Assessments of social and human rights impacts are playing an increasingly important role in the governance of technology. Following the adoption of World Bank guidelines, formal assessments of such matters as resettlement, conflict prevention, corruption and the preservation of cultural heritage have become an established part of the process of financing international technological development projects. This study focused on controversies concerning the social and human rights impacts of two major technological development projects: the Ilusu Dam and the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline. For the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and BP, the major partner in the BTC project, the pipeline has become a key test in the development of new practices of transparency, social responsibility, and public consultation.
The case of the BTC pipeline appears paradoxical. On the one hand, when contrasted with the case of the Ilusu dam, the development of the project has been subject to a remarkable degree of assessment and monitoring and the BTC company have paid great attention to issues of social, human rights and environmental impacts. The financing and construction of the pipeline have been characterized by an unprecedented level of transparency. On the other hand, the project has been the object of extensive criticism by international NGOs and involved numerous local actions by affected communities, particularly in Georgia. The study shows why the actions of BTC, the IFIs and the international NGOs, although progressive in intention, provided the conditions for the development of what has been a highly polarized political conflict, both internationally and locally. The study came to the following conclusions:
1) Transparency
International Financial Institutions, BP and international NGOs all stressed the importance of transparency. However, the study raises serious questions concerning the value of transparency in practice. Paradoxically, transparency had the effect of reducing the credibility of institutions that performed it, since it was often known by knowledgeable observers that something significant was not being made public. In these circumstances, institutions that performed transparency, rightly or wrongly, appeared either complicit or naïve. In these circumstances, information which was made publicly available - by the IFIs, BTC and the NGOs - was often not trusted by others.
2) Social Impact Assessment
While social impact assessment carried out in relation to the Ilusu dam project was limited and widely recognised as flawed when subject to public scrutiny, the research carried out on environmental and social impacts of BTC was extensive. Yet in the case of BTC, social impact assessment research was heavily criticised by NGOs. The study found that there were significant weaknesses in the assessment of the social impact of the pipeline commissioned by BTC. However, the study also raises questions concerning the limitations of the critical research carried out by international NGOs.
3) Public consultation
In the case of the development of the Ilusu dam, the project was expected to be of benefit to Turkey as a whole, and there was very little concern with the rights and concerns of interested publics. By contrast, the BTC project and the IFIs did seek to consult and respond to the concerns of affected communities and wider stakeholders. Although consultation on BTC was more extensive it was also problematic. In particular: a) consultation was conducted during a period, prior to the construction of the pipeline, when the benefits of the pipeline to local communities were exaggerated by national governments; b) there was a lack of recognition on the part of the IFIs, in particular, of the limitations of holding public consultation meetings in the region.
4) Accountability and Representation
Although some governments played a significant role in backing the BTC project, interested national governments (including the UK) lacked the resources to monitor the project or engage actively in the debate on social impacts in an informed way. Moreover, national governments were marginalised by international NGOs who tended to talk directly to the IFIs even though these institutions were themselves considered interested in the project. In effect, local issues in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey became translated into global issues, thereby bypassing national institutions. In the absence or weakness of democratic institutions, affected communities found it difficult to articulate concerns and grievances, either individually or collectively. Despite their progressive intentions, the interests of affected communities were poorly represented by both the IFIs and international NGOs.
