Читать книгу Empresas en el Conflicto Armado : Aportes a la Construcción de la paz en Colombia - Mary Martin Beth - Страница 42

This section is aimed at presenting the Human Security Business Partnership Framework (HSBPF). It is a practical proposal on how to recast and structure relationships between the private sector, local communities, government and civil society that can enhance the peace-building potential of each actor (including the private sector) in conflict and post-conflict settings. The aim of the Framework is to enable all stakeholders to identify and achieve mutual gains and sustainable impacts and undertake collective actions which can deliver effective and tangible improvements to the local environment, including peace-building. The model builds on the latent willingness, as demonstrated in the Colombian case, of some companies to go further than ‘Do No Harm’ and reactive stakeholder engagement strategies, in order to proactively transform the business and social environment that has been affected by conflict and fragility. As shown in the previous sections, the private sector’s emerging agenda goes beyond existing practices of corporate social responsibility, in order to engage more effectively and profitably at the local level, even - and sometimes especially in fragile post-conflict scenarios.

The value-added of human security is in highlighting the comprehensive nature of threats to everyday life, and how different forms of risk and vulnerability, including business risk are interconnected. By providing a lens for understanding local context, a methodology for developing integrated and inclusive responses to local challenges, human security offers the private sector a new way of dealing with complex situations, and for working alongside other local stakeholders in the long term challenges related to peace-building and sustainable development. The approach is at the heart of the United Nations Agenda 2030 and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The HSBP Framework is a contribution to bridging once separate challenges of investment, commerce security and development ensuring that business is part of both global and local efforts to bring about positive change.

This new model of collaborative partnering between international companies and local people, is based on increasing mutual understandings and implementing shared goals, commitments, and responsibilities. Ensuring that companies and the local population deal with each other on an open and equitable basis is intended to shift corporate-community relations away from confrontational, transactional and sporadic encounters to achieve a long-term dialogue based on developing mutual understandings, shared benefits and respective gains.

The human security approach provides a new methodology for working together. This methodology is based on a new language of human security, and practices which focus on people, a bottom-up and participatory approach and integrating multiple contributions and types of threat into security provision.

Human security is a different way of thinking about security, based on the risks and insecurities faced by individuals and groups. The classic or traditional view of security involves protecting the state against existential threats and safeguarding borders, including with armed force. Human security starts from the everyday experiences of people caught up in crisis, conflict and need. Threats to human security are rooted in a combination of risks related to physical safety, material deprivation such as not having a house, job or access to clean water, and the lack of psychological or emotional wellbeing. Human security is not only used to describe a desired condition of being. It is also an approach which seeks to protect people from existential threats, the so-called ‘vital core’ of life, and also recognises that to deal effectively with these threats, solutions have to be grounded in popular support, people’s expectations and their own resources. This idea of security with empowerment is summed up in the UN’s phrase “Freedom from fear, freedom from want and dignity”. Human security in action is about achieving the social, political, environmental, and economic conditions conducive to a life in freedom, dignity, and peace.

Human security substitutes the classic concerns of traditional security such as armies and weapons or the control of territory with practical concerns such as having a roof over your head, a job, clean water, your children being able to go to school, which are fundamental for establishing durable peace, preventing a return of conflict and achieving sustainable development.

Human security emphasises the indispensability of human rights but compared to a rights-based approach, it focuses not only on a baseline of vulnerabilities to protect against, but also a set of goals that partners can work towards.

The HSBP Framework is a guidance mechanism to help set up new types of partnership and achieve the dual aim of stimulating a new relationship between business and communities and using partnering to address peace-building needs. The Framework represents a new way of working at local level, so that all partners see it not as development or security as usual, but an innovation in how each approaches the security and challenges they face. Underlying the Framework and every partnership based on this model are the human security principles of prevention, protection and empowerment, and putting people at the centre of economic development.

The Framework consists of three pillars: principles, processes and tools. Each pillar applies to every type of partner/stakeholder and is intended to bring them together and provide the basis for effective and durable collaboration. The principles pillar is important in developing shared understandings between partners and creating a distinct ethos to their collaboration.

- Locally driven – partnerships should be based on local needs, interests, and expectations and organised according to local capacities.

- Inclusive – partners should be drawn from every segment of local society, including marginalised groups and specifically enable individuals and groups to take part on an equal footing and with the same voice and rights of decision as company or government partners.

- Forward looking – the partnership is about building a common future, doing things differently from the past and setting goals which will lead to real change and improvement.

