by Jo Render

edited by Liam Mahony

Recipe for DialogueCorporate training for building relationships with Indigenous communities

A Tactical Notebook published bythe New Tactics Project

of the Center for Victims of Torture

Published byThe Center for Victims of TortureNew Tactics in Human Rights Project717 East River RoadMinneapolis, MN 55455 USAwww.cvt.org, www.newtactics.org

Notebook Series EditorLiam Mahony

Design and CopyeditingSusan Everson

The Danish Institute for Human Rights and The Center for Victims of Torture wish to acknowledge thefollowing institutions that provided support for the New Tactics in Human Rights West Group regionaltraining workshop, of which this and other tactical notebooks are a product:

· The Paul & Phyllis Fireman Charitable Foundation,

· The United States Department of State,

· The United States Institute of Peace,

· The European Master’s Programme in Human Rights and Democratization

· Donors who wish to remain anonymous.We are also greatly indebted to the work of numerous interns and volunteers who have contributed theirtime and expertise to the advancement of the project and of human rights.

The New Tactics project has also benefited from more than 2000 hours of work from individual volunteersand interns as well as donations of in-kind support. Some of the institutional sponsors of this work includeMacalester College, the University of Minnesota, the Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs, theMinnesota Justice Foundation and the public relations firm of Padilla Speer Beardsley.

The opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed on this site are those of the NewTactics project and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders For a full list of project sponsors seewww.newtactics.org.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the New Tactics in Human RightsProject. The project does not advocate specific tactics or policies.

The views and analysis of this document are based largely on experiences of Peace Brigades International, butare entirely the responsibility of the author.

© 2004 Center for Victims of TortureThis publication may be freely reproduced in print and in electronic form as longas this copyright notice appears on all copies.

10

76

54

The Center for Victims of TortureNew Tactics in Human Rights Project

717 East River RoadMinneapolis, MN 55455 USA

www.cvt.org, www.newtactics.org

Organization & author information

Letter from the New Tactics project manager

Introduction

The global context

7Why try corporate training?

8 Designing the training

The workshop

1315Evaluation of impact

15Conclusion

16Useful resources

Methodological example

Jo RenderJo Render began her work in corporate responsibility aspart of the founding staff of CIVICUS: World Alliance forCitizen Participation. She played the lead staff role ininitiating CIVICUS’s corporate engagement program area,participating in the early leadership team for the BusinessPartners for Development program in collaboration withthe World Bank and the International Business LeadersForum.

In 2000, she joined First Peoples Worldwide as the leadstaff person for their corporate engagement strategy, en-gaging with and advising extractive companies on policyand practice to respect Indigenous peoples’ rights, in-forming socially responsible investors on key issues andcases of concern to Indigenous communities and workingwith Indigenous organizations to devise strategies anddevelop skills to maximize community capacity for directengagement with companies.

Jo left FPW at the end of 2003, and is now working as anindependent contractor. She assists Indigenous commu-nities and extractive companies in developing effectivecommunity development strategies. She is also activelyinvolved with the Global Reporting Initiative to developcompany performance indicators on Indigenous rights.She is a member of the Fund for Peace Business and Hu-man Rights Roundtable and of the U.S. Social Invest-ment Forum.

Contact Information1420 W. Abingdon Dr., #410Alexandria, VA 22314 USAEmail: jomarierender@aol.com

OrganizationsFirst Peoples Worldwide is the international program ofFirst Nations Development Institute, a Native Ameri-can-led organization based in Fredericksburg, Virginia,USA. Founded in 1980 to support economic develop-ment among Native American, Alaska Native and NativeHawaiian communities, the organization began provid-ing assistance outside of the United States in 1997. FirstPeoples Worldwide works to raise global awareness ofIndigenous issues and to provide assistance to Indig-enous communities that is tailored to each group’s uniqueculture and circumstance. It brings to the project itsknowledge of community concerns and perspectives,community-driven development processes, internationalcases and legal frameworks. This tactic is one of severalwithin FPW’s Corporate Engagement Strategy, whichalso includes tactics designed to:♦ increase the capacity of Indigenous communities to

engage with private sector actors; and♦ educate and awaken members of the socially respon-

sible investment community to their role in protect-ing and promoting the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Founded in 1992, Business for Social Responsibility is anonprofit organization working to advance the globaladoption of business practices that achieve a more justsociety and a more sustainable economy. With offices inNorth America, Europe and Asia, BSR develops and dis-seminates practical information on corporate social re-sponsibility; provides companies with advisory servicesand training programs to help them assess and imple-ment responsible business practices; and convenes busi-nesses and other stakeholders to address commonchallenges in corporate social responsibility through con-ferences, working groups and other forms of cross-sectorcollaboration. BSR has more than 1,000 member com-panies and brings to the tactic its own expertise in com-pany training on community engagement techniques andhuman rights, as well as its access to a growing networkof companies.

Together, the two organizations have complemented eachother in developing this initiative. FPW brings a con-stant flow of information on legal and international trendsand norms, as well as an understanding of how companyactivity influences a very diverse array of community con-cerns. BSR brings its experience in working directly withcompanies at levels of both policy and practice on avariety of issues, as well as a growing network of compa-nies interested in taking on such a training effort. De-pending on the issue being tackled and the capacity ofthe organization considering the development of such atraining effort, a partnership may not be necessary. Forone that has a very broad focus and set of objectives,covering large industrial sectors, it has been very helpful.

Contact InformationFirst Peoples Worldwidec/o First Nations Development Institute2300 Fall Hill Ave., Suite 412Fredericksburg, VA 22401 USATel: 1.540.371.5615Fax: 1.540.371.3505Email: infofpw@firstnations.orgWeb: www.firstpeoples.org

Business for Social Responsibility111 Sutter Street, 12th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94104 USATel: 1.415.984.3200Fax: 1.415.984.3201Web: www.bsr.org

September 2004

Dear Friend,

Welcome to the New Tactics in Human Rights Tactical Notebook Series! In each notebook a humanrights practitioner describes an innovative tactic used successfully in advancing human rights. Theauthors are part of the broad and diverse human rights movement, including nongovernment andgovernment perspectives, educators, law enforcement personnel, truth and reconciliation processesand women’s rights and mental health advocates. They have both adapted and pioneered tactics thathave contributed to human rights in their home countries. In addition, they have used tactics that,when adapted, can be applied in other countries and situations to address a variety of issues.

