Business Partners for Development

This article is part of the Climate project of Spinwatch.

Business Partners for Development (BPD) was a tri-sector initiative aiming to promote partnerships between business government and civil society in delivering 'development', with the World Bank Group as an equal partner. The BPD initiative began in 1998 and formally ended in 2002 after attracting considerable criticism, though two of the BPD Clusters are still operational (BPD Water & Sanitation and the Global Road Safety Partnership).

Critique

As part of their research on 'dodgy development' Corporate watch have looked at a BPD project in West Bengal which used NGO's to help move people from an area to be developed for a coal mine. The people were poorly rehabilitated and evidence on the ground shows that they suffered more after the project, with health effects and bad working conditions.

Utkal Alumina project, Kashipur, India

Around 1997 BPD became involved in the Utkal Alumina bauxite mining and refining project in a remote and tribal area of Orissa, India and used it as a model venture on their website, until it was removed without explanation in 2000 after a police firing on protests there.

The project was opposed by local adivasis (tribal Indians) from its inception in 1991, and there are reports that funding for a UN International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) 'tribal development' project, which employed local tribal people to survey the forest, was in fact used by Utkal, in collaboration with IFAD, to survey the area for mining and industry. IFAD and DfID (Department for International Development) had also funded road building and railways in the area, which are accused of being infrastructure for mining of the rich bauxite resources. Samarendra Das and Dr Felix Padel's study on 'East India Adivasis and the Aluminium Cartel' comments;

That people carrying out surveys supposedly for the OTDP [Orissa Tribal Development Project]/IFAD were actually surveying for Utkal Alumina implies a far reaching collusion between IFAD and the aluminium companies, and a joint purpose.

A strong local movement against the project, and its planned displacement of many tribal villages began after this. At first against Utkal (who's controlling shareholder was Norsk Hydro, followed by Alcan), and subsequently various governmental/NGO bodies who were set up to give the project credibility and a 'development' agenda. In a tactic mirroring the film Avatar, Norsk Hydro sent corporate anthropologist Rolf Lunheim to advise on the situation.

When local 'development' body set up by Utkal called Utkal Rural Development Society failed to reconcile the locals in 1997 due to what a DfID report called a legitimacy problem..[as they were] perceived as an agent of the project, BPD stepped in with DfID as a partner.

Mass protests and local resistance prevented the project from progressing for many years. Hundreds of local people blockaded roads and protested to prevent the company from entering without their permission. In 1998 police lathicharged (beat with sticks) and teargassed a demonstration, badly injuring about 50 protesters. On 15th December 2000 police opened fire on a meeting of tribals in Maikanch village, killing three and wounding seven. Three cows were also killed.

Norsk Hydro withdrew from the project after this, succumbing to long term pressure from campaigns in Norway over the human rights situation in Kashipur. Das and Padel report that;

Just days before the Maikanch firing, there had been talks in Rayagada between a BPD team, Utkal Alumina and government officials...Pressure from the World Bank to get the project started may even have been a factor leading to the firing.

The project was removed from the BPD site shortly afterwards without explanation.

A Freedom of Information request to the DfID reveals much communication on the Utkal project in the year 2000. The BPD project description, circulated in 2000, acknowledges the displacement of 150 familes and the partial expropriation of 1300. In contrast to the evidence on the ground it promotes the Utkal project as contributing to sustainable development in the area, as it intends to respect, support and help preserve local cultures. It claims a number of development benefits such as healthcare, adult literacy and agro-based industries. The proposal acknowledges that the mine project is strongly opposed by parts of the civil society and suggests that the resolution of disputes is a key challenge, since both access to site and cooperation in the social field with certain local NGOs are currently difficult. Partnerships with NGOs and government agencies through BPD are described as 'fundamental' in order to primarily;

reduce disputes as obstacles to social investment, and doing so in such a way that they do not re-emerge.

It is suggested that a respected donor or international NGO might be useful in a mediation role, and also that a sustainable mode of local development is needed for 'tribals', something which unwanted short term mining and displacement is assumed to fulfill. In contrast, local adivasis claim that they have protected and maintained the area sustainably for hundreds of generations, and are happy with their isolated way of life, asking what is development, and who is it for?. At no point in the proposal is it suggested that the anti-mine viewpoint of the vast majority of locals should be respected, but instead the focus is entirely on reconciling them with the reality that it will happen. The proposal confidently suggests the likelihood of project success is 8/10.

The BPD proposal suggests strong similarities with the Sarshatali project (West Bengal), a BPD coal mining project criticised as detrimental by a corporate watch investigation.

