Evaluating resettlement plans and accountability cases

A resettlement framework, action plan, audit and mediation agreement establish different things. Read each document at its stated date, project component, policy framework and evidentiary scope. A plan can demonstrate commitments without demonstrating delivery; an accountability process can close while recovery remains unresolved.

Establish the identity and purpose of each record

Record the project and component, country, sponsor, author or preparer, client, disclosure host, date, revision, framework, population unit and implementation stage. A disclosure host is not necessarily the report's author or the project's financier.

Keep an institution's finding, a company's position and a community account identifiable. Where they disagree, preserve the proposition, supporting and contrary evidence, and the decision affected.

Trace real interests through the plan

Select cases suited to the impact profile: a tenant, informal occupant, seasonal user, business and employee, woman with independent production, or household retaining a partially acquired farm. Follow each case through evidence, loss, eligibility, package, recipient, budget, timing, responsible institution, grievance route and outcome indicator.

Reconcile the engineering footprint, asset quantities, valuation schedule and budget. Check relocation against service continuity and livelihood measures against planting or trading cycles. Test whether a grievance can change a mistaken entitlement decision. Review field observations and source instruments alongside the report.

Document the basis of acceptance and the conditions for the next action. Professional presentation, a long table of contents and consultant reputation are weak substitutes for this test.

Keep historical project components separate

The Lake Turkana road plan is distinct from the Sirima relocation plan identified by the AfDB catalogue. Preserve separate component and version records under the parent project. Combining affected counts requires an overlap check.

Similarly, the Temane power framework is distinct from Rovuma gas-development planning. Do not transfer country, sponsor, consultant, affected-population or outcome fields between records merely because a working inventory groups them together. A preparer's statement that a gap analysis was addressed establishes a revision claim; follow the analysis into the revised provisions and implementation evidence before accepting its substantive conclusion.

Ahafo illustrates separate dimensions of recovery

The January 2015 Ahafo South completion-audit executive summary concerns Phase 1. It describes better housing and infrastructure while identifying remaining livelihood and land constraints and increased travel burdens. Its scope is distinct from the 2013 expansion planning examples. Read the findings against the audit's stated criteria, population and recommendations. Ahafo audit executive summary

The practical inference is to examine housing, tenure, productive resources, travel costs and income separately. A household can value a new dwelling while still needing livelihood correction. A recommendation for later follow-up is not evidence that the follow-up occurred.

Mundra illustrates impact boundaries and the ability to respond

CAO's September 2025 report reviews IFC's response under the 2006 Performance Standards. Its economic-displacement discussion addresses fishing communities and seasonal users and records disagreement with IFC over PS5 applicability. The report closes monitoring after the financial relationship ended while finding that the non-compliance findings had not been adequately addressed. CAO Mundra report, section 2.3 and case closure

For assessment, trace landing, processing and drying space, shore access, seasonal residence and resource conditions beyond the acquired parcel. Separate causal pathways and governing requirements, then connect remedies to established losses. For supervision, preserve the practical means to act on findings while a usable relationship with the client remains. Administrative closure and achieved remedy need separate conclusions.

CBG illustrates agreements that still need implementation evidence

CAO's CBG record documents a February 2019 complaint and voluntary dispute resolution concerning land, livelihoods, displacement and other impacts. The case page records agreements on blasting, buffer zones and stakeholder engagement, including a further blasting agreement finalized in 2026. Its stated status, updated 27 May 2026, is dispute resolution. These are complaints and negotiated commitments, not a compliance judgment or proof of full livelihood restoration. CAO CBG case record

Maintain a delivery register for mediated commitments: affected locations and people, responsible parties, dates, access arrangements, evidence and unresolved disagreement. Where land is rehabilitated and returned to community use, inspect secure access and productive function alongside the physical works. Establish which losses the agreement covers and which remain under discussion.

Use accountability lessons at their proper scale

The Inspection Panel's 2016 review draws lessons from complaints and investigated projects. It identifies recurring issues in scoping, participation, instruments, supervision, compensation, grievances and livelihood restoration. Its cases are not a representative sample of the Bank's portfolio. Frequencies within that selected caseload cannot estimate a new project's probability of failure. Inspection Panel, Methods and Table 1

Use the findings to formulate inquiries and response rules. Then examine the proposed project's evidence. ADB's portfolio evaluation and an individual case also answer different questions: a broad result rating does not resolve the position of an overlooked household, and one severe case does not establish every operation's outcome. ADB safeguard evaluation

Test a correction through a teaching example

Consider an illustrative relocation after a hydropower design change. Families welcome safer houses and easier school access, but replacement plots grow less food and livelihood support starts after the move. An additional claimant says the census missed an earlier occupancy interest.

These observations need distinct responses. Update the design and impact register. Retain the housing benefits as benefits. Measure the lost production and interruption, agree feasible productive access or another suitable remedy, and provide warranted transition support. Review the claim against dated evidence with a reasoned decision and appeal route. Housing satisfaction cannot establish food or livelihood restoration, and a promise by an official cannot substitute for a consistent eligibility process.

The scenario uses assumed conditions for teaching. It is not a finding about an identified project.

Write a decision memorandum that can be acted on

1. Identify the proposed activity, location, affected interests and governing requirements.
2. State material findings, evidence status and uncertainty.
3. Specify measures, recipients, responsible institutions, funding and dates.
4. Set the conditions and evidence for the next decision.
5. Confirm monitoring, corrective action and completion responsibilities, including continuity if financing changes.

An unresolved finding should have an operational implication. Missing seasonal users affect eligibility; an unstaffed clinic affects relocation readiness; an untested livelihood scheme affects restoration feasibility. The review is useful when those implications change a decision, a remedy or the evidence required.

Previous: Implementation and recovery · Overview · References and source archives