Each notebook contains detailed information on how the author and his or her organization achievedwhat they did. We want to inspire other human rights practitioners to think tactically—and tobroaden the realm of tactics considered to effectively advance human rights.

In this notebook, Jo Render describes a corporate training initiative that helps the private sector tobuild more effective, constructive relationships with Indigenous peoples. The process was developedthrough a collaboration between the NGO Business for Social Responsibility and First PeoplesWorldwide, an Indigenous advocacy organization. The trainings, which are focused on extractivecompanies (mining, oil, gas and logging) are founded on respect for Indigenous peoples’ rights,aspirations and effective participation in the development process.

The entire series of Tactical Notebooks is available online at www.newtactics.org. Additionalnotebooks will continue to be added over time. On our web site you will also find other tools,including a searchable database of tactics, a discussion forum for human rights practitioners andinformation about our workshops and symposium. To subscribe to the New Tactics newsletter,please send an e-mail to newtactics@cvt.org.

The New Tactics in Human Rights Project is an international initiative led by a diverse group oforganizations and practitioners from around the world. The project is coordinated by the Center forVictims of Torture and grew out of our experiences as a creator of new tactics and as a treatmentcenter that also advocates for the protection of human rights from a unique position—one of healingand reclaiming civic leadership.

We hope that you will find these notebooks informational and thought-provoking.

Sincerely,

Kate KelschNew Tactics Project Manager

6

[Ecuador’s] 4.6 billion barrels of proven reserves are among the largest in Latin America. Oilalready accounts for nearly half its exports. With the recent completion of a$1.3 billion, 300-mile pipeline by a foreign consortium, the government deepened itscommitment to eventually doubling production, to 850,000 barrels a day. If development inthe jungle moves unhindered, the Ecuadorean Amazon could yield as much as 26 billionbarrels in oil reserves, enough to rival Mexico and Nigeria, according to a hopeful 1999study by the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

But for the companies, dealing with Indians has proved arduous. Some have tried toplacate tribes with everything from chain saws to outboard motors. Others focus on buildingschools and clinics. Some employ experienced anthropologists to help make deals. “Whenwe did our seismic testing, we suffered kidnappings, fires and robberies,” said RicardoNicolás, general manager here of Cia. General de Combustibles, an Argentine companythat has the contract to develop fields north of Pumpuentsa. “It’s been seven years and wehaven’t been able to get started; seven years and $10 million.” Faced with growing opposi-tion, the government of President Lucio Gutiérrez said it was prepared to provide militaryprotection so oil companies could complete the needed seismic tests.

Excerpts from “Seeking balance: growth vs. culture in Amazon” by Juan Forero, New YorkTimes, December 10, 2003.

FREE, PRIOR & INFORMED CONSENTIn our training, we use the following definitions:

Free: Freedom from external manipulation, interference orcoercion by either the government or the company.

Prior: Achieved before exploration or government permit-ting of the proposed activity.

Informed:♦ Full disclosure of the intent and scope of the activity.♦ Decisions made in a language and process understand-

able to the communities.♦ Provision for training and education made to allow for

full understanding of the potential impacts of the re-source activity.

Consent:♦ Consent determined according to the people’s own

customary laws, rights and practices.♦ Customary institutions and representative organiza-

tions involved in all decisions.♦ Respect by the company for the final decision of the

Indigenous people.

IntroductionIn December 2001, the United Nations Office of theHigh Commissioner for Human Rights convened aworkshop on “Indigenous Peoples, Private SectorNatural Resource, Energy and Mining Companies andHuman Rights.” The physical format of this work-shop was indicative of the general atmosphere sur-rounding the issue: Indigenous representatives werelined up on one side of the room, companies werelined up along the other, and nongovernmental or-ganizations sat in the middle. Governments chose notto attend. Toward the end of two days of very tensediscussions, a representative from Rio Tinto (a U.K.-based mining company) asked a question of the In-digenous and NGO participants: rather than spendmore time repeating everything that companies dowrong, can we (the communities and NGOs) providemore explicit direction to companies on how to dothings right?

This challenge was accepted by First Peoples World-wide and Business for Social Responsibility, two U.S.-based NGOs working internationally on corporateresponsibility. Together we developed a training ini-tiative designed as one step in increasing the capac-ity of companies to build more effective, constructiverelationships with Indigenous peoples. The training,which is focused on extractive companies (mining, oil,gas and logging), is founded on a respect for Indig-enous peoples’ rights, aspirations and effective par-ticipation in the decisions that affect them. BothIndigenous people and company personnel have beeninvolved in the design and implementation of thecurriculum.

At the core of the training is the concept of free,prior and informed consent (see box, right). Whilemany governments refuse to acknowledge that In-digenous peoples have this right (the right to approve,or reject, a project in their territory), it has been rec-ognized in international law, and national govern-ments are slowly comingaround. Laws are rarelyspecific enough, however, totell a company what kindsof actions and decision-mak-ing processes will meet thisexpectation. They also ne-glect to provide an over-view of everything at thecommunity-operationallevel that can affect howcommunities and compa-nies achieve consent.

Our training currently takesthe form of a two-and-a-half-day workshop that pro-

vides broad, general guidance on the importance ofdeveloping good engagement practices with Indig-enous peoples in order to achieve free, prior and in-formed consent. While we do not guarantee thateffective engagement will result in consent, we em-phasize that without it, consent cannot be achieved.Ideally, company participation in the training will in-clude multiple voices representing the different com-pany roles that affect, and are affected by, communityrelations, such as environmental management, landnegotiations, government relations, executive offices,communications and investor relations.

The workshop content was tested in February 2003and presented fully to a group of nine companies in

Recipe for dialogue 7

TRAINING OBJECTIVES♦ Increasing company understanding of the “business case” for creating

more effective engagement processes with Indigenous peoples, i.e.,the positive benefits to the company of doing the right thing.

♦ Developing a deeper awareness of the myriad aspects of Indigenouscommunity life and aspirations, and how these might affect discus-sions with the community.

♦ Providing a better understanding of how including these consider-ations in decision-making about proposed company projects can in-crease the effectiveness of a wide range of company concerns relatedto project design and implementation, including environmental as-sessments and monitoring, social impact assessments, community de-velopment planning, and investor and societal expectations.

♦ Giving practical examples of the fundamental components of an effec-tive engagement process, including shared decision-making structures,information sharing and capacity building.

