ENRC (now Eurasian Resources Group) failed to respect human rights, says UK government watchdog

The UK government has sent a clear message to investors in high risk environments, like the Congo, that they cannot evade their human rights responsibilities.

In a blow to efforts to rebuild its reputation after an ignominious exit from the London Stock Exchange[1], the Eurasian Resources Group (ERG, formerly ENRC) has been publicly criticised by the UK Government for failing to address human rights impacts at mine sites under the control of its subsidiaries in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).[2] ENRC had tried – but ultimately failed – to get the adverse findings overturned.

Human rights organisations, Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) and its Congolese partner, Action contre l’impunité pour les droits humains (ACIDH) had filed a complaint against ENRC almost three years ago.[3]  The complaint was examined by officials at the UK’s National Contact Point (NCP) for the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who concluded:

• ‘ENRC has not engaged effectively with two stakeholder communities on the concessions, and has not taken adequate steps to address impacts on the communities’.
• ‘ENRC has not met the obligation to address human rights impacts with which it is involved’.

• ‘One of the impacts that is not adequately addressed is a threat to the security of community access to safe drinking water. The right to safe water is a human right’.

According to the findings, ENRC – though not directly responsible – had been aware of the contamination of water sources at two mine sites in southern DRC controlled by its subsidiaries, Comide and Africo Resources Limited (a Canadian company). Several thousand people living in the remote villages of Lenge and Kisankala, which lie on neighbouring mine sites, were effectively denied access to clean water.   ENRC was also aware from its due diligence report that ‘the population in the vicinity of the Comide and Africo licences is largely poverty stricken’.[4]

Many of the difficulties mining communities in the DRC face today can be attributed to the chaotic allocation of mine licences in the period during and after the Congo’s wars.  Over the past 15 years there have been numerous reports questioning the legitimacy, financial basis and economic fairness of the DRC’s mining contracts.[5]

The NCP proceedings are supposed to help parties resolve disputes through mediation rather than resorting to protracted and costly legal proceedings. The ENRC complaint has dragged on, partly because of the complexity surrounding the ownership of the mines.[6]

The company disputed most of the NGOs’ claims but refused to disclose relevant information such as its social and environmental assessments or its Memorandum of Understanding with the Congolese mine police, deployed at the sites.  When attempts at mediation broke down, ENRC sought to get the NCP’s conclusions overturned on procedural grounds, but their appeal was rejected.

The UK government recommends that the company should provide better information to the communities about the standards of conduct expected of staff and security contractors and advise them about changes to the schedule for mining.   The UK NCP also asks ENRC to use its influence with Africo/Swanmines to ensure ‘unrestricted and continuing community access to water’ [§ 77].

Local village chiefs expressed their satisfaction with the NCP statement but want reassurances that the company will carry out the UK Government’s recommendations.

The NCP did not reach a finding as regards the frequent clashes with artisanal miners,  but noted that the company had failed to demonstrate that it ‘had taken action to address the ongoing risks to communities from its security operations or to encourage its business partners to apply [OECD] Guidelines standards in addressing them’[§ 65]. A 2012 report prepared for ENRC shareholders noted that ‘security arrangements are not yet aligned with international standards’.[8]

The UK Government will monitor developments at the mine sites and ERG will be required to report on progress  in  implementing the NCP’s recommendations in a year’s time [§83].