Gold mining in China's Tibet Autonomous Region
Lead NCPCanada
Supporting NCP(s)None Selected
DescriptionSpecific instance notified by Canada Tibet Committee, on behalf of a group of affected communities, regarding the activities of China Gold International Resources Corp. Ltd operating at the Gyama Valley, Tibet Autonomous Region.
Theme(s)Concepts and principles, Disclosure, Employment and industrial relations, Environment, General policies, Human rights
Date28 Jan 2014
Host country(ies)China (People’s Republic of)
SourceIndividuals, NGO
Industry sectorMining and quarrying
StatusConcluded
Summary

Read the final statement issued by the Canadian NCP - 8 April 2015.


In January 2014, the Canadian NCP received a request for review from an NGO and individuals alleging that a Canadian multinational enterprise had breached the concepts and principles, general policies, disclosure, human rights, employment and industrial relations, and environment provisions of the Guidelines in China's Tibet Autonomous Region. More specifically it is alleged that the company had: not adequately conducted environmental due diligence which has led to environmental degradation and loss of life, and other health and safety issues; not respected human rights through discriminatory hiring practices, forced evictions, expropriation of land, violations of freedom of expression and information, and the inability to obtain remedy, and; failed to disclose accurate information on the environmental, health and safety risks to local communities.

The NCP issued its Initial Assessment to the Parties on 29 August 2014, offering its good offices.  The Notifier accepted the offer, however the Company did not respond by the first deadline of 28 November 2014.  On 14 November 2014, Canada launched its enhanced CSR Strategy for the extractive sector abroad “Doing Business the Canadian Way: A Strategy to Advance Corporate Social Responsibility in Canada’s Extractive Sector Abroad”, which included provisions of withdrawal of Government of Canada trade advocacy services should companies refuse to engage in the NCP dialogue facilitation process.  As this specific instance was ongoing at the time of the launch, the NCP extended the deadline for accepting its good offices to allow the company to reconsider.  As no response was received for this second invitation, the NCP released its final statement on 8 April 2015, assessing that the Company had not prima facie demonstrated its alignment with the OECD Guidelines, and including in the statement six recommendations designed to promote dialogue, disclosure and other actions for implementing the OECD Guidelines. Should the Company wish to be able to access future Government of Canada trade advocacy support, it will need to submit a Request for Review to the NCP, or show the Government of Canada it has engaged in good-faith dialogue with the Notifier. The NCP is of the view that dialogue between the Company, the Notifier, and the individuals the Notifier represents could assist the Parties in moving towards resolution of the issues raised in the Request for Review.