Recipe for Dialogue: Corporate training for building relationships with Indigenous communities (English)

8/9/2019 Recipe for Dialogue: Corporate training for building relationships with Indigenous communities (English)

1/20

by Jo Render

edited by Liam Mahony

Recipe for DialogueCorporate training for building relationships w ith Indigenouscommunities

A Tactical Noteb ook publ ished bythe Ne w TacticsProject

of th e Center for Victims of Torture


2/20

PublishedbyThe Center for Victim

s

of TortureNe w Tactics in Human RightsProject717 East River RoadMinneapol is, MN 55455 USAw w w.cvt.org, w w w.newtactics.org

NotebookSeriesEditorLiam Mah ony

DesignandCopyeditingSusan Everson

The Danish Inst i tute for Human Rights and The Center for Vict im s of Torture wish to acknowledge thefol lowing inst i tut ions that provided support for the Ne w Tact ics in Human Rights West Group regionaltraining workshop , of which this and other tactical notebooks are a product:

Th e Paul & PhyllisFi reman Chari table Foundat ion,

The United States Department of State ,

The United StatesInst i tute of Peace ,

The European M astersProgramme in Human Rights and Democrat izat ion

Donors who wish to remain anonymous.We are also great ly indebte d to the work of numerous interns and volunteers who have contributed theirt ime and expert ise to the advancement of the project and of human rights.

The Ne w Tact ics project has also benef i ted from more tha n 2000 hours of w ork from individual volunteers

and interns as well as donat ions of in-kind support.Some of the inst i tut ional sponsors of th is work includeM acale ster Col lege , the Universi ty of Minnesota , the Higher Educat ion Consort ium for Urban Affairs, t heMinnesota Justice Founda tion and the public relat ions f irm of Padilla Speer Beardsle y.

The opinions, f indings andconclusio ns or recommendat ions expressed on thi ssi te are those of the NewTact ics project and do not necessarily reflect the views of our fundersFor a full l i st of projectsponsorsseew w w.newta ctics.or g.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the Ne w Tactics in Human RightsProject . The project does not advocate specif ic tactics or policie s.

The views and analysis of this document are based largely on experiences of Peace BrigadesInternat ional, butare entirely the responsibil ity of the au thor.

2004CenterforVictimsofTortureThis publication may be freely reprod uced in print and in electronic form as longas thiscopyright n otice appears on all copies.


3/20

10

76

54

The Center f or Victims of TortureNew Tact ics in Human RightsProject

717 East River RoadMinneapol is, MN 55455 USA

w w w.cvt.org, w w w.newtactics.org

Organizat ion & author information

Letter from the New Tact ics project manager

Introduct ion

The global context

7Why try corporate training?

8 Designing the trainingThe workshop

1315

Evaluation of impact

15Conclusion16Useful resources

Methodological example


4/20


5/20

September 2004

DearFriend,

Welcome to theNewTactics inHumanRightsTacticalNotebookSeries! Ineachnotebookahuman

rightspractitionerdescribesan innovative tacticused successfully inadvancinghuman rights. Theauthorsarepartof the broad anddiversehuman rightsmovement, includingnongovernmentand

governmentperspectives, educators, law enforcementpersonnel, truth and reconciliationprocesses

andwomens rightsandmentalhealth advocates. Theyhave both adaptedandpioneered tactics that

have contributed tohuman rights in theirhome countries. In addition, theyhaveused tactics that,

whenadapted, can beapplied inothercountriesand situations toaddressavarietyof issues.

Eachnotebookcontainsdetailed informationonhow theauthorandhisorherorganizationachieved

what theydid. Wewant to inspireotherhuman rightspractitioners to think tacticallyand to

broaden the realmof tactics considered to effectivelyadvancehuman rights.

In thisnotebook, JoRenderdescribesacorporate training initiative thathelps theprivate sector to

buildmore effective, constructive relationshipswith Indigenouspeoples. Theprocesswasdeveloped

through a collaboration between theNGOBusiness forSocialResponsibility andFirstPeoples

Worldwide, an Indigenous advocacyorganization. The trainings, whichare focusedon extractivecompanies (mining, oil, gasand logging)are foundedon respect for Indigenouspeoples rights,

aspirationsand effectiveparticipation in thedevelopmentprocess.

The entire seriesofTacticalNotebooks isavailableonlineatwww.newtactics.org. Additionalnotebookswillcontinue to beaddedover time. Onourweb siteyouwillalso findother tools,includinga searchabledatabaseof tactics, adiscussion forum forhuman rightspractitionersandinformationaboutourworkshopsand symposium. To subscribe to theNewTacticsnewsletter,

please sendan e-mail [email protected].

TheNewTactics inHumanRightsProject isan international initiative led byadiversegroupof

organizationsandpractitioners fromaround theworld. Theproject iscoordinated by theCenter for

VictimsofTortureandgrewoutofourexperiencesasacreatorofnewtacticsandasatreatment

center thatalsoadvocates for theprotectionofhuman rights fromauniquepositiononeofhealing

and reclaiming civic leadership.

Wehope thatyouwill find thesenotebooks informationaland thought-provoking.

Sincerely,

KateKelsch

NewTacticsProjectManager


6/20

6

[Ecuadors] 4.6 billion barrelsofprovenreservesareamongthelargestinLatinAmerica.Oil

already accounts fornearly half its exports. With the recent completion of a

$1.3 billion, 300-milepipeline byaforeignconsortium, thegovernmentdeepenedits

commitmenttoeventuallydoublingproduction, to 850,000 barrelsaday. Ifdevelopmentin

thejunglemovesunhindered, theEcuadoreanAmazoncouldyieldasmuchas 26 billion

barrelsinoilreserves, enoughtorivalMexicoandNigeria, accordingtoahopeful 1999

study bytheMinistryofEnergyandMines.

But forthecompanies, dealingwithIndianshasprovedarduous. Somehavetriedto

placatetribeswitheverythingfromchainsawstooutboardmotors.Othersfocusonbuilding

schoolsandclinics. Someemployexperiencedanthropologiststohelpmakedeals. When

wedidourseismictesting, wesufferedkidnappings, firesandrobberies,saidRicardo

Nicols, generalmanagerhereofCia.GeneraldeCombustibles, anArgentinecompany

thathasthecontracttodevelopfieldsnorthofPumpuentsa. Its beensevenyearsandwe

havent beenabletogetstarted;sevenyearsand $10million.Facedwithgrowingopposi-

tion, thegovernmentofPresidentLucioGutirrezsaiditwaspreparedtoprovidemilitary

protectionsooilcompaniescouldcompletetheneededseismictests.

ExcerptsfromSeekingbalance:growthvs. culture inAmazonbyJuanForero, NewYork

Times,December10, 2003.

