Home Complaints database RAID et al. vs. Glencore UK
Complaint

RAID et al. vs. Glencore UK

Glencore UK’s oil site wastewater spills in Chad cause health impacts

Date filed
10 September 2020
Keywords
Countries of harm
Current status
No resolution
Sector
NCP

Allegations

On 10 September 2020, Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID), Association des Jeunes Tchadiens de la Zone Pétrolière (AJTZP), and Public Interest Law Center (PILC) filed a complaint to the UK NCP asserting that Glencore UK, either directly or through its local subsidiary PetroChad (Mangara) Limited (“PCM”), breached the OECD Guidelines for Multinational (Guidelines) by failing to conduct appropriate environmental and human rights due diligence, including meaningful stakeholder consultation, at its Badila oil concession in Chad. The complaint also alleges that Glencore UK failed to disclose material information on human rights and environmental risks and issues affecting stakeholder communities, did not provide remediation for the harm caused, and has not contributed to the communities’ sustainable development.

Twice, wastewater spills at the Badila site resulted in severe contamination of the local Nya Pende River, a crucial source of water for livestock and crops and a location for bathing, fishing, and washing. In the days and weeks that followed the first wastewater spill and the crude oil leak, dozens of local residents suffered physical injuries including burns, skin lesions, and pustules on the skin. Others complained of blurred vision, stomach aches, internal pains, vomiting and diarrhoea after using, and sometimes drinking, the water from the river. Some required hospitalization, including at least two children who suffered serious skin lesions, burns and pustules after bathing in the water. Livestock was also affected and individuals reported deaths of goats, cattle, pigs and sheep. On the day of the wastewater, fish were floating, dead, on the surface of the water. Women and children appeared to be particularly affected, reporting skin problems including burns, pustules, discolouration and itching. Others reported blurred vision, stomach aches, internal pain, vomiting, diarrhoea and fever after using or drinking water from the river.

Complainants seek the NCPs mediation to secure independent investigations of the site and an independent environmental assessment, implementation of a transparent and accessible mechanism for stakeholder engagement, remediation of impacts, and public disclosure and communication to impacted communities of pollution test results moving forward.

Relevant OECD Guidelines

Outcome

On 15 January 2021, NCP UK issued an initial assessment accepting the complaint. In its statement, the NCP asserts that issues relating to the 2018 wastewater spill and subsequent alleged oil leak merit further examination. NCP UK did not accept any issues relating to the 2020 wastewater spill for further examination because investigations in relation to this event were ongoing and “it would be premature to consider the issue material and substantiated.”

The NCP UK offered mediation to both parties that was initially accepted. However, due to the initiation of potential parallel legal proceedings against Glencore, the company requested to suspend the process on 22 June 2021 and the NCP paused the process. The process was resumed in March 2022, but Glencore declined to continue mediation citing that the threat of litigation relating to matters being considered within the NCP process meant they could not enter into mediation. On 20 May 2022, the NCP decided to progress with further examination of the complaint. In June 2022, Glencore Plc sold PetroChad (Mangara) (PCM).

On 21 November 2024, the NCP UK issued its final assessment on the case. The NCP states that, in relation to the September 2018 wastewater spill, Glencore has not complied with specific provisions of the Guidelines on General Policies and Human Rights. The NCP considers that the company has only failed to comply with paragraphs of the Guidelines which address issues concerning risk-based due diligence and expectation to provent and mitigate adverse impacts in relation to their business relationships, in this instance with PCM. It finds that Glencore has complied with other paragraphs raised in the complaint, as it does not consider the company to have directly contributed to the adverse impacts which occurred resulting from PCM’s activities. The NCP recommends that Glencore refers to due diligence more prominently in its policies, making particular reference to due diligence in regard to its business relationships and environmental impacts.

The complainants welcome the NCP’s decision that Glencore UK breached the OECD Guidelines but said they are disappointed the NCP did not consider the company responsible for remedying the human rights impacts of the Badila spill. While the NCP viewed the company’s UK headquarters as being at arms-length from the harm caused on the ground, the NGOs argued that, as the 100% owner of PCM, Glencore UK had a greater responsibility for its Chadian operations than the NCP’s characterisation that they held a weaker “business relationship”.

More details

Defendant
Company in violation
Other companies involved
Complainants
Affected people

Documents