Is there a global Safeguard for Development Displacement?

Whether projects are publicly or privately financed, no global body is tasked with systematically monitoring the numbers of people displaced, or terms of their displacement in development-induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR). The subsequent outcomes for livelihoods and living standards of the people affected are even more opaque. States rarely disclose the number of their citizens who are developmentally displaced or their fate following displacement, while few corporate voluntary codes of conduct address the risk of displacement. Resettlement safeguards of international financial institutions (IFI), notably the World Bank Group and the regional Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) cover directly only a small percentage of the total globally displacing projects. What does this mean for our understanding of resettlement outcomes? Constrained resources for supervision and monitoring limit the extent to which key IFIs monitor, evaluate and report on DIDR outcomes. Monitoring efforts tend to focus on compliance monitoring rather than outcomes for the lives of people affected. This leaves uncertainty in DIDR outcomes for many IFI-financed projects − and little systematic public reporting for the remaining vast majority of global project investments without direct IFI support. This means, therefore, that we cannot answer affirmatively an important question. Is there globally an effective resettlement safeguard for people displaced by development projects? This absence of an affirmation matters. The reasons are compelling. First, as will be shown, the number of people internally displaced through multiple causes globally is rising. Second, research and practice demonstrate that DIDR is complex and carries multiple risks for those affected. Third, global aid and investment architecture is rapidly changing, with the emergence of innovative financing modalities creating new DIDR risks because of the difficulty of attributing responsibilities for displacement. Fourth, non-traditional donors and financiers from emerging economies and organizations are creating new patterns of operation, with consequent ambiguities for DIDR. Fifth, liberalization of land markets and escalating FDI bring more foreign land ownership, partnerships or leasing to the developing world with sometimes devastating effects for communities.