WalkingtheTalk

ExploringMethodologiesandApplications

forHumanRightsImpactAssessment

bytheUnitedNations

‐‐SabbaticalReport‐‐

RoryMungoven

OfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights

February2016

2

Acknowledgement

IwouldliketothanktheSabbaticalProgramoftheUnitedNationsandtheOffice

oftheHighCommissionerforHumanRightsforgivingmetheopportunityto

undertakethissabbaticalresearchduringathree‐monthperiodbetween

October2015andJanuary2016.Iamparticularlygratefultomysupervisors

andteamcolleagueswhobothencouragedandsupportedmeandassumed

additionalburdensduringmyabsence.

IwouldalsoliketothanktheAppliedAnthropologyandParticipatory

DevelopmentProgramandCrawfordSchoolofPublicPolicyattheAustralian

NationalUniversityinCanberraforprovidingmewithasupportiveresearch

environment,andinparticularAssociateProfessorLesleyPotterandAssociate

ProfessorColinFilerfortheirsupervisionofmyresearch.Asamature,mid‐

careerresearcher,Iwasmadetofeelextremelyvaluedandwasgreatly

stimulatedbyboththeteachingstaffandfellowstudents.

UnfortunatelyduetocontinuingprofessionalcommitmentsonSriLanka,Ihadto

reducethelengthofmysabbaticalandwasnotabletoundertakethefieldwork

plannedinCambodia.HoweverIwasfortunatetobeabletoconductresearchin

GenevaandtheUnitedKingdomandparticipateinseveralexpertseminarsas

wellastheannualUNBusinessandHumanRightsForumwhereImademany

contactswithcompanies,nationalinstitutionsandNGOsworkinginthefield.My

researchalsobenefitedgreatlyfromdiscussionsandexchangeswithleading

practitionersofHumanRightsImpactAssessment,inparticularDrSimon

WalkerandMsSusanMathewsatOHCHR,DrJamesHarrisonatWarwick

University,MsTulikaBansalattheDanishInstituteofHumanRights,aswellas

colleaguesatOHCHR,UNDP,UNICEFandotherpartsoftheUNsystem.

Lastbutnotleast,IamdeeplygratefultomywifeRachaelandchildrenFinnian

andEstherforputtingupwithahousefullofpapersandahusband/fatherlostin

thought.

3

TableofContents

I. Introduction 4

II. TheevolutionofHRIA 5

III. Commonmethodologicalfeaturesandchallenges 9

IV. AtypologyofHRIApractice 13

a. NGOorcommunity‐led 13

b. Company‐led 17

c. Government‐led 20

V. HRIAandhumanrightsduediligencebytheUnitedNations 23

VI. Conclusions 33

VII. RecommendationsforOHCHR 35

Annex1:HumanRightsImpactAssessmentoftheMarlinMineinGuatemala 38

Annex2:EqualityImpactAssessmentofPublicPolicyintheUnitedKingdom46

Bibliography 49

4

I.Introduction

Overthepasttwodecades,humanrightsimpactassessment(HRIA)hasemerged

asadistinctmethodologyforanticipatingormeasuringthepositiveornegative

impactofpoliciesandprojectsonhumanrights.Ithasfastbeenadoptedbycivil

societyforadvocacyaswellasmobilizingandempoweringlocalcommunities,

bygovernmentsasapublicpolicytool,andincreasinglybybusinessasaformof

corporateduediligence.ButalthoughHRIAhasitsoriginsintheinternational

humanrightsframeworkandhasbeenadvocatedbytheUnitedNations(UN)

humanrightsmechanisms,theUNitselfhasbeenslowtoadoptandapplyitinits

ownpractice.ThisstudysuggestswaysHRIAcouldhelpUnitedNationsagencies

exerciseduediligenceinavoidingormitigatingnegativehumanrightsrisks

associatedwiththeirprojectsandprogrammes,aswellasoptimizetheirpositive

humanrightsbenefitsinsupportofbroadersustainabledevelopmentoutcomes.

SectionTwoofthisstudylooksattheevolutionofhumanrightsimpact

assessmentasadistinctmethodologyagainstthebackdropofwidertrendsin

thedevelopmentandhumanrightsworld.WhileHRIAhastakenawidevariety

offormsandoftenoverlapswithorisintegratedintootherformsofimpact

assessment,SectionThreeoutlinessomeofitscommonmethodologicalfeatures

andchallenges.SectionFourthensetsoutatypologyofpracticeindifferent

fieldsdefinedbywholeadsorconductstheassessment,highlightingcase

examplesandsomeoftheavailablemethodologicaltools.SectionFivelooksat

therelevanceofHRIAfortheworkofthespecializedanddevelopmentagencies

oftheUnitedNationsandthedegreetowhichthisisreflectedinsomenewand

emergingpolicyframeworks.Finally,Imakesomegeneralconclusionsand

practicalrecommendationsinSectionSixforhowUnitedNationsagenciesmight

makeuseoforpromoteHRIAmethodologiesintheirwork,aswellassome

specificrecommendationsformyowndepartmentOHCHR.Twoannexes

providecasestudiesofHRIAmethodologyappliedtoprivatesector(Marlin

Mine)andpublicsectoractors(UKGovernment)respectively.

5

AlthoughtherehasbeenagrowingstreamofacademiccommentaryonHRIA

overthepastdecade,muchofthematerialavailableis“greyliterature”inthe

formofguides,tools,checklistsandreportsbydifferentNGOsandagencies.A

numberofHRIAshavebeenpublished,mainlybyNGOsand/oracademicsand

mainlyconcentratedonprivatesectoractivitiesortradeandinvestment

agreements.Aswillbediscussedbelow,oneofthechallengesforevaluating

HRIAsisthelimitednumberandscopeofthosethathavebeenpublished,

particularlybycorporateactorswhohaveaninterestinprotectingthe

informationundercommercialprivilege(Harrison2013,p.113).Inrecent

years,therehavebeenseveralinitiativestodrawtogetherandreflectonthe

experienceofpractitionerssofar,notablyacomprehensiveWorldBankstudy

(Felner2013)andanumberofexpertroundtablesconvenedbytheUnited

Nationsoruniversities(BerneDeclarationetal2010,OHCHR&FES2014,

ColumbiaCenteretal2014).SeveralotherindependentexpertsholdingUnited

Nationsmandateshavealsopublishedconceptualframeworksorguidancefor

theconductofHRIA(Hunt&MacNaughton2006,Ruggie2007,DeSchutter

2011).Inthisstudy,Ihavesoughttosynthesizeratherthanreplicatethis

material,andinparticulartofocusonthosehowHRIAcouldbedevelopedand

appliedfurther.

II.TheevolutionofHRIA

HRIAisusuallypresentedashavingdevelopedasaspecializedstreamofthe

socialimpactassessment(SIA)field.Fromitsoriginsinenvironmental

regulatoryframeworksinthe1970s,socialimpactassessmenthasintegrated

newconceptsandmethodologies(Vanclay2006,p.13)andbecome

progressivelymainstreamedbydevelopmentagenciesandinthecorporate

world.Sincethen,SIAhasproliferated(orfragmented)intoavarietyofforms‐

healthimpact,genderimpact,childimpactassessmentandsoon‐ofwhich

HRIAshavebeenoneofthelatesttoemerge,largelyinthecontextoftradeand

investmentagreementsandlargescaleresourceandinfrastructureprojects.

6

TheevolutionofHRIAoverthepasttwodecadescanbeseenasaconvergenceof

severaldifferenttrendsinthehumanrights,development,corporateand

governanceworld.(SimonWalkerfirsthighlightedthesefactorsinhisbookon

HRIAoftradeagreements(Walker2009,pp.5‐6)butIhaveupdatedand

expandedonhisanalysis.)

Thefirsttrendistheincreasinglyholisticconceptionofenvironmentalpolicy

andplanningthatsawtheincorporationofsocialdimensionsintoenvironmental

regulatoryprocesses.Oneofthefirstmanifestationsofthiscanbefoundinthe

extensioninthe1980softheUSNationalEnvironmentProtectionAct(NEPA)to

humanrightsissuesofdiscriminationbylookingatenvironmentalimpacts

througharacialequalitylens(GSA1998).SIAhasoftenbeentreatedas

secondarytoenvironmentalimpactassessmentandislesslegallyentrenched,

howeverbothhavebeenprogressivelysubsumedintoabroadersustainable

developmentagendaandcometoincludehumanrightsdimensions.In2003,the

InternationalAssociationforImpactAssessment(IAIA)framedasetof

internationalprinciplesforSIAinwhichfundamentalhumanrightsarethefirst

corevalue;“humanrightsshouldunderpinallactions”indevelopment;and

“developmentprocessesthatinfringethehumanrightsofanysectionofsociety

shouldnotbeaccepted”(Vanclay2003,p9).IAIAguidelinesconsistently

emphasizeasgoodpracticewhatarecommonlyregardedas“rights‐based

approaches”suchasparticipation,empowermentandtransparency(Kemp&

Vanclay2013,p.93).

Asecondtrendhasbeendevelopmentsinthehumanrightssphereinwhichthe

humanrightscommunityandinternationalhumanrightsmechanismshave

soughttoengagemoresquarelywitheconomic,socialandculturalrightsissues

(beyondthetraditionalcivilandpoliticalrightsdomain)andwiththe

developmentagendamorebroadly.Thishasrequirednewtoolsandstrategies,

forinstancetheuseofsocialscienceresearchmethodsasopposedmore

traditionallaw‐basedformsofanalysis.Italsoinvolvesfocusingon“upstream”

processessuchasbudgetandpolicyformulation,ratherthanjustthe

“downstream”violationsthatresult.AsMacNaughtonandHuntargue,“in

7

contrasttothetraditionalapproachtohumanrightsaccountabilitywhichlooks

backwardatpastviolations,thisnewpolicyapproachdemandsnewtoolsto

bringhumanrightsconcernsintoforward‐lookingpolicy‐makingprocesses”

(MacNaughton&Hunt2011,p.360).Inthisway,HRIAmethodologyoffersthe

humanrightscommunityaglimpseofthe“HolyGrail”ofprevention.

Atthesametime,otherformsofsocialactivismsuchasenvironmental,

developmentorindigenousgroupshaveincreasinglysoughttoleveragethe

internationalhumanrightsframeworkintheircampaignsandadvocacy.Beyond

theirnormativepower,humanrightsaddadimensionoflegalobligationand

accountability–certainlyofstatebutincreasinglyofnon‐statebusinessactors–

aswellaspotentialtoolsandmechanismsforenforcement.Aswillbeseenin

sectionthree,bothinternationalNGOsandcommunityorganisationshavefound

HRIAtobeausefulnewtoolforempowermentandforconfrontingbusinesses

andthestate.

Athirdtrendhasbeendevelopmentsinthecorporatesocialresponsibility

sphere,inparticulartheemergenceof“humanrightsduediligence”asan

essentialrequirementforsociallyresponsiblebusinesspractice.Thedue

diligenceconceptisatthecoreofthenewUNGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessand

HumanRights(UnitedNations2011)whichareincreasinglybeingusedasthe

benchmarkbyotherinternationalorganisationssuchastheOECD,International

StandardsOrganisationandinternationaldevelopmentfinanceinstitutions.The

GuidingPrinciplesrequirecompaniestohaveinplaceanassessmentprocess“to

identify,prevent,mitigateandaccountforhowtheyaddresstheiradverse

humanrightsimpacts” (UnitedNations2011,p.16).AlthoughHRIAisnot

explicitlyrequired,norisittheonlywaytoconductduediligence,companies

andindustryassociationsarebeginningtoapplyHRIAasanewtoolfor

managingsocialrisk.

AfourthtrendfeedingintotheevolutionofHRIAcanbefoundinthepoliciesand

approachesofinternationalfinancialinstitutionsandotherdevelopmentactors.

Overthepastdecade,mostbilateralormultilateraldonoragencieshaveadopted

8

humanrightspoliciesofonekindoranother(WorldBank&OECD2012,p.xxx).

InthecaseofCanada,humanrightsconsiderationsinaidpolicyareentrenched

innationallegislation(WorldBank&OECD2012,p.71).Thenotableexception

ofcourseremainstheWorldBankGroupthatarbitrarilydefineshumanrightsas

“political”andtherebyoutsideitsmandate.

ThishasinturnseensomedonorsapplyversionsofHRIAintwodifferentways.

First,donorsareincreasinglyfocusedonaideffectivenessandsohaveadopted

business‐basedmeansofaccountingforandmeasuringimpact;atthesametime,

donorrequirementsareleadingrecipientorganisationstodevelopnew

“evidencebased”methodsfordemonstratingimpactandresults(Merry2011,p.

S84).Forthosedonorsinvestinginthehumanrightsfieldoradvocatingrights‐

basedapproaches,thishasmeantfindingnewwaystoassessandevaluate

impact(Landman2006,p.129,ICHRP2011,p.4‐6).Thistrendwillonly

acceleratewiththeriseofprivateactorsinthephilanthropicanddevelopment

sphereandnewconceptssuchas“impactinvesting”.

Second,somedonors–likecompanies‐arebeginningtoapplytheirownversion

of“humanrightsduediligence”totheirprogramming,inordertomaximize

positivehumanrightsimpactsand/orminimizenegativeones.Thisisbecoming

morenecessaryastheaidandtradeagendasconverge,public‐private

partnershipbecomestheflavoroftheday,andbusinesstakesonanincreasing

roleindevelopment.TheInternationalFinanceCorporation’sPerformance

Standardsareanearlyandinfluentialexampleofsuchsafeguards,althoughnot

framedinhumanrightsterms.Ahumanrights“screening”procedurewas

establishedbytheNorwegianAgencyforDevelopmentCooperationin2001with

itsHandbookinHumanRightsAssessment(NORAD2001).TheUK’s

DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment(DfID)experimentedwithaformof

“participatoryrightsassessment”methodologyaroundthesameperiod

(Blackburnetal2005,pp.93‐96).Probablythemostrigorousframework

developedbyabilateraldonortodateisthemandatoryanddetailedprocedure

appliedbyGermany’sFederalMinistryforEconomicCooperationand

Development(BMZ)to“appraisetherelevanthumanrightsrisksandimpacts”

9

beforeanyprojectorprogrammeiscommissioned(BMZ2013,p.1). Aswillbe

seeninSectionFive,thehumanrightssafeguardsrequiredbydonorshavebeen

astimulusforUNagenciesandotherrecipientorganisationstoadoptsimilar

practices.

Thefourtrendsoutlinedaboveshouldnotbeseeninisolationbutinmanyways

haveconverged,influencedandinformedeachother.Merrycontextualizesthis

aspartofawiderphenomenonof“disseminationofthecorporateformof

thinkingandgovernanceintobroadersocialspheres”(Merry2011,p.S83).She

highlightshow“technologiesthatweredevelopedinthesphereofbusiness

regulationhavejumpeddomainstohumanrightsandcorporatesocial

responsibility”(Merry2011,p.S84).Ironically,justashumanrightsactorsare

seekingtoinfluencethepracticesofbusiness,theyareadoptingdiscoursesand

toolsfromthebusinessworldlikeimpactassessment.

III.Commonmethodologicalfeaturesandchallenges

ThedifferentwaysinwhichHRIAhasevolvedmeansthereisawidespectrumof

potentialapplicationsandpractice.Thisvariationmakesitdifficulttoframea

singlemodelbutfromtherangeoftoolsthatexistitispossibletoidentifysome

commonmethodologicalfeaturesandchallenges.

