Читать книгу Development-Induced Displacement and Resettlement: Causes, Consequences, and Socio-Legal Context - Bogumil Terminski - Страница 8

The last century was a period of unprecedented economic development in many areas of the world. Although it led to an improved quality of life in many regions, just as often the consequence was the deterioration of living conditions and various forms of marginalization of the poorest and already excluded communities, such as indigenous people, outside the mainstream of society. The development of democracy and political empowerment of local communities increased the number of beneficiaries of economic development. In ancient Rome and some Asian empires the main beneficiaries of economic development were the rulers and the closed circles of the elite. As observed especially in the twentieth century, the greater democratization of social relations meant that economic development would serve the interests of a much larger proportion of the population.

The most fundamental goal of economic development seems to be to advance the welfare and well-being of the people. Those responsible for policy development, however, should reflect on three fundamental questions: what is the purpose of economic development, who benefits from it, and by what means should it be implemented?

The ultimate goal of human development, including economic development, should be the expansion of individual and collective freedom. The vast majority of social transitions known from historical records were aimed at the empowerment of the individual within a society of independent actors determining their own fate. The purpose of the Neolithic revolution, with the rise of the first urban settlements and the civilizations located in river basins, was to increase the freedom of man, understood in the context of minimizing adverse human effects on the environment. Also, modern conceptions emphasize the importance of economic development as a means of increasing the well-being of all members of society. Economic development should therefore have a positive effect on emerging categories such as human development, human security and human rights. Unfortunately, however, the principles expressed here are still very far from realization in many parts of the world. Economic development is not undertaken to improve the lives of all the inhabitants of a country, but to serve the interests of government, private business or narrow social elites. Economic development, rather than contributing to the expansion of personal and communal freedom, in many regions becomes a cause of progressive enslavement and marginalization of an increasing number of people. Thus it leads to human rights violations on a growing scale, accompanied by several forms of social exclusion.

The megaprojects, such as irrigation programs and large dams, have become symbols of economic development in many countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Apart from their obvious economic and social functions they have played a propaganda role, affirming the worth of the existing political system. In relatively wealthy countries such as India and China, special economic and propaganda value was attached to the construction of large dams. Socially costly megaprojects were among the basic tools of Mao Ze Dong's brutal project called the Great Leap Forward, implemented between 1958 and 1961. As the primary instrument of this bloody program of industrialization and collectivization, Maoist growth-oriented and natural resources-intensive economic policy demanded the construction of at least six hundred large dams each year. India also sought to base its economic development on the construction of big dams, symbolized by the construction of the longest man-made dam in the world—the Hirakud dam. African countries also perceived the realization of such projects as an important tool of economic development. A phenomenon very specific to this part of the world is the policy of collectivization and villagization. Both its overall vision and standards of implementation often reflect the worst of the Soviet experience.

Implementation of large development projects therefore serves the broad economic interests of the country and so maximizes the well-being of all its citizens. The construction of large dams is a typical example of projects implemented for public purposes. Their creation may lead to an increase in the amount of available energy and lower its price, in turn contributing to the speedier economic growth of the whole nation. In addition, these projects may yield other economic benefits such as the creation of thousands of new jobs and income from tourism. However, the increased energy security and well-being of urban residents cannot be achieved through the violation of the most fundamental areas of human security of displaced and affected people. Unfortunately a number of economic development policies of developing states regard involuntary resettlement as a necessary and unavoidable cost of development, and the people affected by it as victims of a just cause. We should also point out that sometimes the benefits of large development projects do not contribute in any way to an increase in the welfare of citizens but only serve the interests of authoritarian governments.

