Encuesta Para el Area de Bienestar Institucional 76

In the 2006-2011 Sustainability Reports, BHP Billiton disclosed that its approach to land compensation was undertaken on a case-by-case basis. Firstly, the needed land was considered then the short-term and long-term possible impacts on that land were studied. This included the present and past use of the land and the effects it may have on biodiversity and the associated ecosystem services, as well as existing land owners and occupiers.

As a general procedure, compensatory activities were implemented where residual impacts exceeded the acceptable level of impact to biodiversity, land use, watersheds and/or water sources. When financial compensation was appropriate, relevant legislative

136

requirements, industry practices, standards or norms that may exist within a country or region and any special circumstances that may apply, were taken into account. In some countries and regions, legislation prescribes who is to be paid land compensation, the amount, what it is for and how it is to be calculated. In other places, compensation may be by negotiation with the affected parties.

BHP Billiton preferred to have a substantial portion of any compensation payments dedicated to sustainable socio-economic projects or programs that will leave tangible and long-term benefits for the community or people receiving the compensation. It also endeavoured to ensure that benefits were provided to as many people as possible who may be entitled to them. Where substantial sums of money were involved, BHP Billiton would work to put in place appropriate governance structures so that these monies could be managed in a responsible, transparent and accountable manner.

The case-by-case policy reflects the inductive thinking applied in solving the dilemma of gaining profits from land use and expansion, and maintaining cultural heritage and relationships with host communities. The application of this policy is reflected in the community consultation and compensation process for the Ksar Hirane exploration program in Algeria, which was disclosed in the 2006 Sustainability Report. The program was designed to take into account the fact that the communities affected were typically semi-nomadic Bedouin people who were land occupiers rather than land owners. They cultivated crops and reared livestock over extensive distances, depending on seasonal factors and the availability of water.

In July 2004, BHP Billiton committed to undertake a two-dimensional seismic survey in the area and drilled a minimum of one exploration well. The local communities were informed about this activity. Prior to commencement of the survey, a local archaeologist was employed to identify any culturally significant areas along the exploration route and to conduct cultural awareness sessions with the crew so that they would appreciate heritage sites and know how to protect them.

137

During this time, a local permit agent working with the crew accompanied the mapping team so they could also document any potentially sensitive areas. These were typically buildings, sunken water catchment tanks or areas of cultivation. The permit agent provided details to the crew manager, who prepared an appropriate mitigation plan for the crew.

The permit agent also actively sought out local Bedouins and advised them of the planned works, asked if there were any unknown sensitive areas the crew should be aware of, and provided contact information for follow-up queries or complaints. Given the semi-nomadic nature of the inhabitants, some owners of buildings, crops and sunken water tanks could not always be found prior to the survey. Consequently, once the recording crew had passed, it was important for the permit agent to return to the lines and make himself available should anyone raise a concern.

The project's consultation process required every complaint to be logged. Due to low literacy levels in the region, complaint forms were often completed by the permit agent on behalf of stakeholders. An HSEC advisor was on site at all times to oversee the process. Various local government officials were then engaged to investigate claims and determine if there was a need for compensation. When a claim was difficult to determine, stakeholders were generally given the benefit of the doubt. If a claim was deemed to be valid, a specialist in agriculture, water or construction, according to the type of claim, was appointed by the local administration to determine an appropriate level of compensation.

The compensation agreement was then provided to the claimant for signing. The contents were typically explained orally and the signature was often an ink thumbprint. In line with regulations, the money was wired to the nearest post office for collection by the claimant, who was identified by their copy of the agreement. In one compensation case, BHP Billiton’s trucks unavoidably had to pass through a wheat crop. This was discussed with a family who had sown the crop and a claim for compensation for the damaged area was subsequently raised. The householder said he had ‘no problem’ with

138

the consultation process or the amount of compensation his family received but pointed out that ‘the process is a bit slow’.

BHP Billiton addressed and sought solutions to this and other issues, which were a consequence of the need to engage a diverse range of stakeholders in the process, the long distances involved and the need to recognise the local culture and customs of the semi-nomadic Bedouins in host communities.

