DISPLACEMENT, RESISTANCE and the CRITIQUE of DEVELOPMENT: from the GRASS ROOTS to the GLOBAL Anthony Oliver-Smith Department Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DISPLACEMENT, RESISTANCE AND THE CRITIQUE OF DEVELOPMENT: FROM THE GRASS ROOTS TO THE GLOBAL Anthony Oliver-Smith Department of Anthropology University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 [email protected] Final Report Prepared for ESCOR R7644 and the Research Programme on Development Induced Displacement and Resettlement Refugee Studies Centre University of Oxford July 2001 The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author. They should not be attributed to the funder or the Refugee Studies Centre of the University of Oxford. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: RESISTANCE TO DEVELOPMENT-INDUCED DISPLACEMENT AND RESETTLEMENT 3 I.A. Development and Democracy 4 I.B. Global Norms and Transnational Civil Society 6 I.C. Organization of the Report 8 II. RESEARCH ON DIDR RESISTANCE 9 III. THE PROBLEMATICS AND POLITICS OF DIDR RESISTANCE 12 III.A. The Right to Develop and the Right to Development 12 III.B. Conceptual Ambiguities in DIDR 14 III.B.i. Development: Economic Growth or Social Justice 14 III.B.ii. Voluntary and Involuntary Migration 14 III.B.iii. Resistance and Protest 16 III.C. The Politics of DIDR Resistance Research 16 IV. DIDR RESISTANCE: DIVERSITY, COMPLEXITY AND DYNAMISM 17 IV.A.Variation by Cause 17 IV.B. The Diversity of the Displaced 19 IV.C. Complex Responses 19 IV.D. DIDR Resistance Dynamics 20 V. ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS IN DIDR RESISTANCE 21 V.A. Social Movements 22 V.B. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) 24 V.B.i. Case Study: The International Rivers Network 25 V.C. Grass Roots Organizations (GRO) 27 V.C.i. Case Study: CRAB TO MAB: From Local to National: the Movimento de Atingidos por Barragens 28 V.D. Transnational Networks 30 VI. A POLITICAL ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DIDR RESISTANCE 31 VI.A. Vulnerability and Risk 32 VI.B. Risk Calculation in DIDR 32 VI.C. Rights and Risks 33 VI.D. Advocacy Anthropology 34 VI.E. Stakeholder Analysis 34 VI.F. Political Ecology Ethnography 35 VII. WHO RESISTS? THE SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF DIDR RESISTANCE 36 VII.A. Risks and Losses as Indicators 37 VII.B. Resistance, Social Solidarity, and Internal Conflict 38 VII.C. Participation 39 VII.D. Categorical Struggles 41 VII.E. Resistance to DIDR and Social Change 42 VII.F. Why People Resist 43 VIII. ECOLOGICAL UPHEAVAL AND RESISTANCE 43 VIII.A. Constructions of Nature and Society 44 VIII.B. Environmental Conflict in DIDR 45 VIII.C. Case Study: TheTucurui Dam and Environmental Conflict 46 VIII.D. Conservation Based Dislocation and Resettlement 48 VIII.E. The Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve and the Zapatista Rebellion Case Study 49 IX. ECONOMIC DEBATES: EVALUATING RISKS AND COMPENSATING LOSSES 51 IX.A. Cost-Benefit Analysis 53 IX.B. Natural Resource Valuation 55 IX.C. Loss of Access to Resources 56 IX.D. Cultural Resources Valuation 56 IX.E. Reparations Issues 57 IX.F. Private sector approaches to DIDR 58 IX.G. Case Study: Tourism Development and Resistance in the Philippines 60 X. CULTURAL DISCOURSES OF RESISTANCE 61 X.A. Place Attachment 62 X.B. Identity and Resistance 64 X.C. Cultural Heritage Resources 67 X.D. Time, Cultural Memory and Uprooting 69 X.E. Case Study: Displacement, Loss and Cultural Resistance in Yongching County of Northwest China 69 X. F. Languages of Resistance 71 XI. THE POLITICS OF DIDR RESISTANCE 74 X.A. Negotiation between unequals 75 XI.B. Scales of Interaction and Conflict 77 XI.B.i. The local scale of action 78 XI.B.i.a. Local and National Leadership 80 XI.B.i.b. Women in Participation and Leadership 81 XI.B.ii. The project scale of action 83 XI.B.iii. The national scale of action 85 XI.B.iii.a. Print Media 87 XI.B.iii.b. Case Study: San Juan Tetelcingo 87 XI.B.iii.c. Video and Film 89 XI.B.iii.d. Information Technology 89 XI.B.iii.e. Case Study: Chico Dam Resistance in the Philippines 91 XI.B.iv. The international scale of action 93 XI.B.iv.a. Case Study: The Sardar Sarovar Dam and the Narmada Bachao Andolan 95 XII. THE RESULTS OF DIDR RESISTANCE 98 XIII. CONCLUSION 101 XIV. REFERENCES CITED 104 I. INTRODUCTION: RESISTANCE TO DEVELOPMENT-INDUCED DISPLACEMENT AND RESETTLEMENT The final third of the 20th century saw the weakening and eventual collapse of one challenge to the dominant western model of development and almost simultaneously the emergence of another based not on class conflict, although in some sense including it, but on the discourses of the environment and human rights. Challenging the current neo-liberal version of this model, voices articulating alternative approaches to development have appeared in the many regions of the world that have been forced to confront a wide variety of losses, costs and calamities brought about by the dominant models of development. For example, in the Philippines, development projects that convert the lands on which people live and work into dam created reservoirs, irrigation schemes, mining operations, plantations, recreation areas and other large scale forms of use favoring national or global interests have been referred to as "development aggression" by impacted communities and the nongovernmental organizations (NGO) working with them (Heijmans 2001: 5). Still, for much of the past 30 years most of the conversations about development have essentially taken place among elites, both pro and con. However, the counter discourse that has emerged in that same period comes from a substantially broader and more diverse base. To some extent both sides of the discussion share similar rhetorics of social justice and material well-being, but they differ markedly on the deeper philosophical meaning of development as a social goal and the means by which that goal should be achieved. The meanings, means, and implications of development in the discussion reflect the internal heterogeneity of both the development industry and those who propose alternative visions (Fisher, W. F. 1995:8). Emphatically, however, the discussion about development is no longer a top-down monologue by elites, but rather an argument, in which protest and resistance from many sectors, many regions are speaking out in many voices. Some have referred to this process as “globalization from below” (Brecher, Costello and Smith 1999). One of the voices increasingly heard today is that of people displaced and resettled by development projects. Uprooting and displacement have been among the central experiences of modernity. In many ways, the experience of development has meant for millions of people around the world a separation of local life from a sense of place. Development induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR) is, in many ways, a clear expression of the state with its monopoly on the management of violence and its ambitious engineering projects, freed from other constraints of non-political power or institutions of social self-management, and able to exert control over the location of people and objects within its territory (Bauman 1989: xiii). Conversely, to be resettled is one of the most acute expressions of powerlessness because it constitutes a loss of control over one's physical space. The only thing left is the loss of the body. As Margaret Rodman so cogently notes, "The most powerless people have no place at all"(1992:650). In the face of efforts to displace them, the poor, indigenous peoples and other marginalized groups are increasingly choosing to resist to DIDR in the hope it will prove more effective in protecting their long term interests than cooperation (Fisher, W.F. 1999). Recently, the discourses of triumphant globalization have hailed the emergence of global spaces and the increasing irrelevance of local places (Kearney 1995). Interestingly, in the midst of the preeminence of the global, there is also an increasing incidence of social movements that maintain strong references to place and territory (Escobar 2001: 141). The uprooted and the social movements and organizations that have taken up their cause under the various banners of human rights, environment, indigenous peoples, and other related issues are now in the forefront of what some have referred to as an emerging transnational civil society (e.g. Fox and Brown 1998). Posited as an increasingly common feature of world politics, transnational civil society is composed mainly of nongovernmental organizations and social movements from the entire world that focus on a broad spectrum of issues such as trade, democratization, human rights, indigenous peoples, gender, security, and the environment often in opposition to the state and private capital (Khagram 1999). Development projects have increasingly become the sites in which these interests and issues are contested and played out through different models of development by individuals and groups from a variety of communities, both local and non-local. Thus, the people and organizations that resist DIDR include many more than the populations that will be or have been displaced and/or resettled. The uprooted and the resettled have been joined by allies at national and international levels from communities of activists from human rights, environment, gender and indigenous peoples organizations around the world. Indeed, corresponding to the wide array of activities undertaken in the name of development around the world, many of these issues interweave with resistance to development–induced displacement and resettlement (DIDR), involving an extremely wide range of peoples, organizations, levels, contexts, and relationships that call for greater democratization and more participation of local populations in the decisions and projects affecting them. Their argument in its most radical form contends that large-scale development projects are basically designed to enhance the power of the state and private capital and are incapable of representing or serving the interests of the vast majority of the population. The many and diverse forms of projects that involve resettlement and resistance inevitably thrust one into the midst of the debate on development itself.