The general assumption that economic development enhances the well-being of the whole society inspires no controversy today. The problem seems to be an often simplistic understanding of society in various parts of the world. In many developing countries there are fixed traditions of economics and law hedged round by strong social divisions. Communities in a weaker economic or social position are not always seen as full-fledged citizens on a par with the dominant social groups who benefit from economic development. The particular problems of persons displaced by development projects in the countries we have observed are characterized by deeply entrenched social divisions and the existence of groups outside the mainstream of society. Over the centuries and up to the present day, such groups have paid and are paying the largest individual and community costs of economic development. Due to their low economic status and poor social position, they are seen as victims of progress by the authorities responsible for implementation of development projects that involve discriminatory practices. Even appropriate mechanisms for implementation planning and support for the displaced cannot solve all their problems without a significant change in perception of their position and erosion of negative cultural traditions. Economic modernization of developing states should be accompanied by an attempt to expand the group of beneficiaries of development to the widest circles of society. This requires, however, a very strong transformation in the perception of the members of these groups. Even the adoption of appropriate legislation and greater political empowerment of previously marginalized groups will not completely eradicate the problems. Discrimination against certain social groups is in fact strongly established by tradition, culture and religion.

For many decades, the practical dimension of the implementation of development policy has been the subject of debate among national authorities, academics and international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the regional development banks. Economic development policies are largely dependent on the model of governance and objective economic and demographic factors observed in particular countries.

As we know, in many countries ruled by authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, unsuitable economic policies have usually led to a rapid and invasive model of industrialization, apart from their social consequences. Very often they were based on central planning and decisions having more to do with political propaganda than with rational economic profit and loss considerations. The policy of the Great Leap Forward, initiated by Mao in China, is considered by historians to be one of the greatest crimes committed by an authority against its citizens over the centuries. Specialists in the field of history and demography estimate that the Great Leap Forward caused the deaths of between 18 and 45 million Chinese citizens. The development policy of post-independence India, which combined elements of nationalist and socialist economic policies and was aimed at economic self-reliance, did not produce destructive social consequences on such a scale. Although it contributed to the levelling of social divisions and economic inequalities, it also led to deterioration in the living standards of thousands of tribal people. In many African countries which followed the socialist model of development, economic policy was strongly based on Soviet practice. Although attempts at collectivization and villagization by some countries on the continent brought short-term economic benefits, many such attempts failed and did not contribute in any way to solving demographic problems.

Standards of implementation of economic development cannot simply reflect the country's form of government. Equally important are the economic, social, demographic and cultural factors which characterize each country. A strategic approach should affect both the general direction of policy and its practical implementation. A very common mistake of development policies implemented within the last century in totalitarian states was the formation of policy on the basis of ideology. The planning stage, and even the general outline of the economic development strategy of entire regions or countries, should be preceded by in-depth field studies. It is important to identify and analyze in particular: 1. the resources available for economic development, 2. the needs of local communities, 3. the social capital characteristic of the inhabitants of the territory, 4. the dominant economic model in a particular territory, and 5. barriers to implementation. Binding decisions on the nature of economic development should take into account local demographic and environmental factors. Lack of accurate preliminary analysis is a common factor in the realization of projects that prove non-rational in economic and social terms. Development projects can serve the interests not only of the local community but also of much broader categories of persons. It is necessary for each investment to contribute to improvement in the well-being of local communities and of the wider international community. Development projects should not only be a response to the needs of the local community, but should also use their local capital to the greatest extent possible. Analysis of the factors conducive to the implementation of development policies should be complemented by careful study of the obstacles to their realization. It seems especially important, therefore, to analyze not only the economic rationality of each project but also the potentially negative social and environmental costs of its implementation.

It seems that development policy, in whatever region it is implemented, should contain three fundamental elements. It should be 1. ethically acceptable, 2. socially sustainable, and 3. minimally damaging to the environment.

In recent years, analysis of development policy dilemmas in terms of ethics has attracted the interest of a growing number of anthropologists, philosophers, experts in applied development, economists, and—what is probably the most important group—even some policy-makers responsible for the direction of development. This fact seems to be a result of the increasing prominence of sustainability issues and the responsibility of public and private actors for the consequences of economic development. Because of the multiplicity of theoretical considerations it is difficult to identify a single and comprehensive conception of the ethical legitimacy of development policy and the accompanying development projects. It seems that the ethically correct development policy should view economic development in isolation from pure economic profit and loss accounts, and focus on maximization of the well-being and accumulated social capital of the largest possible proportion of the country's population.