The FoI also revealed that BPD funded a Norsk Hydro consultant $18,000 for a 2 week visit to India in September 2000 (2 months before the shootings)

On 22nd January 2001 a letter to DfID from the BPD Natural Resources Cluster (housed at CARE International offices), announces that as a result of the Maikanch shootings the BPD's involvement in the project will be suspended until at least the end of January, after the Utkal board have met. The letter argues that conflict resolution is needed immediately, and offers its guidance on the issue, including its attendance at the next Utkal board meeting. It identifies the failure of its efforts to create effective local partnerships due to resistance to the project, and its perception in the local community as a 'mediator', which it claims it is not.

DfID's FoI response reveals the way NGOs and the 'development' agenda are used by donor bodies such as DfID to push environmentally and socially destructive short term industrial developments such as this. The legitimate face of international NGO's can be used to resolve conflict by promoting the benefits of Corporate Social Responsibility or 'development' projects such as schools, healthcare or employment. Corporate Watch's investigation and other evidence has revealed that in many cases these projects do not come to fruition, are short lived, or even abandoned after the project begins. Employment in the industry is often less abundant than claimed, and in many cases dangerous and badly paid.

Clusters and Partners

BPD had 4 clusters of operation, each with varying members from all sectors. According to their website these were;

• Natural Resources Cluster: (oil, gas and mining companies) to develop guidelines/ systems / structures for dealing with community issues and mitigating risk by optimizing development impact on host communities through tri-sector partnerships. Co-convenors: BP Amoco, WMC Resources Ltd, CARE International and the World Bank Group.

Partners: Anglo American Corporation plc | BP | CARE International | Integrated Coal Mining Private Ltd (ICML/CESC) | International Council on Metals and the Environment | Norsk Hydro | Phelps Dodge | Placer Dome | Rio Tinto | Shell International | UK Department for International Development | WMC Resources Ltd. | The World Bank Group.

• Water & Sanitation Cluster: to identify specific lessons learned about partnerships from existing projects which are providing responsive and affordable water services to urban poor and to demonstrate that these can be replicated and scaled-up to national and regional levels. Co-convenors: Générale des Eaux (Vivendi), WaterAid and the World Bank Group.

Partners: Aguas de Barcelona | Anglian Water | CARE International | Durban Metro Water Services | Vivendi | Hydro-Conseil | International Secretariat for Water | International Water Ltd. | The Mvula Trust | Northumbrian Water | Programme Solidarité Eau | Ondeo | Thames Water | UK Department for International Development | Unicef | WaterAid | The World Bank Group.

• Global Partnership for Youth Development: to identify and share what works in building successful partnerships for youth, the next generation of labourers and consumers. Then to create/work through existing national and global infrastructures to mobilize significant new resources in order to strengthen and scale up best practices in youth development. Co-convenors: Kellogg's, the International Youth Foundation and the World Bank Group.

Partners: American Express | Ayala Corporation | Children & Youth Foundation of the Philippines | Cisco Systems | Financial Times/Pearson plc | Inter-American Development Bank | International Youth Foundation | Kellogg Company | Lions Clubs International | Microsoft | Nike Corporation | Shell International | UNESCO | USAID | Visteon Automotive Group | The World Bank Group | World Vision | Youth Service America.

• Global Road Safety Partnership: to reduce deaths, injuries, disabilities and associated social costs of road traffic crashes through collaboration and coordination of road safety activities. Co-convenors: the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the World Bank Group.

Partners: 3M | African Development Bank | Alliance Internationale de Tourisme | Asian Development Bank | BP | DaimlerChrysler | Dutch Government | European Commission | Ford Motor Company | Infrastructure Development Institute (Japan)| Inter-American Development Bank | International Center for Alcohol Policies | International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies | International Road Transport Union | Japan GRSP Committee | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (USA) | Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd | Swedish Government | Transport Research Laboratory (UK) | UK Department for International Development | UN-Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific | UN-Economic Commission for Africa | UN-Economic Commission for Europe | Volvo Car Corporation | The World Bank Group.

Knowledge Resource Group: A facilitating and tool providing group which could be used by the other clusters. Partners: Civicus | The Prince of Wales International Business Leaders' Forum | The World Bank Group | the Ford Foundation | U.K. Department for International Development.

People

Natural Resources Cluster:

• Michael Warner Overseas Development Institute

BPD Water and Sanitation:

• Ken Caplan Director

Global Road Safety Partnership:

• Rikke Rysgaard International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

Global Partnership for Youth Development:

• Aaron Williams
• Leigh Sontheimer from The International Youth Foundation

BPD contacts at the World Bank Group:

• Nigel Twose Manager, Business Partnership & Outreach Group
• Amanda Blakeley Partnership Specialist, Business Partnership & Outreach Group

• Simon Zadek, a leading corporate responsibility practitioner who has worked with Alcoa, AngloGold Ashanti, Bank Itau, Dow, IntelChina, Maersk, Nestle, Shell, and Nike is team leader of several BPD reports.

• Paul Collier, Director of the Development Research Group of the World Bank from 1998-2003 and now a prolific writer and promoter of 'sustainable' mining.