Corporate Social Responsibility

By Eirik Veggeberg, Izabela Delabre, and Kristjan Jespersen

The private sector is becoming increasingly vocal in its efforts to reduce deforestation. The last decade has seen a number of major firms making zero-deforestation commitments (ZDCs); pledging to eliminate deforestation in their supply chains, including Nestlé, Cargill, Unilever and Mondelez International. The exact contents of ZDCs vary, from strict zero gross deforestation commitments as implemented by Nestlé, to the more flexible zero net deforestation commitments of Unilever. Many corporations further include policies for social sustainability, such as labour standards (Mondelez, Nestlé), land rights (Nestlé, Unilever) and community consultation and inclusion (Cargill, Unilever). Due in part to their recency, our knowledge on the topic of ZDCs is limited, and there is much to learn about their effects on both forests and people.

What do we know about ZDCs?

The private sector deforestation movement started gaining traction following the ‘success story’ of the Brazilian Soy Moratorium, to which significant deforestation reductions were attributed. However, recent developments suggest that the intervention merely displaced the environmental destruction to the Cerrado savanna, with subsequent environmental costs potentially outweighing the conservation value of the initial deforestation reduction. Similar findings elsewhere induce scepticism about the capacity of supply chain initiatives to give rise to positive change. Despite this, ZDCs are perceived favourably by scholars and environmental groups alike – encouraged as being a (small) step in the right direction.

The efficacy of ZDCs in reducing deforestation is widely examined in academic research, however, little is known about the impacts of ZDCs on local income and livelihoods. This is an important gap in our understanding given the prevalence of ZDCs, and the potential challenges and opportunities they foster for more sustainable and equitable environmental governance. Without more scholarship examining the capacity of zero deforestation pledges to drive positive change and mitigate social harm, there is a danger that they may fail to address the complex problem of deforestation, marginalise communities, and delegitimise other forms of governance that could lead to more positive outcomes. This article expresses numerous concerns about the impacts ZDCs may have on local income and livelihoods.

Selection biases

Firstly, there is a risk that the producers participating in ZDCs are the “low-hanging fruit”. This is prevalent in the adoption of certification schemes and sustainability standards, where participation has been found highly biased toward producers who are already compliant, or close to complying due to prior deforestation, as well as those sufficiently wealthy to afford the price of adoption and implementation. Biases in ZDC participation could contribute to worsening existing inequalities, excluding poorer farmers and entrenching the position of wealthier ones.

While ZDC implementation strategies greatly vary, the exclusion of non-compliant actors is not rare – Nestlé openly commits to such practices. This may be perceived as a sign of loyalty to sustainability, however, paired with selection biases found in other sustainability schemes and initiatives, it anchors the fear that the implementation of ZDC could aggravate local income inequalities and harm poorer stakeholders; perversely rewarding farmers who have obtained land through past deforestation, whilst punishing those who have not.

The price of sustainability

Secondly, for the implementation of ZDC to be considered sustainable and equitable, it is imperative that adequate cost-sharing processes are implemented within supply chains. Learning from the oil palm sector, it is likely that farmers will be held disproportionately responsible for ensuring sustainable production. Farmers implementing ZDC risk losing out on income as buyers exhibit little willingness to compensate producers for operating sustainably. This fear was reiterated by interviewees working on ZDC implementation, as the majority felt corporations were unwilling to pay the price of their sustainability initiatives. A consulted economist further suggested that local suppliers may be caught in a poverty trap as a result of ZDCs restricting them from expanding their agricultural frontier. Businesses’ reluctance to pay for the implementation of sustainable practices risks the income and livelihoods of local actors – potentially encouraging the illegal encroachment of forests.

Interviews with sustainability experts shed light on further negative impacts supply chain sustainability initiatives may have on local suppliers. One interviewee spoke of an indigenous community settled in the Peruvian Amazon that had developed good contact with local NGOs as well as international corporations. The interviewee described them as skilled at diversifying their sources of income: cocoa, timber – even starting to venture into tourism. However, when the pandemic hit, the community was one of the first to request emergency food supplies. The indigenous community had been left exposed in times of crisis in part due to specialisation and involvement with the private sector, which eroded their resilience. Such scenarios evince that still very little is known of the wider and longer-term social impacts of private sector sustainability governance through ZDC implementation. Similarly, based on field research from the Peruvian Amazon, one consultant worried that farmers who swap their crop out for the one pushed by initiatives may actually see their income drop, as a lack of experience with the crop leaves them more vulnerable to potential challenges such as pests and growth issues related to poor land suitability.

What to do?

There are numerous ways in which businesses could adapt their initiatives and implementation strategies to minimise the risks discussed above. Firstly, thorough jurisdictional approaches could help avert some of the potential dangers faced by local communities as a result of ZDC implementation. Incorporating regional governments, NGOs as well as local actors and communities could help combat selection biases by providing support and incentives for all local actors and communities to partake and benefit from the initiatives. More cooperation at the local level may also help minimise worries that actors may have about altering their crop to fit the initiatives. Further, it is crucial that initiatives are developed so as to suit local or regional contexts. One interviewee stated that currently this is not the case, and that regional differences and complexities often go overlooked. It is not as simple so as to ‘copy and paste’ approaches between regions with the belief that “if it worked in Costa Rica, surely it will work in Peru”. The implementation of ZDCs must evolve to incorporate and encourage cooperation amongst a broader range of actors, and their contents require a great deal of flexibility to account for local differences and complexities.

Secondly, businesses need to show greater responsibility and willingness to partake in cost sharing decisions. It is currently too easy for firms to push full responsibility onto farmers. As highlighted by a chief sustainability officer, businesses still consider zero-deforestation policies efforts of charity and CSR, with very few integrating sustainability into their business model. Therefore, as long as environmental costs are not integrated into the price of goods, businesses will fail to prioritise sustainability over profits, and will be reluctant to pay for initiatives in an attempt to minimise their costs. Approaches to integrating externalities are heavily researched and must be more closely examined in relation to deforestation and ZDCs.

The aim of this article is not to discredit supply chain sustainability initiatives and ZDCs as legitimate instruments for reducing deforestation, or to expose them as inherently damaging to the incomes and livelihoods of local actors. Rather, it aims to shed light on ignored and potentially damaging unintended consequences ZDCs may have on local actors, with the intention of encouraging scholars and practitioners to explore this matter further. Empirical research on the implementation of ZDCs is needed to establish whether the aforementioned- and/or other effects are observed in practice, and if so, to what extent they can be attributed to existing ZDCs.

__________________________________________________________________________________

About the Authors

Eirik Ingwardo Veggeberg is a Junior Research Associate and final year Philosophy, Politics and Economics undergraduate at the University of Sussex. His current research project explores the effects supply chain sustainability initiatives have on local income and livelihoods in the Peruvian Amazon. Feel free to connect with Eirik on Linkedin.

Izabela Delabre is a Research Fellow at the University of Sussex, examining sustainable forest governance, sustainable production and consumption of food, and sustainability transformations. Izabela worked for the Business and Biodiversity Conservation Programme at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) managing ZSL’s global oil palm work. Her PhD (Human Geography) examined the political ecology of participatory impact assessment practices in the context of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) in Indonesia and Malaysia.