FREE,PRIOR&INFORMED CONSENT

Inourtraining, weusethefollowingdefinitions:

Free:Freedomfromexternalmanipulation, interferenceorcoercion byeitherthegovernmentorthecompany.

Prior:Achieved beforeexplorationorgovernmentpermit-

tingoftheproposedactivity.

Informed:

Fulldisclosureoftheintentandscopeoftheactivity.

Decisionsmadeinalanguageandprocessunderstand-

abletothecommunities.

Provisionfortrainingandeducationmadetoallowfor

fullunderstandingofthepotentialimpactsofthere-

sourceactivity.

Consent: Consentdeterminedaccordingtothepeoplesown

customarylaws, rightsandpractices.

Customaryinstitutionsandrepresentativeorganiza-

tionsinvolvedinalldecisions.

Respect bythecompanyforthefinaldecisionofthe

Indigenouspeople.

IntroductionIn D ecemb er 2001, the United Nat ions Of f ice of the

High Commissioner for Human Rightsconvened a

workshop on IndigenousPeoples,Pr ivate SectorNatural Resource, Energy and Mining Companies and

Human Rights. The physical format of this work-

shop was indicative of the general atmosphere sur -rounding the issue:Indigenous representatives were

lined up on one side of the room ,companies were

lined up along the other, and nong overnmental or-

ganizationssat in the middle. Governmentschose not

to attend . Tow ard the end of two days of very tense

discussio ns, a representa tive from Rio Tinto (a U .K.-

based mining comp any) asked a quest ion of the In-

digenous and NGO part icipants: rather than spend

more time repeating everything that companies do

wrong ,can w e (the communities and NGOs) provide

more explicit direct ion to companies on how to do

things right?

Thischallenge was accepted by First Peoples World-

wide and Busin ess for Socia l Responsibility, two U.S.-

based NGOs working internationally on corporate

responsibility. Together we develo ped a training ini-

tiative designed as one step in incre asing the capac-

ity of companies to build more effective,constr uctive

relationshi ps 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 ef fective par-

t icipation in the decisions that af fect them . Both

Indigenous people and company personnel have been

involved in the design and implementat ion of thecurriculum.

At the core of the training is the concept of f ree ,

prior and informe d consent (see box, r ight). While

many governments refuse to acknowledge that In-

digenous peoples have this right (the right to approve,

or reject , a project in th eir territory), i t has been rec-

ognized in internat ional law , and nation al govern-

m en ts are sl owly coming

a r o u n d . La w s are rare ly

specif ic enough, however, to

tell a company what k inds

of actions and decision-mak-ing processes will meet this

expectat ion . They also ne-

glect to provide an over-

view of everything at the

co m m u n i t y - o p e r a t i o n a l

level that can af fect how

communit ies an d compa-

ni es achieve consent .

Our training currently takes

the form of a two-and-a-

half-day workshop tha t pro-

vides broad , general guidance on the importance o f

developing good engagemen t pract ices with Indig-

enous peoples in order to achieve free, prior and in-

formed consent . While we do not guarantee thatef fect ive engagemen t wil l result in consent, we em-

phasize that without it,consent cannot be achieved .

Ideally,company participation in the trainin g will in-clude multiple voices representing the different com-

pany roles that affect, and are affected by,community

relations,such as environmental manageme nt , land

negotiations, government relations, executive offices,

communications and investor relations.

The workshop content was tested in Febru ary 2003

and presented f ully to a group of nine companies in


7/20

Recipe for dialogue 7

TRAINING OBJECTIVES

Increasingcompanyunderstandingofthebusinesscaseforcreating

moreeffectiveengagementprocesseswithIndigenouspeoples, i.e.,

thepositive benefitstothecompanyofdoingtherightthing.

DevelopingadeeperawarenessofthemyriadaspectsofIndigenous

communitylifeandaspirations, andhowthesemightaffectdiscus-

sionswiththecommunity.

Providinga betterunderstandingofhowincludingtheseconsider-

ationsindecision-makingaboutproposedcompanyprojectscanin-

creasetheeffectivenessofawiderangeofcompanyconcernsrelated

toprojectdesignandimplementation, includingenvironmentalas-

sessmentsandmonitoring, socialimpactassessments, communityde-

velopmentplanning, andinvestorandsocietalexpectations.

Givingpracticalexamplesofthefundamentalcomponentsofaneffec-

tiveengagementprocess, includingshareddecision-makingstructures,

informationsharingandcapacity building.

Assessingcompanymanagementstructuresandpracticesandtheir

potentialimpactonengagementprocesses.

M arch; a shorter version was tr ied in November. We

were working to create interest in more in-depth

training on community engagement techniques at

the company si te level, and , while we have receivedexpressions of interest in thissecond step ,specif ic

programs have not yet been undertaken .Participants

from the March workshop provide d very positive feed-back, but w e do not yet know th e level of our impact

on the companies at the inst i tutional level. Assuch ,

this paper is a d escr iption of a tactic in progress.

The global contextAccording to the United Nations, there are approxi-

mat ely 300 million Indigenous people in more than

70 countries around the world .Indigenous peoples

comprise 5 percent of the worlds population, but em-

body 80 percent of the w orldscultural diversit y. They

occupy abou t 20 percent of the w orlds land surface,but nurt ure 80 percent of the worlds biodiversity on

ancestral lands and territories.

Indigenous peoples are also r esidents of territories

that are on the leading edg e of extract ive frontiers

with sizable nat ural resource weal th , and yet they

remain the most economically,socially and politically

marginalized communities within present-day nation-

sta tes. Ascommitments toward sustainable devel-

opment objectives incre ase around the world , recentef for ts to measure the impact of development on

Indigenous peoplesshow incre asing levels of poverty

and more frequent confl icts between Indigenous

peoples and state or private sector actors.

Th e complexity of the dynamics between Indigenouspeoples and mult inat ional companies, even when

both parties are wil ling to work tog ether,challenge

even the best of both community and company lead-

ers.Star t with industries that h istorically had l itt le

regard for environmental quality, regardless of where

they operate d (many compa ny representat ives are

not afraid of stating bluntly that enforceable regula-

tory frame works have been the only impet us behind

positive changes in environmen tal stewardship prac-

tices).Place these operations in communities that are

physically,culturally,spiritually and economically tied

to th eir territories and nat ural resources.Place thesecommunities, in turn , in nation-states that for centu-

ri es have tr ied to assimilate or annihilate th em , and

are now economically dependen t on revenues from

natural resource extract ion in these territories. Add

to th is mix very different p erspectives on develop-

ment, different levels of power, and centur ies ofprejudice and misinformation about Indigenouscul-

tures, and you have a recipe for confl ict.

