migration studies, however, developed primarily on the basis of economics, with their main area of research being the analysis of the determinants of voluntary human mobility. A German-English geographer, Ernst Georg Ravenstein (1834–1913), is considered the founder of contemporary migration studies. Already in the classic publication entitled The Laws of Migration, published in two volumes in 1885 and 1889, Ravenstein wrote that "bad or oppressive laws, heavy taxation and unattractive climate, uncongenial social surroundings, and even compulsion (slave trade, transportation) produce flows of migrants, but none of these flows can be compared in volume with that which arises from the desire inherent in the most men to 'better' themselves in material aspects". The primacy of economic categories established by Ravenstein strongly dominated the study of migration throughout the twentieth century and persists to this day. Almost all influential migration theories, such as neoclassical theories, the Hicks model (1932), the Harris-Todaro model (1970), Wilbur Zelinsky's mobility transition model, or the push-pull theory of Everett Lee (1966), are based on economic categories. Unfortunately, narrowing human migration to economic motivations alone omits many relevant and immeasurable social aspects, not to mention environmental and climate determinants which were completely marginalized by migration theorists for almost the whole of the twentieth century. According to some specialists, the marginalization of environmental factors within migration theories was associated with Marxist dialectical materialism, which strongly influences social sciences in democratic as well as communist countries. The impact of labour migrations on economic growth was one of the fundamental themes of migration studies. However, this discipline through most of the last century completely marginalized the factor of development policy as it shaped forced migrations. Given the crucial importance of economic factors, contemporary migration studies can play only a limited and subsidiary role in the more advanced research on involuntary mobility. In recent years we have observed attempts to conceptualize forced migration studies as an autonomous part of migration studies. However, it seems that the scope of these studies, proposed inter alia in the IASFM definition, is too broad in nature and does not produce good conditions for detailed research. The International Association for the Study of Forced Migration (IASFM) describes its subject as a "term that refers to the movements of refugees and internally displaced people (those displaced by conflicts) as well as people displaced by natural or environmental disasters, chemical or nuclear disasters, famine, or development projects". The attempt to connect analysis of issues very different from each other, such as internal displacement and involuntary resettlement, human trafficking, and forced international migration, within a single concept of forced migration seems unpromising. Because of its relatively short history and theoretical weakness, the study of forced migrations does not seem to be a valuable complement to studies of voluntary economic migrations. It seems that better conditions for detailed research have created the displacement studies developed in recent years.

The second regime of analysis of involuntary human mobility, developed in the early and mid twentieth century on the basis of politics and law, is that dealing with the category of refugees. Unlike the subjects of migration studies bounded by demographics and economics, the refugee occupies a primarily legal category, providing the basis for institutional systems of protection. From the very beginning the category of refugees was strongly associated with the institution of asylum. The first formal efforts for refugee protection are associated with the Fridtjof Nansen activities at the end of the First World War. Until the early fifties, protection of refugees was not a universal concept, but was developed as a response to current political problems in order to help certain categories of people forced to leave their countries of origin. We can mention two refugee conventions adopted during the thirties: the Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees, 28 October 1933, and the Convention Concerning the Status of Refugees Coming from Germany, 10 February 1938. Practical activities, accompanied by legal documents, which were undertaken during the twenties and thirties were directed towards specific groups in need. The refugee protection system known in the twenties and thirties consisted of rather ad hoc legal mechanisms to allow swift help to well-defined categories of persecuted minorities. The origin of the international protection of refugees as a universal concept was associated with the adoption of the Geneva Convention in 1951, the creation of the UNHCR in 1950, and the signing of the so-called New York Protocol in 1967. Both of these international legal instruments as well as the UN system of humanitarian practice limited the category of refugees to international migrants forced to leave their country of origin or previous residence for political reasons, especially armed conflict, political persecution and organised violence. According to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (CRSR), a refugee is defined as a person who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country or return there because there is a fear of persecution". The legal understanding of refugee protection is also strongly connected with well-regulated categories of statelessness and asylum within the frameworks of public international law. In addition, public international law includes documents related to the protection of voluntary international economic migrants (migrant workers). I am thinking in particular of the United Nations International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which was adopted in 1990 and entered into force in 2003. Due to the lack of acceptance of its provisions by western countries, the importance of this document and its implementation, as monitored by Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW), is very limited. The ILO has adopted two international conventions concerning migrant workers (Conventions No. 97 and No. 143). Similar documents were adopted by the Council of Europe (COE).

The third category of interpretation of involuntary mobility is that of internal displacement. The term "displaced persons" was coined by Russian-American sociologist Eugene M. Kulischer (1881–1956), the author of The Displacement of Population in Europe (Montreal, 1943). Kulischer applies this term to all categories of forced mobility in Europe during the war. The contemporary understanding of this term, therefore, significantly differs from its actual meaning, which is limited mostly to cases of forced internal mobility[1]. The end of the Second World War, bringing in the formative period of the Iron Curtain, did not lead to significant interest in internal displacement. Scientific research into displacement and resettlement was limited to issues relating to the social consequences of economic development in parts of the world considered peripheral, in terms of geopolitical rivalry. Politically conditioned processes of decolonization launched many policies resulting in forced internal migrations. In 1945 American sociologist and psychiatrist Alexander H. Leighton published the book entitled The governing of men: General principles and recommendations based on experience at a Japanese relocation camp- a pioneering study on psychological and social aspects of forced relocations. Among the first studies on the social consequences of development-induced displacement and resettlement we can mention the works of applied anthropologists such as Elizabeth Colson, Thayer Scudder and Robert Fernea. Studies of development-induced displacement had already emerged in the mid-fifties and early sixties, in the context of such projects as the Great Dam of Aswan, the Kariba Dam on the Zambezi and the Akosombo Dam on Lake Volta in Ghana. During the fifties and sixties we also observed the development of anthropological studies of resettlement in other parts of the world[2]. Important studies on the socio-economic impact of dams were also conducted by David Brokensha, David Butcher and Robert Chambers. The first extensive studies devoted to urban relocation in developed countries can be dated back to the sixties. I am thinking of studies on urban relocation in Boston undertaken in the early sixties by American sociologist Herbert Gans. He closely examined how the transformation of the Boston urban space has led to displacement of the members of Italian community. The first more advanced considerations of forced migrations caused by long-term environmental disruptions can be dated back to the nineteen-seventies. The problem of demographic pressure caused by environmental problems and declining resources had been briefly analyzed in the forties in the context of the Dust Bowl or the problem of overpopulation (for example, in the book Road to Survival by American ecologist William Vogt). Only in the seventies was research in this area based on more advanced scientific investigation and linked to the activity of international institutions such as UNEP. It was then noted that long-term natural disasters such as cyclones in Bangladesh and drought in the Sahel region had a strong influence on the dynamics of internal and transnational forced migration in those regions. Attention was also paid to the impact of population growth and the effect of natural disasters in terms of declining resources in the most populated countries of Asia. According to some experts connected with so-called Neomalthusianism, overpopulation and diminishing resources could lead to the forced migration of tens of millions of people in the most densely populated countries, who were vulnerable to the consequences of natural disasters and long-term environmental changes such as sea level rise. This problem had been pointed out in the seventies by Lester Brown, American environmentalist and founder of the Worldwatch Institute. The seventies were also a decade of increased attention to development-caused involuntary resettlement, inter alia among applied anthropologists and sociologists cooperating with the analytical structures of the World Bank. Its efforts led to the adaptation in 1980 of the first World Bank guidelines devoted to planning and implementation of involuntary resettlement. When analyzing the practical sphere of assistance and protection of displaced people it is worth noting the UNHCR activities initiated in the first half of the seventies. Despite the lack of formal mandate for activity in this area, the agency has acted to protect people internally displaced by armed conflicts and natural disasters in Asia.