Kristjan Jespersen is an Associate Professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He studies the growing development and management of Ecosystem Services in developing countries. Within the field, Kristjan focuses his attention on the institutional legitimacy of such initiatives and the overall compensation tools used to ensure compliance.

CBDS Research Briefing by Maha Rafi Atal and Lisa Ann Richey

Maha Rafi Atal is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Copenhagen Business School, where her research focuses on corporate power, corporate social responsibility and corporate influence in the media. She is a co- Investigator on the Commodifying Compassion research project. http://www.maha-rafi-atal.com

Lisa Ann Richey is Professor of Globalization at the Copenhagen Business School. She works in the areas of international aid and humanitarian politics, the aid business and commodification of causes. She is the principal investigator on the Commodifying Compassion research project. https://www.lisaannrichey.com

Executive Summary

As the global Covid-19 pandemic spread through Europe and North America, companies raced to communicate how they were responding to the crisis. Advertising that focuses on a company’s response to humanitarian crises is hardly new. Every holiday season features a parade of brands touting their seasonal partnerships with charitable causes. Yet these exercises in “Covid-branding” struck a particular nerve with both consumers and media commentators because so many of the brands stuck to the same script. Quickly that script even became the subject of satire.

‘The hallmarks of the coronavirus ad are so consistent they could be generated by bots. They begin with eerie drone footage of empty streets, a shot of a child staring plaintively out the window and then — cue the upbeat musical key change — a medical worker peeling off a mask, a guy jamming on a home piano, maybe a deeply pregnant woman rubbing her belly as if summoning a genie from its bottle.’

Amanda Hess, The New York Times, May 22, 2020

These patterns are important. In the uncertain early weeks of the pandemic, as governments were still crafting their responses, the stories brands told played a role in shaping how the public made sense of the crisis. What kind of a crisis was it? What sort of solutions did it need? What role should business play in delivering them? Covid-branding offered answers to those questions.

In this briefing note, we present a preliminary analysis of Covid-branding by companies in Europe and North America during March and April 2020. Our analysis finds that messaging clustered clearly into two ways could engage: ‘Covid-helping’ and ‘Covid-coping.’ These messages of ‘managing the pandemic’ and ‘managing yourself’ frame the consumption of goods and services as a way that consumers can show they care, presenting shopping as a form of everyday heroism. In this way, they make the case that private sector has a role to play in humanitarian response.

Economic Context

The Covid-19 pandemic has taken an extraordinary toll on the global economy. Measures to combat the spread of the virus, including border closures, and national lockdowns affecting one-third of the world’s population, shut down much industrial production and pushed white-collar professionals to remote work. These measures, coupled with a fall in consumers’ own confidence in response to the health crisis, contributed to rising unemployment, falling consumer activity, and the worst global recession since the Great Depression.

This context, with consumer activity declining overall and shifting from closed stores to online retailers, placed pressure on brands to compete for a share of the smaller e-commerce pie. At the same time, the recession placed pressure on marketing professionals to demonstrate their relevance at a time of overall corporate retrenchment.

Marketing Context

We focus our analysis on online communications, especially social media output. Social media marketing is often informal in tone and crafted quickly to respond to real-time events, so that brands can ride the waves of attention paid to viral news stories, from royal babies to sporting events.4 Most research about this practice has suggested brands choose to focus on positive or neutral stories to avoid mistakes, as humorous tweets about a serious event can backfire. That makes Covid-branding in the early weeks of the pandemic, when infection and death rates were rising, unusual.

We also examine promotional emails and newsletters, a form of content marketing. Content marketers have begun to develop more journalistic skills, including as storytellers and explainers of complex phenomena, and indeed many former journalists are employed as content marketers. Covid-branding, in which brands help consumers make sense of the emerging crisis, is an example of this phenomenon.

These online forms have not received much attention from researchers of corporate humanitarianism, which has focused on more traditional forms of print and broadcast advertising. We hope that this brief typology of how marketers used these newer forms in the Covid-19 pandemic encourages further research into these formats.

Covid-branding as Covid-helping

Brands that emphasized their role in helping to manage the pandemic did so in distinct ways. To understand this, we considered two aspects of each marketing message: First, whether companies are making an engaged or disengaged intervention. Companies which are engaged use their own business capacities toward the Covid-19 cause. Second, we consider whether companies are claiming to directly or indirectly impact the Covid-19 crisis itself. We investigate whether the brand claims to address the medical situation (direct) or indirect societal outcomes of the pandemic, including economic impacts.

The four modes of engagement

As a food and drinks business with a national supply chain, Starbucks was able to use its core capacities to address indirect economic impact of pandemic on food supply. Promotional email highlights corporate donations of 700,000 meals to food banks and use of company logistics network to assist foodbanks with transport.

Makes the case that hunger “is part of the crisis” to underscore relevance of this indirect engagement.

Other indirect engagement included Draper James, the American actress Reese Witherspoon’s fashion brand, announced on its Instagram account on April 2, donations of dresses for teachers (deemed essential workers during pandemic); campaign backfired when dress supplies ran out.

Other direct disengaged examples included fashion brand Armedangels making cloth masks while explicitly stating on Facebook that they could not protect the wearer – “we can’t produce medical masks” – but that 2 euro from the sales of each mask would be donated to Doctors Without Borders, or gas company Crusoe Energy Systems announcing that they were donating computing power to Stanford University coronavirus research.

Other indirect disengaged examples included Facebook offering grants for small businesses in the United States and using its network to promote the existing loan program from the US government.

Covid-branding as Covid-coping

Because these “Covid-coping” messages focused on helping individuals, rather than society or the economy, our analysis focused on the demographics of what kind of consumers each type of “coping” message addressed, as well as what the messages said. We identified three coping mechanisms brands sold to consumers in these Covid-coping messages: coping-through-practicality, coping-through-pleasure and coping-through-denial.

Other coping-through-practicality examples included laptop manufacturers advertising tools for working from home; home furnishings brands advertising tools for cooking at home; and phone, internet and electricity providers advertising their services as essential infrastructure for remote working and home-schooling. Marketing of this type emphasizes how brands could help families and businesses carry on “as normal” during a period of crisis.

Other coping-through-pleasure messages included advertisements from fashion brands including Anthropologie and Nicole Miller advertising loungewear as “self-care style” and clothing for “virtual dates or happy hours,” as well as make-up brands offering online tutorials for those with “more time (inside) on our hands.”

These messages present the health crisis as an opportunity for women to take a “break” from work outside the home and relax with home-bound versions of their usual recreational activities. They draw on influencer culture, which depicts recreation as a full-time occupation. Coping-through-pleasure offers the chance to purchase some of the influencer lifestyle, where the pandemic is not a stressor, and one can escape at a moment’s notice to a sunlit pool.

