Thanks, Martin. Many of these international principles apply in principle but not in
practice in the US; they have little or no legal standing. Individual organizations could
adopt them, and also pursue their own visions, like the Gates Foundation. The values of a
very large and rich organization like Gates can drive international efforts. Gates has
been criticized for this; driving out other efforts.
I wonder about the effectiveness of the work of corporations "ahead of the national
government in which project is located." For example, when I look at sixty years of
humanitarian assistance in Haiti, I see almost no progress. Organizations built medical
clinics and hospitals that met no seismic design and construction standards, even though
they were on a known earthquake zone, and consequently fell down in the big earthquake a
few years ago. This argues for inclusion of best practices from various forms of
infrastructure when HIAs are done. This could be another example of the "silo"
or "stovepipe" problem.
Another aspect from Haiti is the fact that some otherwise highminded organizations refuse
to provide contraception, family planning, and abortion funding, services, or advice due
to religious and theological reasons. They thus perpetuate poverty and thus wipe out any
progress that may be made in another area.
A third example those medical people on this discussion know much more about than me-- the
lack of education and aid on basic sanitary services in places like Haiti. I watch
sophisticated medical services being provided, when a shipload of 50 cent Chinese shovels
and soap and instructions about digging pit latrines away from water sources and washing
hands could accomplish more in cutting the chain of disease transmission.
A fourth example from tragic Haiti is the emphasis by some organizations on electronic
solutions to "problems," using cellphone and computer networks, for example,
when much lower tech solutions are needed.
Sorry to go on like this, but when I look at evaluation of humanitarian operations, I see
this sort of thing. If anyone is interested, I have a paper on this subject.
Best,
Marc
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Birley" <martin(a)birleyhia.co.uk>
To: "marcomcast" <mbrenman001(a)comcast.net>
Cc: "Alex Scott-Samuel" <A.Scott-Samuel(a)liverpool.ac.uk>uk>, "Salim
Vohra" <sal(a)publichealthbydesign.com>om>, "Ben Cave"
<ben.cave(a)bcahealth.co.uk>uk>, "Jenny Mindell" <j.mindell(a)ucl.ac.uk>uk>,
"TRB Health and Transportation" <h+t--friends(a)chrispy.net>et>, "Ben
Harris-Roxas (b.harris-roxas(a)unsw.edu.au)" <b.harris-roxas(a)unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 12:06:42 AM
Subject: Re: [H+T--Friends] H+T--Friends Digest, Vol 38, Issue 4 - HIA
Marc
It would be great to have your detailed view of how the IFC PF and Equator Principles
apply in US in light of what US is and is not signatory to. Also how well IFC addresses
civil rights.
Treaties on human rights include the right to health. we have had legal opinion in the
past that this is about progressive realization and that decisions by government that
would reduce health are then in breach of treaty obligations.
In HIA I'm usually just constructing a justified argument to a corporation who are
concerned about their reputation, social license to operate and investment risk rating.
They are usually ahead of the national government in which project is located.
I think the IFC PS anticipates your point and expects clients to act even when government
is uninterested. It's a loan condition.
Martin