Is it time for architecture studios to walk away from Neom?

Architecture studios working on Saudi giga-project Neom are maintaining their silence over human rights concerns despite mounting pressure from campaigners. Dezeen editor Tom Ravenscroft reports.

Following recent reporting by the BBC alleging that Saudi forces permitted the use of lethal force to clear land for the project, human rights organisations told Dezeen that architecture studios "can't ignore" abuses connected to Neom anymore, and must "urgently reflect" on their involvement in the project.

"Architecture firms working on Neom cannot pretend anymore"

Human rights organisation ALQST drew attention to reports that three men forcibly evicted from the Neom site have been sentenced to death.

"Architecture firms working on Neom cannot pretend anymore not to know that they are working on land on which the local inhabitants have been either killed, arrested, sentenced to death or forcibly displaced," ALQST head of monitoring and advocacy Lina Alhathloul told Dezeen.

"They should urgently reflect upon their legal and moral responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and relevant company commitments, and indeed reassess their involvement on the project entirely unless the adverse human rights impact can be addressed."

Human rights group Amnesty International urged the studios not to ignore the human rights abuses associated with Neom.

"Because there are so many violations that are directly arising from Neom – that architect firms may be contributing to or at least linked to by their business relations – they can't ignore the context of the buildings that they're designing," Amnesty International UK economic affairs programme director Peter Frankental told Dezeen.

"There is no excuse for companies to go into Neom with their eyes closed, with a complete lack of transparency and a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil approach," he continued. "Companies need to act more responsibly."

"Obviously, they will act with some regard to their business interests, but there are ways forward if they have the will to see these issues addressed."

"Neom firms should pull out of this contentious project immediately"

Neom, which includes the proposed 170-mile-long The Line city, a ski resort and numerous tourist resorts, is being developed in the north west of the country on land traditionally home to the Huwaitat tribe.

It is estimated that around 20,000 tribe members are being relocated to accommodate the planned development, with tribe members reportedly killed and sentenced to death for protesting.

Last year the United Nations Human Rights Council "expressed alarm" over imminent executions connected to Neom. In an official response to the report, Saudi Arabia denied that human rights abuses had taken place and claimed the trio set to be executed were terrorists.

The human rights situation was again international news last month when former Saudi intelligence officer Colonel Rabih Alenezi told the BBC that "lethal force" was authorised to remove those resisting relocation to make way for The Line mega city as part of Neom.

Speaking to Dezeen, Alenezi urged companies involved in the project to withdraw from it.

"I think Neom firms should pull out of this contentious project immediately lest they be implicated in Saudi Arabian human rights abuses," he said.

"I assume that all businesses consider the values of human rights. In Saudi Arabia, there are blatant violations of human rights and systematic oppression of civilians," he continued.

"I would like to remind architects that housing is an inalienable human right and that it is not rational to demolish entire towns and force their inhabitants to flee in the name of a wild, impractical plan."

Architecture studios "not authorised to make statements" 

Following the BBC's reporting, Dezeen asked all 23 architecture studios working on the project if they were concerned about the allegations of human rights abuses connected to Neom. None of the studios issued a statement in response.

We also followed up to ask the studios if they had any response to the criticisms presented in this story. None did.

Most did not reply, while several declined to comment "due to client confidentiality" or stated they were "not authorised to make statements" because of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).

Neom, which is effectively owned by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, confirmed to Dezeen that the studios involved had all signed NDAs.

However, a spokesperson implied that the NDAs are only preventing architecture studios from publicly discussing commercially sensitive or proprietary details about the project.

"It is completely normal around the world for commercial arrangements involving all manner of participants to be protected by confidentiality commitments," said a spokesperson. "In many cases these are reciprocal."

"Whilst it is important that Neom is able to protect its commercially sensitive and proprietary information, disclosure of matters which are not considered confidential is often permitted and there are several examples of our partners speaking openly about their Neom projects at global public events and in recent Neom campaigns."

Studios should not accept work "in exchange for their silence"

ALQST and Amnesty International both argued that architecture studios have a responsibility to use their positions to question and exert pressure on the developers of Neom and the Saudi authorities.

