A/HRC/61/49/Add.1 2. Impact of resettlement policies 55. The Law on Resettlement and Vocation sets out numerous objectives of relocation (art. 1), which are further reflected in the recognition of two categories of resettlement (art. 11): “general resettlement”, for people living in remote and underdeveloped areas, areas with high-risk livelihoods or unique areas; and “specific settlement”, for people affected by a development project. 56. Furthermore, Decree No. 207, on ethnic group affairs (2020), prescribes resettlement for ethnic groups that live in hardship and undeveloped areas, risky livelihoods, areas affected by development projects and unique areas to areas that can be developed and where appropriate permanent jobs and employment can be created. This focus on ethnic groups may convey, in the eyes of the authorities, an intention to adopt special measures to address the situation of the most destitute groups. Indeed, in contexts where agricultural production is low, and there is a lack of irrigation systems, particularly in the highlands, one governmental policy is to move some villages to a lower elevation, in order to promote sustainability and productivity and address food insecurity for subsistence farmers. However, in the eyes of the Special Rapporteur, it also shows that ethnic minorities, in particular those in the highlands, would suffer a disproportionate impact in terms of relocation, including because they are often located in areas where development projects are carried out. The Special Rapporteur also understands that the two motives for relocation often overlap, given that offering crucial infrastructure is often part of plans to help convince village residents affected by a development project to relocate. 57. Village residents conveyed to the Special Rapporteur that they had agreed to relocate in order to have access to, among other things: better houses; electricity and sanitation; water in the dry season; a road to reach markets; a school; and a health centre. These advances are indeed immense for the poorest villages. At the same time, the residents stressed that relocation had had a detrimental impact on traditional livelihood practices in agriculture, on their work and occupations and on interactions within and between communities. In one village, people explained that, as a result of the process, they had lost their cultural practices, such as dancing, music and traditional tattooing. Weaving, a strong traditional occupation for women, was being lost. The Special Rapporteur also noted that in the villages she visited, women clearly outnumbered men, who had been pushed by the relocation to work outside the community in factories for several days or even weeks at a time, including in special economic zones. 58. The identity of many ethnic groups in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic is connected to their communal lands, forests and rivers. Ethnic groups have their own farming practices and agricultural heritage sites, combining tradition and biodiversity, for example cultivating a rich rice diversity. These practices and sites do not seem to be valued by the Government, to say the least. The bias against subsistence- and nature-based livelihood systems of ethnic groups, seen as obstacles to development rather than assets, results in the importance of these systems, both for the people and for sustainable development, being overlooked. Cultural practices and sites are jeopardized by relocations, the push for mechanization and modern ways of production that often entail monocultures, as well as nature conservation policies. A shift towards non-agricultural employment is promoted, as implied by the fact that the law on resettlement also concerns “vocation”, understood as capacity-building to ensure that displaced residents have stable sources of income. 12 Residents confirmed to the Special Rapporteur that they had undergone training to that effect. 59. Slash-and-burn agriculture, a form of shifting agriculture that is widely practised in the highlands, exemplifies this approach. The Special Rapporteur heard many contradictory assessments regarding the sustainability or unsustainability of this practice. The Government, sometimes with the support of development partners, has restricted it without sufficient attention to the views of communities. This issue needs further in-depth discussion involving all concerned, with a human rights-based approach. 12 GE.26-01463 Law on Resettlement and Vocation, art. 2. 11