abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

30 Apr 2018

Author:
Rights & Accountability in Development (UK) & Legal & Human Rights Centre (Tanzania)

NGO's assessment of Acacia's grievance mechanism in Tanzania

See all tags

"Acacia Mining’s Revised Operational Grievance Mechanism at North Mara Gold Mine, Tanzania"

...In December 2017, Acacia posted a new draft mechanism on its website. This version is called the Community Grievance Process (the ‘current Handbook’) and it is accompanied by a technical document detailing the standard operating procedures (‘Standard Procedure’). The Handbook is notable for the removal of much of the human rights language from the earlier version, which was presented very differently to local communities...Acacia should publish the comments and feedback it has received on the revised mechanism, whether from the local level or from the ‘international civil society organisations’ it has consulted...

The current Handbook drops all mention of these benchmarks as well as all references to United Nations and other codes governing the conduct and use of force by police and private security. The list of 24 rights explicitly set out in the earlier Handbook – for example, the right to life, freedom from torture and from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, to protection from arbitrary arrest – have been removed. The current Handbook instead posits ‘human rights’ (without any further elaboration) alongside grievances concerning the environment, land and property rights, housing and livelihoods, and health and safety. Not only is the importance of human rights reduced in this approach, but there is 4 Acacia’s said on its website, when posting details of the modified grievance process in December 2017, that it intended ‘to consult with and seek feedback from the Mine’s local communities, and from interested external observers.’ 2 also a failure to recognise that adverse impacts on the environment, livelihoods and health are themselves a failure to respect human rights...

The Standard Procedure cites examples which could be categorized as humanitarian relief as ‘someone who was injured in an accident while trespassing on the Mine Site’. What this example fails to specify in more detail is that such injuries can occur due to excessive use of force by mine security and/or police in joint security operations. RAID has documented an important number of such violations. Without due safeguards, legitimate claims by victims could be hastily dealt with as humanitarian relief thereby limiting their access to other forms of remedy.