Tag Archives: HRIA

Measuring Human Rights Impacts with Geospatial Information

Today, human rights investigators have unprecedented access to information. Access to government archives, corporate information and a range of data on people around the world abound. In recent years, human rights activists have also turned to satellite imagery as another means for collecting evidence of human rights issues. With all of this available information, the challenge is to understand what all of this means to both assessors and the people impacted by business activity.

At a recent conference hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, DC several speakers touched on geospatial information as a source of data for identifying human rights problems. Commonly thought of as satellite mapping, geographic information systems (GIS) is a technology that has been in active use since the 1970s. As the technology for gathering geospatial information has improved, the data gathered has become readily available to the public and many new applications using GIS have been developed.

In the field of human rights, the use of GIS data has been used for identifying mass grave sites, the burning and destruction of communities, gas flaring and the after effects of aerial bombardment. In each of these cases, the scope of destruction lends itself to relatively easy identification of human harm from above, often by comparing views of a specific location over time.

In the field of business and human rights, the use of geospatial data and GIS may seem less obvious. When assessing the human rights impacts of business activities, GIS can provide valuable data on the physical impacts arising out of “footprint” projects, that is, physical business operations that can transform a community. For example, prior to the start of an open pit mining operation, an understanding of the physical environment viewed from above serves as a baseline for identifying changes brought about by the physical destruction of a given area.

For example, in 2013, the government of Myanmar entered into an agreement with a Japanese consortium to develop the Silawa Special economic Zone (SEZ). Located approximately 15 miles (25 kilometers) south of Yangon (Rangoon). Approximately 4500 people were displaced by the project. While the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), a partner in the development, has argued that impacted villagers were provided land as compensation for being displaced, the impacted villagers have complained about the new, largely uninhabitable land. Satellite imagery of the area taken in 2012 and again in April of 2015, reveal profound changes to the physical environment that reveal the impact of the development project.

Thilawa SEZ 2012: Courtesy of Google Earth
Thilawa SEZ 2012: Courtesy of Google Earth

 

Thilawa2015-1
Thilawa SEZ April 2015: Courtesy Google Earch

However, interpreting this data provides a more nuanced understanding of the human rights impacts arising out of this project. When people living in the path of this project were relocated, their new land was found to be unsuitable for human habitation due to marshy conditions. By analyzing the geospatial imagery of the area, human rights assessors could identify specific impacts on the economic and social rights (right to adequate housing, right to food) as revealed by the destruction of farmland and the presence of water in marshy areas surrounding the project.

Combined with GPS tagged data collected in the community (location of homes and people, and agricultural land, water sources, and access routes), GIS data can inform a clearer analysis of human rights impacts in and around business activity. Markers inserted as layers on the GIS map that include links to photographs taken at specific locations on and near the affected site and field notes gathered can provide human rights assessors with a deeper understanding of the scope of the problems facing impacted people.

Geographic information systems are an invaluable tool for understanding the human rights implications of business activity. With the technology readily available, its use will inform a better understanding of the range of human rights concerns facing communities and aid human rights experts in their work.

 

 

The Nicaragua Canal: The Human Rights Implications

Credit: BBC News
Credit: BBC News

In recent weeks, media reports have come out of Nicaragua about a Chinese telecom titan, Wang Jing, which with the support of the Nicaraguan government is planning to construct a canal to connect the Caribbean and the Pacific. An ambitious plan by any measure, the initial cost estimate is around US$50 Billion. If constructed, the canal would extend 173 miles across the second poorest country in the region, eclipsing the Panama Canal by more that 120 miles. While dismissed by many familiar with the plan, the developer, with likely financial backing from the government of the People’s Republic of China, could act on his plan to move forward and start construction in December of 2014. While environmental experts have expressed alarm over the impact of such a massive project, much less has been said about the human rights impacts on the many thousands of people in the path of this project though the implications for human rights abuses are significant.

The purpose of this blog is to look at the possible human rights implications of such a massive and disruptive project and suggest an approach for addressing the potential risks.