The studies on internal displacement conducted in the seventies therefore had a selective character. It was only in the following years that the first attempts to conceptualize the issue on a more advanced scientific basis could be noted. The 44-page UNEP report "Environmental Refugees" issued in 1985 by Professor Essam El-Hinnawi is considered the first attempt at a broad conceptualization of forced migrations caused by environmental factor[3]. El-Hinnawi outlines the major elements of environmentally-conditioned migration, and presents the first definition of people he called "environmental refugees". According to El-Hinnawi, environmental refugees are "those people who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat, temporarily or permanently, because of a marked environmental disruption (natural and/or triggered by people) that jeopardized their existence and/or seriously affected the quality of their life". Despite its limited usefulness for more detailed theoretical considerations, this concept played an important role as the starting point of scientific consideration of the issue. In 1980 the first World Bank guidelines of involuntary resettlement were adopted. The first half of the eighties was another period of rapid development of studies on development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR). The volume Putting people first: sociological variables in rural development edited by Michael M. Cernea and published by the World Bank has played an important role as the initiator of more advanced studies in this area. It was in the mid and late eighties that the term "development-induced displacement and resettlement" (DIDR) first started to appear in scientific publications. The collapse of the bipolar international order and release of many hitherto blocked ethnic antagonisms laid the groundwork for research on issues of conflict-induced displacement. Analytical studies in that category were so significant that for at least a few years they dominated the overall picture of internal displacement. The term "conflict-induced displacement" was coined and slowly popularized in literature on forced migrations during the nineties. The growing number of people internally displaced as a result of armed conflict and massive violence prompted the adoption of the Guiding Principles of Internal Displacement in 1998, as well as local documents on IDP protection and assistance and regional stability in Africa (the so-called Great Lakes Pact and Convention of Kampala) in recent years.

During the last two decades we have witnessed a very dynamic development of studies on internal displacement. This problem has for the first time become a subject of debate within international institutions and agencies, including these of humanitarian profile such as the UNHCR and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Of key importance, of course, were activities related to conflict-induced displacement. This term appeared in the scientific literature in the first half of the nineties. Equally dynamic during the nineties was the growth in analysis of development-induced displacement and resettlement. This trend emerged from debates about the social consequences of dam megaprojects implemented in China (Three Gorges Dam) and India (Sardar Sarovar Complex on the Narmada River). Much attention has been paid to this issue within the framework of the World Bank analytical units, which resulted in the adoption of Operational Directive 4.30 (OD 4.30) in 1990 and Operational Policy 4.12 (OP 4.12) on involuntary resettlement in December 2001. The last decade was also a period of rapid development of research devoted to internal displacement due to environmental disruptions. The legally dubious and excessively alarming term "environmental refugees" has been replaced by the more suitable category of "environmentally-induced displacement people" and "forced environmental migrants". An important direction taken by research has been the study of environmentally-induced displacement in the context of security risks. Among the authors in the field of security whose analyses play a particularly important role in the development of this issue we should mention Astri Suhrke, Thomas Homer-Dixon and Arthur H. Westing[4]. Astri Suhrke's 1993 paper entitled "Pressure Points: Environmental Degradation, Migration and Conflict" marked the highly important entrance of research on the destabilizing effects of environmental disruption and its relation to conflict and forced migrations. Suhrke pointed out the impact of environmental degradation and the associated industrialization on the diversified dynamics of spatial mobility. The growing dynamics of industrialization at the same time becomes a cause of economic migrations of new residents and environmentally-induced displacement or development-induced displacement of its native communities. Also other categories of development projects can play a role of both a cause of relocation and a factor contributing to the increasing dynamics of economic migration. In Peruvian Andes: mining extraction at the same time become a cause of involuntary resettlement and the factor contributing to the significant change of local, regional and transnational voluntary migration patterns[5]. It is also worth mentioning an article by Arthur H. Westing entitled "Environmental Refugees: A Growing Category of Displaced Persons", published in 1992.

The end of interblock rivalry as well as the emergence of the concept of human security during the nineties raised hope for the development of theoretical studies on the causes of internal displacement other than violent armed conflict. Ethnic conflicts in the region of the African Great Lakes and on the Balkan peninsula, however, revealed that the mass displacement caused by escalation of violence is the most important problem from a humanitarian point of view. Research on population displacements caused by natural disasters and long-term environmental changes has nevertheless developed very successfully. It was undertaken inter alia on the basis of public international law, in connection with rising sea levels and the threatened deterritorialization of small archipelagic countries in Oceania, along with border changes to the bigger states. Finally, within the last few years, we have observed one more very important process from the theoretical point of view. I am thinking of the theoretical separation of displacement caused by sudden natural disasters and industrial accidents from that associated with slow-onset environmental processes, including climate change. In many studies of the eighties and nineties these problems were considered together. It is worth noting that the nature of internal displacement caused by long-term environmental processes such as desertification, soil erosion and rising sea levels is significantly different from that of displacement caused by natural disasters. Forced migrations caused by slow-onset environmental changes usually have more planned character and constitute part of the long-term adaptation strategy to the changing environmental conditions. Population displacement associated with natural disasters can be understood as the attempt to sudden remove from the previously inhabited area, associated with an attempt to prevent a strong decline in the fundamental aspects of human security. Disaster-induced displacements are associated with the immediate threat, while development-induced displacement and resettlement can be associated with both decreasing level of human security and administrative compulsion to leave particular territory. The term "disaster-induced displacement" had already appeared in the scientific literature in the mid and late nineties. The real explosion of scientific studies in this area, however, occurred in the aftermath of the major natural disasters of recent years: the earthquake-generated tsunami in South Asia (December 2004), Hurricane Katrina in the US (August 2005), and the tsunami on the coast of Japan and its associated nuclear power plant accident in Fukushima (March 2011). These catastrophes brought home to global public opinion and international institutions the fact that natural disaster may become a cause of forced migrations, both internal and international, on a massive scale, in many parts of the globe. Although more than 90 percent of all people displaced by natural disasters live in the developing countries, the issue of disaster-induced displacement cannot be reduced to developing countries. Natural disasters in recent years have caused the greatest amount of internal displacement worldwide. According to IDMC estimates, natural disasters expelled 42 million people from their homes in 2010, 14,9 million people in 2011, and finally 32,4 million people in 2012. Recent disasters have shown, moreover, that even highly developed countries are not free from the danger of forced migrations caused by sudden natural hazards. Scientific institutions such as the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) and the Brookings Institution have devoted increasing attention to the internal displacement caused by natural disasters. The IDMC statistics, from studies conducted in recent years, are the best source of knowledge about the extent of the problem of disaster-induced displacement worldwide. Taking into account recent scientific studies it seems reasonable to distinguish between population displacements associated with sudden natural natural hazards and industrial accidents (disaster-induced displacement) and those caused by more long-term and slow-onset environmental transformations (environmentally-induced displacement).

