Are mining-induced displacement and resettlement losses compensable? Evidence and lessons from mining communities in Zimbabwe

This paper aims to examine the intractable paradox in compensating the victims of the mining-induced reset-tlements and displacement (MIDR) policy interventions in Zimbabwe. On the one hand, mining laws, notably the Mines and Minerals Act, do not provide for the direct compensation of Communal Land dwellers/occupiers. On the other hand, mining companies directly compensate these Communal Land dwellers/occupiers-however insufficiently, unjustly, unfairly, and untimely. To illuminate this paradox, the experiences of about 4,321 Chiadzwa families resettled at Arda Transau farm between 2009 and 2016; Murowa Diamonds' 224 families (and 265 graves) MIDR victims resettled in the Shashe area in 2005; and Rio Tinto's Murowa Diamonds' 926 people relocated in six farms bought by the company under the resettlement program in 2004 are taken as case studies. In this qualitative case study research, document analysis, key informant interviews and non-participant observation were used for data collection, and content and thematic analysis methods for data presentation and analysis. The distinctiveness of this paper lies not in presenting Zimbabwe's mining-induced displacement experiences, as these experiences are a global phenomenon. Instead, the paper's uniqueness lies in articulating the different outcomes of Zimbabwe's mining-induced displacement and resettlement policy interventions due to the lack or inadequacy of compensation to the victims following involuntary relocations. This paper, therefore, suggests the following displacement compensation policy interventions: monetary compensation; livelihood restoration; and joblessness, homelessness and landlessness prevention. Lastly, the paper recommends inserting a section in the Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill that deals with adequately compensating the victims of MIDR policy interventions.