Good afternoon. I'd like to thank the chair and the members of the subcommittee for their invitation to present my recent work in Eritrea to conduct a human rights impact assessment of the Bisha mine.
As I know the subcommittee has deliberated about the human rights situation in Eritrea, I look forward to the question period to dialogue with you about the findings and recommendations of the report, which Nevsun has published and shared with the subcommittee.
In terms of my presentation, I would like to briefly cover the following topics: what human rights impact assessments are, my background in conducting such studies, the approach and methodology used for the Bisha assessment, and a few personal observations related to this study.
Given the limited time for the presentation, I propose to leave the detailed findings of my report for the question period, and I think it's most appropriate to let Mr. Romaine address Nevsun's plans to follow up on the recommendations included in the report.
What are human rights impact assessments? These HRIAs are the younger sibling of environment and social impact assessments. They are new tools that measure the potential and actual impacts of business operations on human rights. In particular, they explicitly reference human rights standards and principles and put an emphasis on the risks to affected stakeholders, such as workers and community members, rather than on the risks to a company.
In the past decade a number of HRIA methodologies have been developed by international organizations, and there are a growing number of examples of HRIAs in the public and private sectors. It is difficult to guess exactly how many HRIAs have been conducted since many are conducted confidentially on behalf of companies. This confidentiality is sometimes criticized as running counter to rights-based principles of transparency and accountability. In this regard, Nevsun's approach to publishing the assessments and engaging with various stakeholders about its findings and recommendations is commendable, and I hope it represents a good precedent for responsible business conduct by the Canadian extractive industry.
While there is a growing interest in HRIAs, I acknowledge that they are sometimes controversial and challenging. Nonetheless, the adoption of UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights has provided a strong impetus for impact assessments as part of a broader process for human rights due diligence required for companies to demonstrate their respect for human rights.
In terms of my background in conducting these studies, I've had the opportunity to work on human rights impact assessments over the past decade from the very early days of this field. Initially I participated in the development of the methodology for community-based human rights impact assessments at Rights and Democracy and oversaw five initial case studies in an in-house counsel role. Since then I have worked on HRIAs of mining, oil and gas projects, in Peru, Guatemala, Bolivia, the Philippines, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the United States, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. I've also worked with the United Nations with a team of experts to prepare a publication about human rights impact assessments of trade agreements in the Pacific region. I am currently working for the World Bank on a project to gather case studies and lessons learned about impact assessments and human rights due diligence for public and private sector projects.
I've collaborated on human rights impact assessments with companies, investors, governments, multilateral organizations, NGOs, and indigenous peoples, and I've seen the opportunities and challenges of using these tools for capacity building, monitoring, evaluation, and building dialogue about human rights from different sides of the complex dynamics that surround large-scale extractive projects.
In terms of the approach and methodology for the Bisha assessment, the approach taken was to do a comprehensive assessment of potential human rights impacts. In other words, the full spectrum of human rights was screened and reviewed rather than concentrating on a limited number of human rights issues that had been raised in past allegations. Furthermore, in the research and information-gathering stages, I adopted a capacity-building approach to explain the relevance of human rights standards to affected stakeholders in Eritrea while I was engaging with them. In other words, I didn't approach my work exclusively as an auditor but felt that it was also important to help build a foundation for dialogue about human rights on the ground.
In terms of the tools used for the assessment, I primarily used the elements from the Danish Institute for Human Rights and Rights and Democracy's tools to structure the different steps of the assessment and to develop customized questions and indicators about specific categories of human rights issues.
Most importantly, I was able to undertake two field missions to Eritrea. I know that it has been rare for human rights observers to have direct access to Eritrea. This access has therefore given me a heightened sense of responsibility to ensure that the assessment contributes to constructive dialogue and positive actions about human rights at the Bisha mine. On both my visits, this past September and in January, I spent approximately 10 days divided between Asmara and the Bisha mine site and undertook the following activities.
I conducted interviews with Eritrean stakeholders, including workers, community leaders, managers, government officials, national-level unions, lawyers, and labour tribunal judges. The interviews with workers included confidential individual interviews and focus groups with male and female employees.
I conducted site visits to various areas of the Bisha mine, the Bisha camp, and the camp of the subcontractor, Segen Construction. I conducted formal and informal interviews with workers during those site visits.