Thefirstandfundamentaldistinction,aswithotherformsofimpactassessment,

isbetweenexante(before)andexpost(after)assessments.Landmanalso

suggestsdistinguishingbetweenassessmentsofdirectandindirect,intended

andunintendedimpact(Landman2006,p.128).Tothisshouldbeaddedthe

distinctionbetweenpositiveandnegativeimpacts(DeBeco2008,p.140).An

assessmentofdirect,positiveandintendedimpact,forinstance,wouldapplytoa

donorevaluatingtheimpactofahumanrightsprogramitfunds.Adirector

indirect,negativeandunintendedimpact,bycontrast,wouldfallmorewithinthe

“duediligence”processesdescribedabove.AsdeBeconotes,mostHRIAs

therefore‐whetherexanteorexpost–tendtobefocusedontheunintendedand

negativeimpactsofpoliciesorprojectsonhumanrights(DeBeco2008,p.144).

10

AreviewofthemanyguidesandtoolsavailableshowsthatHRIAsmostlyfollow

asimilarmethodologytootherformsofimpactassessment.Varioustermsare

usedbut,inessence,theassessmentprocessinvolvesthefollowingbasicsteps:

(1)aninitialscreeningtoestablishtheneedforanassessment;(2)ascoping

processtoprioritizetheissuesandestablishabaseline;(3)evidencegathering,

includingconsultationwiththeaffectedstakeholders;(4)ananalysisstagein

whichtheimpactsareassessed;(5)developingrecommendations,including

possiblemitigatingmeasures;(6)designingappropriatemonitoring,

managementandgrievancemechanisms;and(7)reportingontheoutcomeof

theassessment,ideallyinatransparentandpublishedform.

Acommonquestionthereforeishowhumanrightsimpactassessmentisdistinct

fromotherformsofsocialimpactassessment?Thefirstdifferenceformost

commentatorsisthatHRIAisbasedontheexplicitnormativeframework

providedbyinternationalhumanrightslaw.Thisprovidesaverydifferent

baselineinwhichimpactsaremeasuredagainsthumanrightsstandardsrather

thanagainstthestatusquo.ForWalker,thisprovidesamoreobjectivestandard

ofassessmentandframeworkforanalysisthanthesubjectiveopinionofan

assessor(Walker2009,p.45).Second,usingahumanrightsframeworkalso

bringsadimensionoflegalobligationthatreinforcestheassessment’s

conclusionsandaccountabilityfortheimplementationofitsrecommendations

(Walker2009,p.47).

Asecondfeatureisthewayahumanrightslensgoesbeyondautilitarianfocus

onaggregatewelfaretolookatthedistributionalimpactsonvulnerableand

disadvantagedgroups(HuntandMacNaughton2006).Walkernotesthatthe

humanrightsframeworkdrawsonthemuchmoreclearlydefinedconceptsof

“discrimination”and“equality”ratherthantermssuchas“fairness”and“equity”

whicharecommonlyfoundintheSIAdiscourse,andcanhelptoidentify

underlyingpatternsofdiscriminationembeddedwithinthesocialcontext

(Walker2009,p.46).Humanrightsstandardsalsosetlimitstothe“trade‐offs”

implicitinmanySIAsinwhichtheinterestsofsomeindividualsorgroupsare

sacrificedforthecommongood(Walker2009,p.47).

11

AthirddifferenceisthattheprocessofHRIAshoulditselfrespecthumanrights

principles,inparticularparticipationandtransparency.Althoughparticipation

shouldbethehallmarkofanygoodsocialimpactassessment,thereisan

expectationthatHRIAsshouldempowerandcontributetothecapacityofrights

holders(McNaughton2015,p.66)andinvolvehumanrightsactorsand

mechanisms(Walker2009,p.37).Harrisonalsoarguesthat“transparencymust

beacoreandoverridingprincipleoftheassessmentprocess”andthatboththe

processandresultsofassessmentsshouldbepublished(Harrison2013,p.113).

Nevertheless,manycommentatorsarguethathumanrightscanbesuccessfully

integratedintoexistingmodelsofsocialimpactassessment,orthatsocialimpact

assessmentcanbeconductedina“rights‐based”way.Hunt,forinstance,argues

forsucha“right‐based”approachtohealthimpactassessmenthighlightingthe

advantagesofmainstreaminghumanrightsintopolicydevelopmentand

programming(Hunt&MacNaughton2006,p.5).Ruggiegoesfurthertosuggest

that“anyimpactassessmentcouldbeconsideredahumanrightsimpact

assessmentifitdemonstrateshumanrights‐basedprinciples,regardlessofits

label”(Ruggie2007,p.7).

Manygovernmentandcorporateactorsseekingtoapplyhumanrightsintheir

impactassessmentorduediligenceframeworkshavecertainlyfavouredthis

“integrationist”approach.TheEuropeanCommission,forinstance,has

developedguidanceonhowhumanrightsshouldbetakenintoaccountineach

ofthemethodologicalstepsofitsstandardimpactassessments(EUp.3).

IndustrybodiessuchastheInternationalCouncilonMiningandMetalsand

IPIECA(fortheoilandgasindustry)havepublishedguidancefortheirmembers

onintegratinghumanrightsintoriskmanagementprocesses(ICMM2012)and

environmental,socialandhealthimpactassessments(IPIECA&DanishInstitute

2013).Thisisoftenjustifiedonefficiencygrounds,particularlyforsmaller

companiesthatlackthecapacitytoconductfull‐fledgedHRIAs.

12

Whileclearlyintegrationoffersbenefits,italsopresentssimilarchallengesto

genderandotherformsofmainstreaming.Thereisariskthathumanrights

impactassessmentsbecomeabureaucratic“tick‐the‐box”exerciseor

technocraticauditprocess,ratherthanparticipatoryanddemocratic(Harrison

2011,p.171).Socialimpactassessmentisalreadyoftensubsidiaryto

environmentalimpactassessmentandhumanrightsmayprovetobeaneven

poorercousintootherissues.Integrationcaninvolvelittlemorethanthe

“rhetoricalrepackaging”thatiscommontomuchhumanrightsmainstreaming

(Uvin2007,p.600).

Stand‐aloneHRIAisbesethoweverwithanumberofmethodologicaland

practicalchallenges.Likeotherformsofimpactassessment,HRIAcanstruggle

withcausality,particularlywhenhumanrightsoutcomesaremulti‐dimensional

andmayresultfromseveralconvergingdriversthatmayormaynotbethe

resultofapolicyorproject.Thisisparticularlychallenginginthetradepolicy

sphere,whereHRIAsattributelocalimpactsbacktobilateralagreementsor

globaltraderules(Walker2009,BerneDeclaration2014).HRIAscanalso

becomepoliticized:ononehand,governmentsorcorporationsmayusethemto

rationalizeorlegitimizepoliciesorprojects;ontheother,civilsocietyand

communitiesuseHRIAstocampaignagainstthem,andthelinebetween

advocacyandassessmentbecomesblurred(Kemp&Vanclay2013,p.93).For

thisreason,involvementofanindependentthirdparty,suchasanationalhuman

rightsinstitutionorUNagencycanbehelpful.Full‐fledgedHRIAcanalsobe

demandingintermsoftime,resourcesandtheinter‐disciplinaryexpertise

required,beyondthecapacityofsmallerorganisationsorcompanies,andtoo

slowfortheprojectcycle.EvenacompanythesizeofNestléobservedinits

assessmentshowmuchmoredemandingHRIAwasthanitsregularaudit

procedures(Nestlé2013,p.9).

HRIAisalsonotnecessarilyanybetterataddressinggenderthanotherformsof

impactassessment.Whilesometoolsidentifywomenasaspecialcategoryand

therehavebeensomegoodHRIAsfocusedonwomen(seeBakkeretal2009,

Stephenson&Harrison2011),mostfailtouseamorefeministanalysisofgender

13

rolesoradequatelyreflecttheagencyofwomen(Lahiri‐Dutt&Ahmed2011,p.

118,124).Issuesofsexualorientationandgenderidentityaregenerally

overlooked,withanotableexceptionnowintheUK(Saueretal2013,p.141).

ThissuggestsHRIAisnotasubstituteandstillneedstobecomplementedby

specificgenderanalysistools.

IV.AtypologyofHRIApractice

AsHuntandMacNaughtonobserve,HRIApracticevariesaccordingtowhatis

beingassessed,whenitisbeingassessedandwhoisdoingtheassessment(Hunt

&MacNaughton2006,p.25;Harrison2011,p.165).Harrisonsetsoutabroad

categorizationofHRIAsconductedbydifferentactors(Harrison2011,p.168),

butmostfallintothefollowingtypologyofNGOorcommunity‐led,company‐led

orgovernment‐ledimpactassessments.Inthissection,Iwilldiscusseachof

thesetypesofHRIAanduserecentcaseexamplestodemonstratetheirstrengths

andweaknessesinpractice.Iwillalsohighlightsomeofthenewer,hybridforms

ofHRIAthatareemerging,includingsector‐wideandmulti‐stakeholderimpact

assessments.

i)NGOorcommunity‐led

ThemajorityofpubliclyavailableHRIAstodatehavebeenundertakenbyNGOs,

sometimesworkinginsupportoflocalcommunitiesandsometimesworkingin

cooperationwithbusiness.Thesehavegenerallyfocusedontheimpactof

businessactivitiesorontradepoliciesandagreements,althoughtherearealso

examplesofNGOsconductingHRIAsofgovernmentpolicies(DeBeco2009,

Bakkeretal2009).HRIAsbyNGOsandcommunitiesareusuallyexpost,when

negativeimpactshavebecomeapparentandmoreinformationisavailable,

whichoftenplacestheminanadversarialpositionwithcompaniesor

governments(ColumbiaCenteretal2014,p.8).Theyareconsciouslydesigned

forthepurposesofadvocacyandinsomecasescommunityempowerment.

14

SomeofthefirstHRIAtoolsweredevelopedbyNGOs,andthesehaveinturn

beenadaptedandusedbyotherNGOsindifferentcontexts.TheDutchNGO,Aim

forHumanRights,pioneeredanearlymodelcalledtheHealthRightsofWomen

AssessmentInstrument(Bakkeretal2009).Thiswasdesignedasanadvocacy

toolwithafocusonpublicpolicies.ItwassuccessfullyappliedbyDutchNGOsto

changesinmaternitycarethatreducedaccessforundocumentedmigrant

women,andtheclosureofprostitutionareaswhichreducedtheaccessofsex

workerstohealthservices(DeBeco2008,p.141).Women’sgroupsinKenya

alsousedittochallengediscriminatoryimpactsofmaternitylaws(Bakkeretal

2009,p.446).Themethodologyisqualitativeinnatureandlacksthe

participatoryelementthatisacorecomponentofHRIAstoday.Bycontrast,the

UKNGO,CoventryWomen’sVoicesandUniversityofWarwickhaveproduceda

seriesofmuchmorestate‐of‐the‐artHRIAsontheimpactofausteritymeasures

onwomenandminoritygroupsinthecityofCoventryusingamixtureof

quantitative,qualitativeandparticipatorymethods(Stephenson&Harrison

2011).

AsecondinfluentialtoolforHRIAofbusinessactivitiesisthatproducedbyUS

non‐profitresearchorganization,NomoGaia.NomoGaia’sHumanRightsImpact

AssessmentToolkit(NomoGaia2012)involvesacataloguingofissuesderived

fromthecontext,projectandcompanypolicies,fromwhichkeytopics(eg

labour,health)areidentified.Eachkeytopicisthenelaboratedintermsof

rights,rights‐holdersandtheavailablebaselineinformation.Fromthis,asetof

“impactedrights”isidentified,andscoredaccordingtointensityandextent.This

resultsinarankingofhumanrightsimpactssimilartootherSIAmethodologies.

UnlikemanyHRIAs,theNomoGaiamethodologyusesamorequantitativethan

qualitativeapproach.NomoGaiahasconductedseveralHRIAsofmajor

extractiveprojectsinIndonesia,Malawi,Uganda,agribusinessandforestry

projectsinCostaRicaandTanzania,withandwithoutthecooperationofthe

companiesconcerned.IthasnowbeguntoapplyHRIAtoprojectsbackedbythe

WorldBankandotherdevelopmentfinanceinstitutionsinJordanandMyanmar.

TheNomoGaiatoolisweakeronparticipationbutiseasytouseandhasbeen

adaptedbyanumberofotherorganisations.

15

TheindependentCanadianinstitutionRightsandDemocracydevelopedarguably

themostcomprehensiveHRIAtoolcalledGettingitRight.GettingitRightis

designedforHRIAofprivatesectoractivitiesbutthroughacommunity‐led

approach.ThephilosophyistomakeHRIAa“bottom‐up”process,asopposed

the“topdown”modelsappliedbycompanies,throughwhichcommunitieshave

ownershipandarecapacitatedandempoweredbytheprocess.Thetoolguides

communitiesinscopingtherangeofrightsaffectedandgeneratinganevidence‐

gatheringframeworkbasedonhumanrightsstandards.Oxfamreports

successfulresultsfromusingthismethodologyinsupportoflocalcommunities

inDRCandBoliviaandtobaccofarmworkersintheUnitedStates(Watsonetal

2013,p.120).Butchallengesforcommunity‐ledHRIAsincludethetimeand

resourcesrequiredforcapacitybuilding,questionsofmethodologicalrigor,and

thelackofcooperationordialoguewithcompanies.Theyalsocanraise

unrealisticexpectationsandcreateorexacerbatetensionswithincommunities

(ColumbiaCenteretal2014,p.10).

TworecentexamplesofNGO‐ledHRIAsinthetradefieldengagesimultaneously

withgovernmentandbusinessactors.AconsortiumofNGOsproducedanex

postHRIAoftheimpactoftheEuropeanUnion’s“EverythingbutArms”(EBA)

preferentialtradearrangementwithleastdevelopedcountries,withafocuson

thesugarindustryinCambodia(EquitableCambodiaetal2014).EBAprovides

dutyfreeaccessandaguaranteedminimumpriceonaveragethreetimesthe

worldpriceforsugar.ThishasencouragedtheCambodianGovernmenttolease

landtoprivateinvestors(mainlyThaicompaniesbutpartofglobalsupply

chains)todeveloplarge‐scaleagro‐industrialcaneplantations,resultingin

significantforcedevictionanddisplacement(EquitableCambodiaetal2014,p.

1).Unfortunately,littleinformationisgivenonitsmethodologyandthe

evidencepresentedislargelyqualitativeinnature.Butitisaninteresting

exampleofhowhumanrightsimpactscanbefollowedupacausalchainof

responsibilityfromlocalgovernmentandlocalcompanies,toglobalsupply

chainsandinternationaltradepolicy.

16

AseparategroupofNGOsalsorecentlypublishedanexanteHRIAofnewplant

varietyprotection(PVP)lawswhicharebeingdevelopedinlinewithglobal

patentrules(BerneDeclaration2014).Thiswasbasedonamuchmorerigorous

methodologyinvolvingcasestudiesbylocalresearchteamsinKenya,Peruand

thePhilippines.Thestudyhighlightsinparticulartheimpactontherightto

food,culturalrightsandindigenousrightsofnewrestrictionsontheinformal

seedsystemandtraditionalknowledgeandpractices;italsowarnsofthe

stressesincreasedproductioncostscouldplaceonhouseholdbudgets,thereby

impactingonawidersetofrightssuchastohealthandeducation.Thestudy

alsoassessedthetransparencyandqualityofparticipationbylocalcommunities

inthedevelopmentofPVPlaws(BerneDeclaration2014,p.7).ThisHRIAwas

anextremelyambitiousundertaking,takingmorethantwoyearsbysevenNGOs,

anditstruggledwiththecomplexityofthecausalchainsrequiredto

demonstrateandconclusivelyassessimpact(BerneDeclaration2014,p.44).

