Mining-Induced Displacement, Resettlement, and Human Rights

Introduction and Background

Present-day economic development gives rise to a substantially greater magnitude of resettlement than in previous decades. Over the past six decades, the worldwide scale of development-induced displacement and resettlement has grown to an estimated 250 million to over 400 million people (Terminski, 2012). Across the globe, development projects have resulted in approximately 15 million people facing displacement on an annual basis (Van der Ploeg and Vanclay, 2017). Even though mining is not deemed a statistically significant classification of development-induced displacement, the social costs of mining exploitation are substantial.

The issue of mining-induced displacement and resettlement (MIDR) is an international predicament taking place on all continents. Nations that have experienced especially large-scale MIDR include China, Indonesia, India, and several nations in Africa such as Botswana and Ghana (Terminski, 2012). Although mining-induced displacement is an international phenomenon, the difficulties faced by displaced communities in various parts of the world vary greatly. The social and human rights issues affecting displaced populations differ depending on where those populations reside. Resettlement instigated by mining is part of the wider context of development-induced displacement and resettlement (Terminski, 2013).

Problem Statement

In recent years, the mining industry has become increasingly embedded in complex and contentious social policy debates, including business and human rights, conflict minerals such as blood diamonds, and negotiated agreements. Displacement and resettlement of affected communities have emerged as significant subject matters and policy concerns attracting the attention of the industry. For the most part, the mining industry is linked with decisions that carry significant social repercussions.

One of the adverse impacts of contemporary mining is the coercion of large numbers of people into relinquishing their homes and places of residence. In the contemporary setting, mining-induced displacement and resettlement encompass significant social issues and represent a challenge for human rights (Terminski, 2012). MIDR is inherently complex, encompassing several social, spatial, and political changes with long-term effects on people and projects. Whereas there is no intrinsic reason to assume that resettlement must be a harmful process, the nature, nuances, and coping strategies of communities affected by MIDR are not yet well understood. There remains a lack of information with which to scrutinize the capacity of the industry, or of affected communities, to meet the challenges of settings defined by MIDR.

Literature Review

Regardless of their primary aim, and whether instigated by governments or private entities, large development and infrastructure projects typically require land. This requirement, for the most part, gives rise to the dislocation of persons and communities residing in those areas. Moreover, even in circumstances where people are not required to move, project developments may still affect their everyday livelihoods and sources of income, either provisionally or permanently (Vanclay, 2017). In their endeavor to attain economic growth and development, host governments are often swayed by the opportunities of mining-linked revenues and infrastructure schemes. Nonetheless, mining may simultaneously have extensive adverse impacts on local inhabitants and the environment, seriously endangering the livelihoods and environments upon which many people depend (Noorani, 2013).

Terminski (2013) indicates that mining-induced displacement and resettlement is a wide-ranging global issue occurring in all parts of the world, and is not only a socio-economic problem but also a human rights problem. Social problems affecting displaced persons vary considerably depending on where they live. Resettlement instigated by mining is part of the wider framework of development-induced displacement and resettlement. MIDR violates numerous human rights, particularly those of an economic and social nature. Mining projects generate numerous opportunities, including revenues, employment, infrastructure, and resources for social development. Mining displacement and the associated risk to human rights are present in numerous nations and regions across the globe. MIDR is not solely a problem of individual human rights violations; it also relates to collective rights, community–corporation clashes, the struggle for resources, access to traditional and arable land, indigenous rights, the question of sovereignty of tribal persons and local societies, and sustainable development (Aboagye, 2014).

Owen and Kemp (2015) indicate that physical dislodgment, relocation, and resettlement are widely recognized as posing significant social risk. MIDR is significantly shaped by factors occurring in "brownfield" project contexts, in the sense that even when the initial displacement originates in otherwise "new" mining developments, forced displacement and resettlement require affected people and communities to bear significant risks in re-establishing their homes, social relations, employment, and subsistence practices—all of which generate manifold levels of stress (Van der Ploeg and Vanclay, 2017).

Aboda et al. (2019) indicate that insufficient compensation of the displaced results in landlessness and homelessness. Financial hardship may also become severe, owing to the need for additional funds for renting accommodation. Research has established that over 80 percent of affected populations live in shelters that are not only temporary but also structurally unsafe. Moreover, even though the advent of development projects implies potential employment opportunities, local inhabitants are rarely hired (Madebwe et al., 2011).