♦ Assessing company management structures and practices and theirpotential impact on engagement processes.

March; a shorter version was tried in November. Wewere working to create interest in more in-depthtraining on community engagement techniques atthe company site level, and, while we have receivedexpressions of interest in this second step, specificprograms have not yet been undertaken. Participantsfrom the March workshop provided very positive feed-back, but we do not yet know the level of our impacton the companies at the institutional level. As such,this paper is a description of a “tactic in progress.”

The global contextAccording to the United Nations, there are approxi-mately 300 million Indigenous people in more than70 countries around the world. Indigenous peoplescomprise 5 percent of the world’s population, but em-body 80 percent of the world’s cultural diversity. Theyoccupy about 20 percent of the world’s land surface,but nurture 80 percent of the world’s biodiversity onancestral lands and territories.

Indigenous peoples are also residents of territoriesthat are on the leading edge of extractive frontierswith sizable natural resource wealth, and yet theyremain the most economically, socially and politicallymarginalized communities within present-day nation-states. As commitments toward sustainable devel-opment objectives increase around the world, recentefforts to measure the impact of development onIndigenous peoples show increasing levels of povertyand more frequent conflicts between Indigenouspeoples and state or private sector actors.

The complexity of the dynamics between Indigenouspeoples and multinational companies, even whenboth parties are willing to work together, challengeeven the best of both community and company lead-ers. Start with industries that historically had littleregard for environmental quality, regardless of wherethey operated (many company representatives arenot afraid of stating bluntly that enforceable regula-tory frameworks have been the only impetus behindpositive changes in environmental stewardship prac-tices). Place these operations in communities that arephysically, culturally, spiritually and economically tiedto their territories and natural resources. Place thesecommunities, in turn, in nation-states that for centu-ries have tried to assimilate or annihilate them, andare now economically dependent on revenues fromnatural resource extraction in these territories. Addto this mix very different perspectives on develop-ment, different levels of power, and centuries ofprejudice and misinformation about Indigenous cul-tures, and you have a recipe for conflict.

As the global Indigenous peoples’ movement gainsstrength, advocates press for recognition of a widespectrum of human rights: civil, political, economic,social and cultural. Numerous legal cases and cam-paigns have focused on combating the

marginalization of Indigenous peoples and on tryingto ensure that these peoples have the opportunity toenjoy the rights accessed by other populations, suchas the right to participate in political processes, theright of free association, the right to a healthy envi-ronment and, most recently the right to development.

The Indigenous peoples’ movement as a whole, how-ever, is focused on rights claimed specifically by Indig-enous or aboriginal peoples, the original inhabitantsof a territory. International conventions on Indigenousand traditional peoples articulate different aspectsof political, economic and social life (see examples,under Useful Resources, p. 16), but at the core ofthese conventions is the recognition of the right of apeople or nation to live and govern itself accordingto its own customs and aspirations. There are a num-ber of ways that Indigenous peoples refer to this con-cept of self-governance and, given currentnation-state structures, different ways in which it hasbeen put into practice. Some peoples fight for andgain complete independence, while others claim de-cision-making authority over certain aspects of com-munity life and place responsibility for broaderprotections with the national government.

However it is articulated by a given people, the com-mon thread in statements from Indigenous peoplesis the opportunity for effective participation in deci-sions that affect the well-being of the people and itsmembers, in ways that are determined by them. In-digenous peoples are calling for access to decision-making structures, including those involving extractiveoperations.

Why try corporate training?The Indigenous movement and its allies have used avariety of tactics to influence company-communityrelationships, depending on their own immediate ob-

8

We believe the principal condition of consultation should bestrengthening the autonomy of Indigenous Peoples to freelydecide their future, enabling the revalorization of their ownstructures of traditional authority and fundamentally revitaliz-ing the spiritual conception of interconnectedness/integritythat we have as Indigenous Peoples with our own practices.

From the Wayu Indigenous organizations’ response during work-shops related to the preparation of the report Possibilities and Per-spectives of Indigenous Peoples with Regard to Consultationsand Agreements within the Mining Sector in Latin Americaand the Caribbean. North-South Institute, Ottawa, 2002, p. 45.

jectives. International campaigns have been launchedagainst DeBeers mining in San territory in Botswana,Freeport McMoRan’s Grasberg mine in Indonesia, BPdrilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and soon. Other groups pressure investors as a route to af-fect company behavior, as in the shareholder resolu-tion filed against Burlington Resources in 2003regarding their petroleum exploration activity in Ec-uador. As with the UN workshop mentioned earlier,international institutions have been sponsoring ef-forts to create positive change within specific indus-trial sectors. Research on bad practice has beenpublished, and guides on international norms and listsof principles have been written. Where resources andtime are available, cases are being taken to court tochallenge directly the companies and national gov-ernments that support extractive enterprises againstthe wishes of local Indigenous peoples.

These tactics, however, are designed to bring compa-nies to the point where they acknowledge that theyneed to change their behavior to avoid economiclosses. Such tactics don’t answer the question posedby the Rio Tinto representative at the UN workshop;they don’t provide operational answers. To protectthe rights of Indigenous peoples we have to movebeyond naming the problem and construct practicalsolutions.

Corporate training, unlike campaigns or researchproducts, is suited to this kind of practical advice. Par-ticipants have the time and space to talk throughspecific operational situations. Trainings fill a very realgap by targeting efforts to educate those actors whoare on the ground, where their own operations havedirect impact on the effective enjoyment of rights. Ifthe way a company does business is the problem, let’sshow them a better way.

The private sector understands the idea of “corpo-rate training.” Continuing education of employeesprovides a competitive advantage to companies seek-ing the title of “industry leader.”

This corporate training effort, however, along withthose on human rights or additional social concerns,would not be possible without the pressure of theother tactics that bring companies to the training class-room. To a certain extent, FPW and BSR are takingadvantage of many years of previous work to changethe extractive industries and are bringing individualcompanies farther along the change process whenthey are ready. Others considering the use of such atactic must realize that not all companies are readyfor such an initiative. Efforts to engage the pharma-ceutical industry regarding biodiversity protection andthe intellectual property rights of Indigenous peoples,for example, have not moved forward. Companieshave said they see no need to change.