I conducted a review of all the relevant policies, management systems, and internal reports and records at Bisha and in the Bisha Mining Share Company headquarters in Asmara.
I reviewed the contracts that BMSC has entered into with the Eritrean government and various contractors and subcontractors. I interviewed relevant managers about the compliance procedures in place to respect these contractual provisions.
Given the past allegations about the Bisha mine, I paid particular attention to reviewing and spot-checking the screening procedures in place to safeguard against the use of national service program workers. I also conducted interviews and reviewed documents in employment files at Segen's headquarters in Asmara.
Throughout the assessment, I experienced cooperation from senior management at Nevsun, BMSC, and ENAMCO, the Eritrean National Mining Corporation, as well as from various Eritrean government officials and judges in the Eritrean labour tribunals. At the same time, I felt that I was at liberty to plan my site visits and conduct private and confidential interviews without interference.
While my investigation was focused on the Bisha mine, of course I extensively reviewed the international reports about the human rights situation in Eritrea, including reports with respect to the recent universal periodic review in February 2014, when Eritrea's national human rights record was examined by the UN Human Rights Council.
Finally, as you will see from my report, I have extensively relied upon the UN's Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights for framing the assessment. Obviously, these UN guiding principles are the relevant global standard for business and human rights; however, I find them particularly useful because they emphasize a procedural approach to ongoing human rights due diligence. Whereas my assessment represents a snapshot of various human rights issues in time, it is intended to contribute to the development of the policies, management systems, and grievance mechanisms that are needed for Nevsun to respect human rights on an ongoing basis and in accordance with the UN guiding principles.
As I mentioned before, I will leave the specific findings in the report to the question period. I'd like to give a few concluding observations about this particular assessment.
First, there are some differences between external reports and what I was able to observe on the ground. Frankly, I expected a more militarized and overtly repressive environment than I witnessed in Asmara and at the mine site. I acknowledge that my investigation did not delve into some of the complex civil and political rights issues that are reported about Eritrea. But my first and second impressions of the country, and particularly the mine site, do not concord with the characterization of Eritrea as the North Korea of Africa.
Second, an overarching theme of my conversations with all Eritrean stakeholders is that the Bisha mine is serving as an important precedent for mining in Eritrea. Even in casual conversations on the streets of Asmara, people are aware of and interested in Bisha's activities.
Furthermore, the development of the overall mining sector in Eritrea is well reported. Also, I had the opportunity to attend the Asmara Mining Conference during my first visit and was able to see the domestic and international interest in developing the country's resource wealth. This broader context reinforced in my mind the importance of using a capacity-building approach to increase the awareness of Eritrean officials, managers, and workers of business and human rights and to identify opportunities for leverage and dialogue for the development of the overall mining sector.
Third, there were clearly sensitivities on the part of the Eritrean government about framing the assessment in terms of international human rights standards that they believe have been politicized. Without detracting from the importance of those standards, it was often much more productive and constructive to have conversations about underlying principles, such as respect, equality, freedom, and fairness. Moreover, in my report I have tried to link these international standards to national legislation and the policies in place at the Bisha mine in order to provide reference points for local actors.
Fourth, as in many backwards-facing assessments, there is always the challenge of adequately assessing allegations from the past. To put it bluntly, I don't have a time machine, nor do I have the powers of a judicial inquiry to compel witnesses and evidence. The inability to make a definitive finding about some of the past allegations about the Bisha mine emphasized for me the importance of ongoing work by Nevsun and its business partners to strengthen credible and effective grievance mechanisms. These mechanisms can play a vital complementary role to a human rights impact assessment and can provide a channel for concerns that I wasn't able to uncover to come forward.
Finally, as I mentioned at the beginning, I think that Nevsun's approach to transparency about the assessment and its engagement with stakeholders about the report's recommendations and a follow-up action plan should be commended. Many Canadian mining companies do not conduct human rights assessments and there is no legal requirement for them to do so. Of those that have done so, many have not published their reports for various reasons. Nevsun's voluntary transparency is therefore a positive example and provides the context for my appearance today and for our ability to have a conversation about human rights at the Bisha mine.
With your permission, I will turn the floor over to Mr. Romaine.