Other coping-through-denial advertisements included Passports, a travel rewards program, contacting members in mid-March, when concerns about virus spread were focused on cruise ships, to advertise “the best pricing and exceptional bonuses” on celebrity cruises, and online retailers of topical and humorous T-shirts advertising limited range clothing with coronavirus-related captions. Notably, these engagements came broadly from the early weeks of our sample, and brands appeared to shy away from explicitly seeking to make light of the crisis or encouraging consumers to travel in spite of it, by the end of March 2020 when more severe lockdown and suppression measures were in place across Europe.

Implications for Brands

The different types of early Covid-branding in our sample, whether they focus on helping or coping with the pandemic, offer some cautionary lessons for brands.

About Commodifying Compassion

‘Commodifying Compassion: Implications of Turning People and Humanitarian Causes into Marketable Things’ is a research project focused on understanding how ‘helping’ has become a marketable commodity and how this impacts humanitarianism. An international team of researchers funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research (2017-2021), we examine ethical consumption intended to benefit humanitarian causes from the perspectives of consumers, businesses, NGOs and recipients. The research will produce a better understanding by humanitarian organizations and businesses leading to more ethical fundraising, donors weighing consumption-based models as part of more effective aid, and consumers making more informed choices about ‘helping’ by buying brand aid products. To learn more about our work, visit our website at https://www.commodifyingcompassion.com.

Download full briefing here

When development creates division

Sanne Vammen Larsen

In many places worldwide, there are requirements for the process of deciding whether and how to go ahead with specific projects as part of societal development. Such requirements concern, for example, new projects to extract of raw materials such as minerals, oil or gas; the establishment of renewable energy facilities such as wind turbines, as well as infrastructure projects such as harbours or airports. The process of deciding whether such project proposals should be granted permission and how they projects should be implemented includes an assessment of the consequences they can have for the environment and society – a so-called Impact Assessment (IA).

As explained in previous parts of this blog series, part of the purpose of an IA is public participation: securing the public access to information brought forward through the assessment, securing opportunities for the public to comment on the project and voice an opinion, and securing access to review institutions so that citizens may challenge a decision or permission given.

Some tendencies emerge when we study public participation in these processes. One of these is that conflicts often take place in local communities that may be affected by the projects. Such conflicts become visible in the participation processes. Research has demonstrated such conflicts in a number of countries, from Peru and Chile across Indonesia and European nations to Greenland. This begs the question what the origins of these conflicts are, and what role they play? This text will explore this, drawing on examples from a Danish and Greenlandic context.

In a series of four short blog posts, of which this is the last, we investigate public participation as a part of the planning and decision-making process concerning renewable energy, mining, infrastructure etc. We take point of departure in the overall question of ‘What constitutes a good public participation process from the public’s point of view, concerning social, environmental and/or human rights impacts in Impact Assessment (IA)?’ The blogposts communicate preliminary results from a research project investigating what constitutes best practice public participation. The project is based among other things on research and interviews conducted in Greenland in August 2018 and in Sápmi in June 2019. [Ref: NOS-HS project on Best practice for Impact Assessment of infrastructure projects in the Nordic Arctic: Popular participation and local needs, concerns and benefits(Principal Investigator: Karin Buhmann)]

National and regional conflict – us and them

At the national and regional level, we see examples where conflicts or opposition surface as part of the public participation process when the impacts of proposed development projects are being investigated. One example is a proposed project in the Southern part of Greenland, in the fell Killavaat Alannguat close to the town of Narsaq. Here, the mining company Tanbreez has applied for a permit to establish a mine that will produce various metals and rare earth minerals. Greenland’s 8th largest town in terms of population, Narsaq has 1400 inhabitants and is located in the southernmost part of Greenland, almost 500 km from the Greenlandic capital Nuuk. It is the same area, where a larger mine in Kuannersuit (Kvanefjeld) has been the object of a number of consultations and discussions in later years.

During a written public consultation held as part of the IA process for the project in Killavaat Alannguat, the following comment was part of a response sent in by a local citizen:

“How is the Ministry of Environment going to ensure that the environmental requirements are complied with? Are they going to set up an office here in South Greenland in the future? Nuuk is far away!”

The example demonstrates concern with the adequacy of monitoring and management of the environmental impacts of the project. Moreover, it indicates a conflict between the smaller local communities and the capital Nuuk, where decision makers are located. An opposition based on geography can be observed due to the fact that decision makers are far away in Nuuk where they will decide the future of the project and monitor the impacts occurring locally in Narsaq. Also, a conflict can be observed, related to the local community’s experience with the ability of national authorities in Nuuk to understand life, conditions and local business in Narsaq. This conflict concerning lacking understanding might be reinforced by the discussions concerning the project at Kuannersuit (see below). Many sheep farmers are concerned that uranium dust from a mine in Kuannersuit will affect the health of their sheep. Unlike Kuannersuit, the minerals in Killavaat Alannguat are not tied to uranium, but the uncertainty concerning impacts of Kuannersuit and whether the authorities are taking them seriously appears to have affected the trust in authorities and consultations in the area generally.

In Denmark we also see conflicts based in geography in relation to decisions on projects, as demonstrated by consultation comments from local citizens in relation to two projects with wind turbines on land in Varde bordering the North Sea, and on water in Sejerø Bugt off Zealand:

“Socio-economically, a prospective establishment of giant wind turbines also creates a wind turbine proletariat, transforming the neighborhood into a total fringe area of Denmark” (on shore wind turbines at Varde)

“Placing a wind farm at the suggested location risks making a fringe area of Denmark even more vulnerable” (off shore wind turbines at Sejerø Bugt)

The statements refer to a continuous debate in Denmark concerning the differences in development and opportunities between what is referred to as peripheral regions or peripheral Denmark and other parts of the country which are perceived as being in in a better position in regard to e.g. economy, infrastructure, or internet connectivity. Thus, these comments also reflect existing oppositions or conflicts at national and regional level and concerns that they may increase due to decisions made by power-holders located in other areas.

Local conflicts – development or decline?

Local level projects and the planning process can also cause deep conflicts in otherwise closely-knit local communities. Again, one example is the town of Narsaq in Southern Greenland. Here, another company, Greenland Minerals and Energy (GME), has proposed a mine in Kuannersuit (Kvanefjeld). The mine is to produce rare earth minerals with a biproduct of uranium. Based on conversations with locals in and around Narsaq in August 2018 our investigations indicate that most locals share a concern about the future of the local community, because they are experiencing depopulation and decline in activity in the area. However, the shared understanding does not extend to the perception of the role of the proposed mining project. Parts of the local community perceive the project as part of the solution, seeing it as something that can create development, activity and jobs in the area. By contrast, others perceive the project as something which, due to environmental impacts, will ruin the possibilities of developing for example tourism and sheep farming and thus create further depopulation. These very different attitudes towards the same project lead to a division in the local community between those who are in favour of the project and those that are against it. In a small local community where people know each other, this can have major consequences. One of the locals explains that since other locals in the area became aware that this person opposes the project, some have stopped greeting the person when meeting in the street, while others have begun to do so.

A planned biogas plant in Denmark offers another example. Here, a similar division appears between those who perceive the biogas plant as an important development project for agriculture in the area, and those who perceive it as something which will entail e.g. declining property prices, depopulation and challenges for other business. This is illustrated by to submitted consultation responses regarding the project:

“We fear that the area will lose jobs in the long term, because these businesses [other local businesses ed.] will not want to create more jobs here.”

