|
|
 |
| Main Links |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UN Panel of Experts: Illegal exploitation of natural resources in the DR Congo
|
|

The war in the DR Congo began when Rwanda and Uganda launched an attack to oust then-President Laurent Kabila from power in 1998. When Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe
intervened on behalf of the Kabila government, the Great Lakes region quickly became
embroiled in a six-nation war and one of Africa’s deadliest conflicts. It is now estimated that between three and four million
people have since died from fighting, disease or starvation. |
Key Documents
RAID's report, "Unanswered Questions: Companies, conflict and the DR Congo" Full Report or Executive Summary
Third Report of UN Panel of Experts, October 2002
Final Report of UN Panel of Experts, October 2003 |

A three-year investigation by a Panel
of Experts, convened by the United Nations Security Council in 2000, found that sophisticated
networks of high-level political, military and business persons in cahoots with various rebel
groups were intentionally fuelling the conflict in order to retain their control over the country’s
natural resources. In a series of controversial reports, the Panel exposed the vicious cycle of resource-driven
conflict that has taken hold of the DR Congo.
In its October 2002 report, the Panel also accused dozens of western
companies of violating a set of government-backed
international standards for responsible corporate behavior known as the "Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises". The Panel felt it was necessary to bring to light the companies’ role
in perpetuating the conflict.

 |

RAID's April 2004 report, "Unanswered Questions: Companies, conflict and the Democratic Republic of Congo", examined the UN Panel’s allegations against 40 companies and included additional evidence attesting to the companies' involvement in human rights violations, corruption and/or illegal resource exploitation.
Most OECD governments refused to investigate the Panel’s allegations and in the face of their inaction, NGOs started to file complaints. Working with our NGO partners, about a dozen complaints alleging violations of the OECD "Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises" were submitted to the American, Belgian, British, and Dutch governments.
|
Overview of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
The OECD Guidelines are the only corporate responsibility instrument that has been adopted by the 30 member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and several non-OECD countries. They describe principles and standards of what OECD governments believe reflects responsible corporate behavior.
Governments have clear implementation obligations, which includes establishing a "National Contact Point" (NCP) to promote adherence by companies and handle allegations of corporate conduct alleged to be inconsistent with the Guidelines. |

When complaints were accepted by NCPs, the outcomes have been inadequate, particularly in view of the gravity of the allegations. Overall, no one is any the wiser as to whether the companies’ conduct was compliant with the OECD Guidelines or how the companies' activities should be amended.
The UN Panel’s work and the subsequent NGO complaints have, however, prompted the OECD Investment Committee to develop a "Risk Management Tool" for companies investing in weak governance zones. Click here to find out more
|
| |
 |
|
| Company |
Outcome |
|
| Oryx Natural Resources |
Placed by the UN Panel in category III "referred to NCPs for updating or further investigation". The UK NCP insisted on resubmission of complaint in April 2005. The majority of the issues were disallowed by the UK NCP on grounds that they had been "resolved" by Panel. The UK NCP issued a weak statement. |
|
| Avient |
Placed by the UN Panel in category III "referred to NCPs for updating or further investigation". A final statement was issued by the UK NCP, even though RAID was never consulted. In the statement, the company's military activities were downplayed and weak recommendations on future conduct were provided. |
|
| Das Air |
Placed by the UN Panel in category III "referred to NCPs for updating or further investigation". As of December 2005, the complaint is still pending. |
|
| Tremalt/ Bredenkamp |
Placed by the UN Panel in category II "provisional resolution", but subject to monitoring. The UK NCP refused to consider the issues raised in the complaint. |
|
| Alex Stewart Assayers Ltd |
Placed by the UN Panel in category I "resolved", but questions remain that the Panel's reports leave publicly unanswered. The UK NCP refused to consider the issues raised in the complaint. |
|
| Ridgepointe Overseas Developments Ltd |
Mentioned by the UN Panel in the main body of its October 2002 report. The company was not categorised in the Panel’s final report. The UK NCP refused to consider the issues raised in the complaint. |
|
| Cabot Corporation |
Placed by the UN Panel in category I "resolved", but questions remain that the Panel's reports leave publicly unanswered. The US NCP rejected the complaint, citing the Panel's finding of "resolved". The US NCP offered to facilitate informal discussions; however, Cabot Corporation never responded to the US NCP's correspondence. |
|
| OM Group Inc. |
Placed by the UN Panel in category I "resolved", but questions remain that the Panel's reports leave publicly unanswered. The US NCP rejected the complaint, citing the Panel's finding of "resolved". The US NCP offered to facilitate informal discussions; however, OM Group never responded to the US NCP's correspondence. |
|
| Eagle Wings/ Trinitech |
Placed by the UN Panel in category I "resolved", but questions remain that the Panel's reports leave publicly unanswered. The US NCP rejected the complaint, citing the Panel's finding of "resolved". The US NCP offered to facilitate informal discussions; however, Eagle Wings/Trinitech never responded to the US NCP's correspondence. |
|
| Chemi Pharmacie Holland BV |
Placed by the UN Panel in category V "no reaction". The Dutch NCP found that the Guidelines were not applicable to the company's trade activities. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|