Furthermore, Scudder (2005) indicates that during the resettlement process, persons and families end up being reliant on the company or government for their basic needs. Social cohesion and the quality of relationships between and within households are disrupted and deteriorated, ultimately generating a heightened sense of inequality, discrimination, and injustice. Chakroborty and Narayan (2014) indicate that MIDR can give rise to the loss of both physical and non-physical assets for local communities—including home environments, productive land, access to traditional properties, resources, cultural sites, social structures, and income-generating assets. Owing to MIDR, local communities face the risk of ending up unemployed, impoverished, marginalized, and deprived of access to traditional food sources, while experiencing a loss of social cohesiveness and the disruption of educational and community activities.

Significance

Human rights are fundamental liberties accorded to every human being, which must be acknowledged, respected, and upheld at all times. It is necessary to assess and understand human rights issues in the context of mining-induced displacement and resettlement in order to ascertain the positive and negative impacts of MIDR and the measures that can be taken to ensure that such communities' rights are respected and that those communities are empowered in the long run.

Research Aim

This paper presents literature indicating how MIDR facilitates the violation of human rights in different communities and regions across the world. It differs from previous literature in that it not only addresses violations globally but also seeks to ascertain how MIDR can empower affected communities. It is necessary to assess and understand human rights issues in the context of MIDR as it constitutes a major demographic, socio-economic, and cultural issue, encompassing changes in population dynamics, health effects, economic inequality, and social disruption. These impacts are not merely financial but also social, ethical, and cultural, altering the prevailing lifestyle of communities in a holistic manner (Chakroborty and Narayan, 2014).

International Human Rights Legal and Policy Framework

Human rights refer to the fundamental rights to which every individual is inherently entitled simply by virtue of being a human being; these rights should not only be acknowledged but also respected (Sepúlveda et al., 2004). Human rights are universal—all individuals in the world are entitled to them—and these rights are interdependent, of equal status, and cannot be ranked (Van der Ploeg and Vanclay, 2017). The following are human rights that ought to be taken into consideration in the context of mining-induced displacement and resettlement.

Right to Private and Family Life

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) enables people to exercise a variety of human rights. According to Article 17, no individual shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honor and reputation. Article 23 clarifies that, as the natural and fundamental unit of society, the family has the right to protection by society and the state.

Rights of the Child

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out the rights of every child, irrespective of disability, racial background, or religious background. As outlined in Article 24 of the CRC, a child is entitled to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health, and no child should be deprived of his or her right of access to health care services such as treatment and rehabilitation. Article 28 further indicates that every child has the right and equal opportunity to obtain an education.

Right to Information and Right to Participation

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples encompasses the principle of free, prior, and informed consent, which is intended to enable indigenous populations to exercise the right to participation and consultation before development commences on their ancestral land or before the resources in their territory are used. Indigenous populations have the right to receive information in appropriate languages and various formats, in adherence to the principles of inclusion and equality.

Right to Work

The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) guarantees the right to education and to fair and just work conditions. Article 6 of the ICESCR indicates that every individual should have the right of access to work that he or she freely chooses and accepts, in addition to the right to food, water, and housing.

Right to Culture and Right to Religion

Based on Article 15 of the ICESCR, every individual has the right to participate in cultural life, to enjoy the benefits of scientific advancement and its applications, and to benefit from the protection of interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or creative production. Furthermore, Article 27 of the ICCPR indicates that persons belonging to minority groups have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, and to use their own language.

Right to Remedy

The ICCPR stipulates that every state party is obligated to guarantee that any individual whose rights have been violated is entitled to an effective remedy, and that such a remedy shall be determined by competent judicial, administrative, or legislative authorities to develop prospects for judicial redress, and that the relevant authorities implement such remedies when granted. Such an individual is entitled to full and fair compensation (OCHA, 2004; Habitat International Coalition, 2010; United Nations, 2018).

MIDR and Violation of Human Rights: Case Studies

MIDR is associated with the violation of numerous human rights, particularly from a social and economic perspective. Some of these violations include, but are not limited to: insufficient compensation for lost property; lack of involvement of local communities in the distribution of profits generated from resource exploitation; violation of social, economic, and cultural rights—particularly for indigenous people; violation of housing rights; marginalization and subjugation of the most vulnerable groups; and cultural destruction instigated by resettlement (Terminski, 2012). This section presents case studies demonstrating the violation of human rights due to MIDR across the world.

Loss of Social Ties and Social Capital

Dastgir, Kawata, and Yoshida (2017) examine this violation of human rights through the case study of the Aynak copper mine project situated in Afghanistan. The study established that one in seven villages affected by the project faced involuntary relocation. Families affected by the project indicated that mine-associated earnings insufficiently replaced their traditional sources of income. Being geographically separated also created challenges in sustaining the social networks essential for their survival. Once social networks are lost in war-torn Afghanistan, rebuilding them is extremely challenging. This case study demonstrates that forced relocation due to MIDR resulted in a significant reduction in everyday labor earnings, only partially replaced by income from mine-related activities among relocated persons and families. Moreover, such relocation substantially discouraged participation in community life, reflecting the losses of social capital resulting from separation (Dastgir, Kawata, and Yoshida, 2017).