Designing the trainingGENERAL GUIDANCEWhether you are developing a training program onhuman rights or cooking pies, you must know yourtarget audience and the issues involved. To make thetraining useful to companies, we had to:♦ Keep it brief—both the materials and the work-

shop. Company personnel generally find it verydifficult to justify extended periods of time awayfrom their regular work responsibilities.

♦ Keep it accessible to the level we wanted to at-tract. This affects not only the content of thetraining, but even location and timing. Wewanted to attract executive-level staff. We firstthought to place the workshops at an operationalsite, but this was quickly rejected by potentialparticipants because mine or drilling sites are of-ten remote. The workshops needed to be in anaccessible location. If our training focus changesto site managers, it will be essential to travel tothe site.

♦ Keep it practical. Present examples of tools yourecommend. Develop tools that participants canuse “back at the office on Monday morning.”For us, this meant translating our recommenda-tions on engagement practices and Indigenouspeoples’ rights into a Risk Assessment tool (seepage 14) that managers can use to evaluate cur-rent or projected operations with respect to In-digenous peoples and their rights. It also meantproviding concrete examples that managerscould present to build support from senior man-agement back at the office.

♦ Use tested training techniques in the instructionaldesign. Different individuals respond to differ-ent kinds of teaching methods, and there aremany methods to choose from. Some helpful re-sources on training and workshop methods areincluded in Useful Resources on p. 16.

♦ Believe in the benefits of positive interaction withcompanies, and act accordingly. While this mayseem obvious, it can be a major stumbling pointfor some NGOs. Developing effective workshopcontent, recruiting participants and deliveringsuccessfully—all details that are reviewed in therest of this paper—depend heavily on anorganization’s ability to engage in constructive,positive discussions with company personnel.

Recipe for dialogue 9

Confidentiality is a critical feature of the workshopand any pre- or post-event conversations with com-panies, so that participants can be as candid as pos-sible. For a campaign or advocacy organization, thismay be hard to justify and may eventually lead to adecision not to attempt a corporate training effort.Throughout our workshops, we have used what arecalled “Chatham House Rules,” which are principlesused by the Royal Institute for International Affairsin London (the RIIA is located in Chatham House). Bothparticipants and facilitators (and any other peoplesuch as translators or outside presenters) agree thatwhat is said in the workshop can only be discussedoutside of the workshop if the specific comments arenot attributed to individuals or organizations.

CONTENT SELECTIONDifferent NGOs approach the subject of Indigenouspeoples’ rights in different ways. FPW takes a holisticapproach, with a broad goal of “culturally appropri-ate community economic development.” This encom-passes a fairly complex set of components, including:♦ Land tenure and land rights♦ Property rights, including intellectual property

rights♦ Political participation♦ Asset control and development♦ Organizational development and capacity♦ Cultural integrity and vibrancy♦ Leadership and personal efficacy♦ Environmental health♦ Human health♦ Governance

These are only a few of the components that Indig-enous people have identified as requirements for ef-fective community-driven development, constitutinga broad set of issues that companies and Indigenouscommunities tackle regularly. Each community maybe different from the next in terms of the outcomesit hopes to achieve. The first challenge for FPW andBSR was to decide how to deal with such a range ofissues and rights in a practical forum. We sought ex-isting materials that focused on community partici-pation in decisions, rather than on the outcomes ofthose decisions. This gave us our core content focus—actual guidance on engagement and shared decision-making processes, with examples from real life.

We then had to balance this primary focus with otherconcrete issues, to give the engagement process acontext and a purpose. We used a combination of ourexisting knowledge and a needs assessment surveyof company participants to help us narrow the focusto key issues and to determine how to approach eachone. Certain issues are of continuous concern, but be-cause the two sides are, quite often, talking past oneanother, the definitions of the concerns from eitherside are not necessarily the same. These concerns in-clude the following.

Respecting and strengthening Indigenous com-munity cultures, rather than trying to change orsupplant them with nonIndigenous cultures from thecompanies. Our challenge was to translate commu-nity concerns about culture and development intopractical lessons for the companies—on everythingfrom water use, to sacred sites, to food sources andpreparation, to labor in-migration, to technical train-ing, to community trade patterns and governancestructures and so on.

Respect for land rights. Most often, companies ap-proach these subjects from a legal administration per-spective, relying on government structures forpermits and access. This has proven problematic, how-ever, not only for companies, but for thenonIndigenous governments, as national govern-ments have been brought to court for not respectingthe land rights of Indigenous peoples. We had twochallenges here:♦ To provide evidence of how the typical reliance

on only national governmental structures andpermitting processes can lead to trouble, and ofthe increasing trend toward recognition of In-digenous rights to traditional lands.

♦ To provide a more sophisticated understandingof land rights, land use and Indigenous decision-making structures related to land access, as acontext for a better engagement process andcommunity-driven development planning.

Free, prior and informed consent. For a company,this is the key to successful engagement, as the newinternational norm or standard for business activity.But it has rarely been defined operationally, whichleft room for this training initiative to fill a criticalneed (see box on page 6). We also went one stepfurther in emphasizing that consent must be main-tained over the life of the project. For extractive in-dustries, this may mean six months of explorationtesting or 70 years of mining. It can be gained or lostat any point in the relationship. This places the em-phasis on developing a relationship-building process,not simply on a signed piece of paper at the begin-ning. The training also touches on one of the mosttense aspects of consent for a company, which is thepotential for a community to say “no.”

Oil waste and gas flaring, northern Ecuador(Photo: Jim Oldham/Las Lianas Resource Center).

10

Other factors affecting the success of an engage-ment process. Companies and communities inter-viewed in preparation for this training initiativeemphasized the need for capacity-building for bothsides of the engagement process.

IMPORTANCE OF DEVELOPINGTHE “BUSINESS CASE”Throughout the workshop we emphasize the “busi-ness case”—a compilation of the motivating factorsa company must consider as it assesses risk and op-portunity. This case is usually the reason corporaterepresentatives attend the training. Without a strongbusiness case, corporate attendance may be weak.

For our initiative, this involved looking for:♦ Investor concern and shareholder action regard-

ing Indigenous peoples.♦ Pressure from financial institutions to pay atten-

tion to Indigenous peoples as conditions for re-ceiving financing. This includes private banks aswell as international institutions such as the WorldBank and the Inter-American Development Bank.

♦ Pressure from social movements. We collectedstories about blockades or other events thatcaused work stoppages or negative press andestimates of the lost time and money theycaused.

