abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

13 May 2013

Author:
OECD Watch (UK)

RAID vs. ENRC

See all tags Allegations

Restricted water supply close to ENRC mine in DRC - The complaint filed by the law firm Russell-Cooke LLP acting on behalf of RAID concerns mining assets controlled by companies associated with ENRC in the DRC, including the Canadian company Africa Resources. The complaint alleges human rights impacts affecting the impoverished populations of Kisankala and Lenge villages, which are located on two adjacent mining concessions in the province of Katanga. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Kisankala villages only clean water system has been in disrepair for over 10 months following a clash between local security guards and artisanal miners based at Kisankala. In addition, the complaint addresses underlying problems the communities face, including claims concerning resettlement and compensation, the alleged absence of environmental and social monitoring, particularly for Lenge village, and the alleged misbehaviour of private security guards. The UK NCP accepted the case in October 2013, but it refused to examine resettling Kisankala village and environmental and social monitoring in Lenge village, arguing there was “insufficient evidence”. ENRC has denied all the allegations, but has indicated its willingness to enter into mediation. The UK NCP engaged a professional mediator to mediate between the parties. The mediation phase lasted over a year from October 2013 until it broke down in November 2014. In January 2015 and the complainants requested a final examination. A draft final statement was received in August 2015. Since then the company has requested a review of the procedure but to date no decision has been reached. 

Timeline