Ethically implemented development policy cannot be carried out at the expense of some, but should serve the purposes of the greatest number of people. Apart from the realm of implementation, the majority of state development projects should promote the broader interests of society. Business projects led by the private sector may also be associated with specific benefits for the whole community and indeed for all citizens of the state. Sometimes, however, such projects lend themselves to maximization of the profits of narrow business groups or transnational corporations and in no way contribute to an increase in the well-being of local communities. A good example of investment that often ignores the needs of local communities and does not contribute to the economic development of residents is the extraction of crude oil and the expansion of open-cast mining carried out by transnational corporations in some areas of the world. A large portion of the income from such projects is rapidly transferred to countries outside the area of exploitation, thus hardly contributing to the improvement of local people's economic situation. Both private and public investment is likely to contribute to national economic development. The principles of CSR put into effect over the past few years have led to gradual improvement in the situation, as reflected even in improved standards of resettlement and increased amounts of compensation received by people displaced due to the development of mining.

A development policy which is suitable in ethical terms cannot be based on any form of discrimination, even against the smallest communities. Often development projects which are positive and desirable from the point of view of the majority in the society are ethically unacceptable because they lead to violations of human rights and further marginalization of the most vulnerable groups of affected and displaced people. However, total elimination of the negative impacts of large development projects is not always possible. Those responsible for implementing development policies, however, should at least try to restore to the displaced and affected communities economic conditions similar to those that existed before the start of the project. Also, in the long term, local communities should be able to enjoy the fruits of development projects on a basis of equality with other nationals of the country.

The purpose of economic development should be not only to strengthen the fundamental economic basis of the functioning of communities, but also to provide them with adequate social benefits. Economic growth must be accompanied by an increase in the level of education, along with better access to health care institutions, social services and other activities aimed at maximizing human capital. Unfortunately, in many countries the plans for economic development are created and implemented on the basis of a purely economic profit and loss account. In others, beneficiaries of economic growth are almost exclusively the closed circles of power. Gains from increased energy production and exploitation of raw materials have been devoted to the militarization of the country. Development projects in many countries are also a direct and indirect tool of oppression of hostile groups.

Research on DIDR was first undertaken by applied anthropologists who studied the social consequences of dam construction for displaced and affected communities. Over the years, we have witnessed increasing attempts at a more general analysis of this issue on the basis of political economy and development studies. The original studies were primarily focused on the problem of DIDR in the context of socially costly development projects implemented in the countries of the global south. Experts have rarely referred to examples of development-caused resettlement in well-developed countries in Europe or the US and Canada. Here too, however, intensive economic development has become a cause of forced population relocation. In Europe, as in all other parts of the world, the most negative consequences of displacement have been observed in countries under totalitarian or authoritarian rule, such as the USSR or Romania. As in other regions of the world and in Europe, various types of involuntary relocation are strongly connected with and influenced by each other. Factors shaping the future dynamics of DIDR have turned out to be the earlier deportations or conflict-induced displacements from the same territory. An example of this type of interaction, quantitatively small but very significant from a theoretical point of view, is development-caused resettlement in post-war Czechoslovakia. As a result of decisions made at the Yalta Conference to resettle the German population away from the territory of Czechoslovakia, some regions of that country have become much more sparsely populated. A previously mentioned influential factor consisted of infrastructural projects carried out in Czechoslovakia, such as the construction of small dams. The implementation of certain projects in Czechoslovakia therefore not only served the economic needs of the country but was also associated with the demographic consequences of the earlier deportations of Germans. Particularly interesting from the point of view of this paper is the story of the small town of Přísečnice (German Preßnitz) in Czechoslovakia, which was fully submerged in the seventies under the waters of a small artificial reservoir. It is one of the very few examples of country towns in Europe submerged by a created reservoir. After the deportation of German inhabitants of Preßnitz in 1945, this town gradually lost its importance. In the early seventies, the Czechoslovakian authorities decided to resettle its few residents and demolish it to create a small water reservoir on its territory. This small-scale dam-induced displacement, therefore, was made possible by the demographic consequences of the deportation of the German population twenty years earlier[34].