AnothernewandpromisingapproachtoHRIAbyNGOshasbeensector‐wide

impactassessments(SWIAs).Thesegobeyondlookingataparticularprojectto

identifyhumanrightsrisksandopportunitiesforasectorasawhole.The

methodologyisparticularlywell‐suitedtoanexanteassessment,whichcan

provideinitialguidancetocompaniesinconductingmoredetailedduediligence,

particularlysmallerfirmsthatmightnothavethecapacitythemselves,and

providesagoodadvocacytoolforengaginggovernmentstoshapelawand

policy.SWIAsarealsogoodforcapturingthecumulativeimpactsofmultiple

projectsovertime,andhighlightingexamplesofgoodpracticeforothers.Some

earlyexampleshavebeenproducedfortheoilandgas,telecommunicationsand

tourismsectorsinMyanmar,whichisseeingrapidincominginvestmentbuthas

onlyrecentlydevelopedlegalrequirementsforenvironmentalandsocialimpact

assessment,andhasnotraditionofstakeholderengagementandconsultation

(MyanmarCentreforResponsibleBusinessetal2014,p.55).

17

ii)Company‐led

AnincreasingnumberofcompaniesreporttheyareusingHRIAasatoolof

humanrightsduediligence,particularlyastheyalignwiththeUNGuiding

PrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights.Asnotedabove,mostbusinessesand

industryassociationsareoptingforan“integrationist”approachinwhichHRIA

isintegratedintoexistingsystemsofenvironmentalandsocialimpact

assessmentorriskanalysis.Theyarguethisismoreefficientintermsoftime

andresources,butalsoeffectivebymainstreaminghumanrightsintocore

managementprocesses.

AnumberofHRIAtoolshavebeendevelopedforusebybusiness,althoughthese

mostlyprovideonlyagenericlevelofguidanceandadvice.TheInternational

FinanceCorporationoftheWorldBankandInternationalBusinessLeaders

Forum,togetherwiththeUNGlobalCompact(theUnitedNations’corporate

socialresponsibilityinitiative)producedamajorGuidetoHumanRightsImpact

AssessmentandManagement(HRIAM)aimedatbusinessin2010(IFCetal2010).

HRIAMprovidesmacro‐levelguidancefollowingthestepsfamiliarfromother

impactassessmentmethodologies,butincludesanumberoffictionalscenarios

fromdifferentsectorstoillustratetherangeofissuesthatshouldbecovered.

TheDanishInstituteforHumanRights(DIHR)hasalsoproducedanumberof

toolsforcorporateduediligence,suchastheHumanRightsCompliance

Assessment(DIHR2006),haspartneredwithindustryassociationssuchas

IPIECAtoproducemorespecializedproducts(IPIECA2013),andlauncedanew

“road‐test”versionofacomprehensiveHRIAtoolkitfortheprivatesectorin

2016(DIHR2016).SomeconsultancyfirmsandprivateactorsconductingHRIA

forbusinessarealsopromotingtheirownproducts,forinstanceBusinessfor

SocialResponsibility(BSR2013).

Unfortunately,veryfewbusiness‐ledHRIAshavebeenpublished,whichwould

allowtheirmethodologyandresultstobecriticallyevaluated(Harrison2013,p.

113),althoughafewexamplesareexaminedbelow.Mostcompaniesconducting

HRIAsarereluctanttoexposesensitiveandcriticalinformationandsotreat

18

themascommercial‐in‐confidence.Asecondshortcomingisthatbusiness‐led

HRIAsareoftenframedintermsofriskmanagementandduediligence,andso

focusontheriskstothecompany’sinvestmentorreputation,ratherthantothe

affectedcommunities(Oxfam2015,p.15).BusinessHRIAsareusuallyexante

andrelyforfollowuponthecompany’sownmonitoringorgrievance

mechanismswhichareoftenlimited.Third,businessesgenerallyadopta“top

down”approachthatismuchweakeroncommunityengagement,oftenreliant

ondeskresearchandinterviewswithlocalNGOs(Oxfam2015,p.1‐2).Thislack

oftransparencyandparticipationisintensionwitharights‐basedapproachand

generatescriticismandmistrustamongcivilsocietyandlocalcommunities.

TheSwisscompaniesKuoniandNestléhavepublishedgoodexamplesof“stand‐

alone”corporateHRIAsinrecentyears.Kuoni,atraveloperatorwithastrong

corporatehumanrightspolicy,undertookexpostHRIAsofitsoperationsin

Kenyain2012andIndiain2014(Kuoni2012,2014).Interestingly,Kuoni

involvedtheinternationalNGOTourismConcerninitsassessmentteam,which

ledthecommunityengagementpartsoftheprocesss;italsodrewonadvicefrom

UNICEFandotherindependentexperts.TheHRIAfollowedaqualitative

researchmethodologybasedonthetoolsdevelopedbytheDanishInstitute,

RightsandDemocracyandUNICEFmentionedabove.Itsmain(acknowledged)

weaknesseswereinitsscope,whichfocusedonaccommodationproviders

ratherthanotherpartsofitssupplychain,andtherelativelylimitednatureof

communityparticipation,particularlybywomen(Kuoni2012,pp.12‐13).One

problemKuoniencounteredwhichiscommontootherformsofimpact

assessmentwascausality,orthedifficultyofdistinguishingbetweentheimpacts

ofKuoni’soperationsandthecumulativeimpactsofthetourismsectorasa

whole,forinstancetheinequitabledistributionofeconomicbenefits(Kuoni

2012,p.14).TheHRIAatleastpromptedthinkingwithinthecompanyabout

whatwasinitssphereofinfluencetoimprove,includingthroughadvocacywith

thegovernmentandbroadertourismindustry.

NestléhasincorporatedHRIAasanexplicitelementofitsduediligence

frameworkandpublishedthelessonslearnedfromexpostHRIAsconductedin

19

sevenofitscountryoperations(Nestlé2013).Again,thecompanyinvolvedan

independent,externalpartner,inthiscasetheDanishInstituteforHuman

Rights,althoughsaysitwillinternalizetheprocessinfuture.TheHRIAs

identifiedanumberofissuesinrelationtothelivingwage,roadsafetyissues,

securitycontractors,procurementpoliciesandtheabsenceofgrievance

mechanisms;interestinglyNestlé’sHRIAframeworkincludedanti‐corruption

andintegrityissuesaswell(Nestlé2013,pp.7‐8).Thecompanyacknowledges,

however,thatconsultationwithcommunitieswasrelativelylimitedandthatthe

HRIAprovedsensitivewithhostgovernments(Nestlé2013,p.25).

ItisnocoincidencethatthesetwopublishedcompanyHRIAsareinlowerrisk

sectorsandproducedrelativelypositivefindings,whichisnotthecase,for

instance,intheextractivesector.Onewell‐knownandcontroversialHRIAinthe

miningsectorwascommissionedbyGoldcorpofitsMarlingoldminein

Guatemalain2008inresponsetolocalcommunityoppositionandinternational

criticism,includingshareholderactivismandcomplaintstointernational

mechanisms.TheMarlinHRIAwasconductedbyaCanadianconsultancy,On

CommonGround,andrepresentedamajorinvestmentintimeandresources

(OCG2010).Butitseffortsatconsultationhadtobecurtailedduetothe

deepeningconflictbetweenthecompanyandlocalcommunitiesandits

legitimacyandoutcomewerecompromisedasaresult(Coumans2012,pp.51‐

54).AfullerdescriptionandanalysisoftheMarlinHRIAisincludedinAnnex

One.

SomeHRIApractitionershavebeguntolookforwaystoovercomethis

disconnectbetweencommunity‐ledandcompany‐ledHRIAs.Ononehand,

company‐ledHRIAslacktransparencyandareoftendistrustedbycommunities;

ontheothercommunity‐ledHRIAsoftendonotreceivecooperationorrespect

fromcompaniesbecauseoftheiradversarialnature(ColumbiaCenteretal2014,

p.10).RuggiestressesthatHRIAandduediligenceshouldbean“inherently

dialogical process that involves engagement and communication” and can

serve as a platform for company-community dialogue (Ruggie 2010, p. 17).

ThishasledsomeorganisationslikeOxfamtosuggestthepossibilityof“hybrid”

20

or“multi‐stakeholder”HRIAs,inwhichthecompanyagreestoaparallel

community‐ledprocess,orthestakeholdersarebroughttogetherina

collaborativeprocesstoconducttheHRIAtogether(ColumbiaCenteretal2014,

p.14,Oxfam2015,p.24).Suchanapproachhasyettobetested,andquestions

suchaswhowouldconveneorfundsuchaprocesswouldneedtoberesolved

(Oxfam2015,p.28).IntheUK,forinstance,thenationalhumanrights

institutionhasplayedsuchaconveningrole,bringingtogetherpublic

authorities,business,labourrepresentatives,civilsocietyandotherstakeholders

toconducthumanrightsassessmentsofparticularsectorssuchasthecleaning

industryandagedhomecare(EHRC2013).

iii)Government‐led

AlthoughNGOsandacademicinstitutionshavesometimescarriedoutHRIAsof

publicpolicies,therearerelativelyfewexamplesofgovernmentauthorities

undertakingHRIAsthemselves.Thisisallthemorestrikinggivenhumanrights

areultimatelystateobligations,andinternationalhumanrightsmechanisms

havelongadvocatedforgovernmentstoundertakeHRIAsindifferentfields.

PerhapsthewidestbodyofexperiencehasdevelopedintheUnitedKingdom

withtheuseof“equalityimpactassessment”whichsharessimilarobjectivesand

characteristicstoHRIA.

PublicauthoritiesintheUKwererequiredtoundertakeequalityimpact

assessmentsondisabilityandraceundertheDisabilityDiscriminationAct,1995

andRaceRelations(Amendment)Act,2000.Butin2010,theUKadopteda

comprehensiveEqualityActthatextendedprotectiontoage,gender

reassignment,religionorbelief,pregnancyandmaternity,sexualorientation,

andmarriageandcivilpartnership.TheActalsocreatedageneral“PublicSector

EqualityDuty”–essentiallyaduediligencerequirement–thatrequirespublic

authoritiesintheexerciseofpublicfunctionstohave“dueregard”totheneedto

eliminateconductprohibitedbytheActandadvanceequalityofopportunity

(HouseofCommonsLibrary2015,p.7).

21

AlthoughtheActdoesnotexplicitlyrequirethistotaketheformof“equality

impactassessments”(EIAs),thesearewidelyusedbymanyGovernment

departmentsandlocalauthoritiesintheUK.Interestingly,inthedevolved

systemsinScotlandandWales,specificdutieshavebeenaddedinthelawto

explicitlyrequireEIAs.InNorthernIreland,wheretheseissuesaremore

sensitivepost‐conflict,evenmoreonerousdutieshavebeenplacedonpublic

authoritiestoreportonequalityissues(HouseofCommonsLibrary2015,p.17).

Ofcourse,thequalityofEIAsbypublicauthoritiesvariesconsiderablyandis

oftendegradedasa“tick‐the‐box”exercise.HarrisonandStephensonhave

highlightedanumberofcommonchallengesandfailingsofEIAs,includinglack

ofconsultation,narrowscope,weakanalysisofdataandpoliticalselectivityof

findings(Harrison&Stephenson2013,pp.229‐30).

TheuseofEIAshasbeenreinforcedbyagrowingnumberofcourtcasesinwhich

peoplehavesoughtjudicialreviewofGovernmentdecisionsonthebasisthatthe

PublicSectorEqualityDutyhasnotbeenfulfilled.Inthesecases,thecourtshave

givensignificantweighttotheexistence(ornot)andqualityofEIAsasevidence

ofcompliance.Therearealsosomecasesthathaveproducedsimilar

jurisprudenceintheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights.Thisisagoodexampleof

howthelegalbasisofHRIAsinhumanrightsgivesthemanadditionaledgeover

otherformsofSIAintermsofaccountabilityandenforcement.Civilsociety

organisationshaveusedthisasaneffectivestrategytochallengetheausterity

policiesandbudgetcutsimposedbythecentralConservativeGovernment.Asa

result,therehasrecentlybeenapoliticalpushbackontheuseofEIAswiththe

systemnowbeingsubjectedtoreviewongroundsof“redtape”.Afuller

discussionoftheEIAsystemintheUKisincludedinAnnexTwo.

TheEuropeanUnionhasfollowedasimilarpathsincetheEuropeanCharterof

FundamentalRightscameintoforcein2009.TheEuropeanCommission

alreadyhadanelaboratesystemofimpactassessmentbutin2011adopted

guidelinesforintegratingfundamentalrightsintothisprocessthatapplytoall

“internalandexternalactions”oftheEU(EC2011,p.5).Theserequire“impact

assessmentstoidentifyfundamentalrightsliabletobeaffected,thedegreeof

22

interferencewiththerightinquestion,andthenecessityandproportionalityof

theinterferenceintermsofpolicyoptionsandobjectives”(EC2011,p.6).EU

policymakersarerequiredtoshowarangeofpolicyoptionshavebeen

considered,favouringthosewhichareleastintrusiveorhavethehighestpositive

impact(EC2011,p.20).TheEU’s“BetterRegulation”initiativelaunchedinMay

2015reinforcedthisnewpolicy.InMay2015,theECDirectorate‐Generalfor

Tradealsoissuednewguidelinesforanalyzingthehumanrightsimpactsof

trade‐relatedpolicyinitiatives,buttheselargelyrelyontheexistingsystemof

“sustainabilityimpactassessment”(EC2015).

AlthoughitistooearlytoevaluatetheseEUinitiatives,itisimportanttonote

theyarebasedontheEuropeanCharterthatcoversamorelimitedrangeof

largelycivilandpoliticalrights.Thepolicyalsousesa“necessityand

proportionality”testthatishighlylegalisticandwillbedifficulttoapply.Italso

reliesona“checklist”approachthatrisksthesamebureaucratizationandlackof

rigorseenaboveintheuseofEIAbypublicauthoritiesintheUK.

Nationalhumanrightsinstitutions,whichareindependenthumanrights

monitoringandcomplaintsbodiesappointedbythestate,couldalsoplayan

importantroleinpromotingorconductingHRIAinboththepublicandprivate

sector,althoughrelativelyfewseemtobemakinguseofthemethodology.The

HumanRightsCommissionofThailand,forinstance,conductedoneofthefirstex

anteHRIAsofatradeagreement,althoughitdidnotfollowastandardHRIA

methodology(Harrison2011,p.168).TheNewZealandHumanRights

Commission,ontheotherhand,conductedacomprehensiveexposthuman

rightsassessmentoftheChristchurchearthquakereconstructionthatshared

manyfeaturesofaHRIA(HRCNZ2013).

