Involuntary Displacement and Resettlement — Policy and ... - CEPA

Home-based industriesHome-based livelihood activities were those conducted within the residencesuch as catering, sewing, home gardening and livestock rearing. In numbersthe loss of home-based industries is small, unlike commercial or agriculturalproperty losses. These activities were informal and at a very micro level butproduced a substantial additional income to the household. Micro activitysuch as wage labour has been the sole income in only about 10% of thepopulation.According to the monitoring findings, the replacement of these activities hasbeen low. Given that it was a secondary income, the priority given to itsreplacement was lower than that of housing replacement, which was vital.These activities were very location specific, and relocation depended on landavailability. The new land was often not favourable, due to reasons such aslack of space and breaking up of market networks.This group was the primary target group assisted by the Income RestorationProgramme. Assistance to households was limited to home gardening andenterprise development. However, the IRP concentrated more on householdsthat lost homes and property as opposed to households that lost agricultureand commercial land, which also had a need for such assistance. The cashcrop survey found that only 19% of the households that lost agricultural landreceived non-monetary assistance in the interim period.6 Key Factors Linked to the Recovery of LivelihoodsMonitoring the impact of the STDP on these three livelihood areas(aagricultural/commercial/home-based industries), showed that the followingkey factors were linked to the recovery of livelihoods:Low intensity of lossIntensity of loss is a key aspect that determines the recovery of thelivelihoods affected. It is seen in terms of a larger percentage of land lost,particularly in the case of small holdings. Those who lost a larger proportionof their land were identified as having a high intensity of loss.The initial findings of monitoring indicate that those who have lost smallpercentages of land from larger holdings, were better able to recover thanthose who had small holdings and lost most of it. This is particularly true withcash crop cultivators, where some households who had large land holdings51