- Trust – the partnership is about creating conditions for long-term co-operation in which partners have confidence in each other. Trust has to be built through accountability, joint commitments and transparency.

- Sharing – the core of the HSBP is that the partnership offers incentives and benefits which are spread evenly between different types of partners. Benefits of investment and corporate presence should be shared, alongside responsibility by all partners to reduce risks and mutualise their interests.

FIGURE 2

HUMAN SECURITY PARTNERSHIPS: A FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION AND INNOVATION

Source: Authors’ own

The process pillar represents some key types of activities through which the human security approach and the principles can be achieved. Because each partnership will be different, and will be tailored to local needs and capacities, the processes may vary. However, we set out some which are integral to achieving the kind of locally relevant, equitable interaction which the Framework seeks to encourage.

- Mapping of participants: this is a process which should be done not unilaterally, e. g., by a company alone, but jointly with local civil society groups and local government representatives. The aim is identify who has an interest in a particular development scheme or an issue or problem which the initial partners in the HSBP want to tackle. In order to be as fully inclusive as possible, partners need to build up a granular picture of the local society including what indigenous capacities and customs exist which are relevant to achieving outcomes of the initiative planned. Whereas stakeholder engagement sometimes only succeeds in companies dealing with a restricted group of community leaders the objective of HSBP mapping is to understand not only which groups and individuals need to be involved in the collaboration but how they relate to each other and to the core partners (e. g., the company, local government officials).

- A second preliminary process is consultation to assess each partner or constituency’s attitude to local security and development challenges. Although some partnerships will begin because one or two of the partners, for example the company, has a particular project or goal in mind, the aim of the consultation process is to identify a broader range of needs and risks as they are perceived by all stakeholders. These perceptions may influence how the initial project is to be implemented. They may also reveal different needs and priorities linked to but not necessarily encapsulated in the original project. The consultation process has to be locally and culturally relevant and may take various forms in order that as many local stakeholders can participate and be able to articulate their positions and preferences. A key feature of successful consultations observed from practice research is the value of having neutral third-parties facilitate the discussions. This helps to ensure an even basis so that the power asymmetries between corporate, government and community participants are reduced. The outcomes of the consultation process should be a shared understanding between participants of the holistic nature of the challenges present and a collective sense of the opportunities for multiple benefits. Because HSBPs are intended to be transformative and deliver impacts through transition or change, another outcome of the consultative process should also allow partners to offer and accept specific commitments of resources and identify where there are capacity or resource gaps.

- Initial consultations need to be followed up by an ongoing communication process, both internal and external to ensure that information circulates evenly and as accurately as possible among partners. The long-term goal of building good partner relations through the HSBP depends on communication processes being developed which are accessible to all and do not aggravate previous power imbalances between the partners.

- HSBPs are not necessarily legal forms of partnerships. They are likely to be formal but non-codified types of collaborative mechanisms, based on reciprocal undertakings. This is why shared understandings about the goals of collaboration, the nature of the security/development challenge are important. They have to be reflected in commitments and shared responsibility to build trust, transparency and accountability. The management protocols of an HSBP are important to ensure that the principles of equity, transparency, sharing are respected, alongside the efficient functioning of the partnership. They may include entry and leaver rules, how roles are distributed, how budgets are handled, and decisions are taken. Once both the preliminary partners and those identified from the mapping exercise have been brought together, and agree to set up a partnership scheme, they should agree on mutually acceptable rules and processes for organising the collaboration.

- Monitoring and evaluation is important to maintain confidence between the participants and sustain original commitments to partnership goals and activities. To respect the transparency and equity principles of the HSBP, partners should agree how the partnership is to be evaluated, what are relevant criteria given their different interests entering into the partnership and in the kind of outcomes they want to achieve. Evaluation should be a participatory process undertaken jointly, and capacity building carried out if necessary, to achieve this. Similarly reviews throughout the agreed life of the partnership scheme are important processes and occasions for partners to re-assess their expectations and commitments and to maintain the incentives for continuing to work together, and check that they are on target to achieve the goals of the partnership.

- Each partnership will need processes and protocols to deal with grievance and problems in working with other partners. In some situations, grievances may be pre-existing between partners with a history of confrontation and badwill. It is important to deal with these in forums which are distinct from the HSBP itself to avoid undermining the aims of good partner relationship building and the focus on enlarging areas of mutual interest and benefit. Grievance processes which deal specifically with problems of the partnership and achieving the goals the partners have set out for themselves, should follow the principle of trust and transparency and equitable participation.