Of a much more socially expensive character were the displacements carried out in the Soviet Union. After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the territory of this country became the site of deportations on a massive scale, displacing whole ethnic communities, in addition to the more individualized exile of people whom the Bolsheviks considered enemies of the proletariat. The Soviet vision of economic development was accompanied by substantial involuntary resettlement. Let us mention at least a few hundred thousand people forced to relocate following the creation of dams on the Volga river basin, or implementation of other projects of this kind on the territory of contemporary Ukraine. Development-caused resettlement has been much more limited in the countries of Central Europe. A specific cause of involuntary resettlement in Poland and in two German states during the second half of the twentieth century has been the expansion of lignite mining. Despite the lack of accurate statistics, it is estimated that such projects might have caused the relocation of several tens of thousands of Polish citizens and even of 30,000–100,000 inhabitants of today's Germany. Involuntary resettlement caused by lignite mining is also observed, on a very limited scale, in other European countries such as Serbia and Kosovo. The social consequences of such projects were, however, incomparably milder than those seen in African countries, India and the USSR.

Development-caused displacement has had especially negative social consequences in countries characterized by a land-based economy and low employment flexibility, together with strongly rooted social stratification. Because of these factors, involuntary relocations have never become an obvious and intense social problem in Europe. Citizens of highly developed countries in the 20th century were much less dependent on the land and benefitted from a highly flexible economic and employment model. The transition from rural to city life was a relatively rapid process, not usually associated with appreciable negative consequences. The result of the change of residence was a generally improved economic situation, without multi-generational marginalization and social disarticulation. A completely different situation was observed in countries with a static (class) social model and a strong relationship with the land and other basic resources. Loss or restriction of access to land and resources on which communities depend, caused by development projects, was synonymous with the collapse of the economic model hitherto practised and the prospect of poverty.

Specialists from the field of applied anthropology, sociology or applied development should not limit their considerations to development-caused resettlement in developing countries in Africa or in countries like India and China. Comparison of standards of implementation of displacement in countries with completely different economic and social models may be a useful tool for creating further mechanisms with which to minimize the negative social costs of displacement. Despite the obvious variation in development-caused resettlement in different parts of the globe, these processes have many elements in common.

Research on development-caused resettlement was initially based on anthropological field studies conducted within affected populations. The creators of the first and probably best-known project concerning the consequences of involuntary resettlement in Africa (the Gwembe Tonga Research Project, initiated in 1956) examined, inter alia, the impact of displacement on the evolution of social ties, the economic model or the health risks affecting the displaced. Research of this kind highlighted the situation of individuals and communities as central actors particularly affected by the negative consequences of megaprojects. But it has become increasingly necessary to engage specialists from other fields of knowledge in research into this issue, involving, for example, detailed examination of the health and psychological problems of affected communities. There could also be a link between research on DIDR and studies of other types of internal displacement. As has been observed in recent years, the emergence of detailed research studies within the IDP has led to the creation of more and more subcategories of this process. However, there are interesting individually-integrating theoretical reasons for displacement in the light of which its common features can be identified. In the following passages of this report I would like to briefly highlight a couple of issues which constitute key elements of contemporary scientific discourse on DIDR.