TheDanishInstituteforHumanRightshasbeenaleaderindevelopinghuman

rightscompliancetoolsfortheprivatesectorandpublishedanewHRIAtoolfor

businessin2016(DIHR2016).TheUK’sEqualityandHumanRights

Commissionhaspublishedaguidancetoolforlocalauthoritiesonintegrating

EIAintopolicy‐makingandreview(EHRC2010).TheScottishHumanRights

23

Commissionhasproducedaweb‐based“TenGoodPracticeBuildingBlocksfor

AssessingImpactonEqualityandHumanRights”andhasbeenrunningpilot

assessmentswithanumberoflocalcouncils(SHRC2014).TheseparateScottish

ChildrenandYoungPeople’sCommissionerdevelopedprobablythefirstChild

RightsImpactAssessmentmodelnearlyadecadeago(Paton&Munro2006),

whichhasbeenmadealegalrequirementinScotlandsinceJune2015.

IV.HRIAandhumanrightsduediligencebytheUnitedNations

GiventhisproliferationofdifferentformsofHRIAbydifferentactors,itseems

surprisingthereforethattheUnitedNationssystemhasbeenslowtoapplyHRIA

orthebroaderconceptofhumanrightsduediligenceinitswork.Thisisallthe

morestrikinggiventhatHRIAderivesfromtheinternationalhumanrights

frameworkdevelopedbytheUN,andtheUNhasbeenattheforefrontof

advocacyforothers(governments,businessandinternationalfinancial

institutions)toapplyhumanrightssafeguardsandduediligence.TheUnited

Nationshasgenerallynotbeensubjectedtothesamescrutinyforthehuman

rightsimpactofitsactionsasotheractorsliketheWorldBank1,andoftenhides

behinditscommitmenttohumanrights“mainstreaming”or“humanrights

basedapproaches”asanadequateresponse.Butwithgrowingexpectationsof

accountability,thatenvironmentisbeginningtochange:asAustputsit,

internationalorganisations“arenolongerseenasaself‐evidentforceforgood

whoseactionsescapelegalscrutiny”(Aust2015,p.72).

Interestingly,oneofthefirsteverreferencestoHRIAwasmadeinareportby

theUNSecretary‐GeneralontheRighttoDevelopmentasfarbackas1979,

whichrecommendedthatUnitedNationsagenciesprepare“a‘humanrights

impactstatement’,whichmightbesimilarinconcepttoanenvironmentalimpact

statement,…priortothecommencementofspecificdevelopmentprojectsorin

connexionwiththepreparationofanoveralldevelopmentplanorprogramme”

(citedbyMacNaughton2015,p.64).Therewasnoechoofthisideaformore

1Forthepurposesofthisstudy,IamtreatingtheWorldBankGroupasdistinct:althoughithasthestatusofaUNspecializedagency,itmaintainsitsindependence.

24

thanadecadeuntilitwaspickedupin1990bytheCommitteeonEconomic,

SocialandCulturalRights(whichoverseesandinterpretstheConventionon

Economic,SocialandCulturalRights)initsGeneralCommentNo.2on

“internationaltechnicalassistancemeasures”.TheCommitteeobserved,“many

activitiesundertakeninthenameof‘development’havesubsequentlybeen

recognizedasill‐conceivedandevencounterproductiveinhumanrightsterms,”

andencouragedUNagenciestoadoptapracticeof“humanrightsimpact

statements”(CESCR2002,p.2).

Thiswasreinforcedatthe1993WorldConferenceonHumanRightsinVienna,

whichrecommendedUnitedNationsbodies“assesstheimpactoftheirstrategies

andpoliciesontheenjoymentofallhumanrights”andcalledon“regional

organizationsandprominentinternationalandregionalfinanceand

developmentinstitutionstoassessalsotheimpactoftheirpoliciesand

programmesontheenjoymentofhumanrights”(UnitedNations1993,SectionII,

paras1‐2).Whatisnoteworthyisthattheseveryfirstapplicationsoftheideaof

HRIAweredirectedtoUNandinternationaldevelopmentagencies,ratherthan

togovernmentsorbusinessbywhomtheapproachisnowmorecommonly

applied.

Sincethattime,alargenumberofUNhumanrightsmechanismshavepromoted

HRIA,buttheyhavetendedtolookoutwardsratherthaninwards,advocatingits

usebystateandmorerecentlynon‐stateactorslikebusiness.In2003,the

CommitteeontheRightsoftheChild(whichoverseestheConventiononthe

RightsoftheChild)alsoadvocatedasimilarconceptof“childimpact

assessment”or“childimpactevaluation”bygovernmentstopredict“theimpact

ofanyproposedlaw,policyorbudgetaryallocationwhichaffectschildrenand

theenjoymentoftheirrights”(CRC2003,p.11).TheCommitteeextendedthis

recommendationin2013toencouragegovernmentstointroducethepracticeof

childrightsimpactassessmentsintotheirregulationofthebusinesssector(CRC

2013,p.21).Intheirreviewofvariousstates’implementationofthe

Conventions,theCommitteeonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRightsand

CommitteeontheRightsoftheChildhaveregularlyrecommendedtostatesthey

undertakeHRIAorchildrightsimpactassessmentsofvariousdomesticpolicyor

25

budgetmeasures,oroftheirtradeagreements,developmentassistanceand

developmentfinancingprogramswithothercountries.

Duringthesameperiod,variousUNSpecialRapporteurs(independentexperts

appointedbytheHumanRightsCounciltoworkonvariousthematicissues)

haveappliedoradvocatedforHRIAinrelationtotheirspecificmandates,and

theseideashaveinturncross‐fertilizedwiththetreatybodycommentsabove.

ThemostformativeworkwasbytheSpecialRapporteurforhealth,PaulHunt,

whodevelopedamethodologyforahumanrights‐basedapproachtohealth

impactassessments(Hunt&MacNaughton2006).Thiswasfollowedbythe

SpecialRapporteurontherighttofood,OlivierdeSchutter,whoputforwarda

setofGuidingPrinciplesonHumanRightsImpactAssessmentsofTradeand

InvestmentAgreementswhichwereseentoencourageland‐grabbingand

undermineagriculturallivelihoodsandfoodsecurity,aswellasimpactinother

areassuchasaccesstomedicines(DeSchutter2011).

ThegreatestimpetuswasgiventoHRIAhoweverbytheSpecialRepresentative

oftheSecretary‐Generalonbusinessandhumanrights,JohnRuggie,whoover

severalyearsledthebroad‐basedconsultativeprocessthatculminatedinthe

adoptionoftheUNGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights(United

Nations2011).Ruggie’sinitialmandateincludeddevelopingmaterialsand

methodologiesforHRIAandthiswasthesubjectofoneofhisfirstreports

(Ruggie2007).Ruggielatermovedawayfromexplicitlyadvocatingbusiness

conductHRIAs,towardsthebroaderconceptof“humanrightsduediligence”,by

whichcompaniesshouldassessthehumanrightsimpactsoftheiractivities

(Ruggie2008,p.17).ButapplicationoftheGuidingPrincipleshasledtothe

proliferationofHRIAsbeingconductedinthecorporatefielddescribedabove.

HRIAhasalsobeenadvocatedbyotherUNSpecialRapporteursintheir

respectivefields,forinstancetheSpecialRapporteursoneducationandwater

andsanitation(impactofprivatization),theSpecialRapporteuronhousing

(forcedevictionsandtenuresecurity),theSpecialRapporteurontoxicwastes

(extractiveindustries)andmostrecently,theSpecialRapporteuronunilateral

coercivemeasures(impactofsanctionsregimes).InDecember2015,theSpecial

26

RapporteuronforeigndebtconcludedamissiontoGreececallingontheGreek

authoritiesandEuropeancreditorstoundertakeacomprehensiveHRIAofthe

adjustmentprogramme.

Inthecaseofunilateralcoercivemeasures,aspecialprocedurecreatedbythe

HumanRightsCouncilhasanalmostexplicitHRIAmandate.Athematicstudyby

OHCHRin2012suggestedthatunilateralcoercivemeasuresmustbesubjected

toappropriatehumanrightssafeguards,includinghumanrightsimpact

assessments(OHCHR2012).InNovember2013,theHumanRightsCouncil

taskeditsAdvisoryGroupwithpreparingastudycontainingrecommendations

foramechanismto“assessthenegativeimpactofunilateralcoercivemeasures

ontheenjoymentofhumanrights”(HRCResolution24/24).Thissubsequently

ledtotheestablishmentofanewSpecialRapporteuronhumanrightsunilateral

coercivemeasuresinNovember2014(HRCResolution27/21).Inhisfirst

reports,theSpecialRapporteurhasindicatedhewillworkondraftguidelineson

waysandmeanstoprevent,minimizeandredressnegativeimpacts.Impact

assessmentofunilateralcoercivemeasuresishighlyvexedgiventhepoliticized

natureofthedebate,itsextra‐territorialdimensionandchallengesofcausality.

Flowingfromthisnormativework,severalUNagencieshavedevelopedtheir

ownHRIA‐relatedtoolsintheirownareasofspecializationthattheyhave

promotedintheiradvocacywithbothstatesandbusiness.Themostprominent

ofthesearetheChildren’sRightsandBusinessToolsdevelopedbyUNICEF,which

areaimedatcompaniesandcorporatesocialresponsibilityusersandincludea

guideforintegratingchildren’srightsintoimpactassessments(UNICEF2013).

Thistoolismoreofa“compliancechecklist”thananimpactassessment

methodologyanddrawslikeothersonthemodelsdevelopedbytheDanish

InstituteforHumanRights.Asnotedabove,UNICEFisnowtakingasectoral

approachanddevelopinginitiativesinspecificindustriesthatposehigherrisks

forchildrensuchasextractives,tourism,ICT,foodandbeverageandconsumer

goods.

OtherexamplesaretheRighttoFoodAssessmentguideproducedbytheFood

27

andAgricultureOrganisation,whichisnotaHRIAmethodologyassuchbutsets

outarights‐basedapproachtofoodsecurity(FAO2009),andahandbookfor

assessingtheimpactofevictionspublishedbyUNHabitatandtheUNHuman

RightsOffice(OHCHR)whichincludesbothpreventive(exante)andremedial(ex

post)assessmentmethods(UNHabitat&OHCHR2014).

TherearesofaronlyafewexamplesofUnitedNationsagenciesactually

conductingHRIAsthemselves.UNICEFpilotedanexanteassessmentofthe

impactelectricityprivatizationwouldhaveonchildreninBosniaHerzegovina

(UNICEF2007).Thiscomprehensivestudyadaptedthemethodologyusedfor

PovertyandSocialImpactAssessmentbytheWorldBank,usingmixedresearch

methodsbutwithachildrightslensandstrongercomponentofchild

participationthroughinterviewsandfocusgroups.Itmappedanumberofways

inwhichincreasedelectricitypriceswouldimpactpublicserviceproviders

(schools,children’shomesandhealthservices)andplacestressonhousehold

incomeandaffectchildren’squalityoflife,educationopportunitiesandhealth

(throughburningofwoodfuel);providedamonitoringframeworkofindicators;

andsuggestedmitigatingmeasuressuchasreducedtariffsforcertainpublic

institutionsandvulnerablegroups(UNICEF2007,pp.70‐71).

TheUNHumanRightsOffice(OHCHR)hasconcentrateditsworkinthetrade

policydomain,conveningroundtablesofpractitionerstosharepracticeand

lessonslearned(OHCHR&FES2014).In2015,OHCHRandtheUnitedNations

EconomicCommissionforAfrica(UNECA)commissionedascopingstudyusinga

HRIAmethodologyoftheContinentalFreeTradeAgreementproposedbythe

AfricanUnion(Gathli2016).Thestudywasinformedbyaseriesofmulti‐

stakeholderconsultationstoidentifyareasofriskandrecommendationsfor

safeguardstoensuremonitoring,remediesandsocialprotection.OHCHR,UNDP

andWHOpreviouslypublishedHRIAofthePACER‐plusfreetradeagreementfor

thePacificregion(UNDPetal2014),althoughthisislargelyanadvocacyreport

withcasestudiesthanacomprehensiveimpactassessment.In2012,OHCHR’s

countryofficeinCambodiapreparedanassessmentofthehumanrightsimpacts

ofevictionsandresettlementinCambodia,althoughthisfollowedamore

28

traditionalhumanrightsinvestigationratherthanHRIAmethodology(OHCHR

2012).

Inrecentyearstherehavealsobeentwoimportantnewpolicydevelopments

withintheUnitedNationssystemthatmaketheuseofHRIAevenmoreurgent

andrelevant.Thesemirrorthebroadertrendsindevelopment,corporatesocial

responsibilityandgovernancehighlightedinSectionTne.Thefirstoftheseis

theUnitedNations’growingembraceoftheconceptofhumanrightsdue

diligenceinatleastsomehigh‐riskspheresofactivity.Thesecondisnew

thinkingaroundthebroadersustainabledevelopmentagendathathascometo

integratehumanrightsintothesocial,economicandenvironmentaldimensions

ofdevelopment.Thethirdistherisingconcernwithaideffectivenessandthe

demandsfromdonorsfornewapproachestoevaluateandmeasureresultsand

impact.

AnimportantdimensionofhumanrightsduediligencehasarisenfortheUnited

Nationsinthecontextofpeacekeeping.Thiscametotheforeinthecontextof

operationsintheDemocraticRepublicofCongo(DRC),wheretheUNforce

MONUChasarobustmandatefromtheSecurityCounciltoconduct“targeted,

offensiveoperations”againstrebelgroups,“eitherunilaterallyorjointly”with

theDRCarmedforces(Aust2015,p.62).Atthesametime,MONUCwas

mandatedtoprotectciviliansandupholdinternationalhumanrightsand

humanitarianlaw,whichraisedseriousquestionsabouttheUnitedNations’

possiblecomplicityinseriousviolationscommittedbytheDRCarmedforces.In

2009,thisdilemmaledinitiallytoa“conditionalitypolicy”inwhichUNsupport

toDRCarmedforceswas“strictlyconditioned”ontheircompliancewith

internationalhumanitarian,humanrightsandrefugeelaw(Aust2015,p.64),but

thiswassubsequentlyreframedandbroadenedasa“humanrightsduediligence

policy”applicabletoallUnitedNationssupporttonon‐UnitedNationssecurity

forces(UnitedNations2013).

Thecoreprinciplesofthepolicyfollowthecorporateduediligencelogic,setting

aprecautionaryprinciplethat“UnitedNationssupportcannotbeprovidedwhere

therearesubstantialgroundsforbelievingthatthereisarealriskofthereceiving

29

entitiescommittinggraveviolationsofinternationalhumanitarianlaw,human

rightsorrefugeelawandwheretherelevantauthoritiesfailtotakethenecessary

correctiveormitigatingmeasures”(UnitedNations2013,p.1).Thepolicy

requires“anassessmentofthepotentialrisksandbenefitsinvolvedinproviding

support”,includingwhetherprovidingorwithholdingsupportwillaffectthe

abilityoftheUnitedNationstoinfluencetherecipient(UnitedNations2013,p.

5).

Thisnewpolicyisstillinitsearlyphaseofimplementation,anditsscopeis

currentlylimitedtosituationsthatmeetaveryhighthresholdinvolvingariskof

warcrimes,crimesagainsthumanityorothergrossviolations(Aust2015,p.65).

Butitspotentialforapplicationismuchbroader:forinstance,UNsupportto

policeprojectsincountrieswherethereisendemicuseoftorture,orUNsupport

todrugcontrolandcounter‐narcoticsprogrammeswhichinvolvecrop

destructionandhardlinelawenforcementmeasures.

