Read the Initial Assessment published by the AusNCP on 10 January 2022: English
Read the Final Statement published by the AusNCP on 31 July 2023: English

On 18 January 2021, Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), an NGO, submitted a specific instance to the NCPs of the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Australia, alleging that Anglo American (UK based global mining company), Glencore International AG (A Swiss global mining and commodity trading company), and BHP Group Limited (An Australian global mining company), had not observed the General Policies (Chapter II), Human Rights (Chapter IV), and Environment (Chapter VI) provisions of the Guidelines. The companies form a consortium which owns the Cerrejón mine in Colombia. Specifically, the submitter alleges alleged that the companies had caused adverse human rights and environmental impacts; had failed to carry out adequate due diligence; and had failed to disclose material information about the impacts of their operations. Additionally, the issues related to alleged negative impacts on the health and living environment of the local population, caused by the operation and activities of the Cerrejón Mine.

After coordination with the other NCPs included in the submission, it was decided that each NCP would handle a specific instance relating to the company headquartered in their country. Therefore, the Swiss NCP would be responsible for handling the case of Glencore International AG, the UK NCP would handle the case involving Anglo American, and the AusNCP would handle the case related to BHP Group Limited.

The submitters sought commitments from the companies to close the Cerrejón mine and pits located close to human settlements; remedy human rights impacts caused by its activities including environmental rehabilitation; and a formal apology for the irreversible damage done to the health and environment of local populations.

On 10 January 2022, the AusNCP published an initial assessment deciding to accept the case for further examination. The AusNCP proposed that the good offices should concern observance of the Guidelines in all lead NCP countries by the relevant companies and be facilitated by the Swiss NCP. The arrangement required consent of all parties for the mediation. The Swiss NCP facilitated good offices starting in January 2022, but they were terminated in August 2022 with the submitter’s request to withdraw the complaint and conclude the procedure.

On 31 July 2023, the AusNCP published a final statement and concluded the procedure without agreement between parties. As the good offices were not conducted by the AusNCP, the AusNCP did not make its own assessment of the issues raised. The final statement published by the AusNCP indicated that the submitter felt the AusNCP had acted inconsistently with their own procedures by not allowing mediation to revert back once it had been concluded with the Swiss NCP. The AusNCP defended its position as it considered the conditions of the mediation transferring to the Swiss NCP, according to its procedures, analogous to the case where a submitter does not agree to proceed with good offices.

While not making further recommendations, the Independent Examiner endorsed the observations made by the Swiss NCP. The Swiss NCP noted the procedural complexity of the specific instance and regretted that it had not been possible to conduct mediation.

#duediligence #ESCR #pollutionandwastemanagement #naturalresources #mining #coordination #externalmediators