The arena of internal population displacement is a country, territory limited by static boundaries. However, taking into account causes, consequences and humanitarian context, the impact of internal displacement significantly exceeds the borders. Internal displacement caused by the tsunami waves and progressive environmental disruptions affecting large territories (such as desertification and drought) can be hardly considered as only an internal phenomenon limited by the state boundaries. Tsunami waves generated by offshore earthquakes are humanitarian threats in a very strong way affecting the level of stability and security of entire nations and continents, which in only a few hours may lead to the displacement of several million inhabitants of coastal regions of South Asia and Africa. Tsunami-generated population displacement within a few hours can lead to a much larger scale of internal displacement and humanitarian threats than internal conflicts lasting decades. Also displacement caused by desertification, prolonged drought, and potential rise in sea level in the future, are more transnational than purely internal phenomena. The long-lasting environmental changes, which are difficult to prevent, may become a cause of forced international migrations. I am thinking not only on transnational survival migrations, observed during the Sahelian Drought in the 1980s, but also on forecasted migrations of archipelagic populations associated with sea level rise and the risk of permanent flooding of large areas of such states[6]. Nowadays, even long-term forecasts of a rise in sea level may become a factor influencing the dynamics of transnational mobility, as in the case of increasing economic migration of Tuvalu citizens. Internal conflicts on ethnic and political backgrounds may lead to increased dynamics of refugee movements to neighboring countries. Recently observed revolutions in the Arab world have shown the risks associated with the export of internal conflict from one country to another. The domino effect of political transformations creates a spiral of internal displacement and international refugee movements affecting whole regions, which is very difficult to stop. Thus, it can be said that political conflicts observed in Tunisia and later in Egypt and Libya have had a creative influence on the recently observed internal displacement and refugee flows from Syria.

Generally speaking, population displacement caused by environmental factors and sudden escalation of violence may become a much more international phenomenon than those caused by the implementation of development projects. The consequence of that fact is treatment of development-caused displacement and resettlement as a strictly internal issue, which nowadays characterizes many international bodies dealing with humanitarian protection and assistance.

Relocations caused by economic development are usually considered as an internal issue, which is little dependent on the international context. Almost all demographic and economic consequences of development projects are limited to the territory of country of its implementation. The autonomy of state authorities to create patterns of economic development means that DIDR is seen primarily as an internal issue. However, we should take into account that in realities of globalization the international economic relations strongly affect the dynamics of development-caused resettlement. Transnational corporations operating in many countries are responsible not only for implementation of development projects but also for standards of associated resettlement. Financing of development projects and export of technologies of its implementation almost always influenced the standards of accompanying resettlement.

We can mention a few examples of development-caused resettlements which resulted in international economic migrations, refugee flows, and even contributed to the unprecedented economic development in third countries. One of the most important date in the contemporary history of Brighton is associated with the construction of the Mangla Dam in Pakistan. More than 100,000 people were involuntarily resettled as a consequence of this project. Part of them after receiving compensation have emigrated to the UK and settled in Brighton, effectively contributing to the change of the image of this city in the following decades[7]. This migration was one of the biggest waves of migration during the 1950s and 1960s, which effects to this date continue to transform the second biggest British located in the industrial heartland of the UK. Development-induced displacement can therefore contribute to economic development and social transformations of territories located thousands of miles away. On the other hand, displacement can also contribute to the growing scale of international refugee flows. The consequences of the creation of Kaptai Dam in Bangladesh (1962) for the Chakma community are the best-known example of international refugee flow caused by dam construction. The vast majority of more than 100,000 displaced Chakma people did not receive any compensation. More than 35,000 of them took refugee in Arunachal Pradesh in India, where their economic problems were not solved[8]. We can list many examples of development projects implemented through bilateral cooperation. The construction of the Itaipú Dam, Yacyretá Dam, Kariba Dam, and the Aswan High Dam are only the most spectacular cases when implementation of development project resulted in mass-scale displacement in two countries.

So how can we characterize the current image of this problem and state of the art in research on internal displacement throughout the world? In recent years, the interest of the scientific community has been focused on virtually all causes of forced displacement, as reflected in the very rapid development of detailed classification of causes of internal displacement. Terms such as "dam-induced displacement" ("hydropower-induced displacement"), "mining-induced displacement", "conservation-induced displacement", and "oil development-induced displacement" have permanently entered into the scientific discourse. Recently conducted research on internal displacement is focused on the following issues: 1. analysis of the causes and consequences of internal displacement, 2. relations between this issue and areas of security, human rights, and development studies, 3. gender and ethnic dimensions of internal displacement, 4. analysis of ways to minimize negative consequences of displacement, together with mechanisms of humanitarian assistance for affected people, 5. integration of displaced persons within host communities and their lives within closed structures such as camps for displaced people (IDP camps), 6. the relations between internal displacement and stability, conflict and post-conflict peacebuilding, 7. analysis of several categories of actors involved in internal displacement, and 8. internal displacement in urban areas. Particularly important and well-developed areas of IDPs discourse include research on the psychological consequences of displacement for individuals affected by this problem, and on the interrelations of conflict, displacement and security.

The dominant classification of internal displacement, but one rarely applied in the scientific literature, distinguishes four root causes of this process. They include conflict-induced displacement, environmentally-induced displacement (associated with slow-onset changes in the environment), disaster-induced displacement and development-induced displacement. Despite its theoretical usefulness as a basis for broad considerations, this classification somehow very rarely appears in the literature. Nor do the recently adopted international documents promoting protection and assistance for IDPs, such as the Guiding Principles of Internal Displacement (1998), the Great Lakes Pact (2006) and the Kampala Convention (2009), refer to this classification of the causes of displacement[9]. This omission seems to be a direct consequence of two theoretical problems we may encounter when analyzing internal displacements. The first is the difficulty of precisely determining the meaning of the term "conflict-induced displacement".

According to the most common understanding of the term, conflict-induced displacement refers to people who are forced to leave their habitual place of residence as a result of current escalation of internal violence. Such a narrow understanding of the problem is therefore similar to the overall meaning of the term "internally displaced persons" (IDPs), as encountered in the text of many international instruments. Also, in the ordinary sense of the term, internally displaced people are mainly associated with victims of internal violence who are forced to move to another place. Contrary to general opinion, escalation of internal violence is by no means the largest quantitative cause of internal displacement. It is estimated that the current population of conflict-induced displaced people comprises more than 20 million people worldwide. But the annual growth rate in the number of people forced to leave their places of residence as a result of current internal conflicts amounts to only a few million people. According to IDMC estimations, over 3.5 million people were newly displaced by conflicts in 2011, which is a few times less than even an underrated number of persons temporarily uprooted by natural disasters, or permanently resettled by development projects, within the same period of time. The vast majority of the population of conflict-induced displaced people is thus of longtime character. It can be seen from the figures that the escalation of internal violence is a much slighter cause of displacement than the consequences of economic development (approximately 15 million people displaced by development projects per year).

However, let us remember that the term "conflict-induced displaced people" may also refer to a much broader population than only those individuals forced to leave their homes following internal armed conflicts. The most fundamental cause of displacement is the presence of dynamic conflict among several categories of actors within a static and limited territory. The desire to take control over a certain territory and its resources becomes a cause of conflict which forces its residents to leave their current homes. Each of the already mentioned causes of displacement involves certain antagonisms. The kind most visible and easy to analyze are displacements associated with conflict over resources or antagonisms based on political and ethnic background. In the case of development-induced displacement or conservation-induced displacement, territory becomes an arena of specific conflicts between the interests of the public or private sector and the needs of people displaced or affected by particular development decisions. Development-caused displacement is often associated with conflict over resources which has led to landlessness and consequent problems (joblessness, homelessness, food insecurity, and social disarticulation). Displacement is primarily a phenomenon associated with the loss of land, which is a fundamental point of economic, social and cultural reference. In each of these cases the largest single cost of the conflict is paid by affected individuals and communities, who in many cases are not even the subject of the dispute leading to their displacement.