Since human rights experts do not have the benefit of ex post observations that would readily identify possible human rights problems before the start of a development project, there are certainly a number of potential risks that can be identified, based on the experience from other development projects around the world. Displacement of local populations in the path of the massive project, access to potable water put at risk by the commercial activities as well as the construction itself, the impacts on indigenous people and risk to health conditions of the local population affected by workers coming from outside the region all pose real human rights challenges.

Since 2011, analyzing human rights problems arising from business development has gained greater attention. That year, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights were published, establishing voluntary standards for business and government within the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework. Within this framework is the recognition that companies should undertake human rights due diligence as part of their business activities. One approach is to commence a “[h]uman rights impact assessment (HRIA) [which] measures the impact of policies, programmes, projects and interventions on human rights. There are different types of impact – it can be positive when the human rights situation improves as a result of activities and interventions, or it can be negative when the human rights situation worsens.”[1]

The Nicaraguan government has extolled the economic (and by implication human rights) benefits from the project, most notably jobs creation and the general improvement and improvement in per capita gross domestic product. This can certainly be considered a positive human rights impact if all goes as promised. Nicaragua said it had chosen the route so it would avoid areas of great biodiversity, indigenous territories and environmentally protected lands [2] and the government estimates it will lift more than 400,000 people out of general poverty by 2018 with the help of revenues created by the project. [3] But a complete assessment of all of the potential human rights problems arising out of the canal development has not seen the light of day.

If and when the Nicaraguan government releases its anticipated environmental and social impact reports, there will be considerable attention paid to the findings and question arise as to the proper scope of the assessment.

According to James Harrison, a leading academic in the field of human rights impact analysis, a properly undertaken HRIA serves a number of purposes:

First, human rights impact assessment utilises a set of norms and standards that are based on shared values and have been developed over many years and are therefore represent a solid normative foundation on which to base impact assessment. Second, a human rights framework ensures engagement with specific rights, such as freedom of expression that might be ignored in less legally grounded forms of assessment like social impact assessment. Third, the human rights model shifts the focus from aggregate welfare and requires impacts to be disaggregated to specifically focus on the most vulnerable, poor and otherwise disadvantaged whose rights are often the most likely to have been violated. Fourth, human rights represent legal obligations of States, rather than simply aspirations that one hopes to achieve (e.g. better social outcomes).

Harrison goes on to note the value in the HRIA process, to wit: HRIAs provide evidence-based arguments in support of policy debates; they have the potential to impact policy development in relation to a project; they have the potential to prevent human rights violations before they happen if they are undertaken at a point in the policy cycle before decisions are made and before people are affected; and importantly, “they can have an impact on institutional cultures by enabling human rights to be mainstreamed, and; they have the potential to raise awareness about human rights issues in affected communities and more widely in society and increase public debate around the issues raised and the accountability of decision-makers.” [4]

In evaluating the human rights impacts from the canal project, understanding the problem through the lens of rights-holders is key. Numerous studies, along with potential problems, have not been made public for the canal project. In addition, the legality of the award itself, along with measures taken to free up land for the project, are under question. Moreover, property seizures that include the loss of indigenous peoples’ lands and other incursions could at the very least bring additional court challenges, if not outright civil unrest. [5]

While it seems unlikely that a rigorous human rights impact assessment of the Nicaragua Canal project will occur given the sense of urgency that the Nicaraguan government has placed on the project going forward and the less than stellar record of PRC-based companies integrating human rights considerations into their projects in other parts of the world, its high profile footprint will likely present itself as an interesting study in a wide range of human rights issues.


[1] Human Rights Impact Resource Centre, An Introduction to Human Rights Impact Assessment, http://www.humanrightsimpact.org/hria-guide/overview/ [2] BBC News, Nicaragua canal route: Atlantic-Pacific link unveiled, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-28206683. [3] Ibid, 2. [4] James Harrison, Measuring Human Rights: Reflections on the Practice of Human Rights Impact Assessment and Lessons for the Future, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1706742. [5] Global Investing Insights, 3 Big Concerns About the Nicaraguan Canal Plan, http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2014/07/24/3-big-concerns-about-nicaraguan-canal-plan?page=3.