”No one will want to buy a property in a town, where the smell is unbearable”.

In various local areas where renewable energy projects are being planned, interviews with inhabitants have showed examples of people falling out with one another because of disagreements concerning the project.

The role of conflicts in the local community

We have described two types of conflict: conflicts between citizens at local or regional level and decision makers at national level, and conflicts which create division at the local level. These cases show that conflicts are not always solely about the project itself but can be part of existing or larger scale conflicts or antagonistic relationships, for example between different business sectors or parts of a country or region. Such conflicts can be ongoing for long since planning processes can last for years depending on the type of project. In the example of Kuannersuit, exploration has been going on in the area for 70 years, while a specific project has been on the agenda since 2017 when GME obtained a license for mineral exploration. As long as remains uncertain whether an exploitation project will be approved and go ahead, uncertainty results: will the project provide jobs for us to continue living here? Will the project affect our sheep farming, and would it accordingly be wise to sell our sheep now? Is our farm going lose value and should we therefore sell it or restructure to tourism? Should our young people be educated in mining and raw materials or in farming? Such uncertainty is well-known from projects in various other places and has been found to cause long-term negative impacts on the progress and development of a local community, causing depopulation and general standstill. Conflicts over projects are potentially a cause for adverse impacts on a local community, starting already when the plan for the project is made public. These risks and impacts require the attention of project proponents, authorities and other involved parties, including affected stakeholders at the community level.

About the author:

Sanne Vammen Larsen is an expert in the field of environmental planning and impact assessment, with a focus on integration of climate change in Impact Assessment, local processes and social impacts, and dealing with risk and uncertainty. She is employed as an associate professor at The Danish Centre for Environmental Assessment at Aalborg University, Denmark.

Dansk version

Blog-post serie #4: Høringer, offentlig deltagelse og meningsfuld borgerinddragelse

Når udvikling skaber splittelse

Sanne Vammen Larsen

Mange steder i verden er der fastsat bestemmelser om hvordan processen skal forløbe, når der tages beslutning om konkrete projekter som en del af udviklingen af samfundet. Det kan for eksempel dreje sig om opstart af aktiviteter til udvinding af råstoffer som mineraler eller olie og gas, men også installation af vedvarende energiteknologi som vindmøller eller infrastrukturprojekter som anlæg af havne eller lufthavne. Typisk vil en del af processen med at beslutte om og hvordan disse projekter skal gennemføres være, at der skal laves en vurdering af hvilke konsekvenser de kan få for miljø og samfund – en såkaldt VVM (vurdering af virkninger på miljøet). Som forklaret i tidligere afsnit af denne blogserie er en del af formålet med VVM at der i processen sker en inddragelse af offentligheden. Dette kan dels være at offentligheden skal have adgang til de informationer der kommer frem i vurderingen, dels at offentligheden skal have mulighed for at kommentere på projektet og give en mening til kende og dels at nogle af beslutningerne kan påklages efterfølgende. Når vi som forskere undersøger hvordan inddragelse af offentligheden i processen foregår, viser der sig nogle tendenser. En af dem er, er at der ofte udspiller sig konflikter i de lokalsamfund, som projekterne kan påvirke – konflikter som bliver tydeligt i forbindelse med inddragelsesprocesserne. Forskningen har påvist sådanne konflikter i en række lande – fra Peru og Chile over Indonesien og europæiske lande til Grønland. Spørgsmålet er hvad kimen til disse konflikter er og hvilken betydning de får? Dette vil vi med eksempler fra dansk og grønlandsk kontekst udforske i denne tekst.

I en serie på fire korte blog-indlæg, hvoraf dette er det sidste, ser vi på offentlig deltagelse som led i planlægning og beslutningsprocesser om grøn energi, minedrift, infrastruktur mv. Vi tager udgangspunkt i det overordnede spørgsmål ’Hvad er en god proces for borgerinddragelse i konsekvensvurdering (impact assessment) om samfundsmæssige, miljømæssige og/eller menneskeretlige indvirkninger fra borgerens perspektiv?’ Blogindlæggene formidler foreløbige resultater fra et projekt, som undersøger hvad er er god borgerinddragelse (’best practice’). Projektet bygger bl.a. på undersøgelser og interviews i Grønland i august 2018 og i Sápmi juni 2019. [Ref: NOS-HS project on Best practice for Impact Assessment of infrastructure projects in the Nordic Arctic: Popular participation and local needs, concerns and benefits(Principal Investigator: Karin Buhmann)]

Nationale og regionale konflikter – os og dem

På nationalt og regionalt niveau ser vi eksempler på, at der dukker konflikter eller modsætningsforhold op i forbindelse med inddragelse af offentligheden i afdækning af konsekvenser af forslag til ny større udviklingsprojekter. Som eksempel kan der ses på et foreslået projekt i Sydgrønland i fjeldet Killavaat Alannguat (Kringlerne) i nærheden af byen Narsaq. Her vil mineselskabet Tanbreez gerne etablere en mine, der skal producere en række metaller og sjældne jordarter. Narsaq ligger i det allersydligste Grønland, knap 500 km i lige linje fra den grønlandske hovedstad Nuuk. Med godt 1400 indbyggereer Narsaq Grønlands ottendestørste by. Det er samme by, hvor et projekt om en noget større mine i Kuannersuit (Kvanefjeld) har været genstand for en række høringer og andre drøftelser de senere år.

I forbindelse med en offentlig høring afholdt som del af VVM-processen om projektet på Kringlerne blev følgende kommentar indsendt som del af et høringssvar fra en lokal indbygger:

”Hvordan vil Departementet for Miljø og Natur kontrollere om miljøbestemmelserne bliver overholdt? Vil de i fremtiden have et kontor her i Sydgrønland? Nuuk er langt væk!”

Eksemplet viser en bekymring for, om overvågning og kontrol af projektets miljøforhold vil fungere tilfredsstillende. Det antyder samtidig en konflikt mellem de små lokalsamfund og hovedstaden Nuuk, hvor beslutningstagerne sidder. Der kan fornemmes et modsætningsforhold baseret på geografi i og med at beslutningstagerne sidder langt borte i Nuuk, hvor de dels tager beslutning om projektet og dels skal kontrollere de konsekvenser, som finder sted lokalt i Narsaq. Der kan også fornemmes en konflikt i forhold til lokalsamfundets oplevelse af forståelsen fra myndighederne i Nuuk for, hvordan det er at bo i Narsaq og deres respekt for de lokale erhvervsformer. Denne konflikt i forhold til forståelse kan være forstærket af diskussionerne om Kvanefjeldsprojektet (se nedenfor). Mange lokale fåreholdere er bekymrede over, om uranstøv fra en mine i Kvanefjeld vil påvirke sundheden hos deres får. I modsætning til Kvanefjeld er mineralerne på Kringerne ikke er bundet til uran, men usikkerheden omkring indvirkningen af Kvanefjeld og hvorvidt myndighederne tager bekymringerne alvorligt ser ud til at have påvirket tilliden til myndigheder og høringsprocesser generelt i området.