People forced to leave their place of current residence are not always the active subject of the processes leading to their displacement. The civilian population may be merely a passive observer and victim of internal conflicts which lead to deportation. A similar situation can be observed in the category of displacement caused by development projects. In countries with an authoritarian form of government, such decisions rarely take into account the interests of the people living in the project's immediate vicinity. Due to their limited political participation, lack of social consultation prior to investment, and legal discrimination, they are rarely involved in decisions affecting their future. A limited degree of autonomy also characterizes people displaced or forced to evacuate in the aftermath of natural disasters or more permanent environmental processes. Usually, they leave their homes as a result of the strong influence of environmental hazards, or are forced to evacuate as part of an organized action carried out by the local authority.

Natural disasters are currently the cause of internal displacement on the largest scale worldwide. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) report, natural disasters led to at least temporary displacement of over 42 million people in 2010 and 14.9 million in the following year. These displacements are mostly related to weather events such as floods and storms. As of 2011, 89% of the displacements occurred in Asia. In 2012 98 % of all disaster-induced displacement was related to climate and weather-related events[10]. However, let us remember that the majority of these were short-term evacuations, which do not have far-reaching social consequences. At the same time we are observing natural disasters inducing long-term displacement to areas far from the original place of residence. The particularly high potential for long-term damage is characteristically found in natural disasters, such as tsunamis and atmospheric events, affecting densely populated Asian countries. We are still noticing a lack of accurate statistics on long-term displacement caused by natural disasters.

Another significant cause of involuntary internal mobility is displacement or forced migration associated with slow-onset environmental changes. Migrations over the centuries are primarily a history of human emancipation from the dictates of the forces of nature along with the increasing adaptation of biological and social skills to make possible the colonization of hostile areas. Long-term changes in the environment have been the most important reasons for human mobility throughout history. Biological evolution, accompanied by the development of tool production and hunting techniques and the formation of proto-language, were the root conditions which allowed the early Homo species to undertake distant migrations. The earliest displacements were strongly affected by progressive environmental changes and declining resources. When resources shrank below the minimal level required for existence, the only solution was to relocate elsewhere.

Among progressive environmental problems leading to forced migration we can mention land degradation, desertification, progressive temperature increase in the area, and the possibility of rising sea levels in future. In my view it is necessary to clearly distinguish displacements caused by slow-onset environmental changes (including climate change) from those associated with sudden natural disasters, which usually present greater threats to security and more visible humanitarian problems. There are several factors underlying the distinction. The displacement caused by natural disasters is characterized by spontaneous or organized flight from the place of current residence without specific plans for the future. The key goal of people displaced and evacuated following natural disasters is immediate departure from the area of strong human security risks. After the natural disaster has run its course, people affected by it very often return to their homes or former immediate environment. Only natural disasters involving massive devastation throughout the territory or chemical contamination of a large area lead to more irreversible displacement. The aim of displacement or migration caused by long-term environmental change is relinquishment of current residence in order to maximize the level of human security, which had been reduced by the consequences of those changes. Each of the categories of displacement reviewed here, therefore, has a different motivation. Mobility caused by long-term environmental change often takes the form of a planned compulsory migration, rather than spontaneous displacement or evacuation carried out by the state authorities. Migrations caused by slow-onset environmental change are strongly linked to and coexist with other categories of human mobility, such as economic migrations and all categories of internal displacement. Changing environmental conditions can significantly undermine the economic basis of existence. In many cases of migration observed in developing countries, economic and environmental motives of migrants are very difficult to separate. Long-term environmental changes often reduce the amount of vital resources (water, agricultural land) in the particular territory. Declining resources and conflicts over their acquisition very often lead to population displacement. Slow-onset environmental change is therefore a very important cause of displacement in several regions of the globe. I am thinking both of migrations directly resulting from the negative effects of environmental changes in a particular territory, and of displacement caused by earlier conflicts over resources.

Progressive climate change is an obvious source of many natural hazards which create the dynamics of disaster-induced displacement. Further relationships, which are difficult to delimit precisely, may combine economic development with displacement caused by long-term environmental change. A usual consequence of development projects is progressive land degradation in their vicinity. Creation of large dams significantly affects the landscape, ecology, and animal populations. We know of examples of the construction of a dam leading to water pollution along the river's entire course and thus to deterioration in the economic situation of local residents. Environmental problems are a common consequence of exploitation of mineral resources, in particular through the creation of large open-cast mines. The environmental costs of development projects therefore lead to a significant decline in the living conditions of many communities and the subsequent de facto forced migration from rural to urban areas. In many cases, precise identification of the motives guiding migrants turns out to be impossible. Particularly strong interconnection of the various causes of internal displacement is observed in failed states, those ruled in a totalitarian or authoritarian manner, and those strongly affected by ethnic antagonisms. Let us mention here at least some of the difficulties in the delimitation of individual causes of internal displacement in Sudan. The totalitarian or authoritarian governance model significantly affects the increasing dynamism of internal displacement. Displacements in countries ruled in an undemocratic manner may be associated with the following, at a minimum: 1. harassment of and discrimination against powerless communities, 2. compulsory implementation of population redistribution schemes such as the Transmigrasi in Indonesia and the politics of villagization in many African countries, 3. implementation of mega-projects leading to mass displacement and a drastic deterioration in the living conditions of the local community.

The subject of this book and the dominant problem addressed by the following analyses is internal displacement and resettlement caused by the consequences of economic development. It is estimated that this problem may directly affect over 15 million people each year. When we take into account that much disaster-induced displacement consists of long-term and reversible evacuations, the problem of development-induced displacement emerges as perhaps the world's largest statistical category of internal displacement.

Within historical analysis, development-induced displacement and conservation-induced displacement are the "youngest" categories of forced migration. The massive scale of these processes has been observed only from the late forties of the last century. For most of human history, the root causes of forced migrations were natural disasters and long-term negative environmental processes, or population growth and the consequent decrease in the amount of resources. The Neolithic revolution and the associated development of social organization played a major role in the greater diversity of the causes of displacement worldwide. The growing population and associated demographic pressure caused additional voluntary migrations in pursuit of new resources and better living conditions. New forms of settlement, such as the establishment of towns near large rivers, together with the development of agriculture, gradually freed people from the dictates of the forces of nature. Ancient times saw the beginning of resettlement motivated by political factors. We can at least mention here the deportation of the Israelites (the so-called Babylonian captivity). The vast majority of conflicts in the ancient Middle East were indeed associated with environmentally-caused migratory pressure and the struggle for resources (water, agricultural land). In contrast to these processes, displacement associated with economic development is a very young phenomenon.

Displacement is primarily a socio-economic issue associated with loss or significant reduction of access to basic resources, on which communities depend. Physical abandonment of the existing residence is therefore secondary to the loss of access to material resources such as land, pastures, forests and clean water as well as intangible resources such as socio-economic ties. Analysis of displacement caused by development projects requires, at the outset, a clear theoretical framework. This is because the term "displacement" can be understood in two different ways. It may be used to refer to eviction of people from their habitual homeland without adequate compensation, guarantees or mechanisms of social support, or to the initial phase of a process of resettlement (associated with physical relocation of people from their homes). Displacement may therefore be a distinct, negative phenomenon related to violation of fundamental human rights, or the initial step in the resettlement process. The term "resettlement" therefore refers to physical, pre-planned relocation, combined with appropriate support mechanisms, including social support, in the new location. According to Robert Chambers, "resettlement is characterized by two main features: A movement of population; and an element of planning and control"[11]. In other publications, resettlement is defined as "the process by which individuals or a group of people leave spontaneously or unspontaneously their original settlement sites to resettle in new areas where they can begin new trends of life by adapting themselves to the biophysical, social and administrative systems of the new environment"[12]. According to the Encyclopedia of World Environmental History, resettlement may be defined as "the process through which populations displaced from their habitat and/or economic activities relocated to another site and reestablish their productive activities, services, and community life"[13]. This definition strongly emphasizes that resettlement is a combination of physical relocation (displacement) with subsequent attempts to restore the displaced people's livelihood in the new place. According to Mama (2003) "resettlement is a process, usually under the assistance of the state, private sector or other development organization, of moving people from their area of residence to another considered to offer alternative conditions"[14]. This definition, originally prepared for the analysis of the IDPs situation in Sierra Leone, strongly emphasizes three common elements of resettlement caused by development projects: its prosesual and multi-stage character, coordinated nature of resettlement, and physical relocation of people between their former and new settlements.

