Lack of investment in education has resulted in millions of school drop outs among children in Myanmar leaving the future generation at risk. The International Trade Unions Confederation (ITUC) in a recent report titled “Burma’s Children, a Generation Sacrificed” said with the military rulers having no intention of investing in education and health, the future generation is at “stake.” The report says, the junta while spending 40 per cent of its total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the military, invests only 0.9 per cent on education and 0.5 on health. It goes on to argue that  although local people have always given a high value to the education of their children, the high levels of school drop-outs and the bad quality of education, which are direct consequences of the lack of investment in this sector, are producing generations of illiterate people. The lack of investment in education, the poor living standards, failed economic situation and child labour have forced millions of children in Myanmar to the workforce instead of going to schools, the report said.

EarthRights International released two reports today. The first Total Impact: The Human Rights, Environmental, and Financial Impacts of Total and Chevron’s Yadana Gas Project in Military-Ruled Burma (Myanmar) explains that Total and Chevron’s Yadana gas project has generated US$4.83 billion dollars for the Burmese regime. The 110-page report explains how the regime would have excluded at least US$4.80 billion dollars of that revenue from the country’s national budget.   Citing “confidential and reliable” sources, ERI named the Singapore based Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC) and DBS Group (DBS) as the offshore repositories of Yadana gas pipeline revenues. The second is Getting it Wrong: Flawed “Corporate Social Responsibility” and Misrepresentations Surrounding Total and Chevron’s Yadana Gas Pipeline in Military-Ruled Burma (Myanmar). Based on seven years of research, this 84-page report describes Total and Chevron’s public relations endeavors, including impact assessments commissioned by the companies since 2002. The impact assessments were conducted by the US-based CDA Collaborative Learning Projects (CDA).

It is interesting that whilst the companies involved are criticised (although not encouraged to withdraw from Myanmar, simply to ‘say what they pay’) the second report focusses on CDA - which conducted impact assessments for the companies in Myanmar - is more a criticism of the CSR industry itself. As the CSR industry develops we can arguably expect more such reviews of tools and practices of professionals in delivering value and credibility to clients. Does this report also demonstrate that the industry is coming of age?

News links on this story here.

A report on the weekend says that EU foreign ministers are set to prolong sanctions against Myanmar when they meet today (although they also say they are ready to ease them and hold high-level talks if there is "genuine progress"). Genuine progress looks unlikely, which begs the question of why the EU is holding firm with a strategy that isn't working (and is looking less likely to work with every passing year).

If sanctions aren't working, then surely the time has come to i) determine why they're not working and ii) develop a new strategy.

The main reason sanctions aren't working is that unlike the EU, China and ASEAN countries see no reason why they should not invest in Myanmar; for every Western firm pressured to divest (or forced not to invest in the first place), there are numerous others in Asia that are under no such pressure. Unfortunately, the premise upon which sanctions are based (that economic power still resides exclusively with Western countries) just isn't true any more. And that isn't about to change back any time soon.

If that's true, then the EU foreign ministers will have to at some point rethink why they are prolonging sanctions. In the absence of "genuine progress", is it not worth considering whether targeted investment might achieve a better result. I know that talking of lifting sanctions is tantamount to support for the generals in some circles, but it's not as if EU companies don't invest in places with bad human rights records. And it's generally conceded that in supply chains at least there have been some improvements in the rights workers enjoy resulting from EU (and other) companies raising expectations of supplier workplace standards. Would this be possible in Myanmar?

I think it's time for a change. Unfortunately the old way is not only broken, nobody seems willing to fix it...

Rob Hanlon, one of my PhD students at CityU, sent this story with the comment: "I know this is not Asia related, but this is going to have profound affects on business and human rights issues. What could this mean for companies in Burma? To say the least!" Rob is doing his thesis on human rights, CSR and business in Asia, and I think he's right in suggesting that cases brought under the Alien Tort Statute are going to have a profound influence over the next few years. More importantly, will we see a repeat of this in 20 years for companies currently investing in places like Burma? Scott Gilmore at Huffington Post has some more thoughts here.