As the g lobal Indigenous peoples movement gains

st rength , advocates pr ess for recognition of a wide

spectrum of human rights:civil, political, economic,

social and cultural. Numerous legal cases and cam-p a i g ns h a v e f ocu se d o n co m b a t i n g t h e

marginalization of Indigenous peoples and on trying

to ensure that these peoples have the opportunity to

enjoy the r ights accessed by other populations,such

as the r ight to participate in polit ical processes, the

right of free association , the r ight to a healthy envi-

ronment and, most recently the right to developme nt.

Th e Indigenous peoples movement as a whole, how-

ever, is focused on rightsclaimed specif ically by Indig-

enous or aboriginal peoples, the original inhabita nts

of a territory.Internationalconventions on Indigenous

and traditional peoples articulate d i f ferent aspects

of polit ical, economic and social life (see examples,

under Useful Resources, p . 16), but at the core of

these conventions is the recognition of th e right of a

people or nation t o l ive and govern itself according

to its own customs and aspirations. There are a num-

ber of ways that Indigenous peoples refer to thiscon-

ce p t o f se l f - g o v e r n a nce a n d , g i v e n cu r r e n t

nation-state str uctures, different ways in which it has

been put into pract ice .Some peoples f ight for and

gain complete independence, while othersclaim de-

cision-making aut hority over certain aspects of com-

munity l i fe and place responsibi l i ty for broader

protections with the n ational government .

How ever it is articulated by a given people , the com-

mon thread in statements from Indigenous peoples

is the opportunity for effective participation in deci-

sio ns that affect the well-being of the peo ple and itsmembers, in ways that are determine d by them .In-

digenous peoples are calling for access to decision-

making structures, including those involving extractive

operations.

Why try corporate training?The Indigenous movement and its allies have used a

variety of tact ics to inf luence company-community

relationships, depending on their own immediate ob-


8/20

8

We believetheprincipalconditionofconsultationshould be

strengtheningtheautonomyofIndigenousPeoplestofreely

decidetheirfuture, enablingtherevalorizationoftheirown

structuresoftraditionalauthorityandfundamentallyrevitaliz-

ingthespiritualconceptionofinterconnectedness/integrity

thatwehaveasIndigenousPeopleswithourownpractices.

FromtheWayuIndigenousorganizationsresponseduringwork-

shopsrelatedtothepreparationofthereportPossibilitiesandPer-

spectivesofIndigenousPeopleswithRegardtoConsultationsandAgreementswithintheMiningSectorinLatinAmerica

andtheCaribbean.North-SouthInstitute,Ottawa, 2002,p.45.

jectives.International campaigns have been launche d

against DeBeers mining in San territ ory in Botswana,

Freeport McMoRans Gr asberg mine in Indonesia , BP

drilling in the Arct ic National Wildlife Refuge and soon . Oth er groups pr essure investors as a route to af-

fect company behavior, as in the sharehold er resolu-

t ion f i led against Bur l ington Reso urces in 2003regarding their petroleum exploration activity in Ec-

uador. As with the UN workshop mention ed earl ier,

internatio nal inst i tut ions have been sponsoring ef-

forts to create positive change within speci fic indus-

tr ial sect ors.Research on bad pract ice has been

published , and guides on international norms and lists

of principles have been written . Where resources and

time are available ,cases are being taken to court to

challenge directly the companies and nation al gov-

ernments that support extractive enterprises against

the wishes of local Indigenous peoples.

Th ese t actics, however, are designed to bring compa-nies to the point w here they acknowledge that they

need to change their behavior to avoid economic

lo sses.Such t actics dont answer the quest ion posed

by the Rio Tinto representative at the UN workshop;

they dont provide operational answ ers. To prot ect

the r ights of Indigenous peoples we have to move

beyond naming the problem and constr uct practical

solutions.

Corporate training , unlike campaigns or research

products, issuited to this kind of practical advice.Par-

t icipants have the t ime and space to ta lk through

specif ic operational situations. Trainings fill a very realgap by targeting efforts to educate those actors who

are on the ground , where their own operations have

direct impact on the effective enjoyment of rights.If

the way a company does busin ess is the problem, lets

show them a better way.

The private sector understands the idea of corpo-

rate training . Cont inuing education of employees

provides a competitive advantage to companiesseek-

ing the tit le of industry lead er.

Thiscorporate training effort , however, along with

those on human rights or additional socia l concer ns,would not be possible without the pressure of the

other tactics that bring companies to the training class-

room . To a certain extent ,FPW and BSR are taking

advantag e of many years of previous work to change

the extractive industries and are bringing individual

companies far ther a long the change process whenthey are ready. Othersconsidering the use o f such a

tact ic must realize that not al l companies are ready

for such an initiative. Efforts to engage the pharma-

ceutical industry rega rding biodiversity protection and

the intellectual property rights of Indigenous peoples,

for example , have not moved forward . Companies

have said they see no need to change.

Designing the trainingGENERALGUIDANCE

Whe ther you are developing a training program on

human r ights or cooking pies, you must know yourtarget audience and the issues involved. To make t he

training useful to companies, we had to:

Keep it briefboth the materials and the work-shop . Company personn el generally find it very

difficult to justify extended periods of time away

from their regular w ork responsibilities.

Keep it accessible to the level we w ante d to at-

tract . Th is af fects not only the content of the

train ing , but even locat ion and t iming . W e

wanted to attract executive-level staf f . We first

thought to place the worksho ps at an operational

si t e , but th is w as quickly rejected by potent ia l

participants because mine or drilling sit es are of-

ten remote . The workshops needed to be in an

accessible location.If our training focuschanges

to si te managers, it will be essential to travel tothe si t e .

Keep it pract ical.Pre sent examples of tools yo u

recommend . Develop tools that participantscan

use back at the of f ice on Monday morning .

For us, this meant translating o ur recommenda-

tions on engagement pract ices and Indigenous

peoples r ights in to a Risk Assessment tool (see

page 14) that ma nagerscan use to evaluate cur-rent or projected operations with respect t o In-

digenous peoples and t heir rights.It a lso meant

providing concrete examples tha t managers

could present to build support from senior man-

agement back at the off ice. Use tested training techniques in the instructional

design . Differen t individuals re spond to differ-

ent k inds of teaching methods, and there are

many methods to choose from.Some helpf ul re-

sources on training and workshop methods are

included in Useful Resources on p . 16 .

Believe in the ben efits of positive interaction with

companies, and act accordingly. While this may

seem obvious, it can be a major stumbling point

for some NGOs. Developing effective workshop

content, recruiting participants and delivering

successfullyall details that are reviewed in the

r es t o f t h is p a p e rd ep en d h eav i l y o n anorganizations ability to engage in constructive ,

positive discussio ns with company personnel.


9/20


Confide ntial ity is a critical feature of the workshop

and a ny pre- or post-event conversat ions with com-

panies,so that participantscan be ascandid as pos-

sible .For a campaign or advocacy organization , this

may be hard to just i fy and may eventually lead to adecision not to attempt a corporate training effort .

