UNTIL recently, involuntary displacement of people for development purpose was treated in the national and international policy-making circles as an unavoidable side effect in the way of greater development goals. Therefore, involuntary displacement of people was all along the low priority area of such development projects, infrastructural components being the major focus of attention. Over the years, various studies, environmental and human right activist groups and NGOs have brought the plight of the displaced people to the forefront of development project consideration. New realisation which these studies and actions have generated, compelled the large scale developers bring about policy changes. Both World Bank and ADB now formally pursue policies of discouraging projects which require involuntary displacement of population. Where displacement is unavoidable, they have agreed to keep provision for adequate compensation, and resettlement of evacuees without compromising their previous economic standard.

A major infrastructural development project currently being implemented in Bangladesh is the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge Project (JMBP). This project is funded by International Development Agency, Asian Development Bank and Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF) of Japan. The estimated cost of the project is $ 900m. The bridge will provide direct transport link between north-west and eastern parts of the country. It is meant to end the relative isolation of the agriculturally fertile northwest region of Bangladesh and thus stimulate overall economic growth of the country. However, the project also involves displacement of people from their original land. The construction of the bridge itself has not caused any displacement, it is the construction of the two guide bunds, a hard point and approach roads which involved land acquisition (7,000 acres) and concomitant displacement.

Resettlement Action Plan
From the inception of the project, potential donors insisted on appropriate compensation and resettlement of the evicted people to be considered as integral part of the project. In view of the fact that donor money would not have been forthcoming without this component, GOB commissioned a Resettlement Action Plan, prepared by Randell, Palmer, Tritton and Bangladesh Consulting Ltd., (1990). The study, however, underestimated the number of the project-affected-people (PAP). In 1992 BRAC was commissioned to undertake a socio-economic baseline survey of the project-affected people (PAP) on the east side of the Jamuna river. The study divided the PAPs into two categories : directly-affected and indirectly-affected. Those who would lose their homestead, land or any other structure were considered to be directly affected people. Indirectly affected people were identified as those who would lose their source of income due to project implementation.

This included farm and non-farm workers, tenant farmers, squatters and uthulis. This study came with a figure that 11,945 households with a population of 77,280 will be affected by the project, directly or indirectly only in the eastern side of the Jamuna river. There was, however, a further increase in the number of affected people, during the implementation of the project. According to the latest available information, 16,341 households, with a net population of about 100,000 have been affected by the project. Among them, 3,604 households have lost their homestead land entirely. Alongside, 32 community facilities, 13 educational institutions, 14 mosques, 2 cemeteries and one cooperative building had to be abandoned.

A formal Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was prepared in March 1993. Under World Bank's insistence, it was further revised. In October 1993, the revised resettlement action plan was endorsed. The resettlement work for the JMBP began basing on this Revised Resettlement Action Plan (RRAP). The RRAP treated resettlement and rehabilitation of PAP as a separate programme, with its own objectives and budget. It created a separate Resettlement Unit for managing and supervising the project. The budget of the project is Tk 236 crore amounting to 5 per cent of the total JMBP budget.

Resettlement, under RRAP, has been conceived as a development programme. It upholds that affected people should be compensated for all quantifiable losses at a full replacement cost, compensation should also be paid to people who were affected indirectly, absence of legal title should not be made bar for paying compensation, proper incentive structure should be developed for host-guest integration, a resettlement site has to be prepared for those who would not be able to resettle on their own, NGOs will participate in project implementation. The October 1993 RRAP is primarily focused on the resettlement requirement of the eastern side of the bridge. The final location of the west guide bund, west bridge end and west bridge corridor, was then still uncertain. Therefore, it was decided, "consecutive resettlement actions related to other components of the project will be derived by analogy from the RRAP."

Compensation 
Fourteen categories of PAP have been identified in the RRAP who were entitled to get compensation. A compensation policy guideline was developed where the categories of losses were defined and entitlements for different kinds of losses, were spelt out. These were transfer grants, house construction grants, owner-cultivator grants, farm worker grants, non-farm worker grants, tenant cultivators' grants, dismantling and removal grants, reconstruction grants for commerce and industry, replacement land stamp duty grants, grants to cover premium, maximum allowable replacement value grants, grants for uthulis/squatters to purchase homestead land. People who were entitled for compensation, were termed as entitled persons (EP). Under the new arrangement, each of them was provided with an identity card and an entitlement card. To keep the process transparent, a computerised database has been created on each EP.

