View previous stories
	Promoting Peace & Protecting Human Rights: Business Operations in Conflict Zones by Jenny Vaughan Business & Human Rights Resource Center   January 2012   A large proportion of high-value resources, including oil, coltan, and hardwoods, are found in conflict-affected states, where security is limited and rule of law is weak. Human rights protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are especially vulnerable in these environments.   Business operations in conflict zones may put these rights at additional risk, particularly rights such as the rights to life, property, and a minimum standard of living, as well as the rights against forced displacement or plunder, torture and inhumane or degrading treatment, and arbitrary arrest and detention.   Human rights are especially vulnerable to violation in the course of company practices related to security provision, labor policies, community and government relations, resettlement, and access to land and other natural resources.   Without processes in place to prevent or mitigate negative human rights impacts, business operations may unintentionally violate these rights.   In spite of the risks faced by both companies and host communities, there are several reasons why policymakers and practitioners concerned with promoting both peace and poverty reduction have an interest in helping businesses operate in conflict zones:   Private sector investment assists development and poverty reduction. Aid alone does not raise countries out of poverty. Private sector activity, both domestic and international, assists to drive development.   Development and poverty reduction are necessary for peace and stability. A growing body of research has demonstrated a relationship between poverty and conflict, such that poor countries have a greater chance of experiencing violent conflict. By driving economic growth, businesses can help create the conditions for peace and stability.   Private sector investment can be a mechanism for the promotion of peace and human rights. Beyond supporting conditions for peace and stability, companies can proactively build peace and protect human rights through core business operations, when these operations are conducted in a way that addresses the drivers of conflict or mitigates the impact of conflict. This may include (re)building infrastructure, creating jobs, and advocating for policies that support both peace and trade.   In June, the UN Human Rights Council endorsed a set of guidelines – the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights – that specify how businesses can prevent human rights violations in the course of their operations and redress grievances when violations do occur.   The Guiding Principles outline three overarching recommendations to assist businesses to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, including a policy commitment to respect human rights; a human rights due-diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how they address human rights impacts; and remediation processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute.   Given the particular human rights challenges that businesses face in conflict zones, there are five additional things that businesses should do:   Be conflict-sensitive. Ensure that business operations “do no harm” and do not exacerbate existing tensions or conflict. While any enterprise operating in a conflict zone inevitably becomes a part of the conflict dynamic, the negative impact of business operations on the conflict should be minimized. Conflict sensitivity offers a good framework for addressing human rights violations, and a number of practical guidelines for businesses have already been developed.   Know the context. Conduct a conflict analysis to identify drivers of conflict, key conflict actors, and the potential impact of business operations on conflict. This analysis can be integrated into the impact assessments conducted before starting operations, but may require special expertise that can brought on board.   Cultivate relationships with the community. Be proactive, inclusive, and transparent. Rather than waiting for problems to develop, establish clear channels of communication and begin building a trusted relationship with host communities before operations begin.   Set up grievance procedures. Establish and publicize clear grievance procedures before problems arise.   Mainstream conflict-sensitive practices into daily operations of all departments. While many companies try to cultivate positive perceptions and good relationships with host communities through periodic corporate social responsibility-style projects, core business operations – such as compensation policies, hiring practices, access to land, and construction – are more important in shaping the community’s view of and relationship with the company. Conducting business transparently and in a way that avoids exacerbating existing conflict is key.   By conducting business in a manner which protects human rights, companies can assist in driveing both peace and development.   * Jenny Bussey Vaughan is a Program Officer on Mercy Corps’ Youth & Conflict Management team, where she oversees a portfolio of programs that involve economic development and peacebuilding. Visit the related web page
	Asbestos in Asia: Breaking Through the Silence in Lao PDR by IRIN News, Apheda   January 2012 (Apheda - Union Aid Abroad)   Australians know that asbestos kills. We are historically one of the highest per capita miners, manufacturers and consumers of asbestos in the world. Almost all public buildings and around one third of all private houses were built with asbestos. And the toll was heavy - by 2020, Australia will have had 13,000 cases of mesothelioma and over 40,000 cases of asbestos related cancer.   Globally, it is estimated that each year 107,000 workers each year succumb to asbestos or asbestos related cancers. And the centre of this new epidemic is Asia. The World Health Organisation estimates that 60% of the 125 million people exposed to asbestos in their homes or workplace are in Asia. And that figure is set to increase - already half of asbestos consumption occurs in Asia with 90% of the global increase in consumption between 2000 and 2004 occurring in Asia.   Late last year, we expanded our successful asbestos disease prevention in Vietnam to neighbouring countries. We have expanded our work in asbestos disease prevention, and advocacy for a ban on asbestos, into Lao PDR.   Lao PDR is more famous for laid back tourism and unspoilt natural wonders, but this tiny country of around 7 million is slowly industrialising. But there has been no commensurate increase in worker protection as factories, mega-infrastructure and construction projects increase. This extends to asbestos use. Lao PDR has no regulations around asbestos at all, not even the blue or brown asbestos which are universally acknowledged as the worst forms. The country still imports around 5,000 tonnes of white asbestos, mostly from Russia and Kazakhstan.   Working with the Lao Federation of Trade Unions (LFTU), we have begun filling the information void on asbestos. Initial projects, jointly coordinated with Building and Woodworkers International, have identified at least five large factories actively importing loose asbestos for manufacture into roof tiles. Asbestos is stored in the open, with bags frequently torn open accidently allowing asbestos fibre to escape into the air. Most workers are poor farmers doing manual labour in their off-season. Many more asbestos products are imported into the country from Thailand and this is only set to increase as the country develops, setting the scene for a replay of the tragic and completely avoidable loss of life.   In December, the LFTU convened one of the first tripartite conferences int he country to get the issue on the national agenda. The union, private sector and the government came together to hear about the international situation of asbestos use, hearing from Australian and Vietnamese experts on how Lao PDR can avoid the public health time bomb of asbestos disease.   We know a ban is possible. Over 51 countries have outlawed the use of asbestos and not just in rich countries like Australia and the United Kingdom. Developing countries, such as South Africa, Egypt and Honduras have embraced the need to rid the world of asbestos.   But our job is made more difficult by the active export of asbestos by countries such as Russia, Kazakhstan and most shamefully, Canada. These countries actively court developing countries to continue to use asbestos for economic reasons. They peddle the myth that white asbestos can be used safely, despite knowing that workers who handle asbestos are the least likely to be given any kind of protective equipment, let alone the full body, fully sealed equipment that would be needed to avoid any exposure.   http://www.apheda.org.au/news/1326066139_17792.html   * IRIN News: http://www.irinnews.org/Report/95121/ASIA-Asbestos-deadly-but-not-yet-banned Visit the related web page
	View more stories