Throughout our workshops, we have used what are

called Chatham House Rul es, which are principles

used by the Royal Inst i tute for Internat ional Af fa irs

in London (the RIIA is located in Chatham House). Both

part icipants and faci l i tators (and any other people

such as translators or outside presenters) agree that

what issaid in the workshop can only be discussed

outside of the workshop if the specif iccomments ar enot attribut ed to individuals or organizatio ns.

CONTENTSELECTION

Dif ferent NGOs approach the subject o f Indigenous

peoples rights in different ways.FPW takes a holistic

approach , with a broad goal of culturally appro pri-

ate commu nity economic development. This encom-passes a fairly complex set of components, including:

Land tenure an d land rights

Property r ights, including intel lectual property

rights

Political participation

Asset control and development

Organizational development and capacit y

Cultural integrity and vibrancy

Leadership and personal eff icacy

Environmental health

Human health

Governance

These are only a few o f the components tha t Indig-

enous people have identified as requirements for ef-

fective community-driven development ,constituting

a broad set of issues that companies and Indigenous

communities tackle regularly. Each community may

be different from the next in terms of the outcomes

i t hopes to achieve. The f irst challenge for FPW and

BSR was to decide how to deal with such a range of

issues and rights in a pract ical forum . W e soug ht ex-

ist ing materials that focused on community partici-

pation in decisions, rather than on the outcomes of

those decisio ns. Th is gave us our core content focusactual guidance on engagement and shared decision-

making processes, with examples from real life.

We then had to balance this primary focus with other

concrete issues, to g ive the engagement process a

context and a purpose. We used a combination of our

exist ing knowledge and a needs assessment surveyof company participants to help us narrow the focus

to key issues and to determine how to approach each

one. Certain issues are of continuousconcern, but be-cause the two sid es ar e, quite often , talking past one

another, the definit ions of the concer ns from either

side are not necessarily the same. Th ese concer ns in -

clude the following .

Respecting and strengthening Indigenouscom-

munity cultures,rather tha n trying to change or

supplant them with nonIndigenouscultures from the

companies. O ur chal lenge was to translate commu-

nity concerns about culture and development into

pract ical lessons for the companieson everything

from water use , to sacred si t es, to food sources and

preparation , to labor in-migration , to technical train-ing , to community trade patterns and governance

str uctures and so o n .

Respect for land rights. Most often,companies ap-

proach these subjects from a legal administration per-

sp ect ive , re ly ing on government st ructu res f or

permits and access. Th is has proven problema tic, how-

e v e r, n o t o n l y f o r co m p a n i es , b u t f o r t h enonIndigenous governments, as national govern-

ments have been brought to court for not respecting

the land r ights of Indigenous peoples. We had two

challenges here:

To provide evide nce of how th e typical relianceon only national governmental structures and

permitting processescan lead to trouble , and of

the increasing trend tow ard recognit ion of In-

digenous rights to traditional lands.

To provide a m ore sophisticated understanding

of land rights, land use and Indigenous decision-

making structures related to land access, as a

context for a better engagement process and

community-driven development planning.

Free, prior and informed consent.For a company,

this is the key to successfu l engagement , as the new

international norm or standard for busin ess activity.But it has rarely been de fined operatio nally, w hich

left room for this training init iative to f i l l a critical

need (see box on pa ge 6). We also went one step

further in emphasi z ing that consent must be main-

tained over the l i fe of the project.For extractive in-

dustries, this may mean six months of explorationtesting or 70 years of mining .It can be gaine d or lost

at any point in the relationship . This pl aces 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 most

tense aspects of consent for a company, which is the

potential for a community to say no .

Oilwasteandgas flaring, northernEcuador

(Photo: JimOldham/LasLianasResourceCenter).


10/20

10

Other factors affecting the successof an engage-

ment process.Companies and communities inter-

v iewed in preparat ion for th is training init iative

emphasized the need for capacity-building for bot h

sid es of the engagement process.

IMPORTANCEOF DEVELOPING

THE BUSINESSCASE

Throughout the workshop we emphasize the busi-

nesscasea compilation of the motivating factors

a company must consider as i t assesses risk and op-

portuni ty. Thiscase is usually the reason corporaterepresentatives attend th e training. Without a strong

businesscase,corporate a ttendance may be wea k.

For our initiative, this involved looking for:

Investor concern and shareholder action regard-

in g Indigenous peoples.

Pressure from financial inst i tutions to pay atten-tion to Indigenous peoples asconditions for re-

ceiving financin g . Th is includes private ban ks aswell as international institutionssuch as the World

Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.

Pre ssure from social movements. W e collected

stories about b lockades or other events tha t

caused work stoppages or negative press and

est imates of the lost t ime and money they

caused .

Legal liability. We knew of successful cases where

companies or governmen ts were sued for infring-

ing on Indigenous peoples rights and were also

aware of current trends on national governmentrecognition of these rights.

Pre ssure from employees or potent ial employ-

ees. A combination of leg al issues and negative

pr esscan cause companies to lose their best tal-en t . This issue str ikes a company at tw o di f fer-

ent times.First, it has been shown that significant

publ ic attent ion to bad pract ice decreases a

companys chance of at tract ing top students

from top businessschools.Secon d,companies with

signi f icant bad press have greater problemskeeping current employees, as the bad press low-

ers morale and employees pride in their w ork .

Along with our own knowledge and the needs as-

sessment survey, we have been for tunate to have

access to a continuous f low of information and newsregarding wha t is happe ning on the ground wit h vari-

ous extractive projects around the world; this knowl-

edge helps us reinforce our messages. A di f ferenthuman r ights focus for corporate training may cre -

ate a different l ist of motivating factors. If labor

rights and working conditions are the focus, for ex-ample, it may be helpful to include studies on changes

in productivity due to wo rking conditions.

Present ing the businesscase for any human rights

concern provides a founda tion for the learning pro-

cess in the workshop , reinforcing for participants the

re asons why they have come . But this presentat ion

of evidence is important for the overall learning pro-

cess in another wayit gives participants an oppor-

t u n i t y t o t a k e w e l l - d e v e l o p e d m a t e r i a l s a n d

arguments back to the office and share them. One of

our earliest indicators of positive impact came during

the f irst workshop , when a part icipant asked if hecould dist r ibute the guidebook to h is regional and

site managers.Since that time, other participants have

requested the same opportunity.

The workshopA successful training program hascertain key com-

ponents:

Knowledge base and expertise .

Motivated participants for whom the objective

of the workshop hassome relevance to their fu-

ture activities.

A range of activities which wil l enable the par-

ticipants to understand new issues in pract icalways that can af fect their future business plan-

ning.

