Environmentally Driven

Resettlement Issues

Doracie B. Zoleta-Nantes

Resource Management in Asia-Pacific Program-Crawford School, College of Asia and the Pacific

The ANU

Department of Geography, University of the Philippines

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the

Asian Development Bank (ADB), or its Board of Governors, or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of

the data included in this paper and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The countries listed in this paper do not

imply any view on ADB's part as to sovereignty or independent status or necessarily conform to ADB's terminology.

Environmentally driven

resettlement research1. Resettlement caused by large-scale development programs (DID) –

forces people to leave their community in the name of development and as their environment becomes the site of large infrastructures -San Roque Dam construction in Pangasinan, Philippines

2. Forced relocation of communities to other places due to hazard events. devastation of their living spaces – Mt, Pinatubo Eruption in Central Luzon Philippines

3. Temporary migration/relocation to other areas due to seasonal Extreme Weather Events which are intensified by the impacts of global climate change patterns – Floods and typhoons in Central Vietnam, in Thua Thien Hue; Floods and typhoon occurrences in the Mekong Region - Nongbok District in Lao, PDR, and Typhoons and floods in Metro Manila, Philippines

Most glaring lessons from

DID research activities

Resettlement alternatives failed to fulfil the socio-economic needs of people displaced in San Roque Dam construction

– they lost their livelihood and financial assets, and the government failed considerably in providing the displaced persons with sustainable employment

– Government institutions which undertake resettlement activities are not the best agencies to address the socio-economic effects of DID

– Needs of different groups, particularly women, were not taken into account, leading to marginalization of women

Most glaring lessons from forced

dislocation of disaster affected

communities

Lack of consultation with communities affected by lahar

-government focused on construction of bridges and other infrastructures which were repeatedly destroyed by the same hazard event on a yearly basis (due to seasonal typhoon occurrences mobilizing lahars)

Lack of support to provide livelihood support to communities and households affected by disasters

Failure to maximize the research findings from academic and research institutions as inputs for policy making

Some glaring lessons from

temporary migration/relocation

experiences due to CC intensified

Extreme Weather Events

• lack of information and knowledge on how to deal effectively with pre- and post-disaster activities which can reduce disaster risks, losses, lessen vulnerability and increase their resilience.

• Lack of support given to provision of opportunities for educating and training the disaster affected community members in informal and formal settings

• lack of consultation with affected communities in identifying alternative strategies to cope with and address their physical, socio-economic and institutional/political vulnerabilities

• Lack of disaggregated data on disaster losses

• Lack of women participation in all levels of decision making and program implementation in DRR and DRM.

Research methodologies

• Research consultations with government and non-government authorities

• Participatory research, which involves collaboration between and among female and male community members, research institute scientists and applied practitioners in the government and private sectors

Research

methodologies

Community

consultations and

hazards and disaster

mapping

Best practices at the community,

national and international levels• Strengthen the resettled community’s

participation in community-based disaster risk reduction, preparedness and management and incorporate them with livelihood improvements

• Institutionalized collaboration programs between community groups, local government officials and regional and national government officials

• Institutionalize collaboration between community groups, LGUs, national agencies NGOs, and other private groups/sectors