Address on Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights at open meeting with NGO's, business and academia

(Translated from Norwegian)

Thank you for taking the time to come to this meeting on the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. This is the first time we have held an open meeting of this kind. Our aim is both to make more people aware of the Principles, and to encourage more to become engaged in these efforts.

Some of you are already familiar with what this is about, and for others it is new. So first of all, I would like to say a few words about what the Principles are, and how they originated.

I would then like to talk about the background situation and outline some of the challenges we are facing. Finally, I will give some concrete information about what Norway is doing, before I invite you to share your points of view and comments.

So, what are the Voluntary Principles? The Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights provide guidelines for dealing with dilemmas that the extractive industry can meet in the interface between the legitimate need for security services to safeguard operations on the one hand, and respect for the human rights of the local population on the other. 

Such dilemmas often arise in developing countries and countries in conflict, and the Voluntary Principles were drawn up 10 years ago as a direct response to horrific reports of the abuse perpetrated by private guard companies and security services in countries such as Colombia, Peru, Nigeria, Indonesia, Ghana and DR Congo.

It was clear that better regulation was needed, and Norway – together with the UK, the US and the Netherlands – took the initiative to develop the Principles. In addition, 17 companies are also participating, including the Norwegian oil company Statoil. Nine NGOs are engaged, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, but so far no Norwegian NGOs are involved.

Let me be completely open here. One of our aspirations for this meeting is to change this situation, or at least see whether Norwegian civil society could be interested in participation.

Now I would like to say a bit more about the Principles themselves.

The Voluntary Principles are, as their name implies, voluntary by nature. No company is obliged to join them. At the same time the Principles are a factor in the international debate on corporate social responsibility, where one of the issues being discussed is whether companies should be held liable for human rights violations.

And there are no doubt many different opinions about that, but we must focus on the situation today, which is that companies do have a responsibility to respect human rights. And we can see that many companies themselves want to be perceived as good, responsible actors.

This has created the departure point for new partnerships between actors with traditionally different roles with the aim of preventing such abuses from occurring again. The Voluntary Principles is one example. They provides an arena for governments, NGOs and companies to work together.

So, to move on to the broader international framework that these Principles are a part of, and why the Principles are important.

Norway is a the forefront of the international efforts in the UN to clarify corporate responsibility for human rights, and we are leading the negotiations on the mandate for the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Business and Human Rights, John Ruggie.

He is currently developing a framework to clarify these issues, with broad support from governments, civil society and the business sector. He will produce a new report next year.

In his previous reports, he has emphasised the importance of maintaining the Voluntary Principles. He has referred to them as a key player representing the will to share responsibility for closing a gap that would otherwise have existed.

So our starting point is that all this is good. However, I must also be honest and point out the challenges and weaknesses.

The first problem I want to raise is the poorly developed system for placing responsibility. This is typical for all voluntary initiatives.

The next is the question of participation: there are only participation criteria for governments, not for companies or NGOs.

The third is the fact that there is no system for evaluating how closely the principles are followed by individual companies or governments, as only general reports are published.

The fourth point is that very fact that individual reports are not made public.

And then the secretariat is weak: it consists of two part-time positions divided between two institutions – one in the US and one in the UK. This does not facilitate good routines for exchange of information within the network. The exchange of information within states could also be improved, and not least the exchange of information within individual companies. Norway is promoting the establishment of a secretariat in one place, and would also like to see a review of its work and how it can be strengthened.

The reporting process is worthwhile. However, companies must also demonstrate real will to take action on the ground. It is therefore particularly important that companies like Statoil are involved and can share their best practice. Statoil’s dialogues with other oil companies, and with security companies and governments around the world are promoting and complementing Norway’s foreign policy in this field.

Perhaps Statoil, the only Norwegian participant in the Voluntary Principles, would like to say something about its experience afterwards?

However, it will not be possible for companies to be successful on the ground unless they have the support of governments and NGOs. This brings me to the final aspect that I want to discuss – and the most important one:

Implementation on the ground.

It is here we find the victims of human rights violations. Here that we must all do more to promote cooperation between governments, NGOs and companies. And the government of the host country and the security forces involved are of key importance.

Norway is seeking to make a difference on the ground, and has provided funding for projects in three countries with this in view: the in-country processes in Peru and Indonesia, and a local project involving a mining operation in Colombia. We have also advocated that countries in Africa and the Middle East are given priority for in-country processes.

There is much talk about what governments and business can and should do better. I would like to challenge you to explore how NGOs can contribute, in more concrete manners on the ground. Local communities may have more trust in NGOs than in states and business, and therefore be more open about what is going on. NGOs may create networks that is difficult for others to do, to strengthen local communities on the ground. Some of you receive grants from the Norwegian government, and we would like to see more NGOs active in those remote areas, where the human rights abuses take place.

Before I ask you for your comments, I would like to underline the important role Amnesty International has played in the Voluntary Principles. And I am very glad that you, Beate, were able to come.

Amnesty’s disclosure of what was going on in the Niger delta was an important factor in the establishment of the Principles 10 years ago.

In Amnesty’s latest report, the US, the UK and other countries are urged to encourage Nigeria to implement the Voluntary Principles. The work Amnesty has done in local communities in Nigeria and its cooperation with companies have had a positive and important effect.

To conclude, there are a number of challenges, but there is no doubt that these principles are helping to draw attention to this issue, and are helping to bring about change on the ground. They are an industrial standard in their field. They are a concrete tool for at least trying to do something. And they are a factor in the international debate on corporate social responsibility and the interface between business activities and human rights.

Now I am keen to hear what you have to say.