Også i Danmark ser man geografiske modsætningsforhold komme til udtryk i forbindelse med beslutning om projekter. I forbindelse med to projekter med vindmøller henholdsvis på land i Varde Kommune samt til vands i Sejerø Bugt indeholdt to af de indsendte høringssvar følgende kommentarer:

”Socio-økonomisk skaber en eventuel opsætning af kæmpevindmøllerne også et vindmølleproletariat, så egnen forvandles til et totalt udkantsDanmark” (Høringssvar vindmøller ved Varde)

”Opførelsen af en vindmøllepark med den foreslåede placering risikerer at gøre et udkantsområde af Danmark endnu mere sårbart” (Høringssvar vindmøller i Sejerø Bugt)

Høringssvarene henviser til en løbende debat i Danmark omkring forskellene i udvikling og muligheder mellem det, der i debatten kaldes udkantsområder eller udkantsDanmark og andre dele af landet, der opfattes som bedre stillet i forhold til blandet andet økonomi, infrastruktur, internetforbindelse mv. På den måde henviser disse kommentarer også til eksisterende modsætningsforhold eller konflikter på nationalt og regionalt niveau og afspejler bekymring for, at modsætningsforholdene bliver yderligere forstærket i kraft af beslutninger truffet andre steder i landet.

Lokale konflikter – udvikling eller afvikling?

Også på lokalt niveau kan projekter og planprocessen omkring dem skabe dybe konflikter i ellers tætte lokalsamfund. Et eksempel er igen koncentreret om byen Narsaq i Sydgrønland. Her har et andet selskab, Greenland Minerals and Energy (GME), foreslået en mine i Kuannersuit (Kvanefjeld). Minen skal producere sjældne jordarter og vil give et biprodukt af uran. Baseret på samtaler med lokale i og omkring Narsaq i august 2018 viser vores undersøgelser tydeligt, at de fleste deler en bekymring for lokalområdets fremtid, da de oplever en affolkning og en nedgang i aktiviteter i området. Enigheden hører dog op, når det kommer til holdningerne til det foreslåede projekts rolle. Dele af lokalsamfundet ser projektet som en del af løsningen, som noget der kan skabe udvikling, aktivitet og arbejdspladser i området. Andre ser helt modsat projektet som noget, der via de miljømæssige påvirkninger vil ødelægge mulighederne for udvikling for eksempel for turisme og fåreholdere og dermed skabe yderligere affolkning. Disse meget forskellige holdninger til det samme projekt fører til en splittelse i lokalsamfundet mellem dem, der er for og dem, der er imod projektet. I et mindre lokalsamfund, hvor folk kender hinanden, kan dette have store konsekvenser. En af de lokale fortæller, at siden de andre i lokalsamfundet har fundet ud af, at personen er imod projektet, er nogle holdt op med at hilse på gaden, mens andre er begyndt.

Et andet eksempel er et planlagt biogasanlæg i Danmark. Her er der en lignende splittelse mellem dem der ser biogasanlægget som et vigtigt udviklingsprojekt for landbruget i området, og de ser det som noget, der vil betyde bl.a. faldende huspriser, affolkning og udfordringer for andre erhverv. Det illustreres af to indsendte høringssvar til projektet:

”Vi frygter at området vil tabe arbejdspladser på sigt, fordi disse virksomheder [andre lokale virksomheder, red.] ikke ønsker at etablere nye arbejdspladser.”(Høringssvar: NGF Nature Energy Månsson A/S) ”Ingen gider købe et hus i en by, hvor lugten ikke er til at holde ud”. (Høringssvar: NGF Nature Energy Månsson A/S) Interviewede beboere i lokalsamfund i nærheden af planlagte vedvarende energiprojekter fortæller i flere tilfælde om naboer i lokalsamfundet, som ikke længere taler med hinanden på grund af uenighed om projektet. Konflikternes rolle i lokalsamfundet

Vi har beskrevet to typer af konflikter: dels mellem det lokale eller regionale niveau af borgere og det nationale niveau af beslutningstagere; dels i form af konflikter som skaber splittelse lokalt. Eksemplerne viser at konflikterne ikke altid kun handler om selve projektet, men kan blive en del af eksisterende og større konflikter eller modsætningsforhold, eksempelvis mellem forskellige erhverv eller dele af et land eller område. Konflikterne kan stå på længe, eftersom planlægningsprocesserne kan vare i årevis alt efter projektets type. I eksemplet fra Kvanefjeld, har der været foretaget undersøgelser i området i 70 år, mens der har været et konkret projekt på tegnebrættet siden Greenland Minerals and Energy i 2007 fik licens til at efterforske i området. Så længe det ikke er sikkert om planer om anlægsprojekter bliver til noget eller ikke, skaber de usikkerhed: Vil aktiviteten give flere jobs, så vi kan blive boende her? Vil aktiviteten påvirke vores fårehold, så det vil være klogt allerede nu at sælge fårene? Vil vores landbrug miste værdi, og skal vi sælge eller lægge om til turisthytter? Skal vores unge uddannes inden for minedrift og råstoffer, eller indenfor fåredrift, eller skal vi forlade området mens tid er? Denne type usikkerhed kendes fra anlægsprojekter mange steder, og kan påvirke lokalsamfundets udvikling negativt, så lokalsamfundet går i stå eller affolkes. Konflikterne omkring anlægsprojekter udgør potentielt en længevarende negativ påvirkning på et lokalsamfund, en påvirkning som starter når projektplanerne bliver kendte og som det er vigtigt at projektejere, myndigheder og andre involverede er opmærksomme på.

Om forfatteren:

Sanne Vammen Larsen er ekspert inden for planlægning og miljøvurdering, med fokus på integration af klimaforandringer i miljøvurdering, lokale processer og sociale konsekvenser samt håndtering af risiko og usikkerhed i miljøvurderinger. Hun er ansat som lektor ved Det Danske Center for Miljøvurdering på Aalborg Universitet.

Dansk version nedenfor

Normative foundations for stakeholder involvement in environmental and societal impact assessments

Karin Buhmann

A series of four short blog-post considers various aspects of stakeholder involvement as an element in the planning and decision-making relating to renewable energy, mining, infrastructure etc. We take point of departure in the overall question ‘what is a good process for engagement of affected stakeholders in the assessment concerning societal, environmental and/or human rights impacts from the individual’s perspective?’ The blog-posts disseminate preliminary results from project examining best practice in stakeholder engagement as part of impact assessment. The project partly builds on investigations and interviews in Greenland in August 2018 and Sápmi in June 2018. [Ref: NOS-HS project on Best practice for Impact Assessment of infrastructure projects in the Nordic Arctic: Popular participation and local needs, concerns and benefits, Principal Investigator: Karin Buhmann)]

The first blog-post described what a consultation entails, what one can expect from the process and result, and why good consultations processes are important for citizens and authorities as well as for companies. The second post examined what may constitute ’best practice’ for meaningful stakeholder engagement through consultations. This third post focused on the normative foundations, such as guidelines and legislation as well as some common features or practices for good stakeholder involvement in environmental and societal impact assessments. The fourth will consider what happen when consultations result in conflicts rather than understanding and why this happens.

