September 24, 2006
Professor John Ruggie
UN Special Representative to the Secretary General on Business and Human Rights
Harvard University
John F. Kennedy School of Government
79 John F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Dear Professor Ruggie
RE: General Principles on Human Rights Impact Assessments
We are sharing with you our collective views on general principles for a human rights impact assessment. These have arisen from a meeting on community-driven human rights impact assessments, convened by Rights & Democracy[1] in Johannesburg, South Africa, 21-24 September, 2006.
When we launched a three-year project in 2004 to develop and test a human rights impact assessment methodology, we knew that the task ahead would not be simple. We had been examining the links between human rights and economic globalization for many years, and debates surrounding foreign direct investment were often at the forefront. Many of the controversies involved mining, oil and gas projects where the viewpoints of local communities, governments and corporations were and remain dramatically different. Yet we believed that a methodology to assess the human rights impacts of such projects within a collaborative framework could make a significant contribution to resolving these complex and reoccurring issues.
While we recognize that investment itself is not inherently good or bad for human rights, experience has shown us that if foreign direct investment projects are to contribute to development, their human rights impacts have to be addressed. Yet we have seen that those who make decisions regarding investment -- namely governments and companies -- generally fail to consider the impacts of their projects on human rights. We have embarked on our project with the assumption that if governments and companies look more carefully at investments’ effects on human rights, people’s rights would be better protected. A missing step in this process was the development and implementation of a methodology for anticipating and documenting human rights impacts.
In order to draw the links between rights and investment, a nuanced analysis is needed, especially in the multifaceted settings surrounding many projects. Looking at human rights means, among other things, looking at indigenous peoples’ rights, at gender-specific issues, at conflict, and at the different contexts in which investment takes place. At the heart of a human rights analysis is the importance of ”recourse,” or, in our case, the requirement that people who are affected by such projects are able to claim their human rights.
The methodology that we are developing is intended to systematize what many communities have been doing informally for a long time - assessing both the positive and negative impacts of projects on their rights. This process is enabling us to develop a set of principles and criteria that we feel are appropriate to the context of a community-driven human rights impact assessment.
At the same time as we are developing this methodology, we are also trying to influence the broader debate on the scope and nature of human rights impact assessments. In light of our work, we are proposing the following set of principles for companies and governments to develop a systematic and credible human rights impact assessment for foreign direct investment that should be embodied in national and international normative and regulatory frameworks:
- All FDI projects should be subject to a HRIA commensurate with the anticipated impacts on human rights.
- The HRIA should be thorough and comprehensive, addressing all the rights contained in the International Bill of Rights, International Labour Organization conventions, the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and other relevant standards.
- The emphasis of the HRIA should be on avoiding rather than on mitigating adverse human rights impacts.
- The HRIA should be conducted by a competent body and subject to levels of independent scrutiny and validation that are appropriate to the impacts of the project.
- The HRIA should be conducted as early as possible, and ideally at the feasibility stage of a project. It should inform the decision of whether to invest, the location of the investment and the design of the project across all its functions and operations.
- The methodology should reflect best practice, and should have as its starting point an assessment of the risks to, and rights of, communities.
- The HRIA should address impacts throughout the lifecycle of the project.
- The process of developing the HRIA should be transparent and involve affected communities.
- The findings of the HRIA should be public and in particular shared with affected communities and relevant regulatory bodies.
- The HRIA should be a dynamic tool, reflecting the actual impacts of the project over time, as well as evolving national and international standards, and any changes to the human rights context of the project.
- The findings and recommendations of the HRIA should be embodied in a management and implementation plan.
- The project's management and implementation plan should be monitored and reviewed by a body that has the competence to do this and that is independent of the company operating the project. Such reviews and plans should be made public.
- Governmental and inter-governmental support for the project should be conditional on an HRIA that reflects the above principles, and on compliance with the management and implementation plan.
SIGNED BY (organisations listed for identification purposes only):
For Rights & Democracy
Diana Bronson, Project coordinator
Advisory Committee and Local hosts
Joji Carino
Tebtebba Foundation
Danwood Chirwa
University of Cape Town
Peter Frankental
Amnesty International, International Secretariat
Gillian MacNaughton
Oxford Univeristy
Gabrielle Watson
Oxfam-America
Usha Ramanathan
Lucie Lamarche
Département des sciences juridiques, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)
Fraser Reilly-King
Halifax Initiative Coalition
Marcus Faro de Castro
University of Brasilia
Jim Freedman
Consultant
Craig Forcese
University of Ottawa
Baruti Amisi
Centre for Civil Society
Patrick Bond
Centre for Civil Society
Anne Mayher
George Dor
Southern African Centre for Economic Justice
Case study partners:
Argentina
Jimena Garrote
Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS)
Ezequiel Nino
Co-director
Asociacion Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia
Democratic Republic of Congo
Jean-Pierre Muteba Luhunga
Nouvelle Dynamique Syndicale
Jean-Claude Katende
Association africaine de défense des droits de l’Homme (ASADHO-Katanga)
Paulin Kabesa
Institut pédagogique supérieur de Lubumbashi
Odette Ilunga
CRONGD/Katanga
Tibet
Greg Walton
University of Bradford, UK
Carole Samdup
Rights & Democracy, Canada
Philippines
Ms. Zherwina B. Mosqueda
The Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, Inc.
Ms. Penelope Sanz
Mindanawon Initiatives for Cultural Dialogue
Mr. Godofredo Galos
Save Siocon Paradise Movement
Catherine Coumans
MiningWatch Canada
Peru
Clara Bertha Anglas Rodriguez
CEPEMA LULAY
Angela Patricia Canales Rivera
CEPEMA LULAY
[1] Rights & Democracy (International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development) is a non-partisan organization with an international mandate. It was created by Canada's Parliament in 1988 to encourage and support the universal values of human rights and the promotion of democratic institutions and practices around the world.