Asian Transformations in Action - Api-fellowships.org

PERSISTENT PROBLEMS, PROMISING SOLUTIONS AND BENEFICENCE41society through business activities.” However, thereis no social nor human rights aspect to that policy,let alone the recognition of the basic human right toknow. It surely lacks the concepts of transparency andaccountability to the local people concerned.Conclusions/ImplicationsThe local people in these case studies are aware of theprospective social impact of the projects and try to raisetheir concerns through various channels. Meanwhile,project proponents are usually declared to beresponsible for the environmental and social aspects oftheir own projects. They are making efforts to providesome income-generation projects, medical services andeducational assistance for the host communities underthe name of corporate social responsibility (CSR).It seems, however, difficult to say that these projectsare attaining “sustainable development” for the localpeople. On the contrary, it is unquestionable that thereare local people whose suffering has increased due tothe negative impact of these projects. The CSR effortsin these case studies fail to properly benefit the affectedpeople or effectively mitigate the impact on local people.The CSR projects appear to the affected people to becorporate public relations or green-wash techniques inorder to avert public attention from the negative impactof the projects.The social impact or problems caused by developmentprojects are not unintended consequences, but arepredictable, avoidable and mitigatable if the proponentssincerely take into account the voice of local peopleand the human right of local people to decide thedevelopment plan for themselves.The common problems in the attitude of theimplementors are summarized as follows:(1) Failure to properly assess social and environmentalimpacts prior to approvalAs we could see in Case Studies 1 and 2, proponentsfailed to adequately assess the project’s social impactprior to project approval, disregarding the informationprovided by the local people. This failure resulted inimpacts far beyond what were originally predicted,destroying the lives of many local people.(2) Inadequate needs and options assessmentAs we could see in Case Studies 2 and 3, proponentsfailed to undertake an adequate needs and optionsassessments prior to project approval and tended to befixed on proceeding with their proposed project optionbefore any consultation with local people.(3) Failure to release adequate information to local peopleAs we could see in all of the case studies, proponentsfailed to release adequate and well-balanced informationto the affected communities and the public. In manycases, proponents simply provided information on thepositive side or regarding the benefits of the project, butgave no information on the negative side or possibledamage to the local society.(4) Failure to ensure proper consultation with the localaffected peopleFurther, as we could see in Case Studies 1 and 2,project proponents failed to involve the affectedcommunities in decisionmaking. This resulted in theprojects proceeding without the proper involvementor participation of affected communities. Vocal peoplewere sometimes labelled outsiders and removed fromthe list of stakeholders. Even though the concernsthat the local people took up were listened to anddocumented, such as in public consultations and inmeeting minutes, those concerns were not incorporatedinto the decisionmaking process, or the proposedproject plans were hardly changed.RecommendationsSupposedly “sustainable development” has in manycases turned out to be destructive development for localpeople. All of us, as well as Japanese project proponents,seriously need to seek the attainment of genuine“sustainable development” for local people so that thesepeople can meet their basic needs under the name ofdevelopment.All of us should be aware that there are still people whoare negatively affected, even though the proponentsprovide and conduct CSR programs for the community.It is necessary that the public, especially Japanese, keepsmonitoring the performance of Japanese proponentsabroad.Japanese proponents should respect the human rightsof local people, including those who are likely tobe negatively affected, in decisionmaking related toproposed projects. More concretely, the followingrecommendations to Japanese proponents can bemade:(1) Before deciding to proceed with any project,Japanese proponents should avoid influencing the localdecisionmaking process through which local peoplecan thoroughly discuss their needs and their options inAsian Transformations in ActionThe Work of the 2006/2007 API Fellows