Duediligenceapproachesshouldalsobereinforcedinthecontextofthenew

HumanRightsUpFrontpolicyadoptedbySecretary‐GeneralBanKi‐Moon.

AlthoughapproachestoapplyingHumanRightsUpFrontarestillevolving,it

shouldprovideanimperativetoexaminethehumanrightsimpactofUN

programmingincountrieswithahighriskofgravehumanrightsviolations.For

instance,onecouldcontemplateaHRIAofUNdevelopmentandhumanitarian

programminginacontextlikeDPRKorinasettinglikeRakhineStateof

MyanmarwhereUNprogramsriskreinforcingentrencheddiscriminationor

exclusionoftheRohingyacommunity.

TheUnitedNationshasalsobeenunderincreasingpressureinthebroader

developmentspheretostrengthenitsenvironmentalandsocialsafeguardsin

whichpracticehaslaggedmorethanadecadebehindtheWorldBankandother

lenders.TheWorldBankhasimplementedasystemofPovertyandSocial

ImpactAssessmentssincetheearly2000s,buttheselacktheparticipatory

dimensionofHRIA(Felner2013,p.13).TheWorldBankhasenvironmentaland

socialsafeguards,reviewedin2016,buttheseavoidhumanrightsterminology

withtheexceptionofindigenouspeoples(Alston2015,p.10).ThePerformance

30

StandardsdevelopedbytheInternationalFinanceCorporationforthefinancing

ofprivatesectorprojectshaveimportanthumanrightsimplications,particularly

inrelationtoresettlementandindigenouspeoples,andhaveinturninfluenced

thepoliciesofotherlendinginstitutions,forinstancethroughtheEquator

Principles.

In2011,intherun‐uptotheRio+20UNConferenceonSustainableDevelopment,

theUNSecretary‐GeneralcommissionedaHighLevelPanelonGlobal

Sustainability.Oneofitsfindingswastheneedtointernalizeandstrengthen

environmental,socialandeconomicsustainabilitypracticeswithintheUN

systemitself.ThisledtothedevelopmentofafirsteverFrameworkfor

AdvancingEnvironmentalandSocialSustainabilityintheUnitedNationsSystem

(UnitedNations2012)thatincludeda“systemwidecommitmenttointegrate

simultaneouseconomic,environmentalandsocialimpactassessmentsinmajor

policyanddecisionmakingprocesses”(UnitedNations2012,p.7).

Aninter‐agencyprocessbegantotakestockoftheexistingframeworksinplace

andtodevelopacommonUNsystemapproachtoenvironmentalandsocial

safeguards.Butreadingbetweenthelinesofthepublisheddocumentation,itis

clearthisreviewfoundtheapplicationofsuchmeasurestobe“uneven”(United

Nations2012,p.10)anditprovedimpossibletoreconcilethedifferent

approachesofdifferentagencies:somearguedtheUNshouldleadthewayand

setaprecedentforaddressingsocialissuessuchashumanrights,othersresisted

theimpositionofsuchadditionalprogrammingconstraintsand“transactional

costs”(UnitedNations2012,p.11).Theresultwasto“balanceaccountability

andflexibility”(UnitedNations2012,p.19)andleaveindividualagenciesto

choosetheirownimplementationpath(whichinUN‐speakmeansalowest

commondenominator).

Nevertheless,anumberofneworupdatedsafeguardsframeworkshave

emerged,mostnotablythenewSocialandEnvironmentalStandardsadoptedby

UNDPin2014whichcameintoforceon1January2015(UNDP2014).Inmany

respects,thenewUNDPpolicymirrorsthesafeguardspoliciesandperformance

standardsoftheWorldBankandIFC.Itidentifiesmanyofthesameareasof

31

projectlevelrisk,inparticularrelatingtoforceddisplacementandresettlement,

indigenouspeoplesandworkers’rights.Itprovidesforascreeningandrisk

assessmentprocedureforallprogrammesandprojects,whichcaninturntrigger

morecomprehensiveenvironmentalandsocialimpactassessments,mitigation

andmanagementplans(UNDP2015).Italsoprovidesfortheestablishmentof

“stakeholderresponse”(complaints)mechanismsatprojectlevel,countrylevel

withaninternational“complianceunit”toperformanindependentreview

function(UNDP2014,pp.55).UNDPhaschosenanintegratedmodel,whichis

embeddedwithinitsbroaderriskmanagementandqualityassurances

processes.

WhatisinterestingisthedegreetowhichthenewUNDPsafeguardsgofurther

thantheIFCandsimilarstandardsinintegratinghumanrights.First,UNDP

makeshumanrightsthefirst“overarchingprinciple”ofthepolicyanddefines

(albeitinafootnote)“socialandenvironmental”as“includingthebreadthof

issuesinthestandards,includingthecross‐cuttingprinciplesofhumanrights”

(UNDP2014,p.6).Second,theUNDPpolicycovers“upstream”activitiessuchas

policyadvicenotjustthe“downstream”impactofprojects(UNDP2014,p.48).

Third,severalofthespecificproject‐levelstandardsalsoexceedthoseoftheIFC,

forinstanceamoreexpansiveapplicationofFPICofindigenouspeoples(UNDP

2014,p.36),andamorerights‐basedframingofdisplacementandresettlement

issues(UNDP2014,pp.30‐35).

ItistooearlytoevaluatethenewUNDPpolicyintermsofimplementationand

impact,butfromahumanrightsperspective,twomajorchallengesor

weaknessesareapparent.Firstly,thepolicyrightlyemphasizestheimportance

ofmonitoringrisksandimpactsidentifiedintheassessmentprocessthroughout

theprojectcycle.Butthepolicyexplicitlyasserts,“UNDPdoesnothavea

monitoringrolewithrespecttohumanrights”(UNDP2014,p.9).Howthenwill

UNDPensureeffectivemonitoringofthehumanrightsrisksandimpactsithas

identified?Secondly,whenitcomestohumanrights,thescreeningprocedure

essentiallylooksatwhetherahumanrights‐basedapproachhasbeenusedinthe

projectdesign(UNDP2015,p.36).Butasmuchliteratureinthisfieldhas

shown,“humanrights‐basedapproaches”remainafuzzystandardandvary

32

enormouslyinquality,rigorandintegrity,andthereisaneedtodrillmuch

furthertoachievemeaningfulhumanrightsduediligence.

SeveralothersafeguardsframeworkshaveemergedintheUNenvironmental

world,particularlyforclimatechange‐relatedprogrammesliketheGreen

ClimateFundandUNREDD+(ReducingEmissionsfromDeforestationand

ForestDegradation).Thesevariouslyrequirerecipientstohaveinplace

frameworksforenvironmentalandsocialimpactassessment,stakeholder

consultationsandgrievanceandredressmechanisms,butareinconsistentin

theirapproach(CarbonMarketWatch2015,p.13).Thisisinturnleadingtoa

scramblebydifferentUNagenciestoputsuchpoliciesinplaceinordertobe

eligibleforfunding.TheUNFoodandAgricultureOrganisationand

InternationalFundforAgriculturalDevelopment,forinstance,publishednew

environmentalandsocialsafeguardsinrecentyears(IFAD2014,FAO2015)that

includemuchlessnormativerightscontentandlackanycomplaintsmechanism.

UNICEFisalsoreportedlyintheprocessofdevelopingitsownframework.In

theabsenceofthecommonUNsystemapproachrecommendedabove,thisrisks

afurtherlackofcoherence.

TheseareexamplesofthewayUnitedNationsanddonorpolicyareinter‐twined

innewformsofglobalgovernance.NormativestandardsettingintheUnited

Nations–forinstanceonsustainabledevelopmentorhumanrights–influences

thepoliciesandapproachesofdonorcountries;donorpoliciesinturnshapethe

practiceofUnitedNationsagencies,particularlywhentheyaremade

requirementsforfundingeligibility.Thisdynamicisreinforcedbytheincreasing

preoccupationofdonorswithdevelopmentimpactandaideffectiveness,

reflectedintheriseofresults‐basedmanagementwithitsemphasison

measuringimpact,manifestedevenmoreextremelyinnewdonorapproaches

suchas“impactinvesting”or“evidencebased”and“valueformoney”

programming.Eybenproblematizestheseas“technologiesofpower”that

reinforce“top‐down”approachestodevelopmentand“upwardaccountability”

todonors(Eyben2013,p.7).ForMerrytheyareanextensionofthe“audit

culture”theorizedbyMichaelPowerthatrepresentsanewformof

governmentalityinwhichthesubjectsofregulationarerequiredtomanageand

33

monitorthemselves(Merry2011,p.S83).

ThesetrendspresentbothopportunitiesandchallengesfortheuseofHRIA.On

onehand,asLandmanargues,HRIAcanbeatooltomeasurepositiveimpactsas

wellasanticipatingnegativeones(Landman2006,p.127).Atthesametime,

therecanbeatensionbetween“results‐based”evaluationframeworkswiththeir

demandsforquantitativeandpositivistformsofevidence,and“rights‐based”

approacheslikeHRIAthatplaceemphasisonprocessandqualitativeanalysis

(ICHRP2012,p.4).Amethodologypredicatedonparticipationand

empowermentrisksbecominganothertechnocraticformofauditand

compliance.Thereisalsoadangerthatrelyingontoolslikeimpactassessment

couldunderminethetraditionalformsofobligationandaccountabilitythat

underpinhumanrightslaw(Merry2011,p.S88).

VI.Conclusions

Asbothanimpactassessmentmethodologyandadvocacytechnique,HRIAisstill

initsinfancy.Butatthisformativestageofitsdevelopment,Ibelievetherearea

numberofrolestheUnitedNationscouldplayinnurturingandconsolidating

goodpractice.TheUnitedNationshasanumberofcomparativeadvantagesin

thisregard:itisthecustodianofinternationalhumanrightsstandardsand

shouldplayaleadershiproleintheirapplicationbythewiderdevelopment

community;itsdifferentagenciesandmandatesreflectthespectrumof

specialisations(fromgendertochildrightstoenvironment)requiredforthe

inter‐disciplinaryapproachofHRIA;anditiswellplacedtoplaya“convening”

roleinbringingtogetherthedifferentstakeholders(government,business,civil

society,communities)whoshouldbeengagedinaHRIAprocess.

Asdescribedabove,theUnitedNationshasgonealongwayindevelopingthe

normativebasisforHRIA,andwithitsnewhumanrightsduediligencepolicy

andsustainabledevelopmentframeworksisbeginningtoapplythesetoitsown

work.Thenewgenerationofenvironmentalandsocialsafeguardsbeing

developedbyUNDPandotheragenciespresentasignificantopportunityto

integrateHRIAintotheprojectcycleandmakebroaderhumanrights

“mainstreaming”or“rightsbasedapproaches”morerobust.Althoughcoherence

34

appearstobeelusiveatthisstage,withdifferentagenciesdevelopingdifferent

frameworksandapproaches,arealisticgoalwouldbetoframeacommonUnited

Nations“performancestandard”onhumanrightsthatcouldbeappliedacross

thesystem.

LeadershipbytheUnitedNationsinthisregardcouldinturnpromotegood

practicebyothers,includinggovernmentsindevelopingcountries,donorsand

eventhecorporateworld.AgencieslikeUNDPplayanimportantrolein

capacity‐buildingandpolicyadvice,forinstanceintheformulationof

environmentalandsocialassessmentlawsandregulations,andinsomecases

evensupportimpactassessments(UNDP2014,p.49).Thisprovidesan

opportunitytopromoteandbuildcapacityingovernmentforHRIAorthe

integrationofhumanrightsintootherformsofimpactassessment.UNagencies

couldalsostrengthenthecapacityofotherlocalpartners,suchasnational

humanrightsinstitutionsandcivilsocietytoconductHRIA,bothofpublic

policiesandcorporateactivities.AsshownintheexamplesabovefromNew

Zealand,theUKandThailand,nationalhumanrightsinstitutionsareparticularly

wellsuitedtouseHRIAgiventheirindependentmonitoringrole.

Further,althoughpracticeislimitedsofar,UnitedNationsagenciescouldplaya

strategicandcatalyticroleinconductingHRIAsthemselveseitheratthecountry

leveloronbroaderpolicyandsectoralissues.AsUNICEFisshowinginthechild

rightssphere,theUnitedNationscanplayanindependentconveningrolefora

newformofmulti‐stakeholderHRIAthatbringstogethergovernment,business

andcivilsocietyinonecollaborativeprocess,facilitatesparticipationand

dialogue,andensuresqualityandstandards.Thisisalreadyprovingrelevantin

relationtotradeandinvestmentpolicies.TheUnitedNationsalsohasthe

capacityandinter‐disciplinaryskillsneededforacomprehensiveandrigorous

HRIAwhichcivilsocietyactorsontheirownstruggletoprovide.

Finally,theUnitedNationscouldserveasarepositoryforHRIApracticeand

supporttopractitioners.AsHarrisonwrites,“theHRIAlandscapeislitteredwith

guidanceandtoolkits.Infacttherearealmostasmanytoolkitsasthereare

actualHRIAs”(Harrison2011,p.181).Someacademicsandcivilsocietygroups

35

haveadvocatedthatanindependentbodyliketheUnitedNationscouldplaya

“monitoring”roleofthequalityofHRIAsorhaveastandingcapacitytoconduct

them(Harrison2011,p.182,ColumbiaCenteretal2014,p.14).Thisis

unrealistic,butitwouldbeashortorderfortheUnitedNationstodevelopand

hostanaccessibleweb‐basedportalofHRIAtoolsandpractice.Currentlyafew

ofthesehavebeencreatedintheacademicandNGOworld,butthemajorone

hostedbyAimforHumanRightsintheNetherlandsceasedtoexistevenduring

thelifeofthisprojectwhentheorganizationclosedforfinancialreasons.

Inconclusion,HRIAhasalottooffertheUnitedNationsandtheUnitedNations

coulddomuchmoretoadvanceHRIA.HRIAhasevolvedoutofanumberof

convergingtrendsthatareasrelevanttotheUnitedNationsastopublic

authoritiesortheprivatesector.Theseincludeamoreholisticunderstandingof

sustainabledevelopment,aconcernforhumanrightsduediligenceinproject

activities,andaninterestinaideffectivenessandimpact.WhiletheUnited

NationshasshapedthenormativedevelopmentofHRIA,actualpracticehasbeen

ledbycivilsocietyandbusiness,andtheUnitedNationshasbeenslowerthan

otherdevelopmentinstitutionstoapplyHRIAandhumanrightsduediligencein

itsownwork.Thatsituationisbeginningtochangewiththeadoptionofnew

duediligenceandsustainabilityframeworks.Appliedwell,thesecanreinforce

existingapproachestohumanrightsmainstreaming,beatoolforprevention,

andserveasaplatformforparticipationandempowerment.HRIAcanhelpthe

UnitedNations,likebusinessandotherdevelopmentactors,notonly“dono

harm”butbecomebetteratdoinggood.