Extremely important for the understanding of this issue, therefore, is the analysis of standards of displacement and mechanisms of further support and assistance for displaced and resettled people. Involuntary resettlement associated with economic development is a phenomenon seen in all continents. Only in some of them, however, does it take on the character of a significant social problem, leading to violations of human rights and significant reduction in the level of individual and community security. Therefore, global variation affects the difference in standards of implementation. The key factor in the strong global differentiation among cases of DIDR is the difference in standards of resettlement, which determine the subsequent economic and social situation of the people.

In countries with democratic forms of government, proper protection of citizens' property rights, and extended participation of citizens as political actors, resettlement caused by development is not a visible social problem. The most negative consequences of economic development are observed in authoritarian countries featuring great social inequality and a large group of people who are almost totally excluded from the economy. A highly developed country characterized by a democratic form of government, free public opinion, and extended participation of people in the public sphere, cannot afford to implement socially costly development projects which would lead to mass displacement. Much resistance observed worldwide is a direct consequence of exclusion from planning, decision-making and monitoring of involuntary resettlement. Let us also note that in almost all developed democratic countries the cause of population displacement may lie only in development projects for public purposes. However, even in western Europe, we can find examples of projects that have led to large-scale resettlement. For instance, it is estimated that during the twentieth century lignite mining in Germany led to the displacement of between 30,000 and 100,000 people. Much greater problems are observed in developing countries or those implementing an intensive model of economic development, detached from the principles of sustainable development.

The largest scale of development-induced displacement and resettlement is seen in the world's most densely populated countries: China and India. According to the Chinese National Research Center for Resettlement, over 45 million people have been displaced in this country following development projects carried out between 1950 and 2000, 52 percent of this number owing to urban development projects[15]. Recent research has pointed out that 70 million people were displaced in China by development projects between 1950 and 2008[16]. According to W. Courtland Robinson, development projects in China during the nineties displaced approximately 10.3 million people[17]. In 1989 the Chinese government admitted that over 7 million development-induced IDPs in that country lived in extreme poverty[18]. According to the World Commission on Dams, construction of dams was the sole cause of 34% of DIDR in China between 1950 and 1990[19]. This problem, on an equally large scale, has been observed in twentieth-century India. Vijaya Paranjpye (1988) estimated that construction of dams had forced the involuntary resettlement of at least 21.6 million people up to that date[20]. According to Taneja and Thakkar (2000), the construction of dams alone displaced between 21 and 40 million people in India. As noted by Mahapatra, development might have displaced 25 million people in India during the second part of the twentieth century (from 1947 to 1997)[21]. These figures seem to have been grossly underestimated. According to Nalin Singh Negi and Sujata Ganguly (2011), over 50 million people in India have been displaced over the last 50 years, which is a more accurate statistic if we take project affected people (PAPs) into account. Dr Walter Fernandes of the North Eastern Social Research Centre in Guwahati (NESRC) has estimated at 60 million the total number of people displaced and affected by development projects in India. An Indian government statement of 1994 gives the number of over 10 million development-induced displaced people in the country who are still "awaiting rehabilitation".

The magnitude of displacement following development projects is also highly visible in other Asian countries as well as in Africa and Latin America. Bangladesh is an example of an Asian country strongly affected by this problem. The creation of Kaptai dam, completed in 1962, has resulted in the involuntary resettlement of over 60,000 Chakma and Hajong tribals. Bangladesh is also struggling with huge numbers of people who have been forced to encroach on public land. Involuntary resettlement caused by creation of dams is a highly visible problem in Vietnam, Turkey and Nepal as well. In Africa, the construction of dams was a response to political changes caused by decolonization and the growing energy needs of sovereign states. Among the well-known examples of dam construction implemented in Africa during the fifties and sixties, we can mention the construction of Akosobmo Dam in Ghana (opened in 1965), Aswan High Dam in Egypt (opened in 1970) and Kariba Dam on the Zambezi river on the border of Zambia and Zimbabwe (opened in 1959). All these projects drew the attention of applied anthropologists who conducted research on involuntary resettlement caused by their construction and the social consequences of these projects. Also, in recent years we have observed a growing number of dam projects in Africa, often using Chinese capital. Among the largest projects carried out in Africa in recent years, we can mention the Gibe III Dam in Ethiopia, the Merowe Dam in Sudan, and the Lesotho Highland Water Project. A further major cause of displacement in Africa is the exploitation and transportation of raw materials and the creation or expansion of conservation areas. In Latin America an especially noticeable cause of displacement turns out to be the construction of dams. Let us mention here the construction of Yacyretá Dam on the border of Argentina and Paraguay (68,000 displaced people) and the Itaipu Dam on the border of Brazil and Paraguay (59,000 displaced people). It is estimated that construction of the Sobradinho Dam in Brazil, opened in 1979, resulted in the displacement of 60,000 people. Approximately 50,000 people were displaced following construction of the Itaparica Dam in Brazil (opened in 1988, also known as the Luiz Gonzaga Dam)[22].

The causes of development-induced displacement are extensively discussed in the literature. Most publications list eight main causes of development-caused displacement. These include the following:

1. Construction of dams, hydropower plants, irrigation projects, artificial reservoirs and canals. Dam building is the greatest cause of development-induced displacement worldwide. According to a report of the World Commission on Dams "the construction of large dams has led to the displacement of some 40 to 80 million people worldwide"[23]. According to the Bankwide Review of Projects Involving Involuntary Resettlement, dam building was the direct cause of 26.6 % World Bank-financed projects (active in 1993) involving involuntary resettlement[24]. Thus the construction of dams tends to cause development-caused displacement on the largest scale across the world. Irreversible flooding of vast areas and the need for resettlement of entire communities in remote areas has a much greater social impact than many other causes of displacement. Construction of roads and urban development do not involve the complete transformation of the previously inhabited areas, so that displaced people can live in the immediate vicinity of their previous residence and are better able to maintain their customary economic model, existing social ties and cultural traditions. In the case of people forcibly resettled due to construction of dams, restoring livelihood and adapting to areas far from the previous place of residence is a much more difficult and long-term process. It is worth highlighting that the perception of DIDR by international institutions and scientific communities is based on the consequences of dam building.

