Corporate accountability or corporate responsibility? (2)

Corporate accountability or corporate responsibility? (2)
In the first part of this article published last Monday, I argued that in spite of the potential of social accountability to hold power holders accountable, emphasis has always been on social responsibility. Some Critics argue that Corporate social responsibility (CSR) distracts from the fundamental economic role of businesses; for others it is nothing more than superficial window-dressing. It is whether or not social responsibility should be allowed to be superficial or window dressing which is thrust of this series campaigns I have started. As I stated in the first article, given the scale of the damage mining in particular wrecks on the environment, mining companies (which includes oil extraction) should be compelled to go beyond mere 'responsibility' to 'accountability for their actions. In this regard, accountability has traditionally been based on whether procedures have been followed in the course of doing business. More fundamentally, accountability initiatives are expected to respond to norms of social justice.
Last week, in the same edition of Business and Financial Times, a similar article on Corporate Social Responsibility was published perhaps; to signify the importance BFT and its writers and readers attach to the contentious topic. The authors, Robert Hinson and Akushika Acquaye argued that CSR is generally understood as being the way through which a company achieves a balance of economic, environmental and social imperatives, while at the same time addressing the shareholders and stakeholders. They added that CSR is increasingly important to the competitiveness of the enterprises and can bring benefits in terms of risk management, cost saving access to capital, customer relations, human resource management and innovation capacity. They then went on to four steps that a company can take to create wealth for its shareholders and reaching out to the community in which they operate. Hinson and Akushika, and yours truly were on the same wave length, except that they saw CSR from the profit or image building angle, while I focused on CSR from the social justice, human rights and development angle. This is where the fundamental difference between 'corporate responsibility' and 'corporate accountability' lies. In corporate responsibility there is suggestion of no compulsion in the absence of a policy framework; while in corporate accountability there is an element of enforcing corporate compliance to globally acceptable standards of operations, as well as respect for human rights of the communities in which multi-national corporations operate. At the heart of this compliance is the contested issue of the extent to which the current generation can destroy the environment in search of resources, without the slightest consideration for the needs of future generations.
Mining and the economy
In a report by FoodFirst Information & Action Network (FIAN) and WACAM, Gold accounts for about one third of Ghana's export earnings. Diamonds, Bauxite and Manganese are other important products of the mining sector. The sector is dominated by foreign companies. While mining has an important role for export earnings, it is estimated that it only contributes about 5 to 6 percent to GDP. The contribution of Gold mining to GDP is between 1.8 to 2 percent. Surface mining is today the major form of extraction of mineral resources in the country. Large areas of the land have been given out for exploration or eventually exploitation. In the Wassa West District, for example, forty percent of the total surface is covered by mining concessions. The resulting scarcity of land and agricultural opportunities leads to serious problems of landlessness and unemployment in mining areas. Surface mining is a highly mechanized economic activity which does not generate a lot of employment, especially not for unskilled labourers.
Surface mining usually requires the displacement of farmers from their land. Depending on the size of the mine hundreds of farmers have been affected. In Ghana, cocoa is the major cash crop for small-scale farmers. Experience over the last decades has shown that compensation provided to farmers for their cocoa plantations has been grossly inadequate. In some cases, compensation was not paid at all. In most cases, farms have been destroyed without the consent of the farmer. As a result, affected farmers have been impoverished and are unable to send their children to school, pay medical bills and to invest in a new farm. In addition, mining activities often involve the destruction of forests which provide families with food or fire wood. This poses a severe threat to their right to food, health and education. In 2006, a revised Minerals and Mining Act entered into force, including stronger provisions on compensation. Section 74 of the Minerals and Mining Act of 2006 (Act 703) provides for compensation principles which should form the basis of compensation payment that takes into account the loss of earnings for the farmer, the life expectancy of the crop, destruction of the surface of the land etc. However, what is lacking so far is a regulation passed by Parliament which would give clarity to the precise nature of the compensation principles as provided for in Section 74. The government set up a Technical Committee to draft the regulation. The committee has completed its work but the draft regulation is yet to be subjected to stakeholder discussions before being presented to Parliament. Communities living in the vicinity of mining projects face major problems in accessing safe drinking water. The diversion of rivers, the building of dams and the lower level of ground water as a result of large-scale mining activities threatens the physical access to water. Contamination of rivers and groundwater with heavy metals is a major health threat. Several communities have been exposed to cyanide spills. Worryingly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is grossly understaffed to afford adequate protection to the communities. These and other reasons strong enough to demand corporate accountability from the mining companies.