♦ Legal liability. We knew of successful cases wherecompanies or governments were sued for infring-ing on Indigenous peoples’ rights and were alsoaware of current trends on national governmentrecognition of these rights.

♦ Pressure from employees or potential employ-ees. A combination of legal issues and negativepress can cause companies to lose their best tal-ent. This issue strikes a company at two differ-ent times. First, it has been shown that significantpublic attention to bad practice decreases acompany’s chance of attracting top studentsfrom top business schools. Second, companies withsignificant bad press have greater problemskeeping current employees, as the bad press low-ers morale and employees’ pride in their work.

Along with our own knowledge and the needs as-sessment survey, we have been fortunate to have

access to a continuous flow of information and newsregarding what is happening on the ground with vari-ous extractive projects around the world; this knowl-edge helps us reinforce our messages. A differenthuman rights focus for corporate training may cre-ate a different list of motivating factors. If laborrights and working conditions are the focus, for ex-ample, it may be helpful to include studies on changesin productivity due to working conditions.

Presenting the business case for any human rightsconcern provides a foundation for the learning pro-cess in the workshop, reinforcing for participants thereasons why they have come. But this presentationof evidence is important for the overall learning pro-cess in another way—it gives participants an oppor-tunity to take well-developed materials andarguments back to the office and share them. One ofour earliest indicators of positive impact came duringthe first workshop, when a participant asked if hecould distribute the guidebook to his regional andsite managers. Since that time, other participants haverequested the same opportunity.

The workshopA successful training program has certain key com-ponents:♦ Knowledge base and expertise.♦ Motivated participants for whom the objective

of the workshop has some relevance to their fu-ture activities.

♦ A range of activities which will enable the par-ticipants to understand new issues in practicalways that can affect their future business plan-ning.

♦ Trained facilitators and experts who understandthe concepts, the issues and the audience, andhave the skills to put it all together.

Let’s take these one at a time.

BUILDING A KNOWLEDGE BASEON COMPANY OPERATIONSTo meet our objective of improving operational prac-tice on a wide scale, we needed to know what thatmeant on the ground. For example, how do company-designed community development plans fall short ofmeeting community aspirations? What are the typi-cal negotiation platforms and behaviors that compa-

Negotiation between Occidental Petroleum and the Secoya, Ecuador(Photo: Jim Oldham/Las Lianas Resource Center).

At the World Bank conference on finance, mining andsustainability in April 2002, a managing director ofBarclay’s Capital stated that the choice for global miningcompanies was simple: If they didn't address issues ofcorporate responsibility, they would not get the invest-ment capital they needed to move their projects forward. Sample “text box” used in the guidebook given to trainingparticipants.

Recipe for dialogue 11

Much of our work to date has been in culturally less sensitiveareas. But with the expansion of our exploration activities andthe rising profile of Indigenous peoples’ issues worldwide, wefelt that we needed to be more proactively engaged. The issuesare far-ranging and complex, and the workshop and resourcematerials did justice in dealing with them in such a way thatthere was ample space for discussion and interaction, as well asthe all-important concrete guidelines to take back to the officeon Monday morning. We are in the process of assimilatingthese resource materials into the way we do business. And webelieve it is an ongoing process that we will have to continuallyrevisit as we learn by doing. But what this work has done isprovide a framework for discussion and action in our company.

Participant at the March 2003 Vancouver workshop

nies use; how do they work, or not work, to createeffective long-term relationships? Who from a com-pany is typically involved in engaging with the com-munity? What do they do; how do they act? Whatdoes a long-term relationship look like, good or bad?What are the stages that the relationships passthrough over time?

Press releases and campaign materials don’t answerthese questions. Our biggest challenge was the lackof detailed case studies or stories on company-com-munity operational practice over time. The over-whelming amount of detail covered bad practice; it israre to find documentation of a positive relationship.Part of this may be the limitations of coverage (goodnews is not “news”), and part the fact that parties tosuch relationships rarely take the time to documentdaily actions. In terms of this project, the partnersalso had little in the way of resources to conduct thiskind of documentation and primary research up front.

We scrutinized public statements from both sides ofthe relationships, looking for case studies that ex-plored relationships over different periods. We talkedwith community members and company personnelwilling to offer candid comments. We spoke withother consultants and trainers working on specificlocal situations. And we used our own knowledgebases. This not only gave us content for the training,but also helped the facilitators understand companyrealities so they would not offer impractical solutions.

RECRUITING MOTIVATED PARTICIPANTSCompanies need some prior understanding of the“business case” in order to make the initial decisionto participate. This kind of training is entirely volun-tary. FPW and BSR are literally trying to capture theinterest of companies in transition—those who rec-ognize that they need operational guidance and arewilling to sign up for a training course. For the successof the tactic, it needs to be operating in a contextwhere there is♦ Access to companies on a regular basis, in order

to be there at the moment that they realize theyneed the training. A membership association suchas BSR is useful in this regard, but it should alsobe combined with efforts to speak with, and lis-ten to, companies in other forums.

♦ Other parallel efforts to help companies realizethat change is necessary (raising their level ofreputational risk). This includes advocacy cam-paigns, investor pressure, improvement of regu-latory frameworks and community legal support.

A training can be more effective in creating change ifmore than one corporate representative is presentfrom each company. Large companies are complexstructures; change can be difficult. If several repre-sentatives attend from the same company, they cango back and work together as agents of change.

Even with these factors working to one’s advantage,three primary challenges still exist. First, that of thepolitical sensitivity of human rights issues. Many com-panies operate in countries whose national govern-ments do not recognize or enforce many humanrights. Because the companies are legally bound bynational legal structures, many still fall back on thenational government as a reason not to change busi-ness operations. Even where company participantsare enthusiastic for change to occur, they may be op-erating in national environments where this kind oftraining is frowned upon. Building a solid business caseis essential in meeting this challenge.

Second is the issue of legal liability. While legal casesprosecuting companies for human rights offenses helpthe cause, they can put a damper on open discus-sions. If your company participants are currently in-volved in a court case, they will most likely be unableto talk about it, even though the case may revolvearound what are, from our perspective, the most per-tinent issues for discussion. These cases may also puta damper on discussions with other companies, whoare watching the proceedings very carefully. Confi-dentiality arrangements can help with this challenge.