I. The global scale of development-caused displacement. It is estimated that each year during the eighties and nineties development projects caused the displacement of 10 million people worldwide. In recent years, more specialists have spoken of approximately 15 million development displacees per year. In the nineties we had already observed an increasing number of people displaced following the construction of dams in India and China. It appears that recently the number of people displaced by the construction of dams has slightly decreased, as there has been a minimal decrease in such projects in some regions. Expansion of mining and alternative energy resources, giving rise to the creation of large dams in many countries, no longer plays such a significant economic role as it did a few decades ago. Many dams have been created in recent years in Latin American countries which endorse the pattern of rapid economic development. This process is accompanied by an increase in the number of evictions in urban areas in connection with re-urbanization, as well as those associated with the expansion of mining, oil exploitation and the conservation of nature. According to research, there has recently been a significant increase in the urban population as a share of the total global population. The transformation of urban space in developing countries, particularly in densely populated Asian agglomerations, has led to a growing number of urban resettlements and evictions. The vast majority of such relocations affect residents of the poorest neighborhoods. Therefore it seems necessary to intensify research into specific urban displacements in individual countries and aid mechanisms for afflicted people. We are also observing an increasing scale of displacement caused by the exploitation of raw materials. The growing need for resources in highly developed countries makes the global south a natural arena for their exploitation. In Asian countries such as India and China, extraction of raw materials is an important factor in the stimulation of rapid and in many ways unsuitable economic development. The most visible consequence of mining development is the creation of new or expansion of existing mining areas, usually located on indigenous people's territory. As Dr Walter Fernandes noted, between the 1960s and the 1980s the average area of a single open-cast mine in India increased six times, from 150 to 800 acres[35]. It seems that expansion of mining areas will be the cause of an increasing number of displacements and a factor in conflicts with indigenous populations. We have also seen the increasing scale of displacement caused by nature conservation. As well as in many African countries, the scale of the problem significantly affects the tribal populations of India, who are heavily dependent on a land-based economy and common resources such as forests and rivers.

The changing catalogue of the causes of DIDR, along with its scale, reflects the evolution of economic development. Equally important are the changes in the dynamics of economic development implemented in several states. Due to the very extended list of causes of DIDR and the lack of accurate statistical data from many countries it is very difficult to examine with even approximate accuracy the magnitude of the problem throughout the world. The number of 15,000,000 development-induced displaced people per year is therefore an approximation; while the primary factor influencing it is the dynamics of implementation of development projects in Asian states. It is also worth considering the need to conduct a more accurate statistical analysis of the problem. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) has collected annual statistics for a few years on the number of people displaced worldwide as the result of natural disasters and internal armed conflicts. It is worth considering, therefore, that the research already undertaken should be supplemented by more thorough analysis of the extent and causes of development-caused resettlement in different regions of the world.

II. The scale of development-caused displacement in comparision with the other categories of migrations and displacements. As with the other categories of internal displacement, it is very difficult to determine the approximate number of people involuntarily resettled in the aftermath of development projects. Many developing countries do not collect such statistics. In other countries the issue of development-caused displacement is mistakenly classed as a form of economic migration. In many countries, development-induced displacement is combined with other types of forced migration. Persons displaced as a result of development are therefore placed within other categories of forced migrants.

It is very difficult to compare the number of people displaced or resettled each year in the aftermath of development projects with the annual scale of the other categories of internal displacement. The annual growth rate of all categories of internal displacement is marked by extensive change. For example, according to the IDMC report, in 2010 natural disasters forced the evacuation of more than 42 million people worldwide. A year later, the scale of natural hazards-induced displacement was almost three times smaller, with fewer than 15 million people being uprooted. Similar patterns can be observed when we compare the scale of DIDR with the magnitude of two other causes of internal displacement: the escalation of internal violence (conflict-induced displacement) and long-term environmental processes (environmentally-induced displacement).

According to M. M. Cernea, the problem of DIDR may directly affect 15 million people each year, forming the largest category of irreversible internal displacement worldwide. As noted above, the number of people temporarily evacuated or displaced in the aftermath of natural hazards in 2010 was over 42 million. The following year, the magnitude of disaster-induced displacement (14.9 million people uprooted by natural disasters) was already closer to the suggested dynamics of DIDR. Remember, however, that much of the displacement caused by natural disasters is short-term in nature, often limited to a few days of evacuation. The displacement caused by economic development often involves moving to areas adjacent to those previously inhabited, but is typically of a long-term nature. Analyzing the estimated scale of several types of internal displacement, we can say that, among these categories, development-induced displacement is usually second in magnitude only to disaster-induced displacement. As Hoshour noted around 250 million people worldwide have been displaced by economic development over the past twenty years[36].