Traine d facilitators and experts who understand

the concepts, the issues and the audience , andhave the skills to put it al l toget her.

Lets take these one at a t ime .

BUILDING AKNOWLEDGEBASE

ONCOMPANY OPERATIONS

To mee t our objective of improving opera tiona l prac-

tice on a wide scale , we needed to know what that

meant on the ground.For example, how do company-designed community development plans fall short of

meet ing community aspirations? Wha t are the typi-

cal negotiation platforms and behaviors that compa-

Negotiation betweenOccidentalPetroleumandtheSecoya, Ecuador(Photo: JimOldham/LasLianasResourceCenter).

AttheWorldBankconferenceonfinance, miningand

sustainability inApril 2002, amanagingdirectorof

BarclaysCapitalstatedthatthechoiceforglobalmining

companieswassimple:Iftheydidn'taddressissuesof

corporateresponsibility, theywouldnotgettheinvest-

mentcapitaltheyneededtomovetheirprojectsforward.

Sampletextboxusedintheguidebookgiventotraining

participants.


11/20


Muchofourworktodatehas beeninculturallylesssensitive

areas. Butwiththeexpansionofourexplorationactivitiesand

therisingprofileofIndigenouspeoplesissuesworldwide, we

feltthatweneededto bemoreproactivelyengaged.Theissues

arefar-rangingandcomplex, andtheworkshopandresource

materialsdidjusticeindealingwiththeminsuchawaythat

therewasamplespacefordiscussionandinteraction, aswellas

theall-importantconcreteguidelinestotake backtotheoffice

onMondaymorning. Weareintheprocessofassimilatingtheseresourcematerialsintothewaywedo business. Andwe

believeitisanongoingprocessthatwewillhavetocontinually

revisitaswelearn bydoing. Butwhatthisworkhasdoneis

provideaframeworkfordiscussionandactioninourcompany.

ParticipantattheMarch2003Vancouverworkshop

nies use; how do they work , or not work , to create

ef fective long-term relationshi ps? Who from a com-

pany is typically involved in engaging with th e 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 relat ionships pass

throug h over time?

Press releases and campaign materials dont answer

these quest ions. Our biggest challenge was the lack

of detai led case studies or stories on company-com-

munity operational pract ice over time . The over-

whelming amount of detail covered bad practice; it is

rare to find documenta tion of a positive relatio nship.

Part of this may be the limitations of coverage (good

news is not news) , and part the fact that parties to

such relationshi ps rarely take th e time to document

daily act ions.In terms of th is project , the partnersalso had little in the way of resources to conduct this

kind of document ation and primary resea rch up front.

W e scrutinized publicstatements from both sid es of

the relat ionship s, looking for case studies that ex-

plored relationships over different periods. We talked

with community members and compa ny personnel

wil l ing to offer candid comments. W e spoke with

other consultants and trainers working on speci f ic

lo cal si tuat ions. And we used our own kno wledgebases. Th is not only gave uscontent f or the training,

but also helped the facilitators understand company

realitiesso they would not of fer impractical solutions.

RECRUITING MOTIVATED PARTICIPANTSCompanies need some prior understanding of the

busin esscase in order to make t he init ial decisio n

to participate. Th is kind of training is entirely volun-

tary.FPW and BSR are literally trying to capture the

interest o f companies in transi t ionthose who rec-

ognize that they need operational guidance and are

willing to sign up for a training course.For the success

of the tact ic, i t needs to be opera ting in a context

where there is

Access to companies on a regular basis, in order

to be there at the mome nt that th ey realize they

need the training . A membership association such

as BSR is useful in this regard , but i t should alsobe combined with efforts to speak with , and l is-

ten to ,companies in other forums.

Other parallel efforts to help companies realize

that change is necessary (raising th eir level of

reputational r isk) . This includes advocacy cam-

paigns, investor pressur e, improvement of regu-latory frameworks and community legal support.

A training can be more effective in creating change if

more than one corporate representa tive is pre sent

from each company.Large companies are complex

structures;change can be diff icult .If several repre-

sentatives attend from the same company, they cango back and work together as agents of change.

Even with these f actors working to ones advantage ,

three primary challengesstill exist .First , that of the

political sensitivity of human rights issues. Many com-

panies operate in countries whose national g overn-

ments do not recognize or enforce many human

rights. Because the companies are legally bound bynation al legal structures, many still fall back on the

national government as a reason not to change busi-

ness operat ions. Even where company participants

are enthusiastic for change to occur, they may be op-

erating in national environments where this kind of

training is frowned upon. Building a solid busin esscase

is essential in meeting thischallenge.

Second is the issue of le gal liability. While legal cases

prosecuting companies for human rights offenses help

the cause , they can put a damper on open discus-

sions.If your company participants are current ly in-

volved in a court case, they will most likely be unableto ta lk about i t , even though the case may revolve

around what are, from our perspective, the most per-

tinent issues for discussio n . Th ese cases may also put

a damper on discussio ns with other companies, who

are watching the proceedings very carefully. Confi-

dentiality arrangemen tscan help with thischallenge.

And last , there is the problem of a lack of solid evi-

dence to prove that a companys f inancia l bottom

line would improve if these techniques were used (or,in the opposit e case, that not using these t echniques

would cost the compa ny dearly). Most compa ny per-

sonnel, especially those skeptical of the value of suchan approach ,still rely heavily on th e numb ers. Good

interviews with company contacts, who kno w the f i-

nancia l si tuation better than NGOs or other groups,may provide you with evidence to help with the skep-

tics. We w ere able to find a few interest ing nuggets,

such as a quote from a timber company that f iguredi t was lo sing $1 million per day w hile its operat ions

were being blockaded. We compared that with a com-

pany that spent $300,000 a year to build a nd main-

tain a highly effective, integrated aboriginal relations

department, and asked them to do the math .


12/20

12

Thetrainingwasanexcellent, practicalandhighlyparticipa-

tiveexplorationoftheissueswhicharise betweencompanies

andIndigenouspeoplesandofthetoolswhichcanhelpto

createaconstructiveengagementandtoresolveproblems.

EdwardBickham,ExecutiveVicePresident,ExternalAffairs,Anglo

American PLC

Ifounditto beanextremelywell-structured, professionally

runtrainingcoursethatgenuinelyopensuptheissuesofen-

gagement betweenIndigenouscommunitiesandresourcede-

velopers. Totheuninitiated, thelearningsareextensive;to

thosealreadyonthejourney, thefacilitatedinteractionwith

otherparticipantsprovidesaccessto fargreaterexperience

thanyoucanhopetogetonyourown. Ihighlyrecommendit.

BruceHarvey, ChiefAdvisor, AboriginalandCommunityRela-

tions,RioTintoLimited

Veryprofessionallyconductedwiththeprocesspullingthe

bestexperiencesfromparticipants.Thisgivesagreatlearning

experienceforallparticipants.