And last, there is the problem of a lack of solid evi-dence to prove that a company’s financial bottomline would improve if these techniques were used (or,in the opposite case, that not using these techniqueswould cost the company dearly). Most company per-sonnel, especially those skeptical of the value of suchan approach, still rely heavily on the numbers. Goodinterviews with company contacts, who know the fi-nancial situation better than NGOs or other groups,may provide you with evidence to help with the skep-tics. We were able to find a few interesting nuggets,such as a quote from a timber company that figuredit was losing $1 million per day while its operationswere being blockaded. We compared that with a com-pany that spent $300,000 a year to build and main-tain a highly effective, integrated aboriginal relationsdepartment, and asked them to do the math.

12

The training was an excellent, practical and highly participa-tive exploration of the issues which arise between companiesand Indigenous peoples and of the tools which can help tocreate a constructive engagement and to resolve problems.

Edward Bickham, Executive Vice President, External Affairs, AngloAmerican PLC

I found it to be an extremely well-structured, professionallyrun training course that genuinely opens up the issues of en-gagement between Indigenous communities and resource de-velopers. To the uninitiated, the learnings are extensive; tothose already on the journey, the facilitated interaction withother participants provides access to far greater experiencethan you can hope to get on your own. I highly recommend it.

Bruce Harvey, Chief Advisor, Aboriginal and Community Rela-tions, Rio Tinto Limited

Very professionally conducted with the process pulling thebest experiences from participants. This gives a great learningexperience for all participants.

Don W. Nisbet, Director Internal Development, Hudson Bay Min-ing and Smelting Co.

WORKSHOP ACTIVITIESThus far, we have organized three workshops. Thefirst, in February of 2003, was a two-day pilot test ofour training at a U.S. mining company. The eight par-ticipants each came from the company but repre-sented several different operational departments.

While this wasn’t originally planned as a part of theproject, we decided to ask a company that was con-sidering participation at the “real” workshop inMarch to act as a test case. This allowed us to bringtogether facilitators who had not worked togetheras a group and to use new material. Because of thetiming of this pilot, we were literally redesigning theformat and activities the night before the test andediting the guidebook text as we went. While werisked making some mistakes in front of a company,we received very valuable experience for ourselvesabout our own strengths and weaknesses as facilita-tors and our team dynamics and received input fromthe company personnel on what worked well andwhat didn’t.

In March of 2003 we conducted a full-scale workshop(two and a half days) with 24 company participantsrepresenting nine oil, gas and mining companies infive countries. The participants were self-selected—the result of a broad invitation process to extractivecompany contacts known by BSR or FPW.

Finally, in November of 2003 we held a one-day ver-sion of the workshop, formulated to fit into the BSRannual meeting, and held as one of the “pre-confer-ence” special sessions. This workshop was attendedby two company participants and three consultantswho often work with companies at operational sites.While responses were positive, it seemed unanimousthat the content of the training is simply too broad,and too important, to try and summarize in one day,and this version will probably not be tried again.

We chose our activities to fit each session’s topic andobjectives. It should be noted that the activities, alongwith the workshop’s overall structure, have beenshaped by the cultures of both the designers/facilita-tors and the company participants—most of whom,in our case, have been North American or West Euro-pean. Different human rights issues, different objec-tives and different people may require the use ofdifferent activities.

The activities included in each workshop have alsovaried according to the time available, the comfortlevel of the participants for different kinds of activ-ity, the number of facilitators, and the participants’level of experience. These activities include the fol-lowing.

Facilitated discussion. More interactive than a lec-ture, this allows the facilitator to present informa-

tion and to elicit information and knowledge fromthe participants. We used this, for example, in thediscussion on prior informed consent. We asked theparticipants about their understanding of the term,compared it with our own and asked for examples ofhow they deal with it in the field. Time spent in thisformat should be judged by the facilitator, based onresponses to the issues being discussed. There maybe times in which the conversation moves quickly to-ward a conclusion and others where heated debatebegins. If the debate centers on a critical part of thetraining, the facilitator should not cut it off too soon.

Structured debate/fishbowl. In one instance wehad an issue—land rights—that we knew to be caus-ing conflict between the parties involved and to bewithout clear legal interpretations. We felt, then,that we had an opportunity to let people of differentperspectives talk for a bit and tried what has beencalled a “fishbowl” design, which places the speakersin chairs in the middle of the group. Only those in themiddle of the group are allowed to speak. If otherswish to add to the discussion, they must tap someonein the middle, who will then leave the inner circle andmove to the outer group. If the group is smaller, sayless than ten, this particular approach may not beuseful. This also needs good facilitator control overthe debate, with set time limits. While it is not al-ways a part of a fishbowl exercise, we were particu-larly concerned that possible solutions and areas ofagreement get raised, so we had one of the facilita-tors step into the inner circle at times to raise these ifparticipants were focusing too much on areas of dis-agreement. We scheduled about an hour and a halffor this kind of session and completed the session byhaving one of the facilitators summarize the keypoints and ideas raised.

Recipe for dialogue 13

Small group exercises. The issue of company im-pact on Indigenous cultures is broad, and we knewparticipants had different understandings of its scopeand of ways of dealing with it in their operations.Because our objective was to achieve the most com-plete understanding possible of the issue, we splitparticipants into small groups to have them explorethe subject. We first asked for an understanding ofIndigenous culture, then for ideas on both positiveand negative company impacts. People returned tothe large group and compared their work, with aneye not to choosing right or wrong answers, but tocombining different perspectives to create a com-plete picture. The facilitator was given the task ofpointing out anything that was still missing. Groupmembers then compared their experiences in the fieldtalking to a community and the methods that workbest. Facilitators emphasized the importance of en-gaging the community directly in these exercises, be-cause without this input key pieces of informationabout company impact would be missing.

Role-playing. These kinds of exercises are very use-ful when you are trying to help participants see ei-ther themselves or their counterparts (the community,in our case) from a different perspective. In talkingabout how the companies engage communities in dis-cussions, we decided to try role-playing in an effortto literally turn the table on the company partici-pants. They were asked to act as an Indigenous com-munity preparing for negotiations and were givenspecific tasks, such as deciding what kind of informa-tion they wanted about a proposed project. Facilita-tors played company negotiators. To help inportraying a fairly realistic situation, facilitators wereasked to include certain “worst company practices”in their portrayal of company negotiators. After theexercise participants were asked to reflect on theoutcomes, at which point we were able to help themunderstand the levels of frustration they experiencedas a community.