Public requirements on consultations and corporate management of risk to society

Consultation of the public in the context of assessments of societal or environmental or impacts is not only common but mandated by law in several countries. In many places mandatory environmental impact assessment goes back to the 1970s. Mandatory impact assessments of other issues, such as societal sustainability or human rights, is a more recent phenomenon that to an extent builds on experiences gained around environmental impact assessment.

Even when impact assessment is not mandatory, it may be wise for a company to reach out to the local community and other potentially or actually affected stakeholders in order to map societal risks. This may contribute to counteracting a loss of the corporate ‘social licence to operate’.

Recommendations on ’meaningful stakeholder engagement’ in societal impact assessments

It is a general expectation that companies conduct so-called ‘meaningful stakeholder engagement’ in order to identify potential or actual adverse impacts on, for example, the environment, labour conditions and human rights. This is a result of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, a detailed set of recommendations from OECD member states as well as several countries in Africa and Latin-America. The recommendations target companies operating in or out of the relevant countries. Likewise, all companies (regardless of form and countries of registration or operation) engage meaningfully with affected stakeholders whose human rights are or may be harmed by a business activity, in order to understand and map the impact from the perspective of these affected. The United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, which were a source for the 2011 update of the OECD Guidelines, refer to meaningful stakeholder engagement in this context. The objective is that the impact assessment be conducted in a manner that takes account of the affected stakeholders’ perception of risks or actual harm caused, that is, adopting a bottom-up perspective.

The company is expected to prevent risks and actual harm that it causes or contributes to. In can only do so if it understands the problems from the perspective of those who experience or fear the problems. OECD has developed a detailed guidance on meaningful stakeholder engagement for the extractive industries. The guidance includes an annex particularly on engagement of indigenous peoples. A translation into the Sami language was introduced at a seminar taking place back-to-back with the assembly of the Sami Parliament in Northern Norway in June 2019. Even so, at a meeting on mining and sustainability, which took place in Northern Sweden later in June 2019 we observed very limited awareness of the guidance and relevant global guidelines among local NGOs and other civil society organisations. In fact, awareness is higher with some companies. Lack of knowledge of the normative standards that apply to companies make it difficult for civil society to require that companies observe the norms.

The OECD Guidelines and the UN Guiding Principles are not binding but mark a tendency towards recognition of individual access to influence through making one’s views and concerns known, even if this may not take place through a formalized process. Overall, the past 40 years have witnessed a development in international environmental and human rights law towards direct access for the individual to partake in decision-making on business activities affecting one’s life (Pring and Noé, 2002). Rights of indigenous and tribal peoples to be involved in decision-making on mining and other forms of natural resource extraction are often highlighted in this context (Triggs, 2002). Consultations can form one element among others in ensuring such participation.

Mandatory requirements

The Nordic countries, which include Arctic areas, have long mandated planning of specific types of activities to include assessments of the environment so that the information can form part of the authorities informed decision-making. In some Nordic countries environmental impact assessments include broader societal aspects, such as impacts on health, employment, traditions and business operations (Nenasheva et al. 2015). Specific requirements of separate assessments of societal impacts are less common in a Nordic context. However, Greenland’s self-government has introduced explicit requirements in the Act on Raw Materials mandating social sustainability assessments of activities that are may have significant societal impacts. Greenland has also introduced rules enabling authorities to make permits conditional on the company contribution to society, for example through vocational capacity building, employment of local labour, or locally based processing of explored raw materials. Our project has shown that there are diverse opinions of such ’Impact Benefit Agreements’ (IBAs) that are tailored to each specific project and local context. While IBAs offers opportunities to agree on specific local measures, limited transparency on the contents reduce opportunities to develop solutions across projects.

Authorities can introduce specific requirements on the consultation process through general or special legislation. While such demands vary between countries, involvement of local communities and other affected stakeholders is a general element (Vanclay and Esteves, 2012).

Common demands on a good consultation process

As regulations and levels of detail vary between countries and types of impact assessments, specific demands on the process will not be described here. However, general indications are given by the so-called Aarhus Convention (UN 1998), which fleshes out the implications of the political decisions from the 1992 Rio Summit concerning public participation in decision-making concerning projects with environmental impacts. The convention also covers human health and safety, locations of cultural significance etc., provided the impacts have a connection to the environment. The Aarhus Convention establishes that the public must be informed about an activity in the early stages of a decision-making process. The information must, among other things, include the character of the activity; what permit is applied for; the responsible authorities, timeline, place and procedure for public consultations on the activity; and available information on the activity’s impacts on environment, health etc. The information must be free and provided as soon as it is available. Reasonable time should be set aside between different phases of the process, and therefore both to inform citizens and for citizens to prepare and actively participate in the decision-making process. The applicant for a permit is encouraged to actively engage in dialogue and to contribute information on the project. Authorities are responsible for making relevant information accessible, for example on the location for the activity, impacts on the environment in a the above sense (inclusive of health and safety), what measures will be taken to prevent adverse impacts, and alternatives to the proposed plan. A summary of the information must be provided in a non-technical form that can be understood without technical prerequisites. The consultation process must provide citizens with opportunities to express comments, information, knowledge and views that they find relevant. Citizens or NGOs who perceived their rights to be infringed upon are to have access to remedy provided by a court of law or another independent institution.

The Aarhus Convention has been signed by most European countries, including the Nordic states, and a few Central-Asian states.

Obviously, participation in a consultation process should not require participants to be familiar with the law, nor should the quality in principle depend on participant’s awareness of the informing normative foundations. It is possible, especially in countries with well-functioning public institutions, to ask the relevant authority to explain the rules and requirements and their implications. Elsewhere, civil society organisations are often able to provide advice and guidance.

Consultations aim to create dialogue, not conflict

Even if participation in a consultation is not a claim to having one’s view win out, a consultation is ideally a dialogue between citizens and the authorities or companies that conduct the consultation. Consultations build on an aim of exchanging knowledge, views, concerns and needs and thereby to provide the best possible informed foundation for decisions and for projects to be adapted and regulated in response to the concerns and needs that have been voiced or identified through the consultation. Both process and outcome depend on the involved understanding and respecting that the process builds on a conversation which is not about identifying a winner and a loser, but rather a dialogue towards an adapted result which may be a compromise between the original project idea and the thoughts, concerns and views expressed during the consultation process.

The final blogpost in this series considers the risk that efforts towards consultation create or reinforce conflicts despite intentions of the opposite.

References:

Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F (2012) Social Impact Assessment: the state of the art, Impact Assessment And Project Appraisal 30(1) 43-42.

Nenasheva M, Bickford SH, Lesser P, Koivurola T & Kankaanpää P (2015) Legal tools of public participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment process and their application in the countries of the Barents Euro-Arctic Region, Barents Studies: Peoples, Economies and Politics 1(3) 13-35.