DonW.Nisbet,DirectorInternalDevelopment,HudsonBayMin-

ingandSmeltingCo.

WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES

Thus f ar, we have organized three workshops. The

fi rst, in February of 2003, was a two-day pilot test o f

our training at a U .S. mining company. The eight par-t icipants each came from the company but repre-

sented several different operational departme nts.

While this wasnt originally planned as a part of the

project , we decided to ask a company that wascon-

sidering participat ion at the real workshop in

M arch to act as a test case . Th is al lowed us to bring

together faci l i tators who had not worked together

as a group and to use new ma ter ia l. Because of the

timing of this pilot, we were literally redesigning the

format and activities the n ight before the test and

edit ing the guidebook text as we went . While we

risked 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 w el l and

what didnt.

In March of 2003 we conducted a fu ll-scale workshop

(two and a half days) with 24 company participantsrepresenting nine oil, gas and mining companies in

five countries. The participants were self-sel ected

the result of a broa d invitation process to extractive

company contacts known by BSR or FPW.

Finally, in Novem ber of 2003 we held a on e-day ver-

sion of the workshop , formulated to f it into th e BSR

annual meeting , and held as one of the pre-confer-ence special sessions. This workshop was attended

by two company participants and three consultantswho often work with companies at operational sit es.

While responses were positive , it seemed unanimous

that the conten t of the training issimply too broad ,

and too important , to try and summarize in one day,

and this ve rsion will probably not be tried again .

We chose our activities to f it each sessions topic and

objectives.It should be noted that the activities, along

with the workshops overall st ructure , have been

shape d by the cultures of both the designers/facilita-

tors and the company participantsmost 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 o f

different activities.

The activities included in each workshop have alsovaried according to the time available , the comfort

level of the participants for different kinds of activ-

it y, the numb er of faci l i tators, and the participants

level of experience . These activities include the fol-

lowing .

Facilitated discussion. More interactive than a lec-ture, this allows the faci l i tator to present informa-

tion and to el ici t in formation and knowledge from

the part icipants. W e used th is, for example , in the

discussion on prior informed consent . W e asked the

participants about their understanding of the term ,

compared it with our own and asked for examples of

how they deal with it in the f ield . Time spent in th isformat should be judged by the facilitator, based on

re sponses to the issues being discussed . There maybe times in which the conversation moves quickly to-

ward a conclus

ion and others

where heated debatebegins.If the debate centers on a critical part of the

training, the facilitator should not cut it off too soon.

Structured debate/fishbowl.In one instance we

had an issueland rightsthat we knew to be caus-

in g confl ict betwe en the part ies involved and to be

without clear legal interpretations. We fel t, then ,

that w e had an opportunity to let people of different

perspectives talk for a bit and tried wh at has been

called a fishbowl desig n, which places the speakersin chairs in the middle of the group . Only those in the

middle of the group are al lowed to speak .If others

wish to add to the discussio n, they must tap someonein the middle, who will then leave the inner circle and

move to the outer group .If the group issmaller,say

le ss than ten , this part icular approach may not be

useful. This also needs good faci l i tator control over

the debate , with set t ime l imits. While it is not al-

ways a part of a f ishbo wl exercise, we were particu-

larly concerned that possible solutions and areas of

agreemen t get raised ,so we had one of the facilita-

torsstep into the inner circle at times to raise these ifparticipants were focusing too much on areas of dis-

agreement. W e scheduled abou t an hour and a half

for this kind of session and completed the session by

having one of the faci l i tatorssummarize the keypoints and ideas ra ised .


13/20


Small group exercises. The issue of compa ny im-

pact on Indigenouscultures is broad, and we knew

participants had different understandings of itsscope

and of ways of dealing w ith it in their operatio ns.Because our object ive was to achieve the most com-

plete understanding possible of the issue , w e split

participants into small groups to have them explorethe subject . We first a sked for an understanding of

Indigenousculture , then for ideas on both positive

and neg at ive company impacts.People returned to

the large group and compared their work , with an

eye not to choosing r ight or wrong answers, but to

combining different perspectives to create a com-

plete picture . The faci l i tator was given the task of

point ing out anything that wasstill missing . Group

members then compared th eir experiences in the field

talking to a community and the methods that work

best.Faci l i tators emphasized the importance of en-

gaging the community directly in these exercises, be-

cause without th is input key pieces of informationabout company impact would be missin g.

Role-playing. Th ese kinds of exercises are very use-

ful whe n you are trying to help participantssee ei-

ther themselves or their counterparts (the community,in our case) from a differen t perspective .In talking

about how the companies engage communities in dis-

cussions, we decided t o try role-playing in an e ffortto l i teral ly turn the table on the company partici-

pants. They were asked to act as an Indigenouscom-

munity preparing for nego tiations and were given

specif ic tasks,such as deciding wha t kind of informa-

tion they wanted abo ut a proposed project.Facilita-t o rs p l a y e d co m p a n y n e g o t i a t o rs . To h e lp i n

portraying a f airly realisticsituation , facilitators were

asked to include certain worst company pract ices

in their portrayal of company negotiators. After the

exercise participants were asked to reflect on the

outcomes, at which point we were able to help them

understand the levels of frustration they experienced

as a community.

Stakeholder mapping.In both materials and train-

ing activities it iscritical to provide examples of prac-

tical tools that can be used to reach the objectives.In

a session on engagement processes, for example, par-ticipants are taken t hrough a brief exercise on what

iscalled stakeh older mapping . They are given ex-

amples of possible stakeholdersindividuals, groups,or organizations that m ay be directly or indirect ly

affected by company activityin an Indigenouscom-

munity,such as the traditional healer, the hereditary

chief, the elected chief , hunters and farmers, truck

drivers and small busin ess owners. With each of these

general roles, there is an accompanying descrip-

t ion of what th iscommunity member may consider

important in relation to the proposed company activ-

it y. One may focus on how the compa ny will create

jo bs for community members, while anot her may beconcerned that the activity will harm plants and ani-

mals that the vi l lage depends on for food and m edi-

cin e .Sometimes one individual plays more than one

role.

In small groups, participants are asked to place e ach

stakeh older in a matrix:

Once this iscompleted, participants are brought to-

gether to discuss their outcomes.Inevitably, there are

di f ferences in how the groups th ink about and de-f ine the d i f ferent stakeholders and impacts. Th ese

differences are discussed , with an emphasis on help-

ing compa ny representat ives understand the com-

plexity of relationships and interests at the community

level.Participants are then asked to devise solutionsto meet the concern s of the community members.

Regardless of the human r ights issues being ad-

dressed , the inclu sion of pract ical tools for companypersonnel is an important part of the effort .

