ArticlePDF Available

Possible Framework for Climate Change IDP's: Disaster and Development Induced Displacement and Resettlement Models and their Integration


Abstract and Figures

Currently, climate change threatens to displace large swaths of people around the globe. It will do so within and between nations. While this overall phenomenon is new, it does not mean we are without any tools to deal with its expected effects. Forced migration scholars and policy makers have been evaluating other forms of displacement and have provided theory, models, and evaluations. This paper will evaluate how development induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) and disaster induced displacement models can apply to the specific challenges of climate change migration. A new model will be offered which integrates the previous two. The Climate Change Displacement and Resettlement (CCDR) model seeks to reframe climate change based forced migration using the instruments already available in other genres. It will provide a bridge between the current migration literature and this phenomenon, demonstrate how to utilize current mechanisms for new problems, and serve as starting point for the newest challenge in human migration.
Content may be subject to copyright.
The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts & Responses Volume X, Number X, 2010
The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses
seeks to create an interdisciplinary forum for discussion of
evidence of climate change, its causes, its ecosystemic impacts
and its human impacts. The journal also explores technological,
policy, strategic and social responses to climate change.
The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses
is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-
referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring
that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest
significance is published.
Impacts & Responses
Volume 2, Number 4
Possible Framework for Climate Change IDP’s:
Disaster and Development Induced Displacement
and Resettlement Models and their Integration
Andrea C.S. Berringer
First published in 2011 in Champaign, Illinois, USA
by Common Ground Publishing LLC
ISSN: 1835-7156
© 2011 (individual papers), the author(s)
© 2011 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism
or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may
be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For
permissions and other inquiries, please contact
RESPONSES is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced
article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the
greatest substance and highest significance is published.
Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGPublisher multichannel
typesetting system
Possible Framework for Climate Change IDP’s: Disaster
and Development Induced Displacement and
Resettlement Models and their Integration
Andrea C.S. Berringer, Louisiana State Universiry, Louisiana, USA
Abstract: Currently, climate change threatens to displace large swaths of people around the globe. It
will do so within and between nations. While this overall phenomenon is new, it does not mean we are
without any tools to deal with its expected effects. Forced migration scholars and policy makers have
been evaluating other forms of displacement and have provided theory, models, and evaluations. This
paper will evaluate how development induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) and disaster in-
duced displacement models can apply to the specic challenges of climate change migration. A new
model will be offered which integrates the previous two. The Climate Change Displacement and Re-
settlement (CCDR) model seeks to reframe climate change based forced migration using the instruments
already available in other genres. It will provide a bridge between the current migration literature
and this phenomenon, demonstrate how to utilize current mechanisms for new problems, and serve as
starting point for the newest challenge in human migration.
Keywords: Climate Change Displacement, Internally Displaced People, Displacement Models, Devel-
opment, Disaster
CLIMATE CHANGE IS projected to displace millions of people in the coming
decades. Migration due to climate change can be considered a form of forced migra-
tion as some areas of the globe will become less habitable and thus those affected
will have to relocate or nd ways to adapt. For those who will have to migrate, there
are no protocols specic to climate change for dealing with this new type of migration. While
this new development in displacement can seem daunting, there is academic work which
can assist in its progress. Forced migration scholars have been evaluating other forms of
displacement and have provided theory, models,and evaluations. Two types of displacement
categories offer an overlap in the necessary considerations needed to tackle this new phe-
nomenon; development induced displacement and resettlement and disaster induced displace-
ment. While each model attempts to describe the socioeconomic impact of their respective
causal mechanism, the implications of both are necessary to fully understand the needs of
those affected by climate change.
This paper will proceed as follows. First, I will dene each type of displacement, necessary
concepts and categories. Next, I will review the literature on these models and demonstrate
the difculties between the models and their implementation and how the process reveals
itself in practice. Finally I will connect these considerations with the climate change needs
and explicate where more academic work needs to be done.