Enforcing accountability
Enforcing accountability, as I argued last week, for instance makes sense in the developing world, including Ghana because some of the biggest and most powerful corporations in the world are those that often come into contact with some of the world's poorest people. I can readily mention, Anglogold Ashanti, Newmont Ghana, Goldfields Ghana, Tullow Vodafone, Airtel etc. As a social justice advocate and development communicator, my position on mining and the extractive industries in particular have never changed. I have a strong opinion that the extractive industries have brought very little benefit to Ghana and to the communities that have been unwilling hosts of the mining companies. In five-year tenure as managing editor of Public Agenda I brought my view on mining and human rights abuses in the mining communities to bear on the content of the paper, culminating in the paper twice winning the GJA human rights and development newspaper of the year (2005, 2008).
A lot of the conflicts over natural resources in Africa have been due to the fact that governments have developed cold feet towards human rights abuses in mining communities perhaps, due to the direct benefits individual members of the governments receive from these multinationals. The main features of degradation in communities include; cyanide spillages and cover ups, destruction of farm lands, and livelihoods, threat to food security, pollution of water bodies, general ill-health in affected communities and lack employment among the youth in the mining communities. These reasons are enough justification for all interested in sustainable development to carry the campaign to power holders (government and mining companies) to be accountable for the destruction of the environment and loss of livelihoods of communities.

Food security
No doubt, the most damning consequence of unstainable mining is native effective it has on food security. The extension of large-scale surface mining in the Brong Ahafo region in particular is a threat to food security in the country, since that region is one of the biggest food producers of food in Ghana. The no matter the extent of contribution of development of the region and Ghana as a whole, the impact of mining on the land, water bodies and food security is more costly. There is nothing that can compensate for the people's right and ability to possess (endowment) their lands and make a living out of those lands (entitlements). As stated earlier, this justifiable reason for accountability measures to be instituted and enforced, if we are save livelihoods. Most of most of the miming communities across the country previously depended on renewable natural resources, mining activities have negatively impacted these natural resources, with the consequent loss of livelihoods, dislocation of social organizations indigenous cultures. Thus, If appropriate measures are not put in place to safeguard the environment, future generations would have no land to till for food, long after the mining companies have extracted their gold and left Ghana. As a result of the pollution of water bodies in mining communities, there have been reported cases of women and girls spending several hours a day in search of water for domestic use. This development negatively affects girl-child education, as well as income generating activities of the women

Presence of Soldiers in mining communities
The history of mining has been blotted by human rights abuses through the use of state security to strike fear in the people insisting on their rights to their entitlements. In the past, residents of the communities within Anglogold Ashanti's operational area lamented that the company had deployed state security in their communities coerce them into living with terrible conditions. Reports of the shooting of residents of Teberebie and brutal suppression of the residents is still fresh in our minds.

This is not an isolated case. In mining communities in Ghana, these police/community conflicts are commonplace. Mining communities have been turned to jungles where the companies use their financial strength to bully everyone, including the local government. A trend is gradually developing, where mining communities are treated to a different set of laws from the rest of Ghanaians. In mining communities, there is a parallel security arrangement where state security agencies are subsumed in the inordinate desire by corporate mining giants to make profits. This desire leads to the employment of unorthodox methods to protect their interests. State security exist side by side company security. It is no secret that state security agencies in mining communities are heavily dependent on the largesse of big multinational mining agencies. Security agencies, particularly the military have on occasions been sent to the communities to either quell community protests or to "flush out" small scale illegal gold miners. Whichever way one looks at it, the methods they use to cow the communities into submission are some of the most gruesome, including unleashing wild dogs on people going to farms.
In the late 1990s to the early 2000s, the small Sanso community of 2,500, about six miles from Obuasi, was almost on a daily basis subjected to constant military harassment ostensibly to flush out small scale ( galamseyers) miiners on AngloGold Ashanti's concession. In one of such operations, a 78-year old woman was arrested and incarcerated in the private cell of the then Ashanti Goldfields Company Ltd (now AngloGold Ashanti) on suspicion that her grandson was a galamseyer. Community people reportedly lost their valuables in the infamous operations.

