Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) are critical tools in mining and energy projects—but in areas with Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining (ASM) activity, applying a uniform approach to affected populations can do more harm than good. Projects that treat all stakeholders as equal in eligibility, compensation, and engagement often overlook complex local dynamics, leading to intergroup tension, resistance, and project delays.
This article explores the dangers of oversimplifying stakeholder groups in RAPs, especially in post-conflict and resource-constrained regions. Drawing on IFC Performance Standards and real-world observations, it offers practical solutions for designing conflict-sensitive, inclusive—but differentiated—resettlement plans.
1️⃣ The Challenge: Overlapping and Competing Stakeholders in ASM-Intensive Areas
In mining frontiers, the population directly affected by land acquisition often includes a mix of:
- Traditional landowners or host communities
- Project-induced in-migrants (PIMs) seeking economic opportunity
- Artisanal miners, both local and transient
- Women and youth with informal livelihood dependencies
🚩 Where Uniform RAPs Fail:
- Treating host communities and recent in-migrants as equally eligible for compensation
- Ignoring historical land claims and cultural attachments
- Failing to distinguish between long-term inhabitants and opportunistic settlers
- Triggering resentment by offering benefits to those seen as “outsiders”
These missteps not only violate the Do No Harm principle but can create perpetual intergroup conflicts, undermining the long-term viability of resettlement efforts.
2️⃣ Real-World Consequences: The Case for Differentiation
Across many projects in frontier and ASM-active regions, lack of stakeholder differentiation has:
- Led to friction between host communities and newcomers
- Undermined the legitimacy of consultation and compensation processes
- Complicated project timelines and delayed construction
- Sparked grievances over perceived unfairness and exclusion
The lesson is clear: equity does not always mean uniformity. Eligibility criteria must reflect not just project impact but social legitimacy, vulnerability, and place-based identity.
3️⃣ What IFC Performance Standards Say
Under IFC Performance Standards 1 and 5, developers are required to:
- Identify and engage all affected stakeholders
- Respect customary land tenure systems
- Design RAPs that restore or improve livelihoods
- Implement grievance redress mechanisms for disputes
Yet these standards leave room for interpretation—especially when it comes to distinguishing between PAPs with long-standing land ties and those who migrated after project announcement.
4️⃣ Practical Steps for Conflict-Sensitive RAP Planning
A boutique consultancy like EYG Partners can help developers and EPC contractors:
- Conduct nuanced stakeholder mapping, including ASM actors and host communities
- Use timed baseline surveys to determine residency periods and land tenure history
- Integrate local legitimacy assessments alongside legal eligibility
- Design tiered entitlement frameworks based on impact severity and socio-cultural legitimacy
- Facilitate participatory visioning workshops to build community ownership of RAP outcomes
🤝 How EYG Partners Can Help
At EYG Partners, we’ve worked in complex resettlement contexts across Africa, where project-induced in-migration, weak land documentation, and informal ASM activity create extreme planning challenges.
We offer:
- Stakeholder mapping and social baseline design
- RAP eligibility audits and entitlement strategy review
- Conflict-sensitive engagement for host and in-migrant groups
- Monitoring and corrective action support during RAP rollout
- Independent grievance mechanism audits and field coaching
📩 If your project is entering an ASM-affected region, don’t risk generic resettlement planning. Let’s build a tailored strategy that earns trust—and holds.