RecommendationsforOHCHR

FollowingaresomespecificrecommendationsforhowOHCHRcouldbuild

internalcapacityforHRIAbothatheadquartersandinthefield,applyand/or

promoteHRIAthroughbothitsmonitoringandtechnicalcooperationmandates,

andpromotetheuseofHRIAwithinthebroaderUNsystemasanextensionof

currentHRBAandduediligencepolicies:

36

HRIAtools:ThereisalreadyanabundanceofHRIAtoolsavailableand

producingadefinitiveUNtoolatthisstageisprobablysuperfluous.OHCHR

couldhoweverdevelopanaccessibleweb‐basedportalofHRIAtoolsand

practice,includingpublishedHRIAstudies,whichwouldbemorecomprehensive

andsustainablethatpreviouslycreatedbyNGOoracademicinstitutions.

PromoteawarenessandinterestinHRIAmethodology:ThepotentialforOHCHR

andUNhumanrightsmechanismstouseHRIAshouldbepromotedatannual

fieldpresences,TreatyBodyandSpecialProceduresmeetings.

Specialistsupportandtraining:OHCHRalreadyemploysafewstaffwith

specialistexpertiseinHRIA,buttheyaredispersedwithindifferentdivisions.A

specialistcapacityforHRIAtrainingandsupportshouldberetainedwithin

RRDD(possiblyMETS)andanetworkofstaffpractitionerstrainedand

developedinRRDD,HRTD,SPDandFOTCD.Aspecializedtrainingmodule

shouldbedevelopedinpartnershipwithanexperiencedinstitutionlikethe

DanishInstituteforHumanRights.

Buildcapacityofnationalinstitutions:Severalnationalinstitutionshaveshown

theyarewellplacedtoconductHRIA,particularlyofpublicpolicy,aswellasto

playaconveningroleamongdifferentstakeholders.HRIAshouldbepromoted

activelythroughtheNInetworksandatargetedHRIAtrainingprogram

developedfornationalinstitutions,forinstanceinpartnershipwithUNDPorthe

DanishInstitute.

CommissionmorepilotHRIAs:SofarOHCHR’sexperienceinconductingHRIAs

hasbeenrelativelylimited.OHCHRshouldcommissionavarietyofdifferent

HRIAscoveringdifferentsubjectsandactors(egprivatesector,publicpolicies),

usingdifferentmethodologies(egsingleissue,sector‐wide)andpartnerships(eg

withotherUNagenciesoranationalinstitution)andsubjectthesetosystematic

evaluationtocapturethelessonslearned.Similarly,OHCHRshouldsupport

SpecialProcedurescountryandthematicmandate‐holderstoconducttheHRIAs

onawiderrangeofsubjectsandissues.Untilnow,OHCHRhastendedto

37

undertakeHRIAintherelativelybroadandcomplexdomainoftradepolicy,and

itwouldbeadvisabletofocusinareaswhereimpactscanbemoreaccurately

identifiedandaddressed(egspecificinfrastructureprojectsorpublicpolicies).

AdvocateforHRIAwithGovernmentandbusinessactors:OHCHRshould

advocateforHRIAaspartofitspromotionoftheGuidingPrinciplesonBusiness

andHumanRightsandcreateforaforsharingmethodologyandexperience

amongprivatesectorpractitionersatcountrylevel.WithGovernments,OHCHR

couldseektheintegrationofhumanrightsintolegalframeworksforsocialand

environmentalassessmentandworkwithotherUNagenciestobuildthe

capacityofrelevantstateinstitutionstoundertakeHRIA.

AdvocateforHRIAwithintheUNsystem:ThroughtheHumanRightsTheme

GroupofUNDG,OHCHRshouldpressfortheadoptionofacommonhumanrights

screeningandassessmentprocedureasareinforcementoftheCommon

UnderstandingonHumanRightsBasedApproachesandevolvingUN

sustainabilityframeworks.Thiscouldbethebasisforasystem‐widehuman

rights“performancestandard”andexternalcomplaintsandreviewmechanism,

aspracticedbytheIFCandUNDP.HRIAcouldalsoberecommendedinthe

contextoftheHumanRightsUpFrontPolicy,forinstanceasaformofdue

diligenceforUNdevelopmentandhumanitarianprogramsinsituationswhere

thereisariskofgravehumanrightsviolations.

IntegrateHRIAintoOHCHRmonitoringandevaluationframeworks:Giventhe

resultsframeworkintheOfficeManagementPlanispredicatedonpositive

humanrightsimpact,OHCHRcouldexperimentwiththeapplicationofHRIA

methodsagainstsomeselectedresultsbothforthepurposesofevaluationand

reportingtodonors.

38

AnnexOne

HumanRightsImpactAssessmentoftheMarlinMineinGuatemala

TheMarlinHRIAwascommissionedbyCanadianminingcompanyGoldcorpin

2008inresponsetorisinglocaloppositiontothemine,internationalcriticismof

theproject(includingtheComplianceAdvisorOmbudsman(CAO)ofthe

InternationalFinanceCorporationwhichhadunderwrittentheproject)and

shareholderpressure.Theminehasbeenoperationalsince2005witha

projectedlifespanof10years,sotheHRIArepresentsamid‐termevaluation.It

wasundertakenbyOnCommonGroundConsultants(OCG),aCanadianfirm

specializingincorporatesocialresponsibilityandsustainabledevelopment.

TheMarlinmine

TheMarlinmineisanopen‐pitandundergroundgoldandsilvermineinthe

westernhighlandsofGuatemala.TheMarlinmineis100percentownedbya

Guatemalan‐registeredcompany,MontanaExploradadeGuatemala(Montana).

AseparatecompanynamedPeridotwasalsocreatedbyMontanatoacquireand

holdthelandrightsassociatedwiththeproject.Afteraseriesofacquisitionsand

mergers,theoperationcameunderthecontrolofGoldcorpin2006.

MontanaundertookanoriginalESIAin2003(Montana2003).Thecompanyalso

obtainedaloanofUS$45millionfromtheIFCand,inordertocomplywithIFC

policies,preparedanIndigenousPeoplesDevelopmentPlan(IPDP),Land

AcquisitionProceduresandaPublicConsultationandDisclosurePlan.

Socialandeconomiccontext

TheimpacteesoftheMarlinprojectarethecommunitieslivingaroundthemine

inthemunicipalitiesofSanMiguelIxtahuacánandSipacapa.Accordingtothe

ESIA,only3townscomprising1,408residentswouldbedirectlyaffectedbythe

mine(Montana2003,p.12),althoughthiswasexpandedto12villages

comprising4,086personsintheIPDP(Montana2004,p.3).Thenarrow

39

definitionofimpacteesintheESIAwouldlaterprovetobeoneofthemajorareas

ofcontestationsurroundingtheproject.

95percentofthepopulationofSanMiguelIxtahuacánisindigenousMayaMam.

ThepopulationofSipacapa,whilealsoMayan,representsadistinctindigenous

andlinguisticgroup.Thefailuretoidentifythesecultural,linguisticorsocio‐

economicdifferenceswasafurther,fatefulomissionintheoriginalESIA(CAO

2005,p.3;OCG2010,p.44).

AccordingtotheHRIA,97percentofSanMiguel’spopulationwaslivingin

povertywith81percentinextremepoverty(OCG2010,p.32).Themain

economicactivityissubsistencefarming,withseasonallabourmigrationand

remittancesfrommigrantworkersabroad(OCG2010,p.30).

TheMarlinminehasbeenanimportantsourceoflocalemployment,vocational

trainingandnational(notlocal)procurement(Zarsky&Stanley2013).Giventhe

royaltiesandtaxrevenuesitprovidestothegovernment,itsindirectimpactscan

beconsideredatthenationallevel.Thecompanyhasalsoinvestedinasocial

developmentprogramme,althoughthishasbeenpoorlydocumentedand

accountedfor(OCG2010,pp.144‐151).

Politicalandregulatorycontext

Guatemalahasbeenademocracysince1986,butwasdeeplyaffectedbya36‐

yearinternalarmedconflictuntilpeaceaccordsin1996,whichincludedfar‐

reachingprovisionsforindigenouspeople.Theconflictleftadeeplegacyof

criminalviolenceandimpunity.

SignificantlyforthepurposesoftheHRIA,Guatemalahasratifiedmost

internationalhumanrightstreaties,includingsignificantlyILOConvention169,

whichimposesobligationsforconsultationinrelationtolandacquisitionand

resourceprojectsaffectingindigenouspeople.ILO169hasnothoweverbeen

incorporatedintonationallawsgoverningtheresourcessector.

40

TheESIAfortheMarlinminewasconductedinaccordancewithGuatemala’s

1997mininglaw,whichprovidesnoguidancetocompaniesonwhattheESIA

mustcontainandgivestheenvironmentalauthoritiesonly30daystoreviewthe

study,afterwhichapprovalwillbeautomaticallygranted(Fulmeretal2008,

p.98).TheHRIAalsoobservedthelackofgovernmentcapacitytoenforce

environmentalstandards(OCG2010,p.62).

Whilemunicipalrepresentativessignedstatementsinsupportoftheproject

(CAO2005,p.29),theminequicklygeneratedlocalopposition,protestsand

violence(Coumans2012,Zarsky&Stanley2013).Asthefirstminingproject

approvedunderthe1997law,Marlinbecameaproxyforbroadernational

debatesaboutforeigninvestment,tradeagreementsandtherightsofindigenous

people(CAO2005,p.6;OCG2010,pp.13,42).

TheoriginsoftheHRIA

Againstthisbackdrop,theMarlinminequicklybecamethefocusofadvocacyby

nationalandinternationalNGOnetworkswithinternationalcompliance

mechanisms.InMarch2005,localcommunitiesinSipacapafiledacomplaint

withtheCAOraisingconcernsaboutwateraccessandpollutionandthe

consultationprocess.AlthoughtheCAOdidnotsuspendtheloan,itmadesome

damningobservationsontheoriginalESIAandconsultationprocess(CAO2005).

Similarcomplaintsweremadetootherinternationaloversightbodies,including

theOECD,theILOCommitteeofExpertsonConvention169,andtheInter‐

AmericanCommissiononHumanRights.TheUNSpecialRapporteuron

indigenouspeoplealsoissuedtwospecialreportsonthemine(Anaya2010and

2011).

TheinitiativebehindtheMarlinHRIAneedstobeseeninthiscontext.In

February2008,agroupofCanadianSociallyResponsibleInvestment(SRI)firms

investedinGoldcorpvisitedGuatemalaanddecidedtofileashareholder

41

resolutionrequestingthecompanytocommissionanindependentHRIA.

Followingnegotiations,GoldcorpagreedtotheproposalonwhichbasistheSRI

shareholdersagreedtowithdrawtheresolution(Coumans2012).

Amemorandumofunderstandingwasagreedprovidingthetermsofreference

andestablishingasteeringcommitteefortheHRIA.Concernswereexpressed

thattherewasnorepresentativeoftheaffectedlocalcommunityonthesteering

committee.Inthefaceofcommunityopposition,oneoftheSRIfirms

subsequentlywithdrewitsparticipationintheHRIA.

Coumans,whoisaffiliatedwiththeNGOMiningWatchCanada,arguestherewas

nopriorconsultationbytheSRIfirmswithaffectedcommunitiesandthe

objectivesoftheHRIArancountertocommunitydemandsforacessationofthe

operation.TheHRIAthereforeservedtodivertcriticism,sewfurtherdivisions

inthecommunity,anddelayactionsthatshouldhavebeentakenimmediately

(Coumans2012,p.51‐54).

FulmeretalalsousetheMarlincasetoshowthedangersofglobalgovernance

regimesofcorporateresponsibilityundermininglocaldemocraticprocessesand

stateresponsibility(Fulmeretal2008,p.97).Thisconcernechoesthecritiques

ofothercorporategovernanceregimes,suchasindustrycertificationand

verifiedlegalityschemes(Lectureandreadings,week3).

Methodologicalissues

TheMarlinHRIAprocessinvolvedamajortimeandfinancialinvestmentthatis

unusualforimpactassessmentprocesses.Thestudyinvolvedamixedmethod

andtook18monthstocomplete,withanextensivereviewofcompany

documentationandsecondaryliteratureandtheassessmentteamspending

morethan180daysinGuatemalaincludingover80daysinthemine’slocale

(OCG2010,p.10‐14).Nevertheless,theHRIAreportrevealsanumberof

methodologicalproblemsandconstraints.

42

Althoughtheassessorsconducted183interviewsand10focusgroups

comprising95people,acloserexaminationoftheinterviewees’profilesraises

questionsabouttherepresentativenessofthesampling.Inthefirstphaseonly2

communityleaderswereinterviewedandonelargemeetingheldwith75people

fromSipacapa.Inthesecondphaseonly3interviewswerewithcommunity

representatives,6withcommunitymembersand2withrelocatedpeople.The

focusgroupdiscussionswerewithbeneficiariesofMontana’ssocialprogrammes

(OCG2010,AppendixC).CommunityoppositioninfactledOnCommonGround

toabandonitsplansforaparticipatoryapproachandadoptamorelimited

researchmethodology(OCG2010,p.9).

OnCommonGroundframeditsassessmentquestionsusingthesameDanish

HRCAtoolusedbyINEFabove(OCG2010,p.16).Butthesebenchmarkswere

developedprimarilyforinternalcompliancereportingratherthanexternal

assessment,andsoleadtoacompany‐centeredbias.Manyoftheinterview

questionsareframedintermsof“Didthecompany…?”ratherthantheimpactsof

themineitself(OCG2010,AppendixB).Thisisexacerbatedbytheweaknessof

documentationbyMontanaofitsconsultationprocess,landacquisitionand

socialinvestmentprogrammes,andtheabsenceofanybaselinestudies(OCG

2010,pp.9,18).Althoughthepoliticalcontextultimatelydidnotpermit,abetter

approachwouldhavebeentodevelopanevaluativerubricwithcommunity

participation,whichcouldalsohavelaidthebasisforanongoingmonitoring

framework.

AbroaderchallengeforHRIAsisthatofcausalityandattribution.Theirtheory

ofchangeisthatprojectsimpactpositivelyandnegativelyonapre‐existing

humanrightsenvironment(NomoGaia2009,p.10).Butincaseswherethat

humanrightsenvironmentwasalreadynegative,thecumulativeimpactsofthe

project–andresponsibilitiesofthecompany–maybedifficulttodetermine.

NomoGaiaalsowarnsofthetrendforcommunities(andoutsideactivists)to

presentnormaloperationalandenvironmentalimpactsashumanrights

violations,reflectingagainthetensionsbetweenadvocacyandassessment

(NomoGaia2009,p.5;Kemp&Vanclay2013,p.93).

43

Notwithstandingtheseproblemsandcritiques,theHRIAmethodologypresentsa

numberofotherimportantadvantagesoverregularSIAmethodologies.Asa

result,theMarlinHRIAcapturesanumberofimportantdimensionsthatwere

conspicuouslyabsentfromtheoriginalflawedESIA.

First,ithelpsaddressthecommonproblemofsocialimpactsbeingtreated

separatelyandsecondarilytoenvironmentalconcerns.TheMarlinHRIA’s

dismissalofconcernsaboutwatermanagementandcontaminationremains

contentioushowever.Onthebasisofindependenttechnicalreviewsit

concluded,liketheCAO,thattheminedidnotimpactonwateravailabilityand

thatwaterqualitymonitoringmetinternationalstandards(OCG2010,pp.69‐73).

AnumberofNGO‐commissionedexpertstudies,beforeandaftertheHRIA,have

continuedtoreporthighcyanidelevelsandrelatedhealthproblems,the

dischargeofcontaminatedwaterfromtailingspondswhichhavereachedtheir

capacity,thethreatofextremeweatherevents,andlonger‐termrisksafterthe

mine’sclosure(Goodland2012,Zarsky&Stanley2013).TheMarlinESIAalso

didnotadequatelyaddressdownstreamusersorprovidesufficientbaseline

information(CAO2005,p.23).