The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses
Volume 2, Number 4, 2011,, ISSN 1835-7156
© Common Ground, Andrea C.S. Berringer, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
Relevant Concepts and Displacement Types
Development induced displacement and disaster induced displacement are common and
widely discussed forms of forced migration. Both are generally considered as a part of the
larger sphere of environmental migrants. There is general agreement on three causes of en-
vironmental migrants: natural disasters and environmental or industrial accidents, planned
or unplanned relocation due to development, and health related effects due to inadequate
resources to maintain life (Cardy 1994). This denition has been inuenced by El-Hinnawi
(1985) who specied that the rst category encompassed temporary displacement because
of earthquakes, cyclones, or environmental accident; the second is those who are permanently
displaced due to man made changes to a habitat like dams and Chernobyl; the third are those
who migrate temporarily or permanently because the original habitat can no longer support
them because the land has been deteriorated. According to these categories, development
induced displacement is situated within category two, while traditional natural disasters
would fall into category number one.
Table 1
Environmental Migrants
Hurricanes, EarthquakesNatural Disasters or AccidentsCategory 1
Dams, Mining, InfrastructureDevelopmentCategory 2
Drought, Crop failureInadequate ResourcesCategory 3
Climate change displacement will likely span all categories. As natural disasters such as
large and more frequent hurricanes, cyclones, and drought occur, we will see added environ-
mental migrants from group one. If governments decide to erect improved sea walls or divert
water into drought areas we will see an increase of migrants in group two. Finally, if people
begin to move due to the inability to sustain their lives and livelihoods, they will fall into
group three. This includes those living on coast lines which are being lost or agricultural
lands which have been salinized due to sea level rise. These examples are certainly not ex-
haustive, but offer a glimpse as to the way that climate change can exacerbate known groups
of environmental migrants.
Development induced displacement and disaster induced displacement have been classied,
but still need to be dened more specically. Robinson (2003) provides a thorough description
of both. Development, in the 1950’s and 1960’s was seen as the way to westernize traditional
societies. He explains that large scale capital-intensive development projects in developing
countries accelerated the pace to a brighter and a better future. Uprooting many along the
way was seen necessary for the majority to benet.
Table 2
Examples *Types of Development Projects
Roads, Highways, CanalsTransportation
Dams, Reservoirs, IrrigationWater Supply
Housing, Parking, Business DevelopmentUrban Infrastructure
Mining, Power plants, Oil exploration and extrac-
Forest slashingAgriculture
Protected landParks and Forest
Political or Pollution basedPopulation Redistribution
*These examples come in part from Robinson (2003) but are not exhaustive.
Disaster induced displacement is a broader phenomena. It includes natural and manmade
components but needs to be considered carefully. Not every re, earthquake, drought, epi-
demic or industrial accident constitutes a disaster, only those which exceed a society’s ability
to cope and where external aid is required. Robinson identies two types of disasters: natural
and manmade, and separates them into several subcategories.
Table 3
Types of Disasters
Flood, Earthquakes, Tidal
waves, Tropical storms, Vol-
canic eruptions, Landslides
Sudden ImpactNatural
Drought, Famine, Environ-
mental degradation, Pest in-
festation, Desertication
Slow Onset
Cholera, Measles, Dysentery,
Malaria, HIV, AIDS
Epidemic Diseases
Pollution, Spillages of hazard-
ous materials, Explosions,
Industrial DisastersMan Made
War, Internal Conicts, and
Natural disasters in conjunc-
Complex Emergencies
Both development induced displacement and disaster induced displacement are dened in
terms of internally displaced people (IDP). IDP’s share many of the same difculties as
refugees, but have a different legal status. Refugees, as per the UN Convention Relating to
the Status of Refugees (1951) are, persons who, “owing to well founded fear of persecution
for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political
opinion is outside the country of his own nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is
unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality
and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is
unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”(Article1, section 2). Persons
displaced by dams or cyclones are usually displaced within their country of origin. UNHCR’s
The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement explains that internally displaced persons
cannot be granted a special legal status like refugees. Refugees are offered special interna-
tional protections because they have lost the protection of their own county. As per the
Guiding Principles , IDP’s are “persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged
to ee or to leave their home or places of habitual residence in particular as a result of or in
order to avoid the effects of armed conict, situations of generalized violence, violations of
human rights, or natural or manmade disasters and who have not crossed an internationally-
recognized border.” Dened as such, IDP’s are a broad classication of those who would
be considered refugees if they had crossed an international border (Robinson 2003). Devel-
opment and natural disasters are thus cast as domestic problems. However, they are both
sensitive to international inuence. Many development projects are underwritten by the
World Bank and disaster assistance is leveled by global resources.
Models and Operationalization
Literature on development induced displacement falls into two categories. At one end of the
spectrum is a category of scholars who consider displacement to be the inevitable, unintended
outcome of development and the other consists of research scholars to whom displacement
is a manifestation of a crisis in development (Dwivedi 2002). The rst category considers
development as a given, the other, considers it a catastrophe. Concerns of the rst group
include minimizing the adverse consequences of continued development. Concerns of the
second include the political and negotiation rights of the people being displaced. Group one
seeks to reduce negative effects, group two seeks new ways of doing development.
The rst of the two main DIDR models which see development as a given is Scudder and
Colson’s four stage model. It attempts to explain how people and socio-cultural systems re-
spond to resettlement and was later applied only to ‘successful’ cases. The stages include
recruitment, transition, potential development, and incorporation. Many cases failed to go
through all four steps and a new theory became necessary to explain this tangled process.
From here, Michael Cernea’s The Risks and Reconstruction Model for Resettling Displaced
Populations (1997) has relatively monopolized this eld. This model, also referred to as the
IRR (Impoverishment Risks and Resettlement) model, resides in category one and utilizes
economic methods. It is a conceptual model that is built around eight risks of impoverishment;
landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, increased morbidity/mortality,
food insecurity, loss of access to common property, and social disarticulation. Cernea also
articulates four steps to use this tool in practice: carry out a risk assessment in the eld,
design targeted responses, engage pro-active responses and participation of the population
at risk, and establish transparent information and communication between planners and the
at risk population.
One main reason for the specically outlined model is his refutation of the traditional
risk-response pattern: the cost benet analysis (CBA). Cernea explores reasons why this
method is inadequate. He concludes that the costs of displacement are typically not included
and accounted for fully. This perpetuates situations where some people share gains while
others share victimization. Massive personal costs are paid for by the projects displacees
and thus this approach minimizes what compensation is directly to property loss and not
livelihood loss. Those who will be moved are often seen as calculated casualties for the be-
net of the masses. Their compensation is often calculated haphazardly and without long
term consequences of the disruption of displacement will cause to current livelihoods or the
education of the young. Thus the cost benet analysis approach to DIDR accepts the cost
of the lives and future of potential displacees for the convenience of the masses.
While Cernea (1997) is widely cited, Dwiveldi (2002) takes issues with some of his con-
ception of risks from the movementist tradition in the second category. The Cernea conception
is considered managerial, which seeks to manage risks. Because it accepts that development
will still occur as it has, the only durable solution is to manage the damage. Dwiveldi has
four concerns with this framework. First, risk perceptions are constantly changing; a resource
valued by one community may not be valued by another. A risk assessment may undervalue
a resource or overvalue a resource depending on the perspective of the person making the
assessment. Secondly, the model is bereft of any systemic aspect or the global economic
processes that cause displacement. Third, it neglects an understanding of the sequential
nature of risk; risk it not a singular phenomena and it can unfold in a complex sequence of
events which show that variables used in the IRR model cannot be isolated from one another.
Finally, the model adopts a mechanical strategy for problem resolution in it that it assumes
that land can be substituted for more land as jobs can be for more jobs- things that upon re-
settlement are rarely equitable trades.
The descriptive literature on DIDR also exposes the shortcomings of the managerial ap-
proach, however. Heming, Waley, and Rees (2001) and Stein (1998) discuss the involuntary
resettlement policies of China concerned with the Three Gorges Dam. While affected peoples
assume the state will take responsibility for their transition and compensation, this does not
guarantee that managerial decisions made by the state will be fair or efcient. Heming et al.
nd that increased poverty was common in Chinese reservoir resettlement areas. A main
reason for this is a low rate paid for lost assets which failed to be sufcient to rebuild new
homes and/or restore original living standards. Stein also nds that failures also occurred in
not involving local people in resettlement plans, no new employment options gave way to
high unemployment with sixty percent of resettled residents living below the poverty line.
Similar ndings appear in India from the Nagan Paper Mill project (Bharali 2007). The
result of the Land and Forest Allocation Programme (LFAP) in Laos also shows a shortage
in draught animals after relocation due to the need to sell them to buy rice. Farmers were
not given quality information about their new environments to adequately farm and thus
were unable to do so (Vandergeest 2003).
Disaster displacement issues appear to be handled as a form of relief rather than a more
comprehensive rebuilding or resettlement strategy; domestically and internationally. Unlike
persons displaced and relocated domestically due to development, environmental migrants
usually have no rights to compensation for losses due to natural disasters (Heming et al.
2001). Without legal protections from crossing an international border, those who lose their
homes and livelihoods due to natural causes have to rely only on short term help to survive
and possibly rebuild. Lautze (1996) explains that international relief resources are to be used
to return communities to the status quo prior to the emergency. In essence, international aid
is used to manage the situation. Cernea (1997) does suggest his model is a possible option
for natural disasters, but it is unclear if it has been used as such. For natural disasters, relief
and rehabilitation are different than re-development. The aim in a disaster is to alleviate
human suffering. For the United States, funding for relief is based on lending a helping hand
when others are in need, but development or re-development is still an individual nation’s
domestic concern. This divide will be elaborated on below.
Development v. Relief
The literature concerning development aid is often entangled with disaster relief even though
most literature tries to consider them as two separate obligations. Much of the work on de-
velopment aid is concerned with whether the money allocated is actually delivering its inten-
ded function. Development aid is funneled into many projects with large-scale development
projects being one of them; its main objective, however, it the alleviation of poverty. Devel-
opment projects such as dams or mining operations are seen as economic xes for impover-
ished populations bringing resources and jobs. What is not fully understood is how develop-
ment aid relates to disaster relief, how it is unlikely to be disentangled, and how their consid-
eration together will offer a necessary step to inform this discussion.
Development aid comes in many forms, but is mostly considered economic assistance to
the poor. However, this help has never been purely benign. During the Cold War, aid to de-
veloping countries was a much about forging geopolitical allies and proving the superiority
capitalist economies was about assisting the underdeveloped. It has also been considered a
x for disease, poverty, conict, crime, and uninvited migration in that aid could contain
these ills in the global South (Hyndman, 2009). Because of this, aid is not based on need,
but return on investment. However, judging the results as poor can lead to aid volatility in
that any reduction and changes in ow can result in half completed projects, an even lower
rate of return, high staff turnover, discontinuity of relationships, low levels of social capital,
and an uncertain policy environment which can eventually deter any further investment
(Mosley, 2008).
The main reason for development aid is to build the capacity of underdeveloped nations
in order for them to be better equipped to deal with many of their own internal problems.
While many development projects are criticized for under performance, capacity development
is used to justify its own existence (Kuhl, 2009). Nevertheless, current development aid
strategies have often contributed to the erosion of the asset bases of already marginalized
communities. Prioritizing investment over equity creates programs that benet the local
elites rather than the poor and constrain people’s resources and income (Kinsella & Brehony,
Returning to the point made by Lautze, disaster aid is meant for temporary assistance in-
stead of making populations resilient. Because disaster aid is short term and not designed to
rehabilitate communities, just get them through, it is not often congruent with the aims of
development aid. The nature of each type of aid is conceived in a different fashion leading
to a rift between their aims instead of a convergence. This disconnect can have serious con-
sequences when short term disaster relief if it is not tied to long term planning. For example,
due to a recurring drought problem, the Ethiopian government attempted a controversial in-
ternal resettlement policy (Woldemeskel 1989). On the outset, the government appeared to
have assessed the Metekel resettlement site based on several criterions which are not unlike
those used for DIDR. The site was selected because of its perceived suitability for human
and animal habitation and it was currently unoccupied. However, no plausible long terms
study preceded the resettlement and thus no regard was given to the environmental con-
sequences of this location. The settlers suffered a mortality rate of 24%.
Climate Change Complications
As mentioned before, climate change displacement will likely overlap the various categories
of environmental migrants and thus the models. The IPCC denition suggests that long term
variation in mean temperatures will only exacerbate short term issues that already disturb
the public order. Modest projections for what Norman Myers calls “environmental refugees”
from all causes by the year 2050 could amount to 1.5% of the worlds’ population (Cardy
1994). This would include victims from every category of Table 1. Therefore, not only do
we need to consider more frequent and stronger atmospheric-based natural disasters, but
that this may also lead to an increase in development as a way to mitigate worsening resource
allocation situations; these are not the only considerations, however. If we conne each of
these scenarios to domestic spheres, and consider the previously noted inadequate planning
(concerning development) and short term resources (concerning relief) these circumstances
can lead to conict.
Lautze (1996 and Robinson 2003) does discuss a situation where there is necessary overlap
of relief and development- complex emergencies. Characterized by civil conict, economic
collapse, and political chaos which damages social services, market networks, and agricul-
tural enterprises, complex emergencies can be more damaging than other types of disasters.
Complex emergencies overlap many spheres, as do the affects of climate change and thus
more work on this convergence may be able to combine the planning considerations of DIDR
with the relief efforts of disaster assistance. Short term rebuilding and resettlement assistance
which takes into account long term adaptation will more comprehensively tackle the increasing
complications of environmental displacement due to climate change. This task will ll the
next section.
Model Integration
Thus far, this paper has considered DIDR and disaster induced displacement models as
separate. However, it is their integration which will assist in the development of a model
suited to deal with Climate Change IDP’s. Each model takes into consideration specic cri-
terion that relate to the challenges of internal displacement. Understood as components of
a new model we begin to see the possibilities for using the current research.
The DIDR models anticipate several features which are relevant to those who will be af-
fected by climate change. Formal planning for DIDR considers displacement and resettlement
because there is no chance for repatriation. Once an area of land is submerged under dam
water or dug up for mining, it becomes uninhabitable. This is also the case of much of the
land most susceptible to climate change. Some land will dry out and become barren; other
places will become over saturated with fresh or saltwater, or endure such frequent atmospheric
disasters that it becomes unt to support settlement. DIDR also considers planned movement
within the nation. Much of the current climate change discourse has focused on sinking islands
and thus uses the term ‘climate change refugee’. This term has come about in consideration
of those who live on these islands and will eventually have to migrate. However, many of
those affected will not need to cross an international border in order to resettle. Internal re-
settlement will be common in many places especially those that have unsettled areas, infra-
structural capacity, and where international borders are far from vulnerable areas. Although
the DIDR models have not had the best track record for adequate long term resettlement
planning, it is an important step for climate change resettlement. Because sea level rise and
desertication are slow onset processes, DIDR resettlement planning can be useful for gov-
ernments for several reasons. Long term resettlement planning can anticipate a redistribution
of land, choose appropriate settlement locations, outline livelihood transitions that may be
necessary, and can consider the specic needs of the population that will need to be resettled.
DIDR models also consider monetary reimbursement for those who will lose their homes.
While these amounts have also proved inadequate in many cases, like resettlement planning,
it is a useful tool. Compensation needs to reect the values of land and homes lost and what
is adequate to transition into a new place such as support until a new livelihood is found.
Disaster induced displacement models also offer some helpful concepts to integrate into
climate change displacement. First, it provides a frame for an environmental or ecological
focus. At the root of disaster models is how the natural landscape of an area is affected by
meteorological or seismic events. This focus on changing ecology, human ecology, is neces-
sary for climate change IDP’s in that has the potential to alter many communities’ ecologies-
for the better and worse. These models also outline the need for short term and long term
aid. Their components are also integral to climate displacement modeling as some events
affect both; sea level rise and desertication will need long term relief and resettlement
strategies while those affected by intense weather phenomena may only need short term
help. Others will need long term assistance when these events become too often destructive
and disruptive to human life. Finally, disaster models often veer into discussions concerning
development. While I have shown that this division can easily get muddled, I have also in-
dicated that some scholars believe that it is necessary to combine the two. Using these
methods in tandem can more properly assist continuous climate change disasters. Just as
short term aid can assist those who deal with increasingly frequent weather phenomena,
combining aid with development can reduce the amount of rebuilding necessary for certain
communities. Because aid is designated to only put people back where they were prior to
the event, combining this with development aid can rebuild communities to better withstand
these continuous incidents. Here the cost benet analysis of DIDR is also useful. It will be
more cost effective to rebuild communities to better standards which can with stand continuous
weather occurrences than to simply rebuild the same inadequate infrastructure again and
again. When this is not the case, it may be time for long term resettlement planning. Govern-
ments and donors can become overstretched attending to the same locations’ disasters year
after year, thus the cost benet analysis attached to redevelopment instead of simple aid can
appease the residents who may not be ready to move and the donors who will be funding it.
The preceding paragraphs discussed particular tools which can be integrated from DIDR
and disaster induced displacement models. These will be presented below in the Climate
Change Displacement and Resettlement (CCDR) Model. This model provides an accessible
integration of these concepts for the purposes of providing a step forward toward creating
a suitable model for those internally displaced by climate change.
Table 4: Climate Change Displacement and Resettlement (CCDR) Model
CCDR Model for IDP’s
StrategyToolsClimate Phenomena
Provides immediate
relief to those af-
Short Term AidSudden Impact
• Cyclones fected by disasters of
growing intensity.
• Tornadoes
• Hurricanes Rebuilds communit-
ies in a way that im-
• Blizzards
• Sandstorms proves their ability
• Drought to resist future
A last resort for
communities that are
consistently rebuild-
Will provide funds
to better equip com-
Long Term AidSlow Onset
Sea Level Rise munities with mitiga-
tion technology.
• Desertication
Continuous Sudden
Impact Disruption Long term considera-
tion of current settle-
ment habitability
and community op-
The CCDR Model is general as to provide a framework that incorporates the many tools
already used in other elds. In addition, this structure leaves plenty of room for specic
planning that will vary due to location, community, and event. However, adequate planning
will require ample assistance from the community. Poor results have accompanied the top-
down planning which does not fully comprehend the difculties facing those forced to mi-
grate. Improvements in assessment and communication will be necessary for any resettlement
plan to be successful. This is especially important because as time passes climate change
will affect more and more people increasing the numbers of those already considered IDP’s.
The potential increase in the numbers of displaced will complicate poor planning and will
deliver more problems than solutions.
For those who will have to migrate due to climate change, there are currently no protocols
specic to climate change for dealing with this new type of migration. However, evaluations
of development induced displacement and resettlement and disaster induced displacement
have provided a starting place in which to evaluate the tools of other forms of forced migra-
tion. DIDR scholars have focused on models which seek to manage these situations and reduce
the risks of impoverishment. Disaster models appear to be primarily concerned with short
term relief unless the situation is complex. While both types of shed light on ways to deal
with forced migration, the complex emergencies offer an overlap of the DIDR and disaster
models which can more adequately apply to the complexities of climate change. More work
needs to be done in terms of dening a model which can more specically apply to the needs
of climate change migrants, but starting with the concerns and recommendations of these
other two models offers a general framework to begin.
The Climate Change Displacement and Resettlement (CCDR) Model was proposed as a
way to integrate the current literature and models into a frame that considers future circum-
stances. This model is not exhaustive, but provides a starting point for the incorporation of
current literature and strategies. While the model specically targets the needs of internally
displaced people, it can and should be extended to include refugees as well. Further research
will improve its utility and adaptability. Climate change is certain to increase the numbers
of displaced people all over the globe. Long term planning will be necessary to assuage the
impact of such numbers. Beginning with the tools we currently have, scholars can begin to
assist policy makers in tackling this new concern.
Bharali, G. (2007, March 27-28). “Development-Induced Displacement: A History of Transition to
Impoverishment and Environmental Degredation”.
Cardy, W. F. (1994, January). “Environment and Forced Migration, A Review”. Sommerville College,
University of Oxford, United Kingdom: Fourth International Research and Advisory Panel
Conference .
Cernea, M. M. (1997). “The Risks and Reconstruction Model for Resettling Displaced Populations”.
World Development , 25 (10), 1569-1588.
Corson, C. (2010). “Shifting Environmental Governance in a Neoliberal World: US AID for Conser-
vation”. Antipode , 42 (3), 576-602.
Cullet, P. (2001). “Human Rights and Displcement: The Indian Sup[reme Court Decision on Sardar
Sarovar in Internaitonal Perspective”. The Interantional and Comparative Law Quarterly ,
50 (4), 973-987.
Delica, Z. (1993). “Disasters and Development: the Philippine Experience”. Brussels: Citizens Disaster
Response Center.
Downing, T. E. (2002). “Avioding New Poverty: Mining-Induced Displacement and Resettlement”.
International Institute for Environment and Development and Wolrd Business Council for
Sustainable Development.
Dwivedi, R. (2002). “Models and Methods in Development-Induced Displacement (Review Article)”.
Development and Change , 33 (4), 709-732.
Heming, L., Waley, P., & Rees, P. (2001). “Reservior Resettlement in China: Past Experience and the
Three Gorges Dam”. The Geographical Journal , 167 (3), 195-212.
Hyndman, J. (2009). “Acts of Aid: Neoliberalism in a War Zone”. Antipode , 41 (5), 867-889.
Kinsella, J., & Brehony, E. (2009). “Are current aid strategies marginalizing the already marginalized?
Cases from Tanzania”. Development in Practice , 19 (1).
Kuhl, S. (2009). “Capacity Development as the Model for Development Aid Organizations”. Develop-
ment and Change , 40 (3), 551-577.
Lautze, S. (1996). “Lives versus Livelihoods” How to Foster Self-Sufciency and Productivity of
Disaster Victims”. Napa: Occasional paper Number One prepared for the Ofce of U.S.
Foreign Disaster Assistance Bureau for Humanitarian Assisstance, U.S. Agency ofr Interna-
tional Development.
Mosley, P. (2008). “Aid Volitility, Policy and Development”. World Development ,36 (10), 2082-
Oliver-Smith, A. (2002, November). “Dicplacement, Resistance, and the Critique of Development:
From teh grass-roots to the global”. RSC Working Paper No. 9 . Refugee Studies Centre,
University of Oxford.
Phillips, T. (2010, April 21). “Awarding of Brazilian dam contract prompts warning of bloodshed”.
The Guardian .
Robinson, W. C. (2003). “Risks and Rights: The Causes, Consequences, and Challenges of Development-
Induced Displcement”. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institute- SIAS Project on Internal
Severino, J.-M., & Ray, O. (2010, January). “Taking Measure of Global Aid”. Current History , pp.
Sperling, L., & McGuire, S. J. (2010). “Persistent myths abour emergency seed aid”. Food Policy ,
35, 195-201.
Stanley, J. (2003). “Development Induced Displacement and Resettlement”.
Stein, M. (1998, january-April). “The Three Gorges: the unexamined toll of development-induced
displacement”. Forced Migration Review .
The Lancet, E. (2010, March 20). “DFID: a report card and reappraisal”. , 375.
Tvedt, T. (2007). “International Development Aid and Its Impact on a Donor Country: A Case Study
in Norway”. The European Journal of Development Research , 19 (4), 614-635.
Vandergeest, P. (2003). “Land to some tillers: development-induced displacement in Laos”. Interna-
tional Social Science Journal , 175.
Woldemeskel, G. (1989). “The Consequences of Resettlement in Ethiopia”. African Affairs , 88 (352),
About the Author
Andrea C.S. Berringer
At present I am a Ph.D candidate at Louisiana State University, working on the political
implications of climate change migration. My current research includes refugee labeling,
sexual and gender based violence in conict situations and comparative displacement models.
I spent four years in American political campaigns as a nance director before returning to
graduate school. I received my B.A. in Political Theory and Constitutional Democracy from
Michigan State University. I have completed two programs abroad, one with Oxford Univer-
sity's Refugee Studies Centre (2009) and the other at the University of the West Indies (2002).
Amareswar Galla, The University of Queensland, Australia.
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
Viraal Balsari, Vice President, ABN Amro Bank, Mumbai, India.
Erach Bharucha, Bharati Vidyapeeth Univeristy, Pune, India.
Tapan Chakrabarti, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur, India.
Thomas Krafft, Geomed Research Corporation, Bad Honnef, Germany.
Shamita Kumar, Bharati Vidyapeeth Univeristy, Pune, India.
R. Mehta, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi, India.
Kranti Yardi, Bharati Vidyapeeth Univeristy, Pune, India.
Please visit the Journal website at
for further information about the Journal or to subscribe.
Full-text available
In China, the context of forced displacement in its broadest sense centres on four issues: (1) coercive displacement for development; (2) political persecution resulting in controlled displacement; (3) massive labour dislocations; and (4) disaster-induced displacement. This article looks at the role of the state in displacement, focusing on the first of these issues: development-induced displacement.
International development assistance has in effect been assigned a new grand purpose: managing interdependencies in a globalized world.
The human and environmental consequences of big development projects such as large dams have been a focus of increasing attention in many countries. Large-scale involuntary resettlement caused by such projects has become particularly contentious in a number of situations. In India where many large dams have been and are being built, the Sardar Sarovar dam on the Narmada river has been at the centre of a storm for over a decade. The latest development in the history of this project is the judgment given by the Supreme Court of India on 18 October 2000 adjudicating a public interest litigation petition filed by the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA—Save the Narmada Movement). This decision is of great significance not only for the project itself but also from a broader perspective.
Sociological studies of organizational fashions tend to focus on commercial firms. This article looks at the Capacity Development concept that is globally applied as a model in governmentally supported development assistance organizations. The organizations themselves adopt the concept, asserting that an increase in ‘capacities’ in developing countries will contribute to a higher success rate for projects. This article argues that a primary function of concepts such as Capacity Development is to meet the legitimacy requirements of development assistance organizations. The more the effectiveness of these organizations is criticized or challenged, the more they feel the need to defend themselves by developing new — and hopefully more effective — concepts.
International aid is a dynamic bundle of geographical relationships at the intersection of war, neoliberalism, nature, and fear. The nexus between development and security warrants further conceptualization and empirical grounding beyond the instrumentalist and alarmist discourses that underwrite foreign aid. This article examines two such discourses, that of “aid effectiveness” and securitization, that serve to frame an analysis of aid to Sri Lanka. Since 1977, neoliberal policies of international assistance have shaped the country's economy and polity, and, since 1983, government troops and militant rebels have been at war. International aid focuses on economic development and support for peace negotiations, but little attention has been paid to the ways in which these agendas intersect to shape donor behavior and aid delivery. Drawing from research on international aid agencies operating in Sri Lanka, in particular the Canadian International Development Agency, the geopolitics of aid are analyzed.
Development is inherently about reorganising space, thus all development has the potential of causing displacement, most of which is indirect. Greater attention to indirect development- induced displacement could shift our attention from questions of how to justify and reconstitute lives and livelihoods after displacement to finding ways of preventing or minimising displacement to the point where reconstitution is not necessary. This approach may not eliminate all the vexing dilemmas that accompany development, but it could make them less vexing and could suggest better procedures for addressing them. These arguments are illustrated through an analysis of the Land and Forest Allocation Programme in Lao PDR. This programme is exemplary in the way in which it creates community-based natural resource management institutions through a process that, while it appears highly participatory, is also the single most important cause of displacement and impoverishment in Lao PDR today. This impact can be traced to the way in which the programme attempts to reorganise space into arable land and non-arable forests. There are alternative approaches to land and forest allocation, which could bring most of the benefits without inducing widespread displacement.
By exploring the shifting and uneven power relations among state, market and civil society organizations in US environmental foreign aid policy-making, this article forges new ground in conversations about conservation and neoliberalism. Since the 1970s, an evolving group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has lobbied the US Congress to support environmental foreign assistance. However, the 1980s and 1990s rise of neoliberalism laid the conditions for the formation of a dynamic alliance among representatives of the US Congress, the US Agency for International Development, environmental NGOs and the private sector around biodiversity conservation. In this alliance, idealized visions of NGOs as civil society and a countering force to corporations have underpinned their influence, despite their contemporary corporate partnerships. Furthermore, by focusing on international biodiversity conservation, the group has attracted a broad spectrum of political and corporate support to shape public policy and in the process create new spaces for capital expansion.