| Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA) & Argentine subsidiary of Xstrata Copper | |
|---|---|
| Lead NCP | Argentina |
| Supporting NCP(s) | Australia |
| Description | Specific instance alleging a non-observance of the OECD Guidelines. |
| Theme(s) | Disclosure, General policies, Environment |
| Date | 1 Jun 2011 |
| Host country(ies) | Argentina |
| Source | NGO |
| Industry sector | Mining and quarrying |
| Status | Concluded |
| Summary | Read the Final Statement published by the NCP on 3 November 2014: Spanish On 16 September 2011, the Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA), an NGO, submitted a specific instance to the Argentine NCP, alleging that the Argentine subsidiary of Xstrata Copper, had not observed the General Policies (Chapter II), Disclosure (Chapter III), and Environment (Chapter VI) provisions of the Guidelines relating to their projects on rock glaciers and periglacial environments. Specifically, issues related to a lack of protection and environmental impact assessment on these environments related to project impacts. On 28 October 2011, the NCP completed its initial assessment deciding to accept the case for further examination. The Parties agreed to work together to develop a protocol for mining activities in glacier areas and periglacial environments. The company noted its desire to invite the Federal Government and the Provincial and Municipal Governments to collaborate on the process, but the ANCP suggested the Parties focus on reaching agreement on a common text before involving other parties. Despite both Parties engaging in initial contact, progress halted in late 2012. During a meeting held on 10 March 2014, CEDHA noted that the time granted for dialogue had lapsed and expressed its opinion that the company was disengaging from the specific instance process. The company reiterated its view that it did not wish to draft such a protocol without the presence of federal or provincial authorities. On 3 November 2014, the Argentine NCP published a final statement concluding the specific instance without agreement between the Parties. Given the time that had elapsed and the lack of progress, the NCP considered that prolonging the specific instance process was unlikely to lead to a resolution. The NCP recommended that the Parties consider how to create the necessary conditions for dialogue to work constructively towards the resolution of the issues raised. #caused, #data, #pollutionandwastemanagement, #mining, #fact-finding, #localsubsidiary, #recommendations |
