(May 16, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) A key issue related to development projects is the communities they affect. A classic example in this respect is dam projects. Although dam projects usually achieve their main objectives they sometimes cause severe socio-economic hardships for the resettled communities. Broad agreement has now emerged among the stakeholders of dam projects that the living standards of the displaced should be raised by locally empowering them to reap the benefits the new economic opportunities offer. Proper planning is a must in order to prevent the devastation of the local socio-economic systems.
TWO DAM PROJECTS AS CASE STUDIES
In a research study undertaken by Dr. Jagath Manatunge, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa, two dam projects are discussed as case studies: Saguling dam project in West Java, Indonesia, and Kotmale dam project in Sri Lanka. The following article is based on a paper he presented at the Asia Pacific Association of Hydrology and Water Resources (APHW) Conference in Bangkok, Thailand in October 2006. Its title is "Livelihood rebuilding of dam-affected communities: Case studies from Sri Lanka and Indonesia". The study was funded by the Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology (CREST) of the Japan Science and Technology Corporation.
In Saguling dam project, the reservoir inundated over 5,600 hectares of highly fertile farmland in this densely populated region, displacing over 3000 families. Although the resettlement scheme had been planned with an emphasis on transmigration, only 450 families opted the option of resettling in other Indonesian islands.
The rest received compensation for their lost assets and were resettled in the reservoir’s riparian areas. Alternative farmland was not available from the same area, but the new aquatic resource offered new opportunities. So the resettlers changed their livelihood from agriculture to aquaculture. The Kotmale reservoir submerged over 4000 hectares of fertile land, including 600 ha of paddy fields. Over 3400 displaced families, including 900 on earth slip prone areas, were offered two options: resettle in dry zone with dry land and/ or paddy fields with irrigation water, or resettle in the reservoir’s riparian areas with ‘productive’ tea plots. Over 60% selected the second option.
During the review conducted after two decades since the resettlement, the resettled communities in general expressed satisfaction. However, questions remain whether they were really able to reap the benefits offered by the dam project. This research study investigated the two cases with a view of finding further improvements possible, which will be helpful in planning resettlement of the displaced in future dam projects. For simplicity, focus in both cases is only on those who resettled in the riparian areas of respective reservoirs.
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
Observations and findings are presented under four areas:
* Social marginalization and equity
* Consequences of lack of access to credit
* Overexploitation of resources & resources degradation
* Social equity
Social marginalization and inequality was evident both between the resettlers and the host communities and within resettled families themselves. In both cases, the displaced lost their skilled livelihood source together with their identity and social status. As a result, they experienced social marginalization at the hand of the host communities. Social marginalization and inequality was evident among resettlers, too, partly due to the productivity differences of the property they received. Moreover, success of the newly established livelihood was dependent on a variety of factors, such as access to capital and markets and the influence of middlemen, leading to widening income differences among the resettled families.
Lack of access to credit significantly hindered the resettlers’ progress in their new livelihood. Since the main income source of over 70% of the Saguling resettlers was not fishing, they had to invest in fishing gear. The compensation they received was inadequate to invest in a complete set of fishing gear and they lacked access to credit.
At Kotmale, over 60% of the resettlers received marginal tea plots badly in need of replanting to be productive and about 55% received no cash compensation but land only. Being unable to bear the capital cost and income interruption during replanting, the majority continued to rely on marginal land at subsistence level, eventually encountering failing income.
In both cases, lack of capital and lack of access to credit made resettlers vulnerable to outsiders exploiting new opportunities and the legal framework was not strong enough to protect the resettlers’ rights. As a result, they failed to enjoy the new economic benefits offered by the project.
In both projects, resettlers resorted to exploitation of resources as a means to raise their income in a short period. As a result, they caused resources degradation that threatens their livelihood itself. In Saguling, haphazard and rapid development of aquaculture has continued to lower the water quality levels and causing mass fish kills, threatening the future of the reservoir-based fisheries industry. In Kotmale, the most of the resettlers blessed with productive tea plots practiced over-picking of tea-leaves, in order to maximize profits in a short period.
Their ignorance of maintenance and management of these plots has led to a drop in productivity, opening the way for unreliable and declining income patterns. In the meantime, most of the resettlers who received marginal tea plots cleared the land of tea and started growing vegetables. However, unsuitability of sloping land for vegetable growing has created new problems, including low productivity, soil erosion and resources degradation.
Middlemen’s dominance in both projects prevented the resettlers from reaping the project’s benefits. Although the legal framework and organization protect the rights of the resettlers to a certain extent (e.g., fishing permit system in Saguling and definition of property rights in Kotmale), the measures were not strong enough and the middlemen enjoyed the benefits targeted at the resettlers.
LESSONS
Lessons learnt from this study with respect to the resettlement of the communities displaced by dam projects include:
* Resettlement alternatives should address the dynamism of local socio-economic conditions and be designed with local collaboration
* Consider ways to resettle the displaced near their original settlements, providing them with alternative livelihood if necessary
* Provide additional financial assistance of the resettled communities (e.g. access to credit) until they stabilize in their new livelihood
* Emphasize the long term sustainability of production capacity and economic viability during planning
* Strengthen the resettlers against the influence of the outsiders and middlemen
* Address social concerns and provide opportunities for the resettlers to rebuild social networks
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment