Resettlement - Gov't Needs Active Mechanism Reform

2:07:33 PM | 9/8/2006

The displeasure of resettlement residents in their new accommodations and the reluctance of removed residents to resettlement areas reflected a panorama of an incomplete and asynchronous mechanism for resettlement, especially finance-related issues. 
 
Uncalculated indirect damages
At a seminar on this issue opened in Hanoi recently, the Ministry of Trade and the Ministry of Finance pointed out shortcomings in mechanism and policies on resettlement compensations. The most burning issue is land price, reclaimed house price, resettlement house price and post-resettlement supports. These shortcomings lead to stagnancy in site clearance and drive local authorities and people to a passive situation instead of grasping opportunities for socio-economic development. 
 
The current resettlement policy only mentions land use compensation and directly damaged assets, said Mr. Nguyen Lam, Deputy Director of Ethnic Policy Department under the Committee for Ethnic Minority Affairs. Indirect and invisible damages like business advantages, fishing and forest products have not been calculated. And, these are crucial for the lives of the people and the ethnic minorities. Regulations on career training and employment are unclear and do not provide responsibilities of investors. Regulations on post-resettlement supports, livelihood restoration and improvement are insufficient and do not provide responsibilities of investors in resettlement works. The benefit co-enjoyment also remains uncalculated.
 
Mr. Do Van Hoa, Deputy Director General of the Cooperatives and Rural Development under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development pointed out state budget capital proportions for resettlement activities in hydropower projects are different. For example, the resettlement of Tuyen Quang Hydropower Plant is guaranteed 100 per cent by the State Budget while the rate for Son La Hydropower Plant is only 50 per cent, or VND5,000 billion from the State Budget. The compensation for affected residents and communities is also unfair. For example, a household removed for Tuyen Quang Hydropower Plant is paid averagely VND450 million (US$28,125), a household removed for Son La Hydropower Plant is compensated VND500 million but a household in other hydropower projects is paid VND200-250 million. This difference triggered displeasure among the people.
 
Solutions
The resettlement policy must, first of all, support the live of the people and all issues must be resolved based on the livelihood of the people, Mr. Tran Duc Phuong from Hanoi Institute for Socioeconomic Researches, said. Phuong agreed on the introduction of a policy dedicated for resettlement in hydropower projects. This policy, which must be applied nationwide, must pay special attention to supports and production lands
 
Mr. Tran Dinh Hanh of the Public Assets Management Department under the Ministry of Finance said the Ministry of Finance highly agreed with the increase in supports of healthcare, education, electricity, burning materials, and agricultural and forestry expansion encouragement for resettlement residents who removed for hydropower projects. For example, food supports should be increased to at least three years with a volume of 20kg a person a month while the electricity and burning material support should exist in two years. In addition, the new policy should add supports for tomb removal and accommodation removals among others. In production land, the compensation can be diversified in forms. For example, the compensation can be made by cash or assets or others. This will lessen pressures on resettlement land and facilitate a proportion of households to change their production modes. This policy will be submitted to the Government soon.
 
No matter how the new resettlement policy changes, the land-for-land principle must be specially cared, Do Van Hoa said. The career change will only be calculated if there is no available arable land. Hence, resettlement projects must attach much importance to land reclamation and land transfer to restore stable incomes for resettled households. In addition, the Government should also require project investors to set up their “post-resettlement income restoration fund” to support resettlement residents in 10 or even 20 years after they remove from the original locations for projects. This capital source will be calculated in the project and investors must extract profits after putting their projects into operation.

P.V