Keovilignavong (2019) examined the case of gold mining in the Phu-Hae region of Laos. The study found that both illicit small-scale artisanal mining and large-scale mining significantly damaged natural resources in the area. Although the local government's efforts alleviated some environmental effects of large-scale mining, problems related to lack of social capital and poverty persist in the region.

Conflicts and Violation of Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights

MIDR is one of the most overlooked causes of displacement in Africa, and this has intensified over the decades, with mineral extraction being a fundamental economic driver on the continent. When mining agreements are approved, the immediate threat to the local community includes displacement and loss of property rights. For the most part, development projects result in the loss of land and, even worse, impose limitations on land use and access to forests, protected areas, and designated grounds (Perera, 2014). A prominent example is the displacement of the San community from the Central Kalahari Game Reserve to make way for large-scale diamond mining. Across the African continent, MIDR has resulted in severe social and environmental costs, with notable examples including gold mining in Ghana and diamond and coltan exploitation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Van Criekinge, 2008).

Ghana, a nation rich in extensive gold deposits, has experienced significant MIDR and human rights violations. Over more than a decade, over 30,000 persons from the Tarkwa district faced displacement as a result of gold mining (Akabzaa and Darimani, 2001). Aboagye (2014) indicates that mining activities across Ghana have devastated communities. People from these communities experienced severe human rights violations in the form of beatings, imprisonment, and killings when they advocated for their community rights (Van Criekinge, 2008; Ayee et al., 2011). In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the exploitation of coltan and diamonds resulted in severe conflict and considerable bloodshed due to the illicit trading of these resources. This prompted major international deliberation on blood diamonds. To this day, rebel groups control a number of the regions where these minerals are extracted and, as a result, have become key players in the mining trade, extracting minerals and selling them illegally to finance their insurgency (Van Criekinge, 2008).

Manjula et al. (2013) examined the impact of MIDR with a focus on Kerala, India. The authors found that development projects gave rise to displacement and a diminished employment rate. Specifically, before displacement, the population in Kerala had an employment rate of 47 percent, which deteriorated to 35 percent following land acquisition.

Conclusion

Present-day economic development results in a substantially greater scale of resettlement when compared with the preceding two decades. Research shows that more than 15 million people are forced to leave their homes and places of residence owing to development projects each year. Although MIDR is a worldwide phenomenon, the problems faced by affected communities in various regions across the globe vary significantly, and are mostly socio-economic in nature.

However, this research demonstrates that MIDR violates numerous human rights. Human rights are universal—all individuals in the world are entitled to them—and these rights are interdependent, of equal status, and cannot be ranked. Some of the human rights violations associated with MIDR include, but are not limited to, insufficient compensation for lost property, lack of involvement of local communities in the distribution of profits from resource exploitation, and many others documented in this paper.

The repercussions of such violations are largely overlooked and undervalued. Given that regional development is not bound to cease in the near future, it is essential for companies responsible for such developments to take the rights of communities into full account. Respecting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights must become more prominent in both the processes and outcomes of resettlement. The different entities involved in development projects ought to better understand what the corporate responsibility to respect human rights requires in circumstances of forced resettlement and expropriation.

References

Aboagye, S. (2014). Mining and resettlement of communities in Ghana: Exposing the harm caused by forced displacement and relocation. MiningWatch Canada.

Aboda, C., Mugagga, F., Byakagaba, P., & Nabanoga, G. (2019). Development induced displacement: A review of risks faced by communities in developing countries. Sociology and Anthropology, 7(2), 100–110.

Adonteng-Kissi, O. (2017). Poverty and mine's compensation package: Experiences of local farmers in Prestea mining community. Resources Policy, 52, 226–234.

Akabzaa, T., & Darimani, A. (2001). Impact of mining sector investment in Ghana: A study of the Tarkwa mining region. Third World Network, 47–61.

Andrews, N. (2018). Land versus livelihoods: Community perspectives on dispossession and marginalization in Ghana's mining sector. Resources Policy, 58, 240–249.

Ayee, J., Søreide, T., Shukla, G. P., & Le, T. M. (2011). Political economy of the mining sector in Ghana. The World Bank.

Bennett, O., & McDowell, C. (2012). Our fields have gone, our lifestyle has changed. In Displaced (pp. 123–149). Palgrave Macmillan.

