The sustainability of the un-named opportunities is not addressed in the current policy. Nor does the policy include evaluative criteria to determine whether or not the objectives of the policy have been achieved through the un-named opportunities. It is infinitely easier for project sponsors to provide cash compensation than it is to find land resources. OP 4.12 in its current state virtually guarantees the loss of a land-based lifestyle. If there is no land available, the Bank should not be sponsoring a project that requires resettlement.
Land ownership is one of the most important stepping-stones in the rise out of poverty.
Preference should be given to land-based resettlement strategies for people dislocated from agricultural settings. In OD 4.30 the Bank noted that its experience with cash compensation proved the inadequacy of cash as a means to compensate resettled people. The Bank justifies this by making the claim that 'Bank experience has shown' this option to be viable. The 1998 OED study has noted that cash options need to be made available, but has also noted that cash compensation has failed in India. Throughout the 1998 OED study problems with cash compensation are highlighted.