The compensation process involved information campaign, group meeting and distribution of leaflets and brochures. A Grievance Committee was also set up. It was authorised with a power to act as a quasi-judicial body to pass order with respect to disputes over land ownership and compensation. The Grievance Committee could only take cases on land title-related disputes, if those were not pending in court. By 1996, all fourteen kinds of compensation have been paid in the eastern side and the EP files were formally closed. The Grievance Committee handled 8400 cases and according to the Resettlement Unit authority 89 per cent of these cases have been resolved by the committee and no EP had to take recourse to court.

However, one may note that JMBP land acquisition work began at least two years before RRAP was prepared. By the time the RRAP and Resettlement Unit established, one-eighth of the land was already acquired. The District Commissioner's office handled compensation package for this group of people. According to Director, RU, the difference between the two compensation packages were reimbursed to this group with retrospective effect. However, it is difficult to comprehend that the authorities could track down all persons evicted two to three years earlier.

The RRAP also had provision to cover the rights of those affected by river erosion or flooding caused by the bridge project. A $200m additional loan was sanctioned by IDA for compensating those persons who have lost or likely to lose their land, houses and sources of income, due to possible erosion in the area, caused by river training and construction of JMBP. The river erosion and flood-related compensation will be paid up to the year 2000. Area covered under this programme stretches from 8 km upstream and 10 km downstream of the bridge, including mainland and chars. Receiving compensation for loss of land due to erosion or flooding will not affect the land title of a person. If land of a compensated person in accreted again in natural way, within thirty years, the owner will be able to regain possession of her/his land. A baseline survey has been undertaken in this area and 28033 families have been registered whose land could be endangered. Compensation process has begun and satellite imageries are used to verify claims in this regard. If any of these household lose homestead they will be entitled to relocate themselves in the resettlement sites. Women-headed households of char areas will be given 20 per cent more transfer grant.

Resettlement 
Two resettlement sites have been planned on both sides of the Jamuna river. During the initial phase planners were considering of resettling at least half the displaced population at the resettlement sites (1990). But as there was a large time gap between eviction and development of the resettlement sites, not very many people showed interest in resettling at the sites. In the eastern side out of 3604 households, 564 registered for allocation of resettlement plots. So far, 291 families have taken possession. The rest of the displaced households have resettled themselves elsewhere, mostly in the surrounding villages.

Under the circumstances, RRAP defined resettlement in a broader term and included in it the task of helping the displaced find suitable homestead land in surrounding villages. It conducted a land market survey and disseminated information among the EPs on land available in the adjoining areas. The Director of RU reported that 90 per cent of the displaced people have been able to purchase homestead land with or without the help of RU. Forty-five per cent of the EPs who lost arable land could replace theirs. He further claimed, this is a major achievement, and is a record for World Bank-financed projects. The western resettlement site has yet to become suitable for habitation. Basic infrastructure such as school, health-care centre, mosque, marketplace, road, community centre are still under construction.

RU also undertook some programmes for smooth integration of the evicted people with the host villages. After eviction it was seen that some villages hosted as many as hundred of such households. This naturally overloaded the carrying capacity of some communities and, in cases, created tension. In order to ease such tension and ensure that the host community do not see the PAPs as burden, it developed an incentive structure. This include building infrastructure in host areas on the basis of their needs assessment. So far 16 educational institutions, seven mosques, 80 tubewells, 800 sanitary latrines, 10 km road have been constructed in the host villages. After the construction site was identified in the west bank area, a baseline survey has been undertaken to identify the affected people. A similar type of resettlement programme will begin in the west bank.

NGO Involvement
Various NGOs have become active partners of the Resettlement Unit in implementing RRAP. It has been stated earlier that the 1992 baseline survey of the east bank was conducted by BRAC. The same NGO was also responsible for the 1996 survey which determined the possible impact of JMBP on the people of surrounding river erosion and flood-prone areas. In the compensation programme of this component BRAC is also working as an implementing partner with RU.