Cao, Y., Dallimer, M., Stringer, L. C., Bai, Z., & Siu, Y. L. (2018). Land expropriation compensation among multiple stakeholders in a mining area: Explaining "skeleton house" compensation. Land Use Policy, 74, 97–110.

Cernea, M. M. (2007). IRR: An operational risk reduction model for population resettlement. Hydro Nepal: Journal of Water, Energy, and Environment, 1, 35–39.

Chakroborty, U. K., & Narayan, B. (2014). Socio-economic issues and dilemmas of mining induced displacement: A case of the coal mining industry. Journal of Economic and Social Development, 10(2).

Dastgir, G., Kawata, K., & Yoshida, Y. (2018). Effect of forced relocation on household income and consumption patterns: Evidence from the Aynak copper mine project in Afghanistan. The Journal of Development Studies, 54(11), 2061–2077.

Downing, T. E., Moles, J., McIntosh, I., & Garcia-Downing, C. (2002). Indigenous peoples and mining encounters: Strategies and tactics. IIED and WBCSD, Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development, Report 57, 41.

Habitat International Coalition. (2010). A handbook on UN basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement (3rd ed.). HIC-HLRN South Asia Regional Programme.

Keovilignavong, O. (2019). Mining governance dilemma and impacts: A case of gold mining in Phu-Hae, Lao PDR. Resources Policy, 61, 141–150.

Madebwe, C., Madebwe, V., & Mavusa, S. (2011). Involuntary displacement and resettlement to make way for diamond mining: The case of Chiadzwa villagers in Marange, Zimbabwe. Journal of Research in Peace, Gender and Development, 1(10), 292–301.

Mancini, L., & Sala, S. (2018). Social impact assessment in the mining sector: Review and comparison of indicators frameworks. Resources Policy, 57, 98–111.

Manjula, K., Kumar, T. A., & Aneesh, K. A. (2013). Impact of development induced displacement in Kerala, India. Journal of Internal Displacement, 3(1), 2–18.

McLeod, H. (2000). Compensation for landowners affected by mineral development: The Fijian experience. Resources Policy, 26(2), 115–125.

Mishra, S. K., & Mishra, P. (2017). Determinants of households' resistance against land acquisition for mining: Experiences at Talcher coalfields in India. Land Use Policy, 66, 10–17.

Noorani, J. (2013). Aynak: A concession for "change." Integrity Watch Afghanistan.

OCHA. (2004). Guiding principles on internal displacement. The United Nations.

Owen, J. R., & Kemp, D. (2015). Mining-induced displacement and resettlement: A critical appraisal. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87, 478–488.

Perera, J. (Ed.). (2014). Lose to gain: Is involuntary resettlement a development opportunity? Asian Development Bank.

Scudder, T. (2011). Development-induced community resettlement. In New directions in social impact assessment. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Tagliarino, N. K., Bununu, Y. A., Micheal, M. O., De Maria, M., & Olusanmi, A. (2018). Compensation for expropriated community farmland in Nigeria: An in-depth analysis of the laws and practices related to land expropriation for the Lekki Free Trade Zone in Lagos. Land, 7(1), 23.

Terminski, B. (2012). Mining-induced displacement and resettlement: Social problem and human rights issue (a global perspective). Available at SSRN, 2028490, 1–45.

Terminski, B. (2013). Development-induced displacement and resettlement: Theoretical frameworks and current challenges. Development, 10, 101.

United Nations. (2018). Basic principles and guidelines on development-based evictions and displacement.

Van Criekinge, J. (2008). Africa: Conflicts and mining-induced displacement. War Resisters International.

Van der Ploeg, L., & Vanclay, F. (2017). A human rights-based approach to project-induced displacement and resettlement. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35(1), 34–52.

Van der Ploeg, L., & Vanclay, F. (2018). Challenges in implementing the corporate responsibility to respect human rights in the context of project-induced displacement and resettlement. Resources Policy, 55, 210–222.

Vanclay, F. (2017). Project-induced displacement and resettlement: From impoverishment risks to an opportunity for development? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35(1), 3–21.

Wang, P., Wolf, S. A., Lassoie, J. P., & Dong, S. (2013). Compensation policy for displacement caused by dam construction in China: An institutional analysis. Geoforum, 48, 1–9.

Wiegink, N. (2020). Learning lessons and curbing criticism: Legitimizing involuntary resettlement and extractive projects in Mozambique. Political Geography, 81, 102192.

Willems, L. (2010). Mining and indigenous peoples in Guatemala: The local relevance of human rights (Master's thesis).

Wilson, S. A. (2019). Mining-induced displacement and resettlement: The case of rutile mining communities in Sierra Leone. Journal of Sustainable Mining, 18(2), 67–76.