FAQs

How does this Tool relate to other TNC and non-TNC human rights, equity, and IPLC guidance?

There is a chart of linked materials in Section 1 of this Tool. Generally speaking, the VCA Framework describes the what, while the Human Rights Guide and this Tool describe the how. All of TNC’s work with IPLC’s is predicated on respect for human rights and self-determination, and these tools and guides exist to ensure practitioners have a means to identify, understand, and practically action those understandings at a detailed level.

Note: This Tool may form part of the human rights impact assessment recommended in Module 2 of the Human Rights Guide.

Don’t IPLCs need to participate in the screening themselves?

As discussed in detail in the Introduction and Overview, it would be burdensome to ask IPLCs to perform the high level of labor required in checking TNC proposals and assumptions at the initial stage. Validating our assumptions with IPLCs, however, is an important part of the later stages of this work.

Why are teams doing this analysis themselves instead of hiring an expert?

There are some instances where retaining expert help might achieve strongest results, such as supporting teams in the Rightsholder Engagement process.

In general, though, it’s preferable to have field teams do this work instead of external experts for several reasons:

1. Trust. Field teams often have higher existing levels of trust with Communities, meaning greater access to high-quality information. TNC projects often emerge from existing relationships with Communities in regions where TNC has worked for years. If the opposite is the case, and TNC is new to an environment where an existing expert has stronger trust relationships, the external expert might be the best choice.
2. Training. Running the screening is good training for field teams and their future outcomes. A team that has worked together with IPLCs to understand and apply unfamiliar human rights concepts in complex contexts will be best prepared to spot new issues as they emerge.
3. Efficiency. In-house human resources are often more efficient from a time and money perspective. Sometimes sophisticated analysis of experts is called for, but generally, familiarity with the case is more important.

Why are teams doing this analysis themselves instead of hiring an expert?

There are some instances where retaining expert help might achieve strongest results, such as supporting teams in the Rightsholder Engagement process.

In general, though, it’s preferable to have field teams do this work instead of external experts for several reasons:

1. Trust. Field teams often have higher existing levels of trust with Communities, meaning greater access to high-quality information. TNC projects often emerge from existing relationships with Communities in regions where TNC has worked for years. If the opposite is the case, and TNC is new to an environment where an existing expert has stronger trust relationships, the external expert might be the best choice.
2. Training. Running the screening is good training for field teams and their future outcomes. A team that has worked together with IPLCs to understand and apply unfamiliar human rights concepts in complex contexts will be best prepared to spot new issues as they emerge.
3. Efficiency. In-house human resources are often more efficient from a time and money perspective. Sometimes sophisticated analysis of experts is called for, but generally, familiarity with the case is more important.

At what stage of a project do we apply this Tool? What if the project has been operating for a long time?

The Tool can be applied at any time.

For new projects:

• If project is not developed enough, the screening will not have enough inputs to identify issues well.
• If it is too far along, it will be difficult to make changes.
• Ideally, conduct this screening as part of a Consultation Plan for FPIC, after undergoing the early learning and IPLC engagement process.

For ongoing projects:

• This Tool can help identify potential impacts that weren’t obvious at the outset.
• It might fit into existing evaluation and monitoring plans.
• This Tool can also be useful as part of making plans for expansion or adjustment of existing projects.
• If human rights concerns emerge in the context of an ongoing project, this can help teams in both responding to the immediate issue and taking steps to proactively address human rights risks in future.

What if the project only has a small NCS component? Do we apply the Tool just to that component?

Even if NCS is only a small part of the project, it is worthwhile to address the Tool to the project as a whole since key audiences will unlikely make this kind of distinction.

That said, speed and agility are important in implementation of the NCS, and the application of the Tool must not become burdensome. Accordingly, the Tool was designed to be streamlined and easily integrated. It also rarely results in a hold status or strict deadlines; it is meant rather to identify issues so teams can move forward on addressing them along with their implementation plans.

Are there possible negative consequences to running this screening?

Teams who are concerned that this screening will highlight issues they cannot afford to deal with all at once should remember that the screening generates prioritized lists of issues to focus on. The “Escalate” recommendation to put activities on hold only applies to new projects. For existing projects, the recommendation is higher-level review, and this is reserved for risks of severe human rights abuses. Most issues are placed on the Prioritize List or Watch List, and invite teams to work quickly while honoring their capacity, time, and resource constraints. The Tool does not recommend stopping ongoing projects, and the hope is that it provides an extra foundation for requests for funding and other assistance for project teams.

Isn’t it the government’s job to promote human rights and TNC’s job to follow the law?

This is an out-of-date understanding of human rights obligations. The human rights treaties and obligations signed by States form the normative and moral framework for citizen and institutional obligations that run independent of State obligations. We all have a codified responsibility to uphold human rights. For independent and private sector actors, it is a “responsibility to respect” human rights, which differs subtly from the State’s “duty to protect” them.

See also: UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights