| Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC) and the NGOs Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) and Action Contre l’Impunité pour les Droits Humains (ACIDH) | |
|---|---|
| Lead NCP | United Kingdom |
| Supporting NCP(s) | None Selected |
| Description | Specific instance notified by the NGOs Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) and Action Contre l’Impunité pour les Droits Humains (ACIDH) regarding the activities of Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC) in the Democratic Republic Of Congo. |
| Theme(s) | General policies, Human rights |
| Date | 3 May 2013 |
| Host country(ies) | Democratic Republic of the Congo |
| Source | NGO |
| Industry sector | Mining and quarrying |
| Status | Concluded |
| Summary | Read the initial assessment issued by the UK NCP – September 2013 Read the final statement issued by the UK NCP – February 2016 Read the follow up statement issued by the UK NCP – 23 April 2018 In May 2013, the UK NCP received submission from the NGOs Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) and Action Contre l’Impunité pour les Droits Humains (ACIDH) alleging that Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC) had not observed the general policies, and human rights provisions of the Guidelines with its mining activities in the Democratic Republic Of Congo. In September 2013 the NCP has conducted an initial assessment and concluded that the specific instance merits further examination. The details of the NCP's decision and next steps are outlined in their initial assessment. The parties accepted an offer of mediation, but failed to reach an agreement. The UK NCP began its further examination of the complaint in February 2015 and issued a final statement to the parties in August 2015. On 19 August 2015, a Request was made on behalf of ENRC for by the UK National Contact Point. Upon completion of the review process the final statement on the specific instance was publically released in February 2016 along with the NCP Steering Board’s conclusions on the review of the final statement. The final statement found that based on the information considered, ENRC had not engaged effectively with two stakeholder communities on the concession and had not taken adequate steps to address impacts on the communities that arise from delays in taking forward mining projects, and therefore determined that ENRC has not met obligations under the Guidelines. In the final statement the UK NCP issued recommendations on how ENRC could better engage with the local communities and apply leverage on its business partners to avoid and address adverse impacts. The UK NCP made a follow-up statement on this specific instance in April 2018 finding the ERG (formerly ENRC) had failed to implement any of the recommendations provided by the UK NCP.
|