While implementing the east bank compensation and resettlement programme RU engaged a local NGO from Sirajganj named Rural Development Movement (RDM). The organization was engaged to provide necessary institutional support in identifying, informing and mobilising the PAPs. It was empowered to issue identity and entitlement cards. RDM prepared computerised EP files and determined individual entitlements. RDM representative was one of the members of the three-member Grievance Committee. RADOL, a local NGO from Tangail, got involved with the resettlement process to look after the nutritional aspect of the displaced people. They mainly provided homestead sapling to the evicted population. Later, the survey of the affected areas of the west bank was conducted by RADOL. Kishan, another local NGO, has been engaged in plantation in the resettlement site.

As a part of the resettlement and rehabilitation programme, a hospital was constructed by RU at the east bank resettlement site. RU under an agreement leased out the hospital to Grameen Kalyan, a sister organization of Grameen Bank, for ninety-nine years. Grameen Kalyan has developed a health-care system for the PAPs. The hospital will maintain computerized health record of the PAPs. A contract has also been signed with Grameen Matshya Foundation (GMF), another sister organization of the Grameen Bank, and Shubash. Under the agreement Tk 1 crore interest-free loan has been provided to these NGOs for fish cultivation. They have also been given 25 years lease of derelict water bodies for this purpose. As per the agreement, the NGOs will get 60 per cent of the profit and the PAPs will get the rest.

With the broad goal of ensuring the pre-eviction economic status of the PAPs intact, a Tk 5 crore credit programme has been designed. Three thousand EPs have been identified for participating in training and credit programmes. PKSF has been contracted to supervise the credit programme. Two NGOs DORP and ASAUS have been selected through open tender as implementing NGOs.

In case of NGO selection as partners it was found that RDM, RADOL, DORP and ASAUS were selected through bidding. RDM, however, was selected through a limited tender, the rest through open tender. BRAC and Grameen Kalyan was approached by RU to participate in the programme. GMF on the other hand approached RU with the fish cultivation proposal.

A Preliminary Assessment
JMBP resettlement programme is the first planned resettlement programme of Bangladesh. It is understandable that implementation of such a project has been a complex task. Among other problems, cumbersome land acquisition law, non-updated land ownership and absence of updated land document, work as hindrance in the way of delivering the compensation package to the affected people. A problem that the project faced, has been the development of vested interest groups for reaping undue benefits.

For example, a group of people who had prior information about land acquisition, raised structures, sometime overnight, in order to qualify for drawing structure loss grant and other benefits accruing from it. Critics point out that such practice could only take place because of collusion of interest of locally influential and local government functionaries. This problem could only be addressed through promulgation of a new ordinance, which authorised the DC to deny compensation to new structures. The Ordinance was later passed by the Parliament in 1995.

Another policy which went against the interest of the affected people was the land price fixation system. Undervaluing of land price for tax purpose is a common practice in Bangladesh. But the method followed to determine land price for compensation, was to average the price of a few randomly selected plots at the value shown during registration. This has led to undervaluing of land. Before RRAP became operational, allegations were made by some EPs about malpractice of DC office in paying compensation. They claimed they had to bribe functionaries to draw their compensation money.

Time difference between eviction and providing access to resettlement site was another policy lapse. During the initial phase of preparation of resettlement plan, one-half of the evicted people showed their interest for settling in the resettlement site.

But not even one-quarter of the displaced households actually purchased plots in the resettlement site.

Policy makers see it as a positive sign that people were getting resettled in the surrounding villages on their own. One may, however, argue that preparation of resettlement site took quite a long time and people could not afford to wait for it and got themselves rehabilitated wherever they could find some place. Once resettled, they did not want to move again. It would have been a better deal if they got the opportunity to resettle at the first instance.

In case of NGO involvement with the project one may point out that all these NGOs are participating in the project at the implementation level only. They did not demand participation in project planning and designing. NGO policy advocacy role in favour of the PAPs, which has been seen in many parts of the world, is conspicuously absent in the Jamuna Bridge Project.

There is, however, no doubt, that NGO participation in the project has improved the quality of the implementation phase of the project significantly.

The resettlement action plan of the Jamuna Bridge Project is of immense importance, as it is the first of its kind in Bangladesh. Before this there existed no legal framework for this kind of activities. There is every likelihood that this plan will have a major influence in developing strategies for future development projects.

Therefore, it is quite pertinent that there should be independent evaluation of various policy measures under the plan and its implementation.

The author is an Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Dhaka.