We have not yet not iced a particular trend in terms

of which exercises are best overall. We have spent a

great de al 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 depen dent more o n individual learn-

in g styles than on the kind of activity.Some individuals

found the role-playing very helpful, while others felt

very uncomfortable in this act ivity and preferred

forms of discussion or the risk assessment tool.

Methodological example:The risk assessment toolWhile designing the materials and the workshop, we

kept returning to the same piece of advice: Compa-

nie s l ike checkl ists, give them a checkl ist . At f irst weapproached thissimply assomething we needed to

do , but as we began to develop what w e finally named

the Risk Assessment too l, we real ized the power

of such a tool in relation to our training .

A large challenge was to capt ure the diversity of theissues tha t companiesshould consider in th eir rela-

tionships with Indigenous peoples. And we knew from

our conversat ions with companies that no one was

ef fectively considering al l of the issues we planned

to cover. By taking a fairly lengthy documen t and pull-

ing its key points into a cohesive list (12 pag es long),

we created a tool that reinforces the nee d for train-in g, allows participants an opportunity to apply what

Posit ive Negative(af fected (a f fected

positively) negatively)

Primary (directl y

af fected by project)

Secondary


14/20

14

SAMPLERISK-ASSESSMENTQUESTIONS

RELATED TO INDIGENOUSPEOPLES LAND RIGHTS

Doesthecompanyunderstandthedifference betweenthecommunitysin-

dividualandcollectiverightsinrelationtoland?

Doesthecompanyhaveagoodunderstandingofhowthecommunitymakes

decisionsaboutlandandnaturalresourceuseortransfer?

Doesthecompanyhaveagoodunderstandingofhowlandrightsarecon-

nectedtothecommunitysidentity, language, kinship, spirituality, economicsystems, decision-makingstructuresandknowledge base?

Iftheanswerwasyestoanyoftheabovequestions, hasthecompanyverified

thisinformationwiththeIndigenouscommunitiesthemselves?

Isthecompanyawareofapplicablenationalandinternationallawsandcourt

decisionsonIndigenouslandrights?

Doesthecompanyknowwhetherthelocalcommunitiesarecurrentlyin-

volvedinlegal battlesovertheirtitletotheland?

Hasthecompanyassessedthecapacityofthenationalgovernmenttoact

positivelyonlandrightsconcerns?

Hasthecompanyresearchedwhetherthelocalcommunityhasaccesstolegal

expertise,mappingexpertiseandotherresources?Ifso, isthecompanywill-

ingtoinvestintheseprocessestohelpthecommunitiesdevelopcapacityin

theseareas?

they have learned during the worksho p

while they are still in it , highlights a

companysst rengths and weaknesses

and serves as the beginning of a mea-

su r em en t to o l f o r t h a t co m p an y s

progress.

In the March workshop , at the end of

the second day, we asked participants

to go th rough the r isk assessm en t

checkl ist as homework. In the morn-

in g , we asked for volunteers to share

reflect ions from the assignment . O ne

participant said that he wassurprised ,

an d so m ewh a t d ish ea r t en ed, a f t e r

completing the exercise . Hiscompany

had a long history of commitment to

engaging Indigenouscommunities di-

rectly in negotiatio ns at early stages of

project design and development . Hewassurprised , however, by the num-

ber of no answers he markedand

planned to take h isconcern s back to

hisstaff the fol lowing week .

FACILITATORS AND RESOURCEPEOPLE

The peo ple involved in designing and implementin g a

corporate training program are critical to itssuccess,but there is no simple formula for select ing them .

The expertise needed w ill depend on the subject mat-

t er, t h e p a r t ici p an ts l earn ing cu l tu r e an d th e

initiatives overall objectives. There are very success-

ful training programs that rely solely on lecture andfaci l itate d discussio n , and others tha t rely on highly

interactive sessio ns.

For our init iative , we w ere for tunate to be able to

include people with different st rengths and talents,

and to use them in the sessio ns where they would be

most valuable . We also created teams of faci l i tators

( th ose wh o wo u ld l ead/d i rect e ach sess i o n o r

b r eako u t ) an d r eso urce p eo p l e In d ig en o uspeople who had some experience with the kinds of

companies atte nding and famil iarity with the ways

that their communit ies would interact wi th these

companies. W e spent time togeth er discussing eachdays plans, rehearsing for sessio ns, going over areas

where we anticipated some difficulty and , at the end

of each day, reflect ing on the days events. This kind

of team-building and planning work is important, an d

it becomes more important as your team grows.

If you have no choice of facilitators, designing work-

shop activities to suit the facilitatorsstrengthsshould

be a guiding principle, unless you are able to provide

training for him or her in different meth odologies.If

you are unsure about available activities, there are

several good publications on group faci l i tation that

can 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 . That

sai d , we offer some general points of advice .

Company participants will ask quest ions, and you

should have someone present who is knowledgeable

enough to answ er.Regardless of the human r ights

topic being covered, the facilitator must know it well,

and/or be accompa nied by resource people whodo.It is possible to use someone with general facilita-

tion skills (who can lead discussio ns, help resolve con-

fl ict or debate and manage participants according to

an agenda) and , when substant ive quest ions are

raised about the content, ensure that resou rce people

are available to contribute their knowledg e and ex-

pertise to the discussio n .

This also means that if the training isspeci f ic to ac-

tual compa ny pract ices, as ours was, facilitators and/or resource people must know company practices as

well as human rights principles. During the str uctured

debates in our workshops, facilitators must continu-ously lead pa rticipants tow ard examples of best prac-

t ice and show tha t there are other companies tha t

are doing things in better ways.For every instance in

w hich participantssay that their companiescannot

do something , the faci l i tator must be able to prove

them wrong . Th ese kinds of examplescatch the at-tention of participants. Without this knowledge, train-

ing effortscan tend to move to ward very polite, very

positive , but essentially unprod uctive sessio ns.

If the content of the workshop involves understand-

ing others (Indigenous peoples, rural communit ies,

women ,children and so on) that are differen t fromyour participants and from yourselves, it is very help-


15/20


ful to include representat ives f rom those groups to

share their stories and experiences.Four Indigenous

people assisted us in the March 2003 wor kshop , and

compa ny participants were able to ask how their com-munit ies might react to th ings being proposed for

company operations. There were repeated questions,

for example, on how decisions abou t large projectswere made in the community, ho w sacre d sit es were

protected and how community leaders or negotia-

tors related to community members during negotia-

t ions.If it is not possible to do this, f aci l i tators or

other resource people must thoroughly understand

these groups and be able to articulate their concer ns

with some level of credibility and respect.

Evaluation of impactThis is a very new initiative ,so there has been l itt le

opportunity for workshops to have yielded measur-

able changes at the company level.