Pring, George (Rock) and Susan Y. Noé (2002) The Emerging International Law of Public Participation Affecting Global Mining, Energy, and Resources Development, in Zillman, Donald M., Alastair Lucas and George (Rock) Pring (eds) Human Rights in Natural Resource Development: Public participation in the Sustainable Development of Mining and Energy Resources, Oxford Scholarship Online, DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199253784.003.0002

Triggs, Gillian (2002) The Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Participate in Resource Development: An International Legal Perspective, in Zillman, Donald M., Alastair Lucas and George (Rock) Pring (eds) Human Rights in Natural Resource Development: Public participation in the Sustainable Development of Mining and Energy Resources, Oxford Scholarship Online, DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199253784.003.0004.

UN (1998) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention).

About the author:

Karin Buhmann is Professor at Copenhagen Business School, where she is charged with the emergent field of Business and Human Rights. Her research interests include what makes stakeholder engagement meaningful from the perspective of so-called affected stakeholders, such as communities, and the implications for companies and public organisations carrying out impact assessments.

Dansk version

Blog-post serie #3: Høringer, offentlig deltagelse og meningsfuld borgerinddragelse

Regelgrundlag for borgerinddragelse i beslutninger med konsekvenser for miljø og samfund

Karin Buhmann

Indledning

I en serie på fire korte blog-indlæg ser vi på offentlig deltagelse som led i planlægning og beslutningsprocesser om grøn energi, minedrift, infrastruktur mv. Vi tager udgangspunkt i det overordnede spørgsmål ’Hvad er en god proces for borgerinddragelse i konsekvensvurdering (impact assessment) om samfundsmæssige, miljømæssige og/eller menneskerettigheds-indvirkninger fra borgerens perspektiv?’ Blogindlæggene formidler foreløbige resultater fra et projekt, som undersøger hvad er er god borgerinddragelse (’best practice’). Projektet bygger bl.a. på undersøgelser og interviews i Grønland i august 2018 og i Sápmi juni 2019. [Ref: NOS-HS project on Best practice for Impact Assessment of infrastructure projects in the Nordic Arctic: Popular participation and local needs, concerns and benefits (Principal Investigator: Karin Buhmann)]

Det første indlæg gennemgik, hvad høringer er, hvad man kan forvente sig som borger, og hvorfor solide høringsprocesser er vigtige for borgere, myndigheder og virksomheder. Det andet indlæg undersøgte, hvad der faktisk kan udgøre ’best practice’ for offentlig deltagelse gennem høringer. Dette tredje handler om det normative grundlag i form af retningslinjer og lovgivning og nogle gennemgående fælleskrav for involvering af offentligheden i vurdering af miljø- og samfundsmæssige konsekvenser. Det fjerde ser på hvad der sker, når adgang til offentlig deltagelse gennem bl.a. høringsprocesser skaber konflikt i stedet for forståelse og  hvorfor det sker.

Offentlige krav om høringer og virksomheders risikostyring

Høringer af offentligheden i forbindelse med vurdering af samfundsmæssig indvirkning, miljøkonsekvensvurdering, osv er ikke bare almindeligt men også lovbestemt i en række lande. Lovkrav om konsekvensvurderinger om miljø går mange steder tilbage til 1970erne. Lovkrav om andre emner – samfundsmæssig bæredygtighed og menneskerettigheder – er nyere og bygger i et vist omfang på de erfaringer, som er skabt omkring miljøkonsekvensvurdring.

Selvom der ikke findes lovkrav om gennemførelse af konsekvensvurdering eller krav fra f.eks. bevillingsgivere, kan det være en god idé for en virksomhed at tage kontakt til lokalsamfundet og andre, som kan påvirkes af en aktivitet, for at undersøge, hvilke samfundsmæssige risici der kan opstå. Det kan bidrage til at modvirke et tab af virksomhedens ’social licence to operate’.

Anbefalinger om ’meningsfuld interessentinddragelse’ i vurderingen af samfundsmæssige konsekvenser

Der en generel forventning om, at virksomheder foretager såkaldt ’meningsfuld interessentinddragelse’ med henblik på at identificere negativ indvirkning på bl.a. miljø, arbejdsforhold og menneskerettigheder. Det følger af OECDs Retningslinjer for Multinationale Virksomheder[ som er anbefalinger fra OECD-lande og en række lande i Afrika og Latinamerika til virksomheder, som arbejder i eller fra de lande. Tilsvarende er det en forventning, at alle virksomheder tager kontakt til lokalsamfund og andre, hvis menneskerettigheder er eller kan blive påvirket negativt af en erhvervsaktivitet, for at forstå indvirkningen eller risikoen fra deres perspektiv. FN’s vejledende principper om virksomheders menneskerettighedsansvar[, som gælder for alle virksomheder uanset form, hjemstat eller arbejdsland, taler også om meningsfuld interessentinddragelse i denne sammenhæng. Målet er, at konsekvensvurderingen foretages på en måde, der tager højde for lokalbefolkningens egen opfattelse af risici og problemer. Virksomheden skal forebygge risici og afbøde faktiske menneskerettighedskrænkelser eller anden skade, som den er involveret i. Det kan den kun gøre ordentligt, hvis den forstår problemerne fra det perspektiv, som dem, der oplever eller frygter problemerne, har. OECD har udarbejdet en detaljeret vejledning for meningsfuld interessentinddragelse i udvindingsindustrien. Vejledningen indeholder et særligt tillæg om inddragelse af oprindelige folk, og er netop blevet lanceret i en oversættelse til samisk, som blev præsenteret i forbindelse et møde ved det samiske parlament i Norge i juni 2019. Ikke desto mindre oplevede vi på et møde i juni 2019 i Nordsverige om minedrift og bæredygtighed i global sammenhæng, at kendskabet til vejledningen og de overordnede vejledende globale retningslinjer var meget begrænset blandt NGOer og andre repræsentanter for civilsamfundet. Faktisk er kendskabet større hos mange virksomheder. Manglende kendskab til de normative krav, som gælder for virksomhederne, gør det vanskeligt for civilsamfundet og organisationer at stille krav om, at virksomhederne overholder dem.

OECDs retningslinjer og FNs vejledende principper er ikke bindende, men markerer en tendens i retning af at anerkende den enkeltes adgang til indflydelse ved at blive spurgt og hørt – også hvor det ikke sker gennem en lovbestemt formaliseret proces. I det hele taget er der i de seneste 40 år foregået en udvikling inden for international miljø- og menneskeret i retning af direkte adgang for den enkelte til at deltage i beslutningsprocesser om erhvervsaktiviteter, der påvirker vedkommendes liv (Pring and Noé, 2002). Særligt oprindelige folks adgang til beslutningsprocesser om minedrift og andre former for naturressourceudvinding understreges ofte (Triggs, 2002). Høringsprocesser kan udgøre et element i sikring af denne deltagelse.