The annual scale of displacement caused by economic development seems at present to be greater than that associated with the escalation of internal violence (conflict-induced displacement) or with long- or slow-onset changes in the environment (environmentally-induced displacement). According to the reports of international organizations or other institutions such as the IDMC, the global population internally displaced in the aftermath of internal conflicts is currently estimated at between 24 and 28 million people. The number of people newly displaced by ongoing conflicts in 2011 was estimated at only 3.5 million. Even if the IDMC report does not take into account some cases of short-term displacement caused by the escalation of violence, the annual growth rate of development-induced displacement seems to be greater. There is also a problem in comparing the magnitude of DIDR with the annual scale of environmentally-induced displacement. Accurately estimating the annual scale of displacement and migration caused by slow-onset environmental changes is extremely difficult, if at all feasible. Forced mobility caused by slow-onset environmental change is often seen as a subcategory of economic migration. For example, the famous examples of rural-urban migrations in Africa caused by drought, ongoing land degradation, water shortages and the prospect of famine are often classified (perceived) as economic phenomena, completely detached from their environmental context. Due to the lack of accurate statistical data on the scale of this problem, it is difficult to compare it with the scale of development-induced displacement.

III. The common elements of development-induced displacement and other causes of internal displacement worldwide. Development-caused displacement has much in common with other categories of internal displacement. As with these other categories, its fundamental cause is the dynamic conflict of interests within a static and limited territory. In many countries of the global south, development-caused displacement occurs in parallel with other categories of displacement. During the nineties in Sudan, Nigeria's problem was strongly connected with the conflict-induced displacement there. In South Asia, development-caused displacement coexists with displacements stemming from natural disasters and long-term environmental changes.

Economic development and involuntary resettlement caused by it may indirectly affect the character and dynamics of all other categories of displacement. The planning of development projects is often accompanied by conflict among local authorities, the private sector and displaced or affected communities over control of territory. Particularly strong conflicts over territory and its resources may precede the extraction of oil or development of open-cast mining areas. The consequence may be brutal clashes between local communities and authorities, or other forms of escalation of violence. The persecution of the Ogoni people caused by oil exploitation in the Niger Delta became a factor in the large scale of conflict-induced displacement from Ogoniland. The link between oil exploitation in southern Sudan and the dynamics of brutal displacement was so strong that separation of oil-induced displacement from the more general context of conflict-induced displacement was virtually impossible. Many common elements also connect resettlement caused by development projects with forced migrations due to long-term environmental changes. Pollution of land, water and soil caused by development projects may be a push factor in a secondary wave of forced migrations—this time caused by land degradation and environmental disruption.

IV. The difference between displacement, resettlement and evictions. When analyzing the contemporary picture of displacement caused by development and other factors traditionally perceived as aspects of development-induced displacement (such as displacement in city areas), we usually employ three different terms: displacement, resettlement and evictions. They have disparate meanings. The term "displacement" is used most often in the context of relocation related to deprivation of access to existing land and resources, unaccompanied by adequate support mechanisms for the affected people. The phenomenon of displacement is thus not limited to physical departure from the current homeland but is mainly associated with the loss of existing economic and social facilities and of access to the relevant resources, with no benefits gained in return. The term displacement is mostly applied to the situation of individuals, tribes and communities that have been cut off from their current socio-economic base and as a result have seen their standard of functioning deteriorate significantly. The category of resettlement has a definitely more process-related character than displacement. We use the term "resettlement" in the context of relocation based on previous plans and social consultations with affected communities, usually accompanied by adequate support mechanisms in the new place of residence. The costs of physical relocation and the depletion of former resources is thus compensated for by the support received in the new location. The third term often used to describe involuntary relocations connected with economic development is "eviction". On the most common understanding, eviction is compulsory removal of an individual from a territory (e.g. housing unit) to which he has no legal right. According to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights eviction is "the permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families, and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, and appropriate forms of legal and other protection"[37]. Forced eviction can also include the situations when families or larger groups are resettled to the new territories with the assistance of the state. In scientific literature this category is mostly applied to relocations of illegal settlers, forced relocations due to conservation of nature, and evictions in urban areas, e.g. those associated with forcible clearance or demolition of slum areas.

