Human Rights Impact Assessment of Mines and Infrastructure Mark Wielga, NomogaiaState of the Art and Challenges

I. Public and Private HRIAPUBLIC ACTION Examples: Trade

Agreements, Government Programs

Covers the government duty to protect, respect and fulfill human rights

Covers specially affected groups and broad societal impacts

PRIVATE ACTION Examples: Mines,

oil and gas fields, plantations, factories

Covers the corporate duty to respect human rights

Covers specially affected groups and specific impacts of corporate operations

Human Rights Impact Assessment of Corporate Action

Norm: United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011)

Requires companies to act with “due diligence”

HRIA is a form of due diligenceMany transnational companies

now attempting to do HRIAs

Problems with the current state of corporate HRIA

Not publicNo standard methodNo established expertise inside

the companyNo established expertise among

consultantsLittle guidance in the academic

literature

Mining: Public HRIAs  Kayeleker

aMarlin Nuiguyo Tampakan Canatuan

Owner Paladin Goldcorp Aimec Xstrata TVI Pacific

Mineral Uranium Gold Gold Copper, Gold

Gold

Country Malawi Guatemala Indonesia Philippines

Philippines

Performed by

Nomogaia(Think Tank)

On Common Ground (Consultants)

Nomogaia(Think Tank)

Institute for Development and Peace, Bread for All(NGOs)

Rights and Democracy(NGOs)

Date 2009-present

2010 2009 2013 2007

Mining HRIA—Timing and Affect

  Kayelekera Marlin Nuiguyo Tampakan CanatuanAffected Corporate Behavior

Yes No No (project sold to new company)

No No

Phase Construction, Operations

Operations Pre-Construction

Pre-Construction

Operations

Snapshot or Longitudinal

Longitudinal Snapshot Snapshot Snapshot Snapshot

Recommendations?

Yes <10 Yes >50 Yes <10 No Yes – to halt operations

Mining HRIA--Methodologies

  Kayelekera Marlin Nuiguyo Tampakan CanatuanMethod Notes

NomoGaia methodology; Intensive, Expansive,Rightsholder Engagement

HRA only,Assesses community opposition

Early Nomogaia methodology;Desktop

Danish Institute,Nomogaia (claimed); Assesses community opposition

Community Based, Assesses community opposition

Method Transparency

Yes – human rights “indicators”/topics linked directly to human rights conclusions and recommendations

No – unstructured findings with no prioritization of issues

No – ratings not directly linked to data

No – no stated process for prioritizing human rights risks

No – no stated process for prioritizing human rights risks

Criticisms Should have started before construction

Ineffective, community uncooperative

Not implemented (project sold)

Biased against the company and project

Biased against the company and project

Engage Rightsholders?

Yes Partial (not the key Sipacapa people)

No No (stakeholders only)

Yes

II. Mine HRIA ExamplePaladin’s Kayelekera Uranium Mine in Malawi

KAYELEKERA

Open Pit Uranium Mine

Operator Paladin (Africa) Ltd.

Owned: 85% Paladin Resources Ltd.

(Australia)15% Government

of Malawi

Project(medium size open pit uranium mine and mill)

Company(Paladin: Australia based

medium size company, good policies and short

track record)

Context (Northern Malawi:

sparse poor rural population, weak infrastructure)

Kayelekera: Project, Context and Company

Ratings

CategorySub-Categories Rights

Topics

Labor

Wages

21 Context Topics, 13 Project Topics

UnionsExploitive PracticesDiscriminationLabor LawsProject employment profile

Health

Health Regulations

31 Context Topics, 18 Project Topics

Underlying DeterminantsAccess and InfrastructureFoodInfectious DiseasesHIARisks to Safety & Health

Environ-ment

Surface and Groundwater 33 Context Topics, 30 Project Topics

Geology/EcosystemAir

Political/ Legal

Form of Government

28 Context Topics, 9 Project Topics

Strength of Civil SocietyLaw SystemsStrength of GovernanceNondiscrimination RegulationsCivil War/Conflict/Security

Economic/ Cultural/ Social

Demographics/ Psychology

30 Context Topics, 21 Project Topics

EconomicsIndigenous PeoplesEducationNational CultureLocal CulturesLand Project Occupies

Catalogs RightsContext 20 rights are shown to

be positively protected or negatively enforced at baseline, including Freedom from Child Labor, Freedom of Religion, Indigenous Rights, Unionization Rights

Project 15 rights are shown to be positively or negatively impacted by the Project, including Child Labor, Indigenous Rights, Union Rights and Free ExpressionCompany

ScoresBaseline

28% of children ages 5 to 17 are economically active. The Government keeps no statistics on child labor, seeing it as a complex issue involving family needs. Families rent out children for labor at a rate of $7/month.

-15In the Project area around 7,500 minors between the ages of 10 and 14 work at least half-days in some sort of informal job. Local children generally enter the labor market between the ages of 10 and 12.

-15Bolivian law sets the minimum age for employment at 14 years. Children ages 6-14 may legally work as apprentices for a maximum of two years and must simultaneously attend school at normal school hours. There is minimal enforcement of these laws, as the Bolivian government sees child labor as a complex challenge and a symptom of other economic woes in the country.

3

Impact

Child labor is mentioned in GRI reporting, but no due diligence has been conducted to ensure that children are excluded from Project supply chain, particularly in unregulated jewelry factories and tailors that provide products to the Project.

-3The company has no history employing child labor or using child labor in its supply chain 5

Baseline Right Impact

-9 Freedom from Child Labor 0.66

-12 to -25 -0.5 to -12 0.5 to 12 12 to 25

Kayelekera: Example of Human Rights Impact Ratings HIV/Aids: There will be a significant increase in

rates without strenuous additional efforts. (Strong Negative)

Water Quality: Negative impacts on water downstream. (Negative, but may be mitigated or offset by multi-million dollar water treatment system)

Discrimination: Hiring is of men from Southern Malawi - no efforts to recruit or train locals or women. (Negative)

Food: No significant productive land lost to project. Project sources food locally. Increase in local demand has inflated prices for consumers and farmers. (Mixed)

Labor standards: Safe healthy work environment. (Strong Positive)

Standard of Living: For many employees significantly increased. (Strong Positive)

Recommendations: HIV Drama Group at Mine

Recommendations: Upgraded Schools

Recommendations: Sanitation

III. Infrastructure HRIAs

Need a different methodology from large footprint corporate HRIAs to consider systematic impacts

Need to consider human right duties of companies and governments

Example of Human Rights Analysis of an Infrastructure Project: Disi Conveyance Project

Jordan: An Extremely Water Poor Country

There is a small Footprint Effect

But a much greater System-wide Effect

Disi was funded as a public-private partnership development project.

Infrastructure HRIA: A HybridNeeds to measure the

systematic human rights impacts: increased water use in a water stressed country or subsidy for large agriculture?

Needs to measure direct effects of footprint: land use changes, people are displaced

Both are relevant to development

ConclusionsHRIA of Corporate Projects

Still in its infancy Need for a leading methodology Need for transparency, criticism,

improvementHRIA of Infrastructure Projects

Just beginning Methodology must consider

footprint and system effects

THANK YOU!