Comments
I don’t think corporations will undermine this great idea if it’s a win win situation. Many of the PAPs take huge compensations and spend mostly on things that have little or no returns. E.g a farmer taking compensation money to buy a private car and then use the other amount to fuel and maintain the car. A paltry amount is reserved for his upkeeping.
If you can come up with a model that allows the amount paid as compensation be used for a business that brings returns will be a great idea.
If you can come up with a model that allows the amount paid as compensation be used for a business that brings returns will be a great idea.
Felix thanks for the comment. Such a model could for example provide the PAPs with the option of investing 40% of their compensation or just the land itself or its value as equity in the companies business. This will require companies' acceptance of such an arrangement or government presenting it to companies as a prerequisite for licensing
We are championing an argument that compensation and resettlement of project-affected persons (PAPs) in its current form does not secure PAP's livelihoods. There is need for a paradigm shift in the manner in which compensation and resettlement is handle to include PAPs offering their land as equity to the oil, gas and mining investments. This is a campaign that obviously will be undermined by corporations, but is one that needs to be addressed by host countries in public interest.