V. Resistance of displaced or affected peoples against development projects. The problem of resistance against development projects has become an essential element of contemporary discourse on DIDR[38]. The growing local resistance against the negative consequences of economic development is highly visible in all parts of the world affected by DIDR. In particular, much recently conducted analysis refers to resistance against the construction of dams in India, Latin America and some African countries. Some of the resistance movements have contributed not only to modification of the original development plans and reduction of their social consequences but also to cancellation of the projects. The nearly ten-year campaign of protests by local communities was one of the causes of the decision in August 2012 to cancel construction of La Parota Dam in Mexico. Also in India we can list some examples of successful resistance against development-induced displacement and forced evictions. The resistance of inhabitants of 121 villages who faced displacement by the Koel-Karo Dam in East India successfully stopped the implementation of the project. The tradition of resistance of local communities against development projects in India dates back to the first decades of the last century. The growing scale of local community resistance in Latin America is part of the trend observed there towards political empowerment of indigenous populations as self-determined communities deciding for themselves on the direction of their way of life and economic development. Also in highly developed countries we have witnessed several examples of successful resistance against major development projects.

Resistance against development projects takes place on three levels: grassroots democracy (grass-roots movements), traditional non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and virtual resistance (through the internet). Much of the resistance is local and limited to protest against a single development project. However, the protest movements have pursued different objectives. The key goal for a large part of the resistance movement is the complete cancellation of controversial development projects (such as construction of La Parota dam in Mexico or the Polavaram Dam in Andhra Pradesh). Others set themselves the goal of minimizing resettlement or its potential adverse consequences. Some resistance movements have focused primarily on economic demands, including greater compensation in general or as compensation for lost land.

We can mention three basic levels of activity of civil society when protesting against and resisting the negative consequences of development projects:

· Grassroots movements (GROs). The term implies that the creation of the movement and its supporting group is natural and spontaneous, highlighting the difference between this form of organization and movements orchestrated by traditional power structures. Loosely organized and spontaneously initiated protest movements represent the most fundamental level of resistance against development projects. Almost always, they are organized to protest against a single project such as construction of a dam or road. However, the low level of their formal organization often reduces their effectiveness. A major problem for this type of local movement is the difficulty of promoting its aims and objectives outside the small group of directly affected people. That is why movements of this kind are often converted to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or seek cooperation with other resistance movements. Taking as a point of reference the protest against construction of Polavaram dam in Andhra Pradesh, Bondla and Rao mentioned six basic forms of resistance of local communities against development projects. These include: a) rallies and dharnas, b) silent protests and submission of memorandums to government officials, c) organization of discussion forums and seminars on the issue to keep the voice of protest continuously heard, d) mass demonstrations involving eminent social activists, environmentalists etc., e) long marches, foot marches and cycle yatras to build solidarity and sensitize communities, and f) hunger strikes in relay[39].

· NGOs and Transnational Networks. Organizations of this kind operate on local, regional and even national levels. Local organizations opposed to single development projects are usually formalized types of grassroots movement. Their formalization, however, is often accompanied by an extension of their activities. We also see an increasing number of NGOs acting on a regional scale. Among the movements operating on regional or national levels as representatives of the broader interests of affected people we should mention the Mexican Movement of Dam-Affected People (MAPDER) and the Regional Commission Against Large Dams (CRAB) in Brazil. The other Brazilian resistance movements include the Movement of People Affected by Dams (MAB), established in 1991 as an autonomous national popular movement. It currently operates in 17 Brazilian states representing a network of communities affected by hydropower dams.