War zone
The Prestea community has no choice, but to accept that they will have to live with the military in their midst. One British journalist on a tour to Prestea in July, 2007 described the town as a "war zone". In one of the many entrances to the town stands a colonial-style structure that housed the soldiers who were on-call for Bogoso Gold Ltd., the mining company operating in the area. Cases of the soldiers going on rampage and beating up innocent galamsey miners have been well documented. The people of Prestea have been forced to endure this military brutality when the community rejected the company's open cast operations.
All these abuses occur in very poor and remote communities where access to information and knowledge is virtually non-existent. One can only imagine what will happen if these helpless communities are forced to live with powerful multinational companies, whose interest is draining the environment. I say kudos to public interest litigating NGOs like WACAM and the Centre for Public Interest Law (CEPIL) that have been standing by the communities and creating increased awareness on human rights abuses. It appears to me that public interest litigation in the area of mining and environment is no more active as in the past. I don't know what the problem is; but if it has to do with funding, I urge international donor agencies to come to the aid of these local NGOs to step up the fight against the human rights abuses at the mining communities.

In all said, it sad that the state has failed to provide adequate protection for mining communities. State actors like the security services and the justice delivery system have not been protective of weak communities that lack the capacity to deal with big multinationals. As confidence in the justice delivery system for the poor wanes, community people, by natural instinct, begin to devise ways of providing protection for themselves and their interests. Disappointingly, the government's voice is only heard at the policy level, where there is immense support for policies that go to promote the profit margins of the companies so that government also gets fat dividends. At what cost these dividends are produced is not something anybody contemplates. The sacrifices of individual farmers who have had to give up their simple, rural livelihoods for the sake of sustaining soaring profit margins of both corporate mining bodies and government largely go unrewarded or even, unrecognized.

Has mining failed to make the desired impact?
A research conducted in 2011 by the Centre for Environmental Impact Assessment (CEIA) in mining communities to ascertain the health impacts of environmental pollution in the Tarkwa Nsuam and Prestea Huni Valley area revealed that many people suffered from health problems, like breathing and skin diseases and other strange diseases which were absent before the advent of mining. An earlier study by CEIA and WACAM in 2008, 2009 on the effects of mining on water bodies in the same area found that out of 400 water bodies, 250 of them had high levels of heavy metals like arsenic, cadmium and lead. The report revealed that the levels of arsenic in water samples from the Prestea Huni Valley area exceeded permissible guideline values of the Ghana Environmental Protection Agency, the U..S. Environmental Protection Agency and WHO by 198.4 percent, 19,840 % and 19,840 respectively. The Executive Director CEIA, Mr. Samuel Obiri the findings of the two reports were not 'pleasant ', an indication that residents of the two communities were 'dying slowly without knowing it.
In my journalism career as a reporter and later editor, ii had the opportunity to visit Obuasi and Johannesburg, two famous towns in Africa, where boast of some of the world's biggest gold deposits. The two towns are however two sharp contrasts of how gold has turned one's economy around and how the same gold has made the impoverished, leaving nothing but gaping holes, polluted lands and youth unemployment. The skyscrapers in Johannesburg, the first class roads, and other infrastructure, the strong economy boosted by a strong financial, manufacturing and service sector thanks largely to gold. On the contrary, Obuasi is a pale shadow of a town famous for its gold deposits. Dust, untarred roads, a sickly population with broken hopes are the trade of mark of Obuasi. Last week, I was on an official trip to Tarkwa, Prestea, and Bogosu; and it was the first time I had seen the genuine concerns of people from Western Region that they have never benefitted from their huge resources. The roads running through all towns are such terrible conditions that one would hardly believe that gold, manganese, bauxite and rubber are tapped from that part of Ghana. To be honest, contractors are working on the Bogosu-Prestea road, but for how long?
The February 12, 2013 edition of the Daily Graphic reported Dr. Joyce Aryee, the former Chief Executive of the Ghana Chamber of Mines as saying that though mining had made some achievements on the economy, more needed to be done to make the desired impact in mining communities. Speaking at a forum in South Africa, Dr. Aryee conceded that the progress made in the mining sector over the years, was yet to reflect in the economic well-being of people living in mining communities. "Mining has to be seen as an integrated activity to make it more people-centred", she pointed out. And I couldn't agree more with her, though in the past she was more defensive, seizing every opportunity to extol the virtues of mining, as though mining had no negative impact on the environment and the people. It is a fact, even acknowledged by children that mining has failed to regenerate the environment once mined, and its impact on livelihoods in poor countries like Ghana have left indelible marks on the communities and individuals. For these reasons, we need to reenergize ourselves and push for more policies that would compel the state and its agencies to enforce accountability on the extractive sector operators.