A/HRC/14/29 transparency and accountability, conflict mediation, a grievance and claims process, and a monitoring mechanism across 425 communities is instrumental in helping communities which were historically in conflict with industry and themselves work together for socioeconomic progress. Ms. Garrigo explained that Chevron’s objective was that development in the region should be achieved with the people, rather than for the people. 59. Austin Onuoha (Executive Director, Africa Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), Nigeria) highlighted some of the aspects of Chevron’s current Global Memorandum of Understanding (GMOU) in Nigeria from a civil society perspective. He emphasized that the GMOU has focused on qualitative factors, such as community responsibility, inclusiveness and development. He stated that the GMOU process began in 2004, involved 5 States of the Niger Delta (425 communities) and had a strong governance structure and participatory partnerships. He noted that what had made the GMOU process successful was that it had been a flexible process that had been inclusive, sustainable and principles-driven. Elements to look out for in similar processes included whether there is explicit provision for non-judicial remedies; whether the people are aware of the mechanism; whether it has actually been constituted; whether the parties are using it; and whether the personnel have been trained in using it and had their performance evaluated. Summary of discussion 60. Participants discussed the effectiveness of non-judicial mechanisms, such as dialogues between stakeholders. It was noted that dialogue processes are democratic processes able to bring together stakeholders with different interests. Participants expressed their concern over certain business practices, such as tax evasion, that occur in spite of the non-judicial mechanisms and dialogues in general. It was pointed out that even though nonjudicial mechanisms have been effective in many ways, there is still much to be done. It was also recognized that certain dialogue processes have succeeded in attaining stability in areas where basic infrastructure has been lacking. 61. Participants expressed the view that while non-judicial mechanisms are important, they are not substitutes for judicial mechanisms. It was stressed that both judicial and nonjudicial mechanisms are needed and they should be solid, independent and effective at the national and international level. Some participants emphasized that the scope of the right to remedy hinged on the State’s obligation to provide access to remedy. Similarly, it was suggested that there should be international redress and accountability mechanisms, since an international mechanism would ensure that individuals and communities could seek remedies, even if their home State does not provide such a mechanism. VI. Closing remarks by the Special Representative 62. In his closing remarks, the Special Representative expressed his gratitude to the outstanding set of panellists who had all made invaluable contributions to the discussion. 63. While much progress has been achieved in developing shared meanings and shared understandings, the process is still fragile and fluid, with even what he considered the most solidly based principle of the framework — the State duty to protect — being questioned by some Governments. This illustrates how difficult the situation is and how continued progress is not a given but an objective. 64. The Special Representative went on to outline his plans for what he wishes to achieve in the final phase of his mandate: (a) Present to the HRC a set of guiding principles in relation to all three pillars of the framework for States and companies; GE.10-12935 15