· Internet. The main area of resistance against development projects is, of course, that of direct protests led by local communities or activities implemented through local or regional non-governmental organizations. However, the internet plays a growing subsidiary role as a platform for the promotion of certain demands and the rapid mobilization of members. In recent years we have witnessed an increasing number of online sites giving voice to the interests of groups contesting development projects. The internet has proved to be an important tool for promoting the movement itself and its interests, and thus for carrying its demands beyond the small group of affected people. It also plays an important role in rapid mobilization (e.g. organizing protests) and contact with media or with similar movements. The activities of local resistance movements opposing development projects fit well with those of other anti-globalization movements. The importance of the internet as a forum for mobilizing and promoting the interests of such movements is likely to increase.

VI. Compensation principle. Different countries of the world are characterized by extreme diversity in their practice of compensation for people displaced or affected by development projects. The basic element which characterizes most developing countries is a narrow perception of compensation. In many of them the term "adequate compensation" is seen not in economic terms but above all as social and functional. Their goal is not, therefore, to improve or at least restore material and non-material conditions reduced or lost as a result of displacement, but to enable people to rebuild their mode of functioning in the territory. In highly developed countries the main aim of compensation is full restoration of material and non-material conditions lost through displacement. Thus the amount of compensation received by resettled people in Europe often greatly exceeds the economic value of abandoned properties, because the goal is not only to restore previous conditions but primarily to compensate for the non-material social consequences of resettlement. In the countries of the global south, because of a different perception of property rights, compensation is often intended not to accurately compensate for economic losses but to permit continued functioning in the new place of residence.

An often observed practice in the countries of the global south is lack of or very slight compensation received by people who have no legal right to the land they live on (such as tribals, adivasi people and several categories of illegal settlers). Another problem is the inadequacy of compensation for property left behind, in the form either of cash or of prospects for obtaining land in the new area. In the case of many development projects, at least in Latin America, the compensation received cannot even restore, let alone improve, the conditions of displaced and affected people.

Another extremely important issue is the form in which the compensation is received by displaced or affected communities. Compensation received as cash, practised during several development projects, is not always an optimal solution and may become the cause of serious social problems such as landlessness and joblessness. This is because compensation in cash often leads to improper expenditure by individuals who are unaccustomed to large amounts of it or who have followed a land-based economic model not based on money. Instead, it seems appropriate to resettle people in areas similar to those previously inhabited, thus allowing them to follow their accustomed economic model. Compensation should not be seen as a one-time process of redressing the loss caused by relocation. Very often displaced people cannot cope with the new economic situation presented by deportation; the difference between their former economic model and their actual needs is too great. It seems important, therefore, to ensure long-term economic support mechanisms such as new jobs or educational prospects. In many cases, social support mechanisms are the only means of preventing the potential multigenerational exclusion brought about by involuntary resettlement.

Compensation for lost assets, however, must be clearly distinguished from several forms of material support and social assistance. The right to compensation for lost property seems to be an important category of economic law, found inter alia in the text of ILO Convention No. 169 concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries. It therefore seems unacceptable to reduce their entitlement to only subsidiary mechanisms of social support.

IX. The right not to be displaced. The legal foundation of the right to protection from displacement is derived from the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees that "everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence". A similar guarantee exists in the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights. In recent years the legal foundation of the right not to be displaced has been the provisions of the Guiding Principles of International Displacement. Particularly important are the provisions of principle 5, which require states to prevent and avoid situations that may lead to displacement. Forced displacement is a direct violation of the right to freedom of movement and choice of residence.

X. Human security context. Applying the concept of human security to the analysis of development-caused displacement leads us to a number of important research conclusions. In the case of much displacement caused by the escalation of violence or sudden or long-term environmental changes, decrease in the level of individual and community human security seems to be the fundamental cause of forced migration. Migration is therefore seen as a result of the impact of specific security threats. In most categories of development-caused displacement we can observe a somewhat different situation. The decline in the level of human security is not a cause but rather a consequence of development-induced displacement. Studies recently conducted by sociologists show that the consequence of multiple displacements caused by development projects is a significant increase in economic and social problems over those observed prior to the resettlement.