|Nikel project in the Philippines|
|Supporting NCP(s)||None Selected|
|Description||Specific instance notified by the NGO Future in Our Hands regarding the activities of Intex in the Philippines.|
|Theme(s)||Combating bribery, bribe solicitation and extortion, Environment, General policies|
|Date||26 Jan 2009|
|Industry sector||Mining and quarrying|
In January 2009 the Norwegian NCP received a request for review from the NGO Future in Our Hands alleging that Intex had breached the general policies, environment and combating bribery provisions of the Guidelines by having conducted flawed consultations with indigenous populations and engaged in bribery and corruption, and through the potential for serious environmental damage if the project continued.
Intex rejected the NCP's offer of good offices. The NCP received two embassy reports on the issues, and contracted a social anthropologist to examine the allegations. The NCP concluded in a 50 page report (see final statement and report) that the OECD Guidelines are applicable to enterprises that are still at a planning or exploratory stage of their operations. Abiding by national law is not in itself sufficient for compliance with the Guidelines.
The NCP concluded that the company was in breach of the human rights provisions of the Guidelines because it had not consulted broadly enough with the indigenous peoples affected by the project and associated infrastructure. The NCP did not find evidence that the company had been involved in bribery or corruption, but recommended that the company establish a sound managerial system to manage such risks, particularly since the operations were in a country figuring at the lower part of international corruption indexes. Nor did the NCP find that Intex had violated the Guidelines by supporting a community development project. However, Intex did not have a transparent, publicly disclosed system for allocating development funds. Local populations were worried that mining could exacerbate flood problems, pollute rice fields, and impact biodiversity, water quality, agriculture, and tourism potential. The NCP found that Intex had conducted a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), but did not sufficiently distinguish between significant and less significant risks. The EIA had not been disseminated as required by Philippine legislation, nor did it provide adequate information about a number of important aspects of the project or sufficient baseline studies.