Prior to commencement, the project team must be fully resourced as per the resourcing plan (see 4F.2 Guidance, Task 5) and the SteerCom established.

This task must only commence if there is a high degree of confidence that the resettlement project is required. Failure to implement the resettlement after starting detailed participatory planning may result in significant risks and impacts.

Resettlement planning is a long and involved process that evolves over time, and should commence, at a minimum, four to seven years prior to when land access is required or the CHS impact resulting in displacement will begin to occur. Different displacement impacts require different types of management plans (see 4F.1 Introduction):

• RAP, inclusive of a plan to address livelihood restoration, for permanent physical displacement;
• LRP for permanent economic displacement only;
• LAP for temporary physical or economic displacement; or
• Remedial (Corrective) Plan as may be required based on the findings of a close-out audit (see 4F.2 Guidance, Task 11 and Task 12).

A RAP, LRP, LAP or Remedial Plan is specific to a given resettlement project, and it builds on the overarching principles and approach defined in the (site-level) displacement framework (see 4F.2 Guidance, Task 3). Development of the DMP is the responsibility of the resettlement project team, and requires extensive engagement with external stakeholders, including affected communities and authorities.

Upon commencement of resettlement planning, the resettlement project team must engage the displaced stakeholders regarding the provision of independent legal and / or other experts for the purpose of representing and / or advising the displaced stakeholders during the resettlement process. The resettlement project team must facilitate access to independent experts, and the cost of such services must be covered by the resettlement project.

During this task, a representative from the operations team actively participates in the SteerCom and updates SHIRA (see 4F.2 Guidance, Task 2) as required. Alignment between the SEP and RSEP is maintained and the site team ensures that resettlement planning adequately considers the CHMP.

Table 4F. 8 (see 4F.4 Tools and guidance notes) presents roughly sequential activities of the displacement management planning process using external consultants and highlights roles and responsibilities for each phase. Each project’s planning phase is context-specific; thus, the sequence and nature of the steps can vary depending on the nuances of the land access required. The DMP must be commensurate to the scale and complexity of the project, context specific, culturally appropriate and aligned with the expectations of the displaced households or individuals. Depending on the type of plan, some components listed in Table 4F. 8 may not be required. For instance, in the case of a LRP, sections on replacement housing would be omitted. Vulnerability and gender considerations are required during several of the displacement management planning activities.

Regardless of the sequence and nature of the planning process, its output should be a detailed RAP, LRP, LAP or Remedial Plan, aligned with IFC PS5 requirements and best practice. Table 4F. 6 and Table 4F. 10 (see 4F.4 Tools and guidance notes) provide guidance on the structure and contents of these DMPs.

Where LADAR includes impacts on cultural heritage such as graves, the resettlement surveys must collect data on such resources. However, the identification of graves needing to be relocated will trigger Section 4H and a GRP will be required.

If LADAR is government-led, management of displacement impacts requires a different approach – see Guidance note 1 in 4F.4 Tools and guidance notes.

When a comprehensive and participatory resettlement planning process, typically implemented over many years, has failed to achieve negotiated settlement with displaced parties, operations and project teams must seek guidance from Group SP and Group Legal. As a last resort, legal eviction may be considered if:

• the resettlement project team can demonstrate beyond doubt that all other preferred land access alternatives have failed; and
• it is considered feasible in the project context.

See Guidance note 2 in 4F.4 Tools and guidance notes. Additional considerations may apply if the process involves Indigenous Peoples, including FPIC.

Personal data collected as part of this task should be treated and stored in accordance with the Anglo American Code of Conduct and data protection requirements, as well as national data privacy laws and regulations.