Stakeholder mapping. In both materials and train-ing activities it is critical to provide examples of prac-tical tools that can be used to reach the objectives. Ina session on engagement processes, for example, par-ticipants are taken through a brief exercise on whatis called “stakeholder mapping.” They are given ex-amples of possible stakeholders—individuals, groups,or organizations that may be directly or indirectlyaffected by company activity—in an Indigenous com-munity, such as the traditional healer, the hereditarychief, the elected chief, hunters and farmers, truckdrivers and small business owners. With each of thesegeneral “roles,” there is an accompanying descrip-tion of what this community member may considerimportant in relation to the proposed company activ-ity. One may focus on how the company will createjobs for community members, while another may beconcerned that the activity will harm plants and ani-mals that the village depends on for food and medi-

cine. Sometimes one individual plays more than onerole.

In small groups, participants are asked to place eachstakeholder in a matrix:

Once this is completed, participants are brought to-gether to discuss their outcomes. Inevitably, there aredifferences in how the groups think about and de-fine the different stakeholders and impacts. Thesedifferences are discussed, with an emphasis on help-ing company representatives understand the com-plexity of relationships and interests at the communitylevel. Participants are then asked to devise solutionsto meet the concerns of the community members.Regardless of the human rights issues being ad-dressed, the inclusion of practical tools for companypersonnel is an important part of the effort.

We have not yet noticed a particular trend in termsof which exercises are best overall. We have spent agreat deal of time trying to match the workshop ex-ercises with our goals for each session and each topic.But according to responses from individual partici-pants, success is dependent more on individual learn-ing styles than on the kind of activity. Some individualsfound the role-playing very helpful, while others feltvery uncomfortable in this activity and preferredforms of discussion or the risk assessment tool.

Methodological example:The risk assessment toolWhile designing the materials and the workshop, wekept returning to the same piece of advice: Compa-nies like checklists, give them a checklist. At first weapproached this simply as something we needed todo, but as we began to develop what we finally namedthe “Risk Assessment” tool, we realized the powerof such a tool in relation to our training.

A large challenge was to capture the diversity of theissues that companies should consider in their rela-tionships with Indigenous peoples. And we knew fromour conversations with companies that no one waseffectively considering all of the issues we plannedto cover. By taking a fairly lengthy document and pull-ing its key points into a cohesive list (12 pages long),we created a tool that reinforces the need for train-ing, allows participants an opportunity to apply what

Positive Negative(affected (affectedpositively) negatively)

Primary (directlyaffected by project)

Secondary

14

SAMPLE RISK-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONSRELATED TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ LAND RIGHTSDoes the company understand the difference between the community’s “in-dividual” and “collective” rights in relation to land?

Does the company have a good understanding of how the community makesdecisions about land and natural resource use or transfer?

Does the company have a good understanding of how land rights are con-nected to the community’s identity, language, kinship, spirituality, economicsystems, decision-making structures and knowledge base?

If the answer was yes to any of the above questions, has the company verifiedthis information with the Indigenous communities themselves?

Is the company aware of applicable national and international laws and courtdecisions on Indigenous land rights?

Does the company know whether the local communities are currently in-volved in legal battles over their title to the land?

Has the company assessed the capacity of the national government to actpositively on land rights concerns?

Has the company researched whether the local community has access to legalexpertise, mapping expertise and other resources? If so, is the company will-ing to invest in these processes to help the communities develop capacity inthese areas?

they have learned during the workshopwhile they are still in it, highlights acompany’s strengths and weaknessesand serves as the beginning of a mea-surement tool for that company’sprogress.

In the March workshop, at the end ofthe second day, we asked participantsto go through the risk assessmentchecklist as “homework.” In the morn-ing, we asked for volunteers to sharereflections from the assignment. Oneparticipant said that he was surprised,and somewhat disheartened, aftercompleting the exercise. His companyhad a long history of commitment toengaging Indigenous communities di-rectly in negotiations at early stages ofproject design and development. Hewas surprised, however, by the num-ber of “no” answers he marked—andplanned to take his concerns back tohis staff the following week.

FACILITATORS AND RESOURCE PEOPLEThe people involved in designing and implementing acorporate training program are critical to its success,but there is no simple formula for selecting them.The expertise needed will depend on the subject mat-ter, the participants’ learning culture and theinitiative’s overall objectives. There are very success-ful training programs that rely solely on lecture andfacilitated discussion, and others that rely on highlyinteractive sessions.

For our initiative, we were fortunate to be able toinclude people with different strengths and talents,and to use them in the sessions where they would bemost valuable. We also created teams of facilitators(those who would lead/direct each session orbreakout) and “resource people”—Indigenouspeople who had some experience with the kinds ofcompanies attending and familiarity with the waysthat their communities would interact with thesecompanies. We spent time together discussing eachday’s plans, rehearsing for sessions, going over areaswhere we anticipated some difficulty and, at the endof each day, reflecting on the day’s events. This kindof team-building and planning work is important, andit becomes more important as your team grows.

If you have no choice of facilitators, designing work-shop activities to suit the facilitator’s strengths shouldbe a guiding principle, unless you are able to providetraining for him or her in different methodologies. Ifyou are unsure about available activities, there areseveral good publications on group facilitation thatcan help; these can be found through a web search orby contacting a library. Other NGOs and local univer-

sities may also be good sources of information. Thatsaid, we offer some general points of advice.

Company participants will ask questions, and youshould have someone present who is knowledgeableenough to answer. Regardless of the human rightstopic being covered, the facilitator must know it well,and/or be accompanied by “resource people” whodo. It is possible to use someone with general facilita-tion skills (who can lead discussions, help resolve con-flict or debate and manage participants according toan agenda) and, when substantive questions areraised about the content, ensure that resource peopleare available to contribute their knowledge and ex-pertise to the discussion.

This also means that if the training is specific to ac-tual company practices, as ours was, facilitators and/or resource people must know company practices aswell as human rights principles. During the structureddebates in our workshops, facilitators must continu-ously lead participants toward examples of best prac-tice and show that there are other companies thatare doing things in better ways. For every instance inwhich participants say that their companies cannotdo something, the facilitator must be able to provethem wrong. These kinds of examples catch the at-tention of participants. Without this knowledge, train-ing efforts can tend to move toward very polite, verypositive, but essentially unproductive sessions.