Second,aHRIAlaysgreateremphasisonconsultationwithcommunities.Inthe

Marlincase,theCAOhadalreadyfoundtheoriginalconsultationprocesstobe

deficient(CAO2005,p.1‐2).TheMarlinHRIAusesILOConvention169asthe

normativebasisforitsfindings,butnotablydoesnotreferencetheUN

DeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeopleandtheFPICprinciplethathas

notbeenendorsedinGoldcorp’spolicies.However,asnotedabove,theMarlin

HRIAsufferedfromitsownpoliticalconstraintsinapplyingparticipatory

methods.

Third,HRIAsbytheirnatureaddressgovernanceissuesandstate

responsibilitiesmoresquarely.TheMarlinHRIA,forinstance,highlightsthelack

ofanyGovernmentactioninprovidinginformationorensuringconsultation

withaffectedcommunities,asrequiredbyILOConvention169(OCG2010,p.50).

44

Ithintsatcorruptionbyhighlightingtheinstitutionalweaknessofthe

municipalitiesinhandlingincreasedrevenues(OCG2010,p.137).Italsolooksat

theconductofstatesecurityforcesinmaintainingorderaroundtheproject,not

justprivatesecurityguards(OCG2010,pp.163‐171).Thishoweverraisesthe

questionofcorporateresponsibilitybeyondits‘sphereofoperations’toits

‘sphereofinfluence’,anditisdependentonthelevelofratificationof

internationalhumanrightstreatiesbythestateconcerned.

Fourth,theHRIAmethodologyismoreattunedtootherissuesofdiscrimination

andvulnerability,particularlyaffectingindigenouspeople.Anexampleofthisis

intheMarlinHRIA’streatmentoflandacquisition.Accordingtotheoriginal

ESIAandLandAcquisitionProcedures,landwaspurchasedfromexistingowners

onavoluntarybasis,mostofwhohadpossessionrightsratherthanformal

ownership(OCG2010,p.115‐6).Accordingtothecompanynocommunalland

wasinvolved,andonly11percentoflandownershadtheirprincipalresidence

ontheproperty(Montana2004,p.7).TheCAOalsofoundthat“theland

transactionsappeartohavebeenconductedsuccessfully”(CAO2005,p.2).

Byusingahumanrightslens,particularlyindigenouspeople’srights,theMarlin

HRIAraisesanumberofsignificantconcernswiththelandacquisitionprocess.

Landintheminingareahadonlybeenprivatelyheldsinceashort‐livedland

redistributionprograminthe1950sandtherewasanunderlyingcollectivetitle.

Insomecases,eldersheldprivatetitleinordertopreservecommunallands,or

individualownershadusufruct(useandpossession)rightsonly.Reportedly,the

Sipacapacommunityhasanevenstrongercollectiveapproachtoland

ownership.

Whilethecompanyconductedtitlesearcheswiththemunicipalauthorities,it

didnotconductbroaderconsultationswithinthecommunityaboutindividual

landsales(OCG2010,pp.129‐30).Norwasanyspecificassessmentmadeofany

culturalorreligiousperspectivesontheuseorlossofland(p.131).TheHRIA

couldhavefurtherclarifiedtheseissuesbyusingamoreparticipatory

45

methodology,perhapsevenutilizingGIS,althoughrecognizingthepotentialfor

conflictinthisarea.

TheMarlinHRIAatleasthighlightssomeimpactsonwomen,including

disputationoverwomen’sinheritancerightsinlandacquisitiondealsand

equalityofemploymentopportunityinthemineworkforce(OCG2010,pp.92).

ButitdoesnotpickupothergenderconcernscitedinNGOliterature,suchas

increasedprevalenceofalcoholandrelatedviolenceagainstwomenora

reportedincreaseinprostitution(Goodland2012,p.9).Amorecomprehensive

genderimpactassessmentmightalsohaveshedlightonfurtherchangesin

women’sproductive,reproductiveandcommunityroles.

Conclusion

TheMarlinHRIAundertakenbyOnCommonGroundprovidesaninteresting

casestudyoftheopportunitiesanddilemmasofHRIAasaSIAmethodology.

HRIA’sstrongnormativebase,attentiontocontext,framingofenvironmental

rightsandfocusondiscriminationaddvaluetotraditionalSIAmethods.But

HRIAscanstrugglewithattributionandcausality,carryanadvocacybias,and

theirengagementwithcommunitypoliticscanbejustasfraught.Ifframedand

conductedinaparticipatoryway,however,HRIAoffersapowerfulnewtoolto

empowercommunities,deepenimpactassessmentandstrengthen

accountabilityforcorporateandstateactors.

46

AnnexTwo

EqualityImpactAssessmentofPublicPolicyintheUnitedKingdom

MostHRIAsfocusonprivatesectoractivity,butinrelationtothepublicsector,a

furtherstrandofimpactassessmentmethodologyhasdevelopedintheUKinthe

formof“equalityimpactassessment”.Thisprocedure,requiredunderdifferent

statutes,providesaninterestingexampleofthekindofhumanrightsscreening

procedurewhichcouldbeappliedwithintheUnitedNations.

PublicauthoritiesintheUKwerefirstrequiredtoundertakeequalityimpact

assessmentsondisabilityandraceundertheDisabilityDiscriminationAct,1995

andamendmentstotheRaceRelations(Amendment)Act,2000.Butin2010,the

UKadoptedacomprehensiveEqualityActthatbroughttogethermorethan100

separatepiecesoflegislationcoveringdifferentissuesandgroups.TheEquality

Actextendedpre‐existingcoverageofraceanddisabilitytosixotherprotected

categories:age,genderreassignment,religionorbelief,pregnancyand

maternity,sexualorientation,andmarriageandcivilpartnership.TheActalso

createdageneral“PublicSectorEqualityDuty”–essentiallyaduediligence

requirement–thatrequirespublicauthoritiesintheexerciseofpublicfunctions

tohave“dueregard”totheneedtoeliminateconductprohibitedbytheActand

advanceequalityofopportunity.

AlthoughtheActdoesnotexplicitlyrequirethistotaketheformof“equality

impactassessments”(EIAs),thesehavebeenpromotedasagoodpracticebythe

UK’sEqualityandHumanRightsCommissionandarewidelyusedbymany

GovernmentdepartmentsandlocalauthoritiesintheUK.Interestingly,inthe

devolvedsystemsinScotlandandWales,specificdutieshavebeenaddedinthe

lawtoexplicitlyrequireEIAs.InNorthernIreland,wheretheseissuesareeven

moresensitivepost‐conflict,evenmoreonerousdutieshavebeenplacedon

publicauthoritiestoreportonequalityissues.TheEqualityandHumanRights

Commissionhaspublishedaguidancetoolforlocalauthoritiesonintegrating

EIAintopolicy‐makingandreview:

47

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/PSD/equ

ality_impact_assessment_guidance_quick‐start_guide.pdf

ScotlandhasgoneevenfurtherinaddingaChildRightsandWellbeingImpact

AssessmentsinceJune2015.TheScottishChildrenandYoungPeople’s

CommissionerhasbeenpromotingaChildRightsImpactAssessmentmodel

since2006:

http://www.cypcs.org.uk/uploaded_docs/children's%20rights%20impact%20a

ssessment.pdf

Ofcourse,thequalityofEIAsbypublicauthoritiesvariesconsiderablyandis

oftendegradedasa“tick‐the‐box”exercise.JamesHarrisonandMary‐Ann

Stephensonprovideacriticalreviewofsomeofthecommonchallengesand

failingsofEIAsin,‘HumanRights,EqualityandPublicSpending’(HarrisonJ&

StephensonM‐A2013).Theseincludethelackofconsultation,narrowscope,

weakanalysisofdataandpoliticalselectivityoffindings.Butacomprehensive

humanrightsandequalityassessmentoftheimpactofspendingcutsonwomen

andminoritiesbyCoventryWomen’sVoicesandtheCentreforHumanRights

Practiceshowthefullpotentialityofthistool:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/centres/chrp/publications/

unravelling_equality_full.pdf

TheuseofEIAshasbeenreinforced,however,byagrowingnumberofcourt

casesinwhichpeoplehavesoughtjudicialreviewofGovernmentdecisionson

thebasisthatthePublicSectorEqualityDutyhasnotbeenfulfilled.Inthese

cases,thecourtshavegivensignificantweighttotheexistence(ornot)and

qualityofEIAsasevidenceofcompliance,andanumberofdecisions/policies

havebeensuccessfullychallengedonthisbasis.Therearealsosomecasesthat

haveproducedsimilarjurisprudenceintheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights.A

veryup‐to‐dateanalysisofthecaselawinthisareaisprovidedbyMcColgan

(2015).AcomprehensivedatabaseofallrelevantUKcourtdecisionsonthe

humanrightsandequalityimpactofspendingcutshasbeencompiledbythe

UniversityofWarwickat

48

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/research/centres/chrp/projects/spe

ndingcuts/resources/database/legal

. Civilsocietyorganisationsareincreasinglyusingthisasaneffectivestrategyto

challengetheausteritypoliciesandbudgetcutsimposedbythecentral

ConservativeGovernment.Asaresult,therehasnowbeenapoliticalpushback

bytheConservativeGovernmentonthescopeofthePublicSectorEqualityDuty

andtheuseofEIAs.InaspeechtoanindustrygroupinNovember2012,former

PrimeMinisterCameronprovocativelysaid:“WehavesmartpeopleinWhitehall

whoconsiderequalitiesissueswhilethey’remakingthepolicy.�Wedon’tneedall

thisextratick‐boxstuff.SoIcantellyoutodaywearecallingtimeonEquality

ImpactAssessments.Younolongerhavetodothemiftheseissueshavebeen

properlyconsidered.”

. TheGovernmentlaunchedanindependentreviewongroundsof“redtape”,

althoughsurprisinglythepanelfound“broadsupport”fortheprinciplesbehind

theequalitydutybutproblemsinitsimplementation;itconcludeditwastoo

earlytomakeafinaljudgmentandrecommendedafurtherreviewafterfive

yearsofexperiencewiththelegislationin2016.Separately,theGovernmentis

alsomovingtowithdrawfromtheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights,

whichcouldfurtherclosethiscourseofjudicialreview.

. TheUKexperienceisausefulcasestudyoftheapplicationofHRIAmethodology

topublicpolicy;therisksofHRIAbecomingasuperficialorbureaucratic

exercise;hownationalhumanrightsinstitutionscanuseHRIAsorplaya

convening/capacity‐buildingroleforotherstousethem;andhowthelegalbasis

ofhumanrightsgivesHRIAanadditionaledgeoverotherformsofSIAandcan

beusedasthebasisforlitigationstrategies.

49

Bibliography

AlstonP2015,ReportoftheSpecialRapporteuronextremepovertyandhuman

rights,A/70/274,UnitedNations.

AnayaJ2010and2011,ReportoftheSpecialRapporteuronthesituationof

humanrightsandfundamentalfreedomsofindigenouspeople,

A/HRC/15/37/Add.8andA/HRC/18/35.Add.3,UnitedNations.

AustHP2015.‘TheUNHumanRightsDueDiligencePolicy:AnEffective

MechanismagainstComplicityofPeacekeepingForces?’,JournalofConflict&

SecurityLaw,vol.20,no.1,pp.61–73.

BakkerS,VanDenBergM,DuZenliD&RadstaakeM2009,‘HumanRights

ImpactAssessmentinPractice:TheCaseoftheHealthRightsofWomen

AssessmentInstrument(HeRWAI)’,JournalofHumanRightsPractice,vol.1,no.

3,pp.436‐458.

BerneDeclaration2014,OwningSeeds,AccessingFood:AHumanRightsImpact

AssessmentofUPOV1991basedoncasestudiesinKenya,PeruandthePhilippines,

BerneDeclaration,Zurich.

BerneDeclaration,CanadianCouncilforInternationalCo‐operation&Misereor

2010,HumanRightsImpactAssessmentforTradeandInvestmentAgreements.

ReportoftheExpertSeminar,June23‐24,2010,Geneva,viewed15December,

<http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/docs/report_hria‐

seminar_2010.pdf>

BlackburnJ,BrocklesbyMA,CrawfordS&HollandJ2005,‘Operationalisingthe

RightsAgenda:ParticipatoryRightsAssessmentinPeruandMalawi’,IDS

Bulletin,vol.36,no.1,pp.91‐99.

50

BMZFederalMinistryforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment2013,

Guidelines�onincorporatingHumanRightsStandardsandPrinciples,including

Gender,�inProgrammeProposals�forBilateralGermanTechnicalandFinancial

Cooperation,viewed15December2015,

<https://www.giz.de/expertise/downloads/Guidelines_on_incorporating_huma

n_rights_standards_and_principles.pdf>

BusinessforSocialResponsibility(BSR)2013,ConductinganEffectiveHuman

RightsImpactAssessment:Guidelines,StepsandExamples,BSR,Paris.

CAO2005,AssessmentofacomplaintsubmittedtoCAOinrelationtotheMarlin

MiningProjectinGuatemala,7Sept2005,InternationalFinanceCorporation.

CarbonMarketWatch2015,SocialandEnvironmentalAccountabilityofClimate

FinanceInstruments:PolicyBrief,CarbonMarketWatch,Brussels.

CoumansC2012,‘Mining,humanrightsandthesociallyresponsibleinvestment

industry:consideringcommunityoppositiontoshareholderresolutionsand

implicationsofcollaboration’,JournalofSustainableFinanceandInvestment,vol.

2,no.1,pp.44‐63.

ColumbiaCentreonSustainableInvestment(CCSI),SciencesPoLawSchool

Clinic&ColumbiaLawSchoolHumanRightsInstitute2014,HumanRights

ImpactAssessmentsofLarge‐ScaleForeignInvestments:ACollaborativeReflection,

NewYork,viewed15December,

<http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2014/12/Human‐Rights‐Impact‐Assessments‐

A‐Collaborative‐Reflection.pdf>

CommitteeonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights(CESCR)1990,General

CommentNo.2:Internationaltechnicalassistancemeasures(Art22ofthe

Covenant),UnitedNations.

51

CommitteeontheRightsoftheChild(CRC)2003,GeneralCommentNo.5:

GeneralmeasuresofimplementationoftheConventionontheRightsoftheChild

(arts.4,42and44,para.6),CRC/GC/2003/5,UnitedNations.

CommitteeontheRightsoftheChild(CRC)2013,GeneralCommentNo.16on

Stateobligationsregardingtheimpactofthebusinesssectoronchildren’srights,

CRC/C/GC/16,UnitedNations.

CoumansC2012,‘Mining,humanrightsandthesociallyresponsibleinvestment

industry:consideringcommunityoppositiontoshareholderresolutionsand

implicationsofcollaboration’,JournalofSustainableFinanceandInvestment,vol.

2,no.1,pp.44‐63.

DanishInstituteforHumanRights(DIHR)2006,HumanRightsCompliance

Assessment(HRCA)QuickCheck,DIHR,Copenhagen.

DanishInstituteforHumanRights(DIHR)2016,Humanrightsimpactassessment

guidanceandtoolbox,DIHR,Copenhagen,viewed15January2017at

http://www.humanrights.dk/business/tools/human‐rights‐impact‐assessment‐

guidance‐and‐toolbox

DeBecoG2009,‘HumanRightsImpactAssessments’,NetherlandsQuarterlyof

HumanRights,vol.27,no.2,pp.139‐166.

