Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
followed by an eleven-week public comment period, and a fourth work-
ing meeting to incorporate the comments from thirty-nine organizations.
“This was emotionally and mentally an exhaustive process,” noted one
NGO participant, “It took us quite some time to internalize that our task
was to develop the criteria for reporting performance, not the guidelines
for performance itself. That was a learning experience.”
As attested by several participants, on numerous occasions the coali-
tion came close to dissolution over several contentious issues. Among
those was the question of how specific to be in reporting waste (mine tail-
ings), with opinions ranging from reporting absolute volumes to report-
ing policies and practices for safe handling of waste. Another contentious
issue was whether companies should be required to report only on their
processes for engaging indigenous communities or, at the other extreme,
on the nature of the free prior informed consent from communities.
The symbolism and the practical value of the latter dispute were huge
because the concept of consent allowed to the host communities to stop
or start mining production. Having a variety of participants appears to
have been very helpful. Among the companies, the “best practice” com-
panies cajoled and pulled forward other companies that were reluctant
to adopt changes that the reporting indicators would require, or saw
insurmountable difficulties in doing so. The socially responsible investors
formed a natural bridge between NGOs and companies, having the trust,
shared interests, and a common language with both. The World Bank
brought an accumulated experience from around the globe, which could
illuminate a discussion at crucial junctures. “It is possible, through con-
versation, to get to the point where you can move the discussion into an
entirely new direction, one that was not the option when you first began,”
remarked the ICCM executive.
According to participant interviews, the final draft version, which
was signed off by all group members late in 2004, embodies compro-
mises from all participants. The process also exposed the structural
resource-based imbalance of power in the multi-stakeholder GRI pro-
cess. Because the participants are compensated only for direct expenses,