If the content of the workshop involves understand-ing others (Indigenous peoples, rural communities,women, children and so on) that are different fromyour participants and from yourselves, it is very help-

Recipe for dialogue 15

ful to include representatives from those groups toshare their stories and experiences. Four Indigenouspeople assisted us in the March 2003 workshop, andcompany participants were able to ask how their com-munities might react to things being proposed forcompany operations. There were repeated questions,for example, on how decisions about large projectswere made in the community, how sacred sites wereprotected and how community leaders or negotia-tors related to community members during negotia-tions. If it is not possible to do this, facilitators orother resource people must thoroughly understandthese groups and be able to articulate their concernswith some level of credibility and respect.

Evaluation of impactThis is a very new initiative, so there has been littleopportunity for workshops to have yielded measur-able changes at the company level.

On an individual level, however, the impact can beseen almost immediately. In the February 2003 pilotworkshop, one participant was the “land guy”—theperson responsible for negotiating the best commer-cial deal possible for the company. A stereotypicalapproach to land negotiations is to rely on conven-tional tactics of confidentiality, with the assumptionthat the less the other side knows, the better thedeal for the company. When we recommended thatthe company offer the community every conceivablepiece of information about a proposed project, hesaid that our approach was counter-intuitive—thatfollowing our advice would put the company out ofbusiness. But after spending two days in our trainingworkshop, along with his colleagues in the company’scommunity relations department, he began to un-derstand how a more open communications effortabout the project could♦ make the impact-assessment process more ac-

curate by enhancing both company and commu-nity understanding, and provide a betterknowledge base for designing mitigation mea-sures and development plans;

♦ provide a basis for more effective negotiations,because the community side would be better pre-pared; and

♦ reduce the potential for conflict by lowering thelevel of mistrust over key points of information.

The negotiator said he could now see how open shar-ing of information between the company and com-munity would result in a better project if anagreement was reached. He was going to take thislesson back to his supervisors and indicated that thislesson came not from a particular workshop activityor session, but from the entire package.

Measuring the results of such training will always bedifficult. Participation is voluntary, so companies arenot required to report on their implementation ofthe lessons learned. Because of confidentiality restric-

tions, most follow-up conversations must be held inconfidence. And companies can take years debatingpolicy changes, which is sometimes a prerequisite tobehavioral change at an operational level. It wouldbe interesting, however, to survey participants oneyear after the workshop and evaluate its impact

Conclusion:Corporate training in other contextsAlmost everything about the process we have de-scribed here can be applied to human rights issuesoutside the context of Indigenous peoples. Corporatebehavior has consequences that affect women’s rights(e.g. workplace discrimination and participation is-sues); children’s rights (child labor); economic, socialand cultural rights of surrounding communities; and,of course, labor rights. These rights protect individu-als, families, communities and nations. They protectmen and women, factory workers and farmers, chil-dren and adults and the elderly. They include civil,political, economic, social and cultural rights. For each,there is an opportunity for you to take your knowl-edge of these human rights situations, use that knowl-edge to craft specific guidance and seek opportunitiesto provide that guidance in constructive ways. It isespecially important to educate those, such as com-panies, who have the potential of both tremendouspositive and negative impact on these rights.

Around any right, there will be a need to move fromcriticizing companies for their behavior to encourag-ing them to seek practical solutions for improvement.Our experience has shown us that demonizing com-panies is an oversimplification. Often there are peoplein these companies who want their organizations tohave a dignified reputation. And there is a case to bemade that companies can be more successful andcompetitive if they develop more sensitive ap-proaches to human rights issues. But business schoolsare just beginning to include human rights in theircurricula, so it is reasonable to expect that many busi-ness people have had no formal training or experi-ence with these concerns. Many companies have noidea how they might organize their work differentlyto change their social impact.

For change processes to take hold and have long-lasting impact, bridges must be built between com-panies and the sectors of society they affect. Humanrights advocates can play an important role in fur-thering these efforts. One of the most critical diffi-culties we now face is how to attract other advocatesto help educate the private sector on a broad rangeof human rights concerns. Many worry about losingtheir credibility and legitimacy if they are seen to be“collaborating” with business. Others worry abouttrying to find the financial resources to build suchinitiatives if their funders traditionally focus on sup-porting anti-business approaches. Hopefully, as ini-tiatives like this begin to show positive impact andmultiply, these concerns can be put to rest.

16

USEFUL RESOURCESInternational conventions (examples)United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/2/Add.1 (1994).http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/declra.htm.

Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (1997). http://www.cidh.oas.org/Indigenous.htm.

International Labour Organization Convention 169: Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries(1991). http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/62.htm.

Indigenous peoples’ rights and extractive industriesPrior Informed Consent and Mining: Promoting the Sustainable Development of Local Communities. Environmental Law Institute,Washington, D.C., 2004. http://www.eli.org

Extracting Promises: Indigenous Peoples, Extractive Industries and the World Bank. Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh,UK, 2003. http://www.forestpeoples.org

Through Indigenous Eyes: Toward Appropriate Decision-Making Processes Regarding Mining On or Near Ancestral Lands. The North-South Institute, Ottawa, 2003. http://www.nsi-ins.ca/ensi/pdf/SynEnfinal.pdf

Sloan, P., Hill, R. Corporate Aboriginal Relations: Best Practice Case Studies. Hill Sloan Associates Inc., Toronto, 1995.

Business and human rightsBusiness and Human Rights Resource Centre. 361 Lauderdale Tower, Barbican, London EC2Y 8NA, United Kingdom.Telephone/fax: (+44) (20) 7628-0312. E-mail: contact@business-humanrights.org. http://www.business-humanrights.org/Home

Human Rights: Is It Any of Your Business? International Business Leaders Forum and Amnesty International, London, 2000.

Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights,U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 (2003). http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/norms-Aug2003.html

Facilitation and trainingKaner, Sam. Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2000(Twelfth Edition).

Eitington, Julius E. The Winning Trainer: Winning Ways to Involve People in Learning. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, 1989(Second Edition).

Recipe for dialogue 17

NOTES

18

NOTES

Recipe for dialogue 19

NOTES

The Center for Victims of TortureNew Tactics in Human Rights Project

717 East River RoadMinneapolis, MN 55455

www.cvt.org / cvt@cvt.orgwww.newtactics.org / newtactics@cvt.org

To print or download this and other publications in the Tactical Notebook Series,go to www.newtactics.org.

Online you will also find a searchable database of tactics andforums for discussion with other human rights practitioners.