The world is facing a crisis of deep and rising inequality. Last year, the poorest half of the world had their wealth nosedive by 11%, while billionaires’ fortunes rose by 12%—up by US$2.5bn every day. But inequality is more than just about money. In health, education, natural resources, political voice and in the very processes of making decisions that will affect people’s lives, the wealthy are extracting benefit from the poorest and least powerful.
Nowhere is that challenge starker than in land, and the global drive for massive infrastructure projects ostensibly for “development”. In fact, millions of people have lost their lands and livelihoods as a result of such projects, including those funded by international financial institutions. There is even a name for the act of kicking people off their land to make way for big-ticket projects such as power and transmission plants, ports, airports and transport grids: “development-induced displacement”. Women and girls are being hit hardest.
The need for more openness and transparency
No-one knows exactly how much money is now sloshing around land-related investment projects or how much harm they are causing. Commercial financiers do not publish their links to land-related displacement, and yet more and more development finance is now being channelled through “financial intermediaries”, such as commercial banks, hedge and investment funds, and private investment vehicles.
Development banks are channelling significant amounts of funding through financial intermediaries. While development finance institutions have recognised the importance of openness and transparency in projects they finance directly, they have not extended the same level of transparency to high-risk projects financed through their financial intermediaries.
Even where a financier does have a policy to protect those whose lands or livelihoods are disrupted, locally affected communities are highly unlikely to know about it—or even about where the money has come from and, therefore, what their rights are.
The importance of land rights
This is deepening the existing challenges around people’s land rights. More than 2.5bn people live and rely upon indigenous and community lands, but only one in ten of them have “legal” ownership of it. As a result, they are highly exposed to predatory investors, from both state and private sectors. Globally, land inequality between women and men is so entrenched that we don’t even have the statistics to capture it. We know that women are especially vulnerable to having their lands taken and being excluded from compensation.
Land is a highly dangerous issue. People who speak out peacefully for their land rights can face horrific violence. In 2018 three out of every four murders of human rights defenders were defenders of land, environmental or indigenous peoples’ rights. Rape and sexual assault are routinely used to terrify those speaking out to defend their land. There are few, if any, efforts to combat local-level land-related corruption and fraud.
These challenges are not simply an issue of land, but of rights. Land is not taken from absentee landlords—it is taken from poor and vulnerable people precisely because their rights seem to matter less.
Serving local communities
It is neither unrealistic nor idealistic to demand that those investing in our future infrastructure do so in ways that truly serve local communities. Investment decisions should be based on the Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of local people. Indeed, indigenous peoples have this right enshrined in international law because the global community has recognised that the seizure of their lands is part of a historical system of discrimination against them. Increasingly, there is recognition that FPIC is also best practice in efforts to secure the rights of rural women and to upholding people’s right to food.
Simply put, local communities have the right to approve or reject activities that impact them. This “power to reject” is vital in protecting themselves against corruption, violence and land-related human rights abuses. It helps to manage the power imbalances where poor communities’ interests are different to those of governments or companies. Even the most well-intentioned consultations can fail to understand community concerns or lessen the danger for people to openly speak out. This is why the right to withhold consent is vital. Consultations aimed at achieving “consent” must always involve women because they bear the greatest burden of harm and are too often excluded from discussions.
Commercial financiers and development finance institutions are increasingly committed to FPIC on paper, but challenges persist in implementation. FPIC requires clear, time-bound implementation plans that can be independently verified and monitor —and should be developed with the input of indigenous peoples, women’s groups and other marginalised communities.
If we are serious about the Sustainable Development Goals, we cannot continue to discuss the needs and potential benefits of infrastructure projects without involving the very communities whose lives will absolutely be impacted by such projects in the decision-making process.