5.2.4 Principle number 4: moral development through stages is sequential and hierarchical

Gilligan (1982) described three levels and two transition periods in the moral development of the ethic of care.

The first level is the orientation to individual survival. In this level, the self is the sole object of concern where self-survival is the main issue and moral consideration emerges only when one’s own needs are in conflict. This level is then developed to the first transition period: from selfishness to responsibility, which reflects a definition of self within the attachments and connections to other people. The conflict is defined as what one “would” and what one “should” do.

The second level is goodness as self-sacrifice where concern for others becomes the major concern and moral judgments are derived from social norms and consensus. The moral development is further developed to the second transition: from goodness to truth. At this level, the morality of care includes care of self as well as others. The evaluation of others is not of primary importance here because the situation, the intentions and the consequences of an action are more important.

In the third level, the morality of non-violence, the conflict between selfishness and responsibility to self is resolved through a principle of non-violence. As Gilligan (1982) said: “Care then becomes a universal obligation, the self-chosen ethic of a post conventional judgment that reconstructs the dilemma in a way that allows the assumption of responsibility for choice” (p. 504).

139

In summary, the morality of responsibility in the ethics of care is based on a concept of harmony and non-violence and recognition of the need for compassion and care for self and others. This is in contrast to the ethics of justice where morality is based on a concept of reciprocity and fairness and recognition that one must respect the rights of others as well as one’s own. The different stages of moral development between the ethics of care and justice are summarised in Table 5.9.

Table 5.9 Moral development comparison

Morality of care and responsibility Morality of justice

Three stages and two transitional phases Three levels and six stages

I. Orientation to Individual survival Pre-conventional – Focus is self

IA. From selfishness to responsibility: a definition of self within connection with others

Recognition that precipitates internal criticism that previous actions were selfish and, as such, morally inappropriate. The criticism precipitates a new understanding of the connection between self and others, articulating the concept of responsibility, which leads to the second stage of development.

I. Punishment and obedience: do what is told primarily to avoid punishment

II. Instrumental egotism and simple

exchange: deals are made or only consider the cost and/or benefit

II.Self-sacrifice and social conformity: moral judgments are derived from social norms; desire to care for others

Conventional level – focus is relationships

IIA. From goodness to truth: a morality of care must include care of self as well as others

Recognition that one is harming

him/herself by exclusive focus on the needs of others and that such exclusionary focus is morally inappropriate. The inequality manifested in the relationships between the self and others, which is the outcome of the selflessness of the second stage, and is questioned in the second transitional phase gives rise to a balance of selfishness and responsibility at the third stage.

III.Interpersonal conformity

Being considerate, nice, and kind to get along and cooperate with people

IV.Social system and conscience maintenance Cooperate with society in general;

everyone in society is obligated and is protected by the law

III. Morality of non-violence: a moral equality between self and other is achieved by equally applying non-

Post-conventional level – Focus is personally held principles

140

Morality of care and responsibility Morality of justice

violence principle

At this final stage there is a new understanding of the interconnection between the self and others, and the

responsibility to care comes to include both the self and others. No longer will the individual be mired in self-sacrifice or extreme altruism. Now s/he will consider her/his own welfare, needs and desires equally with the needs and desires of others with whom s/he has relationship, letting the contextual details answer the question of whose need is greatest in this particular situation and thereby indicate an appropriate course of action.

V. Prior rights and social contract

Being obliged by whatever arrangements are agreed to and by due process and procedure. Focus is on fairness of the law or rule as determined by equity and equality in the process of developing the rule

VI.Universal ethical principle

Rational and impartial people would view cooperation as moral. Focus is on fairness of the law or rules derived from general principles of just and right as determined by rational people.

Source: Brabeck (1993), Bay (2002), (Fisher 2001).

The stages of moral development based on the ethics of care, as described previously, become the basis to analyse the approaches that have been taken by BHP Billiton in solving the moral dilemmas that it faced in two further case studies.