On a n individual level, however, the impact can be

seen almost immediately.In the February 2003 pilot

workshop , one participant was the land guythe

person responsible for negotiatin g the best commer-

cial deal possible for the company. A stereotypical

approach to land negot iat ions is to rely on conven-

tional tactics of confidential ity, with the assumption

that the less the other side knows, the better thedeal for the company. When we recommended that

the company offer the community every conceivable

piece of information about a proposed project , he

said that our approach wascounter-intuitivethat

following our advice would put the company out ofbusin ess. But after spending two days in our training

worksho p, along with hiscolleagues in the companys

community relations department , he began to un-

derstand how a more open communicat ions effor t

abou t the project could

make the impact- assessment process more ac-

curate by enhancing both company and commu-

n i t y u n d e rs t a n d i n g , an d p r o v id e a b e t t e r

knowledge base for designing mitigation mea-

sur es and development plans;

provide a basis for more effect ive negotiations,

because the community side wo uld be better pre-

pared; and reduce the potential for conflict by lowering the

level of mistr ust over key points of information .

The negotiator said he could now see how open shar-

ing of information betwee n the company and com-

m u n i t y wo u ld r esu l t i n a b e t t e r p r o j ect i f anagreement was reached . He was going to take th is

lesson back to hissupervisors and indicated that this

le sson came not from a particular workshop activity

or sessio n , but from the en tire package .

Measuring the resul ts of such training will alw ays be

difficul t.Participation is voluntary,so companies ar enot required to report on their implemen tatio n of

the lessons learned. Because of confidentiality restr ic-

tions, most fol low-up conversat ions must be held in

confidence. And companiescan take years debating

policy changes, which issometimes a prerequisi te to

behavioral chang e at an operational level.It wouldbe interest ing, however, to survey participants one

year after the workshop and evaluate its impact

Conclusion:Corporate training in other contextsAlmost everything about the process we have de-

scr ibed here can be applied to huma n rights issuesoutside the context of Indigenous peoples. Corporate

behavior hasconsequences that affect womens rights

(e .g . workplace d iscr imination and participation is-

sues);childrens r ights (child labor); economic,socia l

and cultural rights of surrounding communities; and,

of course, labor rights. Th ese rights protect individu-

als, families,communities and nations. They protect

men and women , factory workers and farmers,chil-

dren and adults and th e elderly. They include civil,political , economic,social and cultural rights.For each,

there is an opportu nity for you to take your kno wl-

edge of these human rightssituations, use that know l-

edge to craft specif ic guidance and seek op portunities

to provide that guidance in construct ive ways.It isespecial ly important to educate those ,such ascom-

panies, who have the potential of both tremendous

positive and negative impact on these rights.

Aroun d any right , there w ill be a need t o move from

criticizing companies for their behavior to encourag-

ing them to seek practical solutions for improvement.

Our experience h asshown us that demonizing com-panies is an oversimplification. Often t here are people

in these companies who w ant their organizations to

have a dignified reputa tion . And there is a case to be

made that companiescan be more successful and

compet i t i ve i f they deve lop more sensi t ive ap-

proaches to human rights issues. But busin essschools

are just beginning to include human r ights in their

curricula,so it is re asonable to expect that many busi-

ness people h ave had no f ormal training or experi-

ence with these concern s. Many companies have no

idea how th ey might organize their work differently

to change their social impact.

For change processes to take hold and have long-

la st ing impact , bridges must be bui l t between com-

panies and the sectors of society they affect. Human

rights advocatescan play an importa nt role in fur-

ther ing these ef for ts. One of the most critical diffi-

culties we now face is how to attract other advocatesto help educate the private sector on a broad range

of human rightsconcerns. Many w orry about losin g

their credibility and legitimacy if they are seen to be

col laborat ing with business. Others worry abou t

trying to f ind the f inancial resources to build such

initiatives i f their funders tradition ally focus on sup-

porting anti-busin ess approaches. Hopefully, as ini-t iatives l ike this begin to show posi t ive impact and

multiply, these concernscan be put to rest .


16/20

16

USEFULRESOURCES

Internationalconventions(examples)

UnitedNationsDraftDeclaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/2/Add.1 (1994).

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/declra.htm.

ProposedAmericanDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples(1997). http://www.cidh.oas.org/Indigenous.htm.

InternationalLabourOrganizationConvention 169:ConcerningIndigenousandTribalPeoplesinIndependentCountries

(1991). http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/62.htm.

Indigenouspeoplesrightsandextractiveindustries

PriorInformedConsentandMining:PromotingtheSustainableDevelopmentofLocalCommunities.EnvironmentalLawInstitute,

Washington,D.C., 2004. http://www.eli.org

ExtractingPromises:IndigenousPeoples, ExtractiveIndustriesandtheWorldBank. ForestPeoplesProgramme,Moreton-in-Marsh,

UK, 2003. http://www.forestpeoples.org

ThroughIndigenousEyes:TowardAppropriateDecision-MakingProcessesRegardingMiningOnorNearAncestralLands.TheNorth-

SouthInstitute,Ottawa, 2003. http://www.nsi-ins.ca/ensi/pdf/SynEnfinal.pdf

Sloan, P.,Hill, R. CorporateAboriginalRelations:BestPracticeCaseStudies.HillSloanAssociatesInc.,Toronto, 1995.

Businessandhumanrights

BusinessandHumanRightsResourceCentre. 361 LauderdaleTower, Barbican, LondonEC2Y 8NA, UnitedKingdom.

Telephone/fax:(+44)(20) 7628-0312. E-mail:[email protected]. http://www.business-humanrights.org/Home

HumanRights:IsItAnyofYourBusiness?InternationalBusinessLeadersForumandAmnestyInternational,London, 2000.

NormsontheResponsibilitiesofTransnationalCorporationsandOtherBusinessEnterpriseswithRegardtoHumanRights,

U.N.Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 (2003). http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/norms-Aug2003.html

Facilitation andtraining

Kaner, Sam. FacilitatorsGuidetoParticipatoryDecision-Making.NewSocietyPublishers,GabriolaIsland, BC,Canada, 2000

(TwelfthEdition).

Eitington, JuliusE. TheWinningTrainer:WinningWaystoInvolvePeopleinLearning.GulfPublishingCompany,Houston, 1989

(SecondEdition).


17/20


NOTES


18/20

18

NOTES


19/20


NOTES


20/20

The Center for Victims of Tortu reNew Tact ics in Human RightsProject

717 East River RoadMinneapol is, MN 55455

w w w.cvt .org /[email protected] w w.newtactics.org /newtactics@cvt .org

To print or download this and other publicat ionsin the Tactical Notebook Series,go to ww w.newtactics.org.

Online you will also find a searchable datab ase of tactics and

forums for discussion with oth er human r ights practitioners.

Documents

Recipe for Dialogue: Corporate training for building relationships with Indigenous communities (English)