DeSchutterO2011,ReportoftheSpecialRapporteurontherighttofood:Guiding

principlesonhumanrightsimpactassessmentsoftradeandinvestment

agreements,A/HRC/19/59/Add.5,UnitedNations.

EqualityandHumanRightsCommission(EHRC)2010,EqualityImpact

AssessmentQuickStartGuide,EHRC,Manchester.

EqualityandHumanRightsCommission(EHRC)2013,Guidanceonhumanrights

forcommissionersofhomecare,EHRC,Manchester.

52

EquitableCambodia&InclusiveDevelopmentInternational2013,Bittersweet

Harvest:AHumanRightsImpactAssessmentoftheEuropeanUnion’sEverything

butArmsInitiativeinCambodia,PhnomPenh.

EuropeanCommission(EC)2011,OperationalGuidanceontakingintoaccount

ofFundamentalRightsinCommissionImpactAssessments,Brussels,viewed15

December2015,<http://www.statewatch.org/news/2011/may/eu‐com‐fra‐

assessment‐sec‐0567‐11.pdf>

EuropeanCommission(EC)2015,Guidelinesontheanalysisofhumanrights

impactsinimpactassessmentsfortrade‐relatedpolicyinitiatives,Brussels,viewed

15December2015,

<http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/july/tradoc_153591.pdf>

EybenR2013,UncoveringthePoliticsof‘Evidence’and‘Results’:AFramingPaper

forDevelopmentPractitioners,viewed15December2015,

<http://bigpushforward.net/wp‐content/uploads/2011/01/The‐politics‐of‐

evidence‐11‐April‐20133.pdf>

FelnerE2013,HumanRightsImpactAssessments:AReviewoftheLiterature,

DifferenceswithotherformsofAssessmentsandRelevanceforDevelopment,World

Bank,Washington.

FoodandAgricultureOrganisationoftheUnitedNations(FAO)2009,Guideto

ConductingaRighttoFoodAssessment,FAO,Rome.

FoodandAgricultureOrganisationoftheUnitedNations(FAO)2015,

EnvironmentalandSocialManagementGuidelines,FAO,Rome.

FulmerA,GodoyA&NeffP2008,‘IndigenousRights,ResistanceandtheLaw:

LessonsfromaGuatemalanMine’,LatinAmericanPoliticsandSociety,vol.50,no.

4,pp.91‐121.

53

GaetzG&FranksDM2013,‘IncorporatingHumanRightsintotheCorporate

Domain:DueDiligence,ImpactAssessmentandIntegratedRiskManagement,

ImpactAppraisalandAssessment,vol.31,no.2,pp.97‐106.

GathliJT2016,ScopingStudy:DesigningtheContinentalFreeTradeArea(CFTA):

AnAfricanHumanRightsPerspective,OfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHuman

Rights,UnitedNationsEconomicCommissionforAfrica,FriedrichEbertStiftung,

Geneva.

GoodlandR2012,Guatemala’sMarlinGoldMine:Suggestionstorectifyitsmost

seriouserrors,BusinessandHumanRightsResourceCentre,viewed3Nov2014,

<http://business‐humanrights.org/en/guatemala’s‐marlin‐gold‐mine‐

suggestions‐to‐rectify‐its‐most‐serious‐errors‐paper‐on‐suggestions‐to‐reduce‐

its‐social‐and‐environmental‐impact#c67739>

HarrisonJ2011,HumanRightsMeasurement:ReflectionsonCurrentPractice

andtheFuturePotentialofHumanRightsImpactAssessment’,JournalofHuman

RightsPractice,vol.3,no.2,pp.162‐187.

HarrisonJ2013,‘Establishingameaningfulhumanrightsduediligenceprocess

forcorporations:learningfromexperienceofhumanrightsimpactassessment’,

ImpactAssessmentandProjectAppraisal,vol.31,no.2,pp.107‐117.

HarrisonJ&StephensonM‐A2013,‘HumanRights,EqualityandPublic

Spending’inNolanA,O’ConnellR&HarveyC2013,HumanRightsandPublic

Finance:BudgetsandthePromotionofEconomicandSocialRights,Hart

Publishing,Oxford.

HuntP&MacNaughtonG2006,ImpactAssessments,PovertyandHumanRights:A

CaseStudyusingtheRighttotheHighestAttainableStandardofHealth,Health

andHumanRightsWorkingPaperSeriesNo.6,UNESCO,Paris.

54

HouseofCommonsLibrary2015,ThePublicSectorEqualityDutyandEquality

ImpactAssessments,BriefingPaperno.6591,London.

HumanRightsCommissionofNewZealand(HRCNZ)2013,MonitoringHuman

RightsintheCanterburyEarthquakeRecovery,HRCNZ,Auckland.

InstituteforHumanRightsandBusiness2011,The‘StateofPlay’ofHuman

RightsDueDiligence:Anticipatingthenextfiveyears,London.

InternationalCentreforHumanRightsandDemocraticDevelopment(Rights&

Democracy)2011,GettingitRight:HumanRightsImpactAssessmentGuide,

Montreal,viewed15December2015,<http://hria.equalit.ie/en/>

InternationalCouncilforHumanRightsPolicy(ICHRP)2012,NoPerfect

Measure:RethinkingEvaluationandAssessmentofHumanRightsWork:Reportof

aWorkshop,ICHRP,Geneva.

InternationalCouncilonMiningandMetals(ICMM)2012,Integratinghuman

rightsduediligenceintocorporateriskmanagementpractices,ICMM,London.

InternationalFinanceCorporation(IFC),InternationalBusinessLeadersForum

&UNGlobalCompact2010,GuidetoHumanRightsImpactAssessmentand

Management(HRIAM),WorldBank,Washington.

InternationalFundforAgriculturalDevelopment(IFAD)2014,ManagingRisksto

CreateOpportunities:IFAD’sSocial,EnvironmentalandClimateAssessment

Procedures,IFAD,Rome.

IPIECA&DanishInstituteforHumanRights(DIHR)2013,IntegratingHuman

Rightsintoenvironmental,socialandhealthimpactassessments:Apracticalguide

fortheoilandgasindustry,IPIECA&DIHR,London.

55

KempD&VanclayF2013,‘Humanrightsandimpactassessment:clarifyingthe

connectionsinpractice’,ImpactAssessmentandProjectAppraisal,vol.31,no.2,

pp.86‐96.

KuoniTravelHoldingLtd2012,AssessingHumanRightsImpacts:KenyaPilot

ProjectReport,Zurich.

KuoniTravelHoldingLtd2014,AssessingHumanRightsImpacts:IndiaProject

Report,Zurich.

Lahiri‐DuttK&AhmadN2011,‘Consideringgenderinsocialimpactassessment’,

NewDirectionsinSocialImpactAssessment:ConceptualandMethodological

Advances,EdwardElgar,Cheltenham.

LandmanT2006,StudyingHumanRights,Routledge,NewYork.

MacNaughtonG2015,‘HumanRightsImpactAssessment:AMethodforHealthy

PolicyMaking’,HealthandHumanRightsJournal,vol.17,no.1,pp.63‐75.

MacNaughtonG&HuntP2011,‘Ahumanrights‐basedapproachtosocialimpact

assessment’,NewDirectionsinSocialImpactAssessment:Conceptualand

MethodologicalAdvances,EdwardElgar,Cheltenham.

McColganA2015,‘LitigatingthePublicSectorEqualityDuty:TheStorySoFar’,

OxfordJournalofLegalStudies,vol.35,no.3,pp.453‐485.

MerrySE2011,‘MeasuringtheWorld:Indicators,HumanRights,andGlobal

Governance’,CurrentAnthropology,vol.52,no.S3,pp.S83‐S95.

MontanaExploradadeGuatemala2003,SocialandEnvironmentalImpact

AssessmentStudy:MarlinMiningProject,viewed3Nov2014,

<http://ifcext.ifc.org/ifcext/spiwebsite1.nsf/2ede8724e4cc8a0d852578a70062

56

e743/060a86a906546c1c852576c10080cc1f/$FILE/E&SIA%20Study%20Execu

tive%20Summary.pdf>

Montana___2004,IndigenousPeoplesDevelopmentPlan,viewed3Nov2014,

<http://ifcext.ifc.org/ifcext/spiwebsite1.nsf/2ede8724e4cc8a0d852578a70062

e743/060a86a906546c1c852576c10080cc1f/$FILE/IPDP%2002‐19‐04.pdf

MyanmarCentreforResponsibleBusiness,InstituteofBusinessandHuman

Rights&DanishInstituteforHumanRights(DIHR)2014,MyanmarOilandGas

SectorWideImpactAssessment,Yangon.

MyanmarCentreforResponsibleBusiness,InstituteofBusinessandHuman

Rights&DanishInstituteforHumanRights(DIHR)2015,MyanmarTourism

SectorWideImpactAssessment,Yangon.

Nestlé&DanishInstituteforHumanRights(DIHR)2013,TalkingtheHuman

RightsWalk:Nestlé’sExperienceAssessingHumanRightsImpactsinitsBusiness

Activities,Vevey.

NomoGaia2009,HumanRightsImpactAssessmentontheproposedNuiguyomine

inIndonesia,viewed3Nov2014at<http://nomogaia.org/2009/01/aimec‐

nuiguyo‐gold‐mine‐indonesia/>

NomoGaia2012,HumanRightsImpactAssessment:Atoolkitforpractitioners

conductingcorporateHRIAs,Denver.

OnCommonGroundConsultants(OCG)2010,HumanRightsAssessmentof

Goldcorp’sMarlinMine,Vancouver.

OfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights(OHCHR)CambodiaCountry

Office2012,EvictionandResettlementinCambodia:HumanCosts,Impactsand

Solutions,PhnomPenh.

57

OHCHR2012,Thematicstudyontheimpactofunilateralcoercivemeasuresonthe

enjoymentofhumanrights,includingrecommendationsonactionsaimedat

endingsuchmeasures,A/HRC/19/33,UnitedNations.

OfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights(OHCHR)&FriedrichEbert

Schtiftung(FES)2014,‘MakingtheRightImpact?’:ExpertWorkshopon

EvaluatingHumanRightsImpactAssessmentsinTradeandInvestmentRegimes,

viewed15December2015,

<http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Globalization/Report_HRIA_Works

hop.pdf>

OnCommonGroundConsultants(OCG)2010,HumanRightsAssessmentof

Goldcorp’sMarlinMine,OCG,Vancouver.

OxfamAmerica2015,CommunityVoiceinHumanRightsImpactAssessments,

Oxfam,Boston.

RuggieJ2007,ReportoftheSpecialRepresentativeoftheSecretary‐Generalonthe

issueofhumanrightsandtransnationalcorporationsandotherbusiness

enterprises:Humanrightsimpactassessments‐resolvingkey

methodologicalquestions,A/HRC/4/74,UnitedNations.

RuggieJ2008,ReportoftheSpecialRepresentativeoftheSecretary‐Generalonthe

issueofhumanrightsandtransnationalcorporationsandotherbusiness

enterprises:Protect,RespectandRemedy:AFrameworkforBusinessandHuman

Rights,A/HRC/8/5,UnitedNations.

RuggieJ2010,ReportoftheSpecialRepresentativeoftheSecretary‐Generalonthe

issueofhumanrightsandtransnationalcorporationsandotherbusiness

enterprises:Furtherstepstowardsoperationalizationofthe‘protect,respectand

remedy’framework,A/HRC/14/27,UnitedNations.

SauerAT&PodhoraA2013,‘Sexualorientationandgenderidentityinhuman

rightsimpactassessment’,ImpactAssessmentandProjectAppraisal,vol.31,no.2,

58

pp.135‐145.

PatonL&MunroG2006,Children’sRightsImpactAssessment:TheSCCYPModel,

Scotland’sCommissionerforChildrenandYoungPeople,Edinburgh.

ScottishHumanRightsCommission(SHRC)2014,10GoodPracticeBuilding

BlocksforAssessingImpactonEqualityandHumanRights,Edinburgh,viewed15

December2015,<

http://www.scottishhumanrights.com/eqhria/eqhriagoodpractice>

StephensonMA&HarrisonJ2011,UnravellingInequality:AHumanRightsand

EqualityImpactAssessmentofthePublicSpendingCutsonWomeninCoventry,

UniversityofWarwick,Warwick.

UNICEF2007,ChildRightsImpactAssessmentofPotentialElectricityPriceRisesin

BosniaandHerzegovina,UNICEF,BosniaandHerzegovina.

UNICEF&DanishInstituteforHumanRights(DIHR)2013,Children’sRightsin

ImpactAssessments:Aguideforintegratingchildren’srightsintoimpact

assessmentsandtakingaction,UNICEF,NewYork.

UnitedNations1993,ViennaDeclarationandProgrammeofAction,United

Nations.

UnitedNations2011,GuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRights,United

Nations,NewYorkandGeneva.

UnitedNations2012,AFrameworkforAdvancingEnvironmentalandSocial

SustainabilityintheUnitedNationsSystem,UnitedNations,Geneva.

UnitedNations2013,HumanrightsduediligencepolicyonUnitedNationssupport

tonon‐UnitedNationssecurityforces,A/67/775‐S/2013/110/Annex,United

Nations.

UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP),WorldHealthOrganisation

(WHO)andOfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights(OHCHR)2014,

PacificTradeandHumanRights,Suva.

59

UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP)2014,Socialand

EnvironmentalStandards,UNDP,NewYork.

UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP)2015,Socialand

EnvironmentalScreeningProcedure,UNDP,NewYork.

UNHabitat&OfficeoftheHighCommissionerforHumanRights(OHCHR)2014,

AssessingtheImpactofEvictionsHandbook,UNHabitat,Nairobi.

USGeneralServicesAdministration(GSA)1998,NEPAFactSheet,GSA,

Washington.

UvinP2007,‘Fromtherighttodevelopmenttotherightsbasedapproach:how

‘humanrights’entereddevelopment’,DevelopmentinPractice,vol.17,no.4‐5,

pp.597‐606.

VanclayF2003,‘InternationalPrinciplesforSocialImpactAssessment’,Impact

AssessmentandProjectAppraisal,vol.21,no.1,pp.5‐11.

VanclayF2006,‘Principlesforsocialimpactassessment:Acriticalcomparison

betweentheinternationalandUSdocuments’,EnvironmentalImpactAssessment

Review,vol.25,pp.3‐14.

WalkerS2009,TheFutureofHumanRightsImpactAssessmentsofTrade

Agreements,Intersentia,Utrecht.

WatsonG,TamirI&KempB2013,‘Humanrightsimpactassessmentinpractice:

Oxfam’sapplicationofacommunity‐basedapproach’,ImpactAssessmentand

ProjectAppraisal,vol.31,no.2,pp.118‐127.

WorldBank&OECD2012,IntegratingHumanRightsintoDevelopment:Donor

Approaches,ExperiencesandChallenges,2ndedition,WorldBank,Washington.

ZarskyL&StanleyL2013,‘CanExtractiveIndustriesPromoteSustainable

Development?ANetBenefitsFrameworkandaCaseStudyoftheMarlinMinein

Guatemala’,JournalofEnvironmentandDevelopment,vol.XX,no.X,pp.1‐24.