In resettlement practice, “land-for-land” remains a cornerstone principle. If livelihoods are land-based, compensation should be too. Simple. Logical, even. Aligned with international standards. However, in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, that principle is softly breaking down. Not on paper, where it still reads as sound policy, but on the ground, where the land it promises is increasingly not there to give.
When land-for-land is no longer straightforward
Across a number of land-constrained settings, the same patterns recur: high population densities, fragmented plots already below viable thresholds, strong customary control over land allocation, and increasing pressure from in-migration linked to project development. The result is a system where replacement land is not just scarce. It has become structurally unavailable at scale. And yet, expectations remain unchanged. This is where the tension lies. Standards assume feasibility. Reality negotiates constraints. From Digby Wells Environmental’s (Digby Wells) experience, one lesson stands out clearly:
The deeper issue is that restoring farming hectares does not necessarily restore human livelihoods.
Restoring livelihoods, not just hectares.
Land offered as replacement is often more distant, less fertile, or socially contested. For the impacted household that could mean a plot an hour’s walk from the new home, on soil that yields a fraction of the old, beside neighbours who never agreed to share it. Cash compensation, whilst necessary, can accelerate vulnerability when not supported by structured programmes. Plus, for many, particularly women, the young and those without primary land rights, the risk of long-term marginalisation rises sharply. In these contexts, livelihood restoration cannot remain a transactional exercise. It becomes something far more complex – almost a process of economic transition. This requires a shift in approach.
Good practice, as reflected in the International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Performance Standard (PS) 5 (Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement; 2012) and the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Standard 5 (ESS5; 2018) (Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement), requires more than compensation for lost assets. The objective is to restore, and where possible improve, livelihoods and living standards. In land-constrained environments, achieving this outcome demands early recognition of land scarcity risks, livelihood restoration programmes tailored to how households actually generate income and sustained support that extends well beyond compensation payments. Where replacement land is limited or unavailable, success depends on helping affected households build resilience through a combination of agricultural support, livelihood diversification, skills development and access to economic opportunities.
Designing for transition
At Digby Wells, we have worked across complex resettlement settings where these constraints are not theoretical. They define the operating reality. Our approach has increasingly focused on designing livelihood strategies that respond to these conditions pragmatically, balancing regulatory requirements with what is actually achievable on the ground. In practice, that means starting from the household rather than the hectare – understanding how people actually earn a living, anticipating where the gaps will fall, and building the non-land interventions that can carry the weight land no longer can.
In the end, the question is no longer how we replace what was lost, but rather how do we enable what comes next? For anyone designing or financing resettlement in these landscapes, that is the more honest question to start from.
Interested in finding out more – Social, Heritage & Stakeholder Relationship Services
About the Authors
Jessica Pryor is a Principal Social Consultant with an MSc in Environmental Management. She started her career as an environmental generalist conducting environmental and social assessments and compiling ESIAs for large scale projects predominantly for the mining industry. She developed into a social practitioner initially working in the social department of one of the largest gold mines in the DRC. There she oversaw the implementation of Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs), spearheaded the community development strategy and implemented large scale agricultural and livestock programmes as well as general social infrastructure and training programmes as part of the mine’s community development initiatives. She further developed her social expertise through undertaking social impact assessments, conducting asset and socio-economic surveys and developing RAPs and livelihoods studies as well as conducting environmental and social due diligence reviews for clients in South Africa, Malawi, Tanzania, Namibia, Gabon, Guinea, DRC, Mali, Dominican Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, USA and Peru. Together, she initiated the company’s focus on social closure by assisting our clients understand and implement social transitioning plans towards closure to incorporate internal and external stakeholder concerns and recommendations into integrated Mine Closure Plans.
Anton Hough is a Principal Social Scientist and resettlement practitioner who has more than 15 years of experience in SEIAs, SEBSs, RAP and LRP compilation and implementation. He obtained his Masters in Sociology from the University of Stellenbosch in South Africa in 2011 and has three ISI-listed academic publications. Throughout his career, Anton has been involved in many large-scale projects across sub-Saharan Africa and South Africa and has extensive legislative and field-based experience in many of the continent’s countries. Anton has drafted reports and plans for review by institutions such as the IFC, European Investment Bank (EIB), Norwegian Investment Fund for Developing Countries (Norfund), African Development Bank (AfDB) and WB.