The tools pillar is intended to provide guidance for deploying relevant resources that partners can use to achieve the principles and processes outlined above. As with processes, relevance will depend on the local context and the tools used should be agreed jointly between partners. They should reflect the capacities and skills as well as material resources which are available to the partners at local level.

- The first indispensable tool is a consultation methodology to support the essential process of consulting all partners about their needs, experiences and expectations which will inform the goals of the partnership, and will outline the contours of an effective and durable collaboration. A consultation methodology refers to the forms of engagement used to encourage different groups to articulate their needs and experiences as part of the planning of the partnership, in setting goals and identifying where there are areas of common ground and interest between companies, communities and government, that can be enlarged to create mutually beneficial outcomes. Methodologies have to be culturally appropriate, attuned to the social organization of each type of partner.

In the case of some community actors, particularly among marginalized groups, unaccustomed to being involved in development decisions, the challenges of a consultation methodology are to enable people to articulate what may be difficult and sensitive perceptions and experiences and arrive at a language which can be shared with other partners. There have been successful examples of third-party facilitators such as the UN or civil society groups using arts or sports-based techniques to encourage communities and individuals to find their voice and ensure their participation. Other different challenges may apply to ensure that company employees or government officials also communicate effectively about how they see the threats, risks, challenges and opportunities of the partnership.

- An action checklist may be a useful tool for ensuring transparency and communications between partners and for confirming key goals and timelines to underpin ongoing commitments by partners.

- Many communication processes can be strengthened by the use of ICT tools to assist with information sharing and ensure equity between diverse partners. These could include smart phone apps, text messaging, web-based platforms applied to different aspects of the partnership activities. The use of ICT tools needs to be geared to local conditions and what works, not only technically, but what resonates with the local information eco-system.

- Training is likely to be a critical tool in any HSBP. Although each partner may have their own skills and resources, application of the Framework is intended to mark a step change in how companies work with communities as well as in how local needs and interests are met, therefore HSBPs will involve an inevitable process of learning and capacity building. Where possible joint trainings, for example in the human security principles, in the use of ICT tools or specialist functions such as participatory budgeting or in technical skills needed to achieve the goals of the partnership, can strengthen the co-operative culture and mutualisation of effort.

- As part of the process of shared learning, documentation and ongoing analysis of the partnership may prove to be a useful tool. Documentation, like other processes and tools, can be undertaken jointly rather than unilaterally. While companies are more likely to record, evaluate and assess a partnership as part of their routine organizational activities and accountability to senior management and investors, the act of documenting collaboration can help reveal the understandings of each partner and can be part of trust and team building. Documentation, as with consultation methodology, can respect different cultural traditions and practices present on the ground. It can serve to draw key lessons from the innovation represented by applying the Framework and will help replicate, scale and adapt the Framework in multiple locations and circumstances.

- The novel nature of the HSBP Framework suggests that traditional metrics for evaluating multi-stakeholder partnerships may need to be adapted in assessing the achievements and the value added of HSBP schemes. In keeping with the participatory and bottom-up nature of the Framework, bespoke metrics which take into account indicators such as inclusivity, equity and trust-building, may need to be developed in discussions among all partners. Agreement on key indicators and buy-in of the evaluation process will be part of strengthening the legitimacy and ultimately the sustainability of the partnership.

Some of the processes and tools proposed here may require more resources than others. The introduction of bespoke ICT tools for example may require financial support from companies, government or third parties. However, HSBPs are not intended to be financially burdensome mechanisms. Fundamentally they are about initiating a new type of dialogue and engagement between companies, communities, and other local stakeholders. What is important is that the identification and application of resources, activities and tools should be done collectively and recognising the importance of commitment, responsibility and sharing. Simply bringing or expecting large corporate resources to bear on a development or security challenge is unlikely to improve the long-term relationship between a company and other stakeholders or build the sense of trust and dignity in working together.

The HSBP model addresses core concerns about how companies can act to deliver on the potential elaborated in this chapter, of being positive and transformative actors in the context of peace processes and peacebuilding interventions. It also deals with the significance of inter-actor relationships at local level between public, private and civil society actors, recognizing that highly diverse interests, practices and cultures often do not readily combine in a beneficial way. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNHCR and government agencies working on rural transformation and victim rehabilitation are currently testing this model as a mechanism for delivering durable solutions to five conflict-affected communities in Colombia. The advent of the covid-19 pandemic in 2020 has increased the challenges and the urgency of finding effective responses to vulnerability, fragility and the need for resilience in rural communities, giving private companies a further opportunity to demonstrate their shift from conflict drivers to conflict responders.