Lovkrav

De nordiske lande har længe haft lovkrav om, at der ved planer om bestemte typer aktiviteter skal gennemføres en vurdering af konsekvenser for miljøet, således at oplysningerne indgår i myndighedernes grundlag for at træffe beslutning om, hvorvidt der kan gives tilladelse til at planerne gennemføres. I nogle af de nordiske lande omfatter miljøkonsekvensvurderingen også bredere samfundsmæssige aspekter, indvirkningen på lokalsamfundet, for eksempel i forhold til erhverv, sundhed, beskæftigelse og traditioner (Nenasheva m.fl. 2015). Krav om deciderede, separate vurderinger af samfundsmæssig og sociale indvirkninger er mindre almindelige i en nordisk sammenhæng, men Grønlands selvstyre har i Råstofloven gennemført eksplicit krav om vurdering af samfundsmæssig bæredygtighed i forhold til aktiviteter, der vurderes at kunne få væsentlig indvirkning på samfundsmæssige forhold. Grønland har også indført regler, som gør det muligt for myndighederne at stille krav om, at virksomheder som vilkår for tilladelse efter Råstofloven skal bidrage til samfundet. Dette kan for eksempel gennem faglig uddannelse og ansættelse af lokal arbejdskraft eller lokal forarbejdning af udvundne råstoffer. Vores projekt har vist, at der er forskellige holdninger til sådanne ’Impact Benefit Agreements’, som er skræddersyet til det konkrete projekt og den lokale kontekst. På den ene side giver det mulighed for at aftale særlige lokale tiltag. På den anden side kan muligheden for at lave samlede gode løsninger på tværs af projekterne blive mindre.

Lovgivningen kan også fastlægge krav til høringsprocessen. Disse krav varierer fra land til land. Det er dog et grundlæggende element, at konsekvensvurderinger blandt andet skal inddrage lokalbefolkningen og andre, som bliver direkte berørt af de ny projekter (Vanclay and Esteves, 2012).

Almindelige krav til en ordentlig høringsproces

Da reglerne og detaljeringsgraden varierer fra land til land og mellem forskellige typer konsekvensvurdering, kan kravene til processen ikke beskrives detaljeret her. Et generelt fingerpeg om processerne kan udledes af den såkaldte Aarhuskonvention (FN 1998), som udmønter de politiske beslutninger fra Rio-topmødet i 1992 vedr. offentlig deltagelse i beslutninger om projekter med indvirkning på miljøet. Konventionen omfatter også menneskers sundhed og sikkerhed, steder med kulturel betydning mv, hvor indvirkningen har forbindelse til miljøet. Aarhus-konventionen fastslår blandt andet, at offentligheden skal informeres tidligt i forløbet af en beslutningsproces om en aktivitet. Oplysningerne skal omfatte blandt andet hvad aktiviteten går ud på; hvad der søges tilladelse til; hvilken myndigheder der er ansvarlig; tidsplan, sted og procedure i øvrigt for offentlige høringer om aktiviteten; og de oplysninger som findes om aktivitetens indvirkning på miljø, sundhed mv. Oplysningerne skal være gratis og gives så snart de er tilgængelige. Der skal være rimelig tid til de forskellige faser i processen, og dermed både til at informere borgerne og til at borgerne kan forberede dig og deltage aktivt under beslutningsprocessen. Ansøgeren til en tilladelse til aktiviteter opfordres til aktivt at indgå i dialog og bidrage med oplysninger om projektidéen. Det er myndighedernes ansvar, at de relevante oplysninger er tilgængelige, bl.a. om stedet hvor aktiviteten skal finde sted, konsekvenser for miljøet i ovenstående brede forstand (inklusive sundhed og sikkerhed), hvordan negative indvirkninger vil blive forebygget, og alternativer til den foreslåede plan. Der skal gives et resume af oplysningerne i en form, som ikke er teknisk og dermed til at forstå uden særlige faglige forudsætninger. Høringsprocessen skal give borgerne mulighed for at udtrykke kommentarer, oplysninger, viden og holdninger, som de mener er relevante. Borgere eller NGOer som mener, at deres rettigheder ikke er respekteret, skal have mulighed for at klage til en domstol eller anden uafhængig instans.

Århuskonventionen er underskrevet af de fleste europæiske lande, herunder de nordiske, samt enkelte lande i Centralasien.

Deltagelse i en høringsproces skal naturligvis ikke forudsætte, at deltagerne kender lovgivningen, ligesom processens kvalitet heller ikke i princippet bør afhængige af, at deltagerne kender lovgrundlaget. Især i lande med velfungerende offentlige institutioner kan man, i hvert fald i princippet, henvende sig til den relevante myndighed og bede om at få forklaret, hvad reglerne er og hvad de betyder for en selv. Andre steder kan civilsamfundsorganisationer/NGOer somme tider hjælpe med råd og vejledning.

Høringer har som mål at skabe dialog og tilpasning – ikke konflikt

En høring er ideelt en dialog mellem borgere og myndigheder eller virksomheder, som gennemfører høringen. Høringer bygger på et mål om at udveksle viden, holdninger, bekymringer og behov og derigennem skabe det bedst muligt oplyste grundlag for beslutninger og for at projekter bliver tilpasset og reguleret i forhold til de bekymringer og behov, som er kommet til udtryk gennem høringen. Både proces og resultat er afhængige af, at de involverede forstår og respekterer, at processen bygger på samtale, og at der ikke er tale om at finde en vinder og en taber men derimod en dialogproces hen imod en form for tilpasset resultat, som kan være – men dog ikke altid er – er et kompromis mellem den oprindelige projektidé og de overvejelser, bekymringer og behov, som er kommet frem under høringsprocessen.

Det næste og sidste indlæg i denne serie ser nærmere på risikoen for, at tiltag til borgerinddragelse skaber konflikt, trods hensigt om det modsatte

Henvisninger

FN (1998) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention).

Esteves AM, Franks D, Vanclay F (2012) Social Impact Assessment: the state of the art, Impact Assessment And Project Appraisal 30(1) 43-42.

Nenasheva M, Bickford SH, Lesser P, Koivurola T & Kankaanpää P (2015) Legal tools of public participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment process and their application in the countries of the Barents Euro-Arctic Region, Barents Studies: Peoples, Economies and Politics 1(3) 13-35.

Pring, George (Rock) and Susan Y. Noé (2002) The Emerging International Law of Public Participation Affecting Global Mining, Energy, and Resources Development, in Zillman, Donald M., Alastair Lucas and George (Rock) Pring (eds) Human Rights in Natural Resource Development: Public participation in the Sustainable Development of Mining and Energy Resources, Oxford Scholarship Online, DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199253784.003.0002

Triggs, Gillian (2002) The Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Participate in Resource Development: An International Legal Perspective, in Zillman, Donald M., Alastair Lucas and George (Rock) Pring (eds) Human Rights in Natural Resource Development: Public participation in the Sustainable Development of Mining and Energy Resources, Oxford Scholarship Online, DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199253784.003.0004.

Om forfatteren

Karin Buhmann er professor med særlige opgaver inden for virksomheders ansvar for menneskerettigheder. Hun arbejder blandt andet med, hvad der gør offentlig inddragelse i konsekvensvurderingen meningsfuld fra de berørte borgeres vinkel, og hvad det betyder for virksomheder og myndigheder i forhold til konsekvensvurderinger. Hun er ansat på Handelshøjskolen i København (også kaldet Copenhagen Business School).