Mikiyasu Nakayama - 日米研究インスティテュートus-jpri.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/nakayama_20130219.pdf · Mikiyasu Nakayama. International Research Project ...

USJI SeminarWashington, DC (19 February 2013)

B d L d f L dBeyond Land-for-Land: Toward a New Paradigm for Resettlement Policy

Mikiyasu Nakayama

International Research Project

• Implications of resettlement associated with dams in 10 (ten) Asian cases were examined asdams in 10 (ten) Asian cases were examined as an international research project.

• Livelihood rehabilitation of resettlers in 10 dams built in Indonesia (4 cases), Japan (2 cases), Laos (2 cases), Sri Lanka (1 case), and Turkey (1 case) was scrutinized in details.

• Many similarities were found among cases and useful lessons for projects in future wereand useful lessons for projects in future were identified.

March 2013 issue of IJWRD

• Special issue for our presearch project.

• 10 case studies and “synthesis” of the project.p j

Resettlement in Pre Land-for-Land EraCase of Saguling Dam in Java IndonesiaCase of Saguling Dam in Java, Indonesia

• Saguling Dam was planned to generate 700 MW of electricity forgenerate 700 MW of electricity for the western Java.

• A rock-fill dam with a height of 99 m was constructed between 1983m was constructed between 1983 and 1987 in Citarum river at Saguling, about 100 km south-east of Jakarta and about 30 km west of Bandung.

Anticipated Destinations of ResettlersAnticipated Destinations of Resettlersby the Saguling Dam Project

Anticipated Destination No. of Families

Transmigration into other areas 2,000Resettlement by agricultural development schemes 625

Mixture of agriculture and aquaculture 1,500Relocation into the southern Bandung area 250gEmployment by project related activities 600Compensation by money 5,689Compensation by money 5,689

Total 10,664

•2000 families were supposed to join the Transmigration program. •53% of resettlers were supposed to have “cash compensation” alone.

Transmigration Program in Indonesia

• The transmigration program was an initiative of the Dutch colonial government, and later continued by Indonesian government to

l dl l fmove landless people from densely populated areas of Indonesia to less populous areasIndonesia to less populous areas of the country.

• This involved moving people permanently from the island of Java to less densely populated areas including Papua, K li t S t dKalimantan, Sumatra, and Sulawesi.

Observed Destination of Resettlers

Observed Destination No. of families (%)( )

In the same village 2,416 (78.5%)

Other villages in the same district 97 (6.4%)

Neighboring districts 39 (12.7%)

Transmigration 74 (2.4%)Transmigration 74 (2.4%)

Total 3,078 (100%)

•No agricultural development scheme was not realized.•Transmigration was hated by the resettlers.•Few people was employed by the project due to lack of connection.

Lands owned by resettlers after relocationy

Landuse Before relocation After relocation Change (%)Landuse Before relocation (m2)

After relocation (m2)

Change (%)

Paddy field 638 262 396 673 - 37 9 %Paddy field 638,262 396,673 - 37.9 %

Dry field 559,254 163,058 - 70.8 %

Domestic farmland 73,445 112,831 + 53.6 %

Fish pond 10,434 1,119 - 89.2%

Total 1,281,395 673,671 - 47.1 %, , ,

•Production base for agriculture was severely degraded•Production base for agriculture was severely degraded.

Most successful “Business” was not based on land

Aquaculture on reservoir proved very promising,while owners of such business were not resettlers.

Lessons learned from Saguling dam case

• Providing farmers (i.e. resettlers) with t f f l d ( ithsame amount of farmland (with same

productivity) is essential for their livelihood rehabilitation.rehabilitation.

• Land-for-Land scheme should be institutionalized.

H l ( t il ttl )• However, people (not necessarily resettlers) engaging in non-agricultural sector (i.e. aquaculture) made best use of the resourceaquaculture) made best use of the resource created by construction of Saguling dam.

World Bank Operational Directive OD 4.30 "Involuntary Resettlement" (1 June 1990)

Preference should be given to land-based resettlementto land-based resettlement strategies for people dislocated from agricultural settings.

OECD Guidelines for Aid Agencies on Involuntary Displacement and ResettlementInvoluntary Displacement and Resettlement

in Development Projects" (1992)

For rural resettlers, it is d i bl tdesirable to encourage "land for land" approaches, providing replacement landproviding replacement land of productive potential at least equivalent to the lost qland.

Kotapanjang Dam in Sumatra (built in 1997)

• Land-for-Land policy was put into practice.

• Living conditions in general were improved afterwere improved after resettlement.

• However, livelihood of the most successful village is

t b d l d’not based on land’s productivity. Aquaculture was the key for successwas the key for success.

Land-for-Land implies Poor-remains-Poor ?

Per capita income of urban and rural households in China (1997 - 2008) shows rapidly increasing disparity.

Sameura Dam in Japan

• Sameura Dam was built in 1975 in Shikoku, Japan.

• Survey (shortly after relocation) about livelihood rehabilitation of resettlers showed that those who moved torehabilitation of resettlers showed that those who moved to cities enjoyed increase of income.

Nam Ngum 1 Dam in Laos (built in 1970)

• Land-for-Land policy was ti dpracticed.

• Livelihood of two resettlementLivelihood of two resettlement villages were examined.

• Resettlers in one village enjoy much higher income thanks to b tt t t f j b ibetter access to towns for jobs in the local city office and industries.

Findings out of research (1)

• Many resettlers were concerned about the future of their children, and they tended to select resettlement destinations based on which destinations could providewhich destinations could provide their children with better education.education.

• In some cases, resettlers moved to distant cities to secure better livelihoods than before.

Findings out of research (2)Findings out of research (2)

i i f i i i f• The traditional land-for-land policies imply that a poor farmer remains a poor farmer even after relocation.

• In a country like contemporary Indonesia or Japan in early 1960s, land-for-land policies make farmers relatively poorer, , p y p ,while non-farmers benefit substantially from the country's rapid economic development.

• The study concludes that land-for-land should still be a major option for resettlers while resettlement packages not based onoption for resettlers, while resettlement packages not based on land-for-land scheme should be provided as alternative options for resettlers.

From “Java to Sumatra” to “Sumatra to Java” ?

An Indonesian researcher maintains that “Java to Sumatra” b T i ti iTransmigration by Transmigration is now in the history and that “Sumatra to Java”that Sumatra to Java is the new modality for resettlers.

Resettlers for Better Livelihood

Q d AQ and A(after Presentation by Prof Fujikura)(after Presentation by Prof. Fujikura)