Resettlement risk and safeguard decisions

Resettlement appraisal asks whether a project can avoid unnecessary displacement and deliver the required outcomes for people whose lives it changes. Begin with the project action, the people and resources affected, and the institutions able to respond. Selecting a report template before answering those questions can leave the most consequential impacts outside the plan.

Identify the governing requirements

Prepare a short applicability record for the operation. Identify the financing instrument and agreement, national acquisition procedures, financier requirements and versions, cofinanciers, and the allocation of responsibilities. A statement that international best practice applies leaves open which requirements the team must meet and how they will be enforced.

ADB's ESF took effect on 1 January 2026. Its transition provisions retain the SPS for projects approved, or with concept notes approved, before that date. IFC's October 2023 handbook replaces its 2002 handbook. The continued usefulness of an older method does not make its policy framework applicable to a new operation. ADB FAQ, IFC handbook

DFC's policy introduces a separate screening decision. Its investment policy page assigns pre-April 2024 applications and existing approved projects to the earlier ESPP. The April 2024 ESPP includes a categorical prohibition on resettlement of 5,000 or more persons, alongside a dam provision explicitly covering physical or economic displacement at that scale. Keep prohibition screening, risk categorization and displacement assessment distinct. Being below a prohibition threshold does not remove smaller displacement impacts from assessment. DFC ESPP, Appendix A, transition arrangements

Trace the displacement mechanism

Involuntary displacement can arise through compulsory acquisition or negotiations in which people cannot meaningfully refuse the relevant acquisition or restrictions. Assess whose choice is involved. A landowner's agreement does not establish that tenants, occupants or resource users have agreed to their own losses. IFC PS5, World Bank ESS5 guidance

The last row requires particular care. A livelihood impact remains a management problem even where a specific land-acquisition trigger does not govern its cause. Analyze the mechanism under the applicable assessment framework rather than using a narrow trigger decision to discard a material loss. ADB ESS5 guidance

Use alternatives before the design becomes fixed

Give engineers a social constraints map while alignment, site and construction sequence can still change. Compare feasible options through displacement severity, livelihood dependence, shared resources, replacement opportunities, services, delivery capacity and residual risk. Record the evidence behind the choice and the design version assessed.

For example, an assumed alignment affecting 40 households might require demolition of a commercial frontage, while another affecting 60 households allows homes and businesses to remain in place. Household counts alone favor the first. Continuity, customers and the severity of loss could favor the second. The assessment needs to establish those consequences; the example supplies no universal preference.

Keep unknown impacts visible. Fewer surveyed households may reflect incomplete recognition of customary or seasonal users. The IFC handbook's scoping approach supports investigation early enough to influence design. IFC handbook

Investigate risks to the conditions of recovery

Cernea's impoverishment risks and reconstruction model directs attention to landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, food insecurity, morbidity and mortality, loss of common property access, and social disarticulation. These are connected risks. Losing a productive resource can reduce food, increase debt and disrupt social support at the same time. Cernea

The Social Framework for Projects extends inquiry to the conditions supporting well-being, including capabilities, social relationships, culture, infrastructure, livelihoods and the living environment. Together these approaches help explain why an asset list can miss the functions people need to rebuild. Use them to organize investigation rather than constructing an unexplained aggregate risk score. Smyth and Vanclay, Vanclay

Vulnerability needs the same causal attention. Ask who depends most on an affected activity, which substitutes are available, and what barriers prevent access to assistance. Mobility limitations may require accessible housing and transport. Care responsibilities may prevent participation in training. Paying a household representative may leave another member without control over compensation for an independent livelihood. Participation and effective remedy belong in the assessment throughout. Disability good practice note, human rights approach

Make missing evidence consequential

These are proposed review controls; their contractual form depends on the investment and governing requirements. Assign a responsible institution and a date for resolving each issue.

Separate consultant competence from borrower capacity. A consultant may write a sound report while the implementing institution lacks authority, staff or funds to deliver it. Test experience in the relevant livelihood systems, languages and tenure arrangements, as well as access to evidence, decision-making responsibilities and independent review. The Inspection Panel's lessons emphasize continued attention to scoping and supervision across preparation and implementation. Inspection Panel

An appraisal decision should explain impact coverage, restoration feasibility, institutional capacity, funding and sequencing, and verification. If replacement land is unavailable or a critical responsibility remains unfunded, the remedy may require redesign or a different schedule. Complexity needs a capacity to adapt; it cannot justify relying on an untested promise. de Wet, ADB evaluation

Overview · Next: Baseline evidence and impact analysis · References