2. Development of transportation. Construction of roads, highways and rail transportation is currently, along with construction of dams, one of the causes of development-induced displacement on the largest scale. According to the Bankwide Review of Projects Involving Involuntary Resettlement, transportation is the direct cause of 24.6 % of all development-induced displacement in World Bank-financed projects active in 1993. This problem to a greater or lesser extent affects most countries in the world. The Jabotabek urban development project in Indonesia, which involves widening of roads in Jakarta, displaced between 40,000 and 50,000 people. The project was completed in 1990[25]. Also in Pakistan we are observing a growing scale of displacement associated with the construction of roads and highways. The Lyari Expressway project in Karachi resulted in resettlement of 24,400 families and social problems associated with inadequate compensation and the lack of mechanisms of social support. Displacement caused by development of transportation is extremely difficult to avoid even in developed countries. The ongoing highway construction project in Boston (Central Artery/Tunnel Project, the so-called Big Dig) may be associated with the displacement of several thousand people. In contrast to the construction of dams, development of roads has much slighter social consequences.

3. Urbanization, reurbanization and transformation of urban space. According to the WBED report, over 60 percent of development-induced displacement worldwide resulted form development of urbanization and transportation projects. According to the Bankwide Review of Projects Involving Involuntary Resettlement, development of urban infrastructure is the cause of 8,2 % of resettlement worldwide. Michael M. Cernea paper The Urban Environment and Population Relocation (1993) provides a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of urban resettlements in developing states. Among the most important categories of urbanization (and re-urbanization) processes causing involuntary resettlement we should mention: 1. expansion of urban areas, 2. rebuilding of the cities with the devastation of war and the transformation of existing districts and neighborhoods, 3. water supply projects, 4. development of urban transport, especially underground, 5. demolition of poverty districts such as slums and favelas in Latin American countries and India, 6. population redistribution schemes implemented in densely populated urban space. Development projects implemented in highly populated Asian cities leading to particularly high scale of involuntary resettlement. The Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) commenced in 2002 to improve public transport led to the resettlement of approximately 100,000 people. According to the World Bank "The MUTP is the first attempt in India to resettle a very large number of urban dwellers displaced while improving urban infrastructure. The resettlement process itself has been an unprecedented, pioneering exercise in improving the lives of the urban poor. So far, some 18,500 families—including thousands of squatter families living in shacks along railway tracks—have been relocated to safe permanent dwellings and given legal title to their new housing"[26] Water supply projects are another important cause of large scale relocations within urban space. We can mention here water supply projects implemented in recent years in Nairobi (10,000 resettled people), Dhaka (40,000 resettled people) and particularly well analysed in literature Hyderabad Water Supply Project (50,000 resettled people). Urban resettlement are nowadays increasing category of DIDR. As pointed out by Professor Michael M. Cernea, the single displacement caused by urbanization processes affects fewer people than the construction of dams. Displacements associated with urbanization are more numerous than those associated with the creation of dams. However, due to the high population density in urban areas, the number of people displaced per unit of area by projects of this kind is larger than the proportion displaced by a single dam.

4. Mining and transportation of resources. Attempts to obtain control of exploitation areas and further extraction and transportation of resources have become a growing cause of internal displacement. According to some estimations, over 60 percent of the world's natural resources are located on indigenous lands. The desire to obtain particularly valuable resources is becoming an important factor in many local conflicts. The internal violence caused by conflicts over resources can, therefore, affect the dynamics of conflict-induced displacement to a considerable extent. Large-scale displacement of people is also a consequence of the expansion of mining areas. Especially large-scale displacement is associated with the expansion of open-pit mining areas. It is estimated that the development of a gold mine in the region of Tarkwa in Ghana has so far led to the displacement of between 20,000 and 30,000 local residents[27]. According to Walter Fernandes, expansion of mining in India led to the involuntary resettlement of over 2.55 million people between 1950 and 1990 (particularly in the Jharkhand region). It is estimated that development of the Freeport gold mine on the Indonesian part of Papua Island might have caused the displacement of over 15,000 people. Other countries characterized by large-scale resettlement associated with the development of open-pit mining include China, Bangladesh, Mali, Tanzania, Botswana, Namibia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Peru, Suriname, Venezuela, Guyana, Argentina—and even Germany. However, population displacement associated with exploitation and transportation of resources is not limited to the consequences of expansion of open-cast mining areas. Extraction of crude oil does not in itself lead to a significant scale of displacement; in this case factors in the dynamics of displacement are conflicts over control of the areas of extraction and transportation. To obtain profits from oil exploitation requires strong control over these areas.

Already observed struggles to obtain control over oil fields can lead to a significant scale of displacement. Fear of sabotage or organized theft from pipelines often leads the authorities to carry out preventive displacement of local populations from the areas around the pipeline course. The best-known example of so-called oil-induced displacement is the forced relocation of people in South Sudan associated with the creation of the 1500 km-long pipeline Block 5A. It is estimated that in the aftermath of the pipeline project, affecting the area from South Sudan to Port Sudan, more than 160,000 people were displaced. According to the HWR, as of March 2002, the total number of people internally displaced from the oil areas of the Lakes (a section of Bahr El Ghazel) and Upper Nile region stood at 174,200. Population displacement related to the extraction and transportation of crude oil differs significantly from that associated with expansion of mining areas. Terms such as "oil-induced displacement" or "oil development-induced displacement" are increasingly evident in the scientific literature[28]. This problem is often considered a source of so-called petroviolence, seen in many African and Latin American countries[29]. Displacement or forced migration is also a consequence of land, air and water pollution caused by the exploitation of crude oil or open-cast mining. As we can see, the problem of so-called mining-induced displacement and resettlement (MIDR) has an extremely developed and diverse character, making it difficult to limit it to physical population displacement from mining areas. In analyzing this problem we must take a much broader view, taking into account such specific problems as displacement associated with fear for the safety of pipelines, etc.

5. Deforestation and expansion of agricultural areas. Felling of trees is often the first step in the transformation of land into agricultural areas. Especially serious environmental and social problems are caused by the creation of large monoculture plantations, such as palm oil plantations on Borneo Island. Population displacement related to the establishment of large monoculture plantations has also been observed in other regions of the world. Between 1998 and 2005 the surface occupied by palm oil plantations in Colombia has almost doubled (increasing from 145,027 to 275,317 hectares), leading to population displacement on a significant scale.

6. Creation of national parks and reserves, (conservation of nature). As pointed out by Marc Dowie, after 1900 more than 108,000 conservation areas, such as national parks and reserves, were created worldwide. The creation of many national parks was associated with involuntary population resettlement. The problem of so-called conservation refugees, which are people, usually indigenous, who are displaced from their native homeland territories following creation of conservation areas such as national parks is extensively discussed in the literature. The problem of conservation-induced displacement is particularly apparent in African countries and India. According to Charles Geisler, a sociologist from Cornell University, in Africa alone efforts for the conservation of nature may lead to several forms of involuntary relocations of between 900,000 and 14,4 millions people. The creation of the Serengeti National Park were associated with displacement of 50,000 Maasai people. The number of indigenous people displaced following creation of the Kibale National Park in Uganda is estimated at 35000. Over 10,000 were displaced as a result of the establishment of the Cross River National Park in Nigeria. Indian authorities have given the number of 1.6 million tribal people displaced in the aftermath of nature conservation projects in this country; it is probably an underestimate[30]. Involuntary relocations caused by the conservation of nature have enormous social consequences. Indigenous peoples who for many generations were organically linked with their land are suddenly displaced and forced to change their land-based economic model and social ties significantly. The relocation very often entails loss of access to common property such as pastures, shared agricultural land, rivers and forests. The result of displacement is not only deterioration in the economic situation but also a huge cultural upheaval. Actions to conserve nature should be accompanied by efforts to maintain existing social ties and sustainable coexistence between man and nature. Unfortunately, the creation of national parks in many regions of the globe is only an excuse for invasive activities such as deforestation or attempts to obtain particularly valuable resources.