"Firms working on Neom have leverage and a communication line with the relevant Saudi authorities to inquire about the abuses and to push for the release of all those unjustly detained," said ALQST's Alhathloul.

"They should not accept to work on the project in exchange for their silence on horrific human rights abuses, that go as far as condemning Saudi people to death for criticising the project," she continued.

"Architecture firms should advocate for the release of everyone unjustly imprisoned in connection to Neom, make it an essential condition of their involvement, and be prepared to cease their engagement if these calls are not met."

Amnesty International's Frankental suggested that studios could organise collectively with their trade bodies to further raise issues.

"If a few companies are having second thoughts because of the human rights context, then that could be significant," he said.

"Every architect needs to think: could they be raising these issues? If they don't want to muddy the waters for their own businesses, then perhaps they could do it collectively with other firms, maybe through RIBA, or other industry associations."

RIBA follows "the lead of the UK Government"

When asked about the allegations of human rights abuses at Neom, RIBA indicated that it was looking to the UK government for guidance on working in Saudi Arabia (KSA), which it described as a "key UK Government trading partner".

"We follow the lead of the UK government and will act on any government guidance following investigation of these serious, concerning allegations," a RIBA spokesperson told Dezeen.

"As a signatory of the UN Global Compact, we ask all Chartered Practices to promote and uphold its universal principles on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption within their projects."

Also approached by Dezeen, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) suggested that architecture studios should "critically assess their involvement" following the latest reports.

"The AIA Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct specifically includes the imperative that architects 'should uphold human rights in all their professional endeavors' and avoid complicity in any activities that may be contrary to these principles," an AIA spokesperson told Dezeen.

"While the AIA does not provide specific advice regarding individual projects, we encourage all our members to critically assess their involvement in projects in light of ethical concerns and recent reports."

"Your reputation will be affected"

Despite the large fees likely involved in the Neom project, there may be financial and reputational reasons for studios to distance themselves from the project, campaigners said.

"You should either contribute to Neom being more respectful of its human rights and legal obligations, or your reputation will, indisputably, be affected, and linked to the project's mismanagement and accompanying abuses on the ground," argued ALQST's Alhathloul.

We asked the studios involved if they were concerned about any reputational damage from working on Neom. They all either declined to comment or did not respond.

Amnesty International highlighted that the project will also have an impact on studio stakeholders, including staff.

"Along with growing awareness comes growing stakeholder concerns – from their own staff, maybe from some of their clients," said Frankental.

"Growing awareness means growing foreseeability of the human rights violations that have taken place and are likely to take place," he continued. "And with that foreseeability comes a strong degree of responsibility."

Employees "fearful" about raising objections

Andrew Daley, associate organiser at Architectural Workers United, claimed that staff at the studios working on Neom may have objections but feel unable to raise them.

"The fact that none, or few, have been made public does not mean workers don't have objections," he told Dezeen. "You can be sure that they do."

"But right now, they're fearful of what their bosses will say or do if they voice those objections. And they have no protection from the actions of their bosses. It's as simple as that."

While the land clearance has been the human rights focus, Amnesty International's Frankental also drew attention to potential human rights abuses that may happen in the future.

"The historic violations are upstream of the operations of architecture studios, but there are also quite a number of downstream, actual and potential human rights violations during the construction phase of the buildings, including the treatment of migrant workers," he said.

Frankental concluded that architecture studios should continue to raise concerns as this could contribute to the Saudi authorities reforming.

"There's certainly a lot at play for the Saudi government, so it's absolutely essential that architects and other firms make their human rights and environmental concerns clear at every stage," he said.

"If Neom is to succeed, there's going to need to be a huge amount of ongoing inward investment, over a period of years, and decades. If the Saudi government comes to the conclusion that even a small part of that investment might be compromised because of human rights violations linked to the project, then they might feel that's reason enough to reform some practices."

Dezeen In Depth

If you enjoy reading Dezeen's interviews, opinions and features, subscribe to Dezeen In Depth. Sent on the last Friday of each month, this newsletter provides a single place to read about the design and architecture stories behind the headlines.

The post Is it time for architecture studios to walk away from Neom? appeared first on Dezeen.