7. Population redistribution schemes. One of the most brutal examples of forced population relocation from cities to rural areas was begun by the Khmer Rouge in April 1975, with the relocation of Cambodian people from the capital of the country, Phnom Penh, and other cities into the countryside. It is estimated that the Khmer Rouge regime displaced more than 4 million people from cities into rural areas. Also in neighbouring Vietnam in April 1985, the victory of the socialist regime resulted in reunification of the North and South regions of the country, and with it the creation of so-called New Economic Zones (NEZs) under the "Return to Village" plan. Although the "return to village" was officially voluntary, examples of compulsory or even forced migrations from cities to villages were often observed. Other examples of population redistribution schemes can be found in the programmes of villagization carried out in many African countries, especially Tanzania and Ethiopia. We may regard population redistribution schemes as a specific form of development-induced displacement which is strongly influenced by political factors. Relocation into the less economically favorable areas may became a form of punishment of ethnic minorities or other dissident communities. In some countries we can observe the reverse situation, as in North Korea, where living in the capital, Pyongyang, may be a reward for those citizens who are most trusted economically and politically.

8. Other causes. Among these we can include the creation of specific entities within a large surface area, such as airports, ports and landfill sites. An increasing problem, seen for example in Ghana, is population relocation caused by the establishment of large landfills. Increasingly stringent rules concerning waste management contribute to refuse accumulation and waste in less developed countries. The growth of such dumps in less developed countries may lead not only to the displacement associated with their formation but also to migration away from the subsequently deteriorating environmental conditions.

As we can see, the catalogue of causes of development-induced displacement is characterized by strong diversification and is much influenced by other categories of involuntary migration and displacement. Due to its irreversible nature, implementation of development projects leads to serious social consequences. Poorly implemented resettlement plans, unaccompanied by adequate compensation for lost assets and mechanisms of social support, lead to long-term or even irreversible deterioration in the conditions of large communities. Those responsible for the planning, preparation, and implementation of resettlement, and for the further adaptation of resettled people, therefore carry heavy individual responsibility for their decisions. Despite its clearly humanitarian context, development-induced displacement is still a marginalized and underrated problem in the area of human rights and humanitarian protection and assistance for vulnerable groups. The activity of the UNHCR in the area of IDPs protection and assistance is focused on the situation of people forced to leave their homes by internal violence and natural disasters. Efforts on behalf of people displaced by the consequences of slow-onset environmental processes or development projects have played a totally marginal role in the activities of this agency, probably because these categories of population displacement are characterized by a lower degree of human rights violation and fewer humanitarian risks affecting the displaced.

The aim of the present report is to highlight development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) as an autonomous category of contemporary forced displacement, a catalogue of phenomena characterized by great diversification of causes and consequences, a global social problem for as many as 15 million people relocated each year as a result of economic development, and a challenge to international cooperation institutions, public international law, human rights, and the agencies involved in protection and assistance of IDPs and humanitarian aid. This publication therefore contributes to the highly developed body of research on this issue conducted primarily within the various social sciences. The beginning of extensive scientific research on involuntary resettlement caused by development projects can be dated back to the fifties and sixties of the last century. Among particularly important recent publications in this field it is worth mentioning several books and research papers. The report by Jason Stanley entitled Development induced displacement and resettlement (2004) is very useful preliminary reading, allowing one to understand the diversity and scale of this problem in the most seriously affected parts of the globe, before going on to more detailed studies. A similar, more detailed examination is found in an occasional paper by Professor W. Courtland Robinson entitled Risks and Rights: The Causes, Consequences, and Challenges of Development-Induced Displacement, prepared in May 2003 for the the Brookings Institution-SAIS Project on Internal Displacement. Its author points out in great detail the causes of DIDR, its scale, and examples of it from all over the world, as well as the implications of this problem for the promotion of human rights and international cooperation. It is definitely worth drawing attention to a couple of interesting monographs and collected papers published in recent years in the specific area of forced migrations. Among them we should mention the volumes edited by Christopher McDowell (Understanding Impoverishment: The Consequences of Development-Induced Displacement) and Chris de Wet of Rhodes University (Development-Induced Displacement: Problems, Policies and People). A very important attempt to interpret this problem on the basis of ethical considerations is Displacement by Development. Ethics, Rights and Responsibilities by Peter Penz, Jay Drydyk and Pablo S. Bose, published in 2011 by Cambridge University Press. When analyzing displacement and community problems associated with mining developments it is worth turning to the report by Professor Theodore E. Downing, Avoiding New Poverty: Mining-Induced Displacement and Resettlement. Much attention in recent years has been devoted to the problem of people displaced as a result of nature conservation projects. An important voice in this debate is the recently released Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-year Conflict Between Global Conservation and Native Peoples by Marc Dowie (MIT Press). It is difficult to overestimate the contribution of research on development-induced displacement in India undertaken over many years by Dr Walter Fernandes of the NESRC in Guwahati. The publications of Professor Anthony Oliver-Smith of Florida University are an important source of knowledge of the sociological aspects of popular resistance to development projects.

The main issue I wish to draw attention to in the following passages of this report is the autonomous character of development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) in comparison to other causes of internal displacement. Both causes and consequences of this process make it more or less similar to other categories of internal displacement. However, in many respects DIDR differs significantly from these other categories. This fact is of crucial importance because in at least some sections of recently issued publications this problem has been linked to a slightly different form of environmentally-induced displacement. I am thinking in particular of some reports from the late eighties and the first half of the nineties, and of more general monographs on social problems. Currently, however, these problems are almost always studied separately.

The second issue I want to focus attention on in this report is the highly visible diversification of DIDR's causes and consequences. I try to discuss in depth examples of all the main causes of this problem. The displacement caused by construction of dams is both the greatest and most discussed form in the literature on DIDR. As pointed out by A. Oliver-Smith, the non-dam-related causes of DIDR have been less fully analyzed and documented[31]. Analysis of the problem is based on the perception of development-caused displacement as reflected in World Bank policies on involuntary resettlement. My report devotes considerable attention to the causes of DIDR that are less often discussed in the literature, such as mining and urbanization processes. The growing scale of such projects, or the expansion of existing ones, will in fact lead to a heightened scale of displacement. I devote much attention to the displacement of indigenous people caused by the conservation of nature. The expansion of protected natural areas obviously represents an attempt to minimize the adverse environmental impact of economic development and to preserve the environment for future generations. But people responsible for developing principles of nature conservation do not always recognize the need to maintain a balance between environmental protection and indigenous people's at least minimal conditions of functioning in their environment.

Another important task undertaken by this paper is analysis of the factors influencing the extreme variation in standards of resettlement practice. These standards are derived from a number of sources, the most important being: the form of government, dynamics and principles of economic development and environmental protection policies, property rights, the level of respect for human rights, the level of development of institutions of civil society, activities of NGOs, the relation of government to social inequalities, the problem of poverty and of communities on the margins of society, and antagonisms of economic, social, ethnic or religious origin. The listed factors affecting the nature and consequences of the implementation of resettlement are of course not exhaustive. Sometimes even implementation that seems appropriate from the point of view of relocated and affected communities can lead to further social problems. The actors responsible for the planning and implementation of resettlement, and for further assistance to resettled people, are not the only entities bearing responsibility for the success or failure of resettlement. A great deal depends on the activities and attitudes of communities displaced or affected by development projects. For many years, attention has been drawn to the importance of displaced and affected people as central actors in the process of displacement. A passive attitude, manifested in reluctance to adapt to the economic model in the new place of residence and in lack of integration with the host culture, can lead to long-term negative consequences.

Development-induced displacement is a socioeconomic issue associated with loss or significant reduction of access to basic resources on which communities depend. Physical abandonment of the existing residence is secondary to the loss of access to material resources such as land, pastures, forests and clean water as well as intangible resources such as socio-economic ties.

The diverse nature of displacement caused by development aggravates the difficulty of classifying the problem. In many areas of the world, the physical displacement of the population from the project area is unaccompanied by appropriate instruments of social support. In such cases, therefore, we should rather speak of unplanned forced evictions caused by development projects than of planned efforts to resettle and subsequently support those affected. As an example of development projects accompanied by brutal evictions, we can mention the creation of the Block 5A pipeline in Sudan as well as the villagization and collectivization measures in African countries, which have many elements in common with the worst Soviet practices. An important part of my analysis, and a premise of the discussion on the theoretical aspect of the problem, is comparison of development-induced displacement with the other categories of internal displacement.

Another issue explored in depth in this report is the consequences of development projects in terms of the situation of the individuals and populations displaced and affected by them. Important support for this kind of analysis can be found in studies conducted from the mid-fifties onward on the basis of applied anthropology and sociology, which generated theoretical models applied specifically to research on this issue. Among them we can list Colson-Scudder's four stage model from 1982[32] and the Impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction (IRR) model developed by Professor Michael M. Cernea during the nineties[33]. However, we should note that in recent years DIDR has attracted increasing attention from specialists in many scientific disciplines. Before asking about the social consequences of certain development projects, it is worth considering the merits of these studies' premises. DIDR is a problem often analyzed by experts from the field of economics and applied development. However, it is essential to move away from the perception of this problem solely in the economic context centring on profit and loss accounts. We are still observing a lack of studies combining the analysis of economic viability with examination of the social consequences of development projects.

The next problem I wish to draw attention to is the ethical controversy associated with development projects and consequent involuntary resettlement. Development as a goal of public policy should be oriented towards the increased well-being of the global population. The several forms of marginalization of already excluded groups as a result of the displacement seem ethically unacceptable. One justification for the implementation of development projects and forcible removal of people from their native lands is the argument that the project will lead to more efficient use of land and thus generate more income than before for the mainstream of society. Local communities are thus deprived of their land in the name of economic development for larger groups of people or to serve the interests of the state. Remember, however, that the definition of national interest can change dramatically, depending on the faction in power, the current model of governance, or specific political conjunctures. Deterioration of the people as a consequence of the implementation of development projects often has multigenerational or even irreversible effects. The problem is that affected communities generally do not participate in the decision to carry out a development project, nor do they share in the profits from its operation. It seems, therefore, necessary to carry out by law, and by the strengthening of civil society, action for the empowerment of displaced and affected communities as autonomous and self-determining actors who must share in any benefits arising from the implementation of development projects. Unfortunately, the authorities in many countries, not to mention the private sector, continue to reflect the viewpoint typical of conquistadors, namely, that such benefits should belong to a body which can make better use of them for its economic and social development. Land should not be viewed solely as a source of economic profit for private business or selected groups of society, in isolation from its importance as an area of realization of individual economic interests, social interaction and cultural identification.

Human rights considerations contained in the report are focused on two main aspects. The first is identification of key rights of the displaced, especially in the context of planning and implementation of development projects. The provisions of the Declaration on the Right to Development adopted in 1986 by the United Nations General Assembly should be treated as one point of reference in considering the following issues. The document stated that "every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realised". Self-determination of indigenous people and the right to maintain their own model of life and economy are basic principles that determine the intact functioning of indigenous people in their current territory. Among other important rights in the context of people displaced or affected by development projects we should include the right to land and access to common resources, the right to cultural identity, the right to environmental protection and to more suitable forms of development. Rights directly associated with the resettlement process include: the right not to be displaced, the right to participation in the decision-making process concerning resettlement, and the right to rehabilitation. Despite the concept of indigenous people's rights having been intensively promoted since the nineties, populations in many countries around the world are experiencing more and more the negative individual and community consequences of development.

The second issue I wish to draw attention to is the protection of displaced and resettled people within public international law documents. The so-called third generation of human rights indeed plays a positive role by pointing out the need to take into account the situation of vulnerable communities. However, there is only a very limited possibility of these principles' full implementation, together with control of negative practices, in countries characterized by low standards of respect for human rights. Problems of development-induced displaced people also play a limited role in the binding and non-binding documents adopted so far in relation to protection and support for IDPs. The international organizations and agencies which carry out these policies still pay little attention to this problem. It seems necessary to achieve at least a partial adjustment of the emerging system of protection and assistance to IDPs so as to pay more attention to the problems of persons displaced by long-term environmental changes and development projects.

The report also devotes much attention to the activities of international institutions on behalf of development-induced displaced people. For almost forty years, this problem has played a significant role in the activities of the World Bank and regional development banks. These institutions, which draw attention to development projects implemented with the help of their loans, should promote standards of sustainable development rather than contribute to the drastic deterioration of displaced or affected communities' economic conditions. The guidelines and policies of involuntary resettlement, adopted within the purview of the World Bank since 1980, have served as a tool for developing better mechanisms of planning and investment, which could eliminate or significantly minimize its negative social costs and impoverishments. Research activities of the World Bank, however, have not been accompanied by action on the part of agencies dedicated to human rights and humanitarian aid. UNHCR activities in the area of assistance and support for IDPs are currently limited to relief of those displaced by internal armed conflicts and natural disasters. The displacements caused by implementation of development projects and long-term environmental changes are usually characterized by a lower level of human risk. Perhaps because of the slow onset of the negative social consequences of DIDR, the UNHCR treats these cases as matters of internal policy for selected states.

The last issue I want to draw in-depth attention to in this report is the usefulness of the concepts of human security and human development in the analysis of DIDR and its social consequences. Internal displacement as a security issue and factor influencing conflicts is a subject already well-discussed in the literature. The attention of specialists is particularly focused on the relationship between environmental change and displacement and security issues, as well as on the relationship between security and conflict-induced displacement. Securitization of the issue of environmental change and consequent demographic processes is observed already in the early nineties thanks to authors such as Astri Suhrke, Thomas Homer-Dixon, Arthur H. Westing and Norman Myers. The usefulness of the concept of human security as a tool for interpreting the problems facing development-displaced people has already been highlighted by a small number of authors (e.g., G. Bharali, 2006; G. Caspary, 2007; B. Terminski, 2012 and 2013). Resettlement due to the implementation of development projects often leads to a decrease in the levels of all the most important categories of human security emphasized in the UNDP Human Development Report of 1994 (economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security). For further analysis we can include two more forms of human security: cultural security and gender (in)security. Analysis of the problem of development-induced displacement yields a good match with the key features of the concept of human security (people-centred, multi-sectoral, comprehensive, context-specific, prevention-oriented).

To a limited extent we can also apply the other significant concept of recent years in analyzing the consequences of development-induced displacement. I am thinking inter alia of the concept of human development advanced since the late eighties (Brundtland Report, 1987). However, let us remember that the concept of human development is focused on improving the well-being and welfare of whole communities and large groups. Many of the development projects carried out in recent years have not only failed to increase the well-being of resettled people, but have actually furthered their multigenerational marginalization. Many of the ongoing projects lead to a reduction in all aspects of human development for the affected communities (equity, empowerment, cooperation, sustainability, security, and productivity). We can analyze the consequences of development projects for the people displaced or affected by them using many more theoretical approaches. Particularly important, however, are the approaches of sociology, applied anthropology and development studies.