Connect with us

NGO WORK

Summary of Specific Instance Complaint to the United States National Contact Point against Marsh regarding its support for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline

Published

on

On February 7, 2023, 10 Ugandan and Tanzanian organizations and Inclusive Development International brought a complaint to the United States National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises (‘the US NCP’). The complaint outlines failures by the U.S.-based insurance broker firm Marsh, part of the Marsh McLennan Group, to meet the standards of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (‘OECD Guidelines’) in relation to its reported role as insurance broker for the construction phase of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (‘EACOP’).

The full complaint document is not disclosed, per the confidentiality provisions of the US NCP operating  procedures. This document summarizes the key points of the complaint and provides background information on the OECD, US NCP, and the complaint procedure. The Ugandan and Tanzanian complainants are choosing to remain anonymous due to the security risks associated with filing this complaint.

Adverse Impacts associated with the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP)
The EACOP is expected to cause—and in many instances, is already causing—extensive and severe adverse human rights and environmental impacts, which the project sponsors have failed to adequately address, prevent and mitigate. These include:1

• Improper land acquisition without adequate safeguards: The project’s land acquisition process is being carried out in a manner inconsistent with human rights and international standards, with adverse impacts being exacerbated rather than mitigated. Communities have reported coercion in the land acquisition and valuation process; have faced hardship due to delayed compensation and restrictions
on the use of their land; and report having received inadequate compensation for their acquired land and assets.

• Security risks and impacts: There are numerous reports of intimidation, harassment, security threats and arbitrary arrests of community members, environmental and human rights defenders, and journalists critical of the project.

• Failure to adequately consult local communities: The complaint points to detailed testimony from local communities that demonstrates a failure by the project sponsors to meaningfully consult affected people, including by failing to provide local communities with information on the project’s risks and providing misleading information about the potential economic benefits.

• Impacts to natural resources: EACOP would put vital freshwater resources at risk from oil spills. The pipeline route traverses numerous lakes, rivers and wetlands, including the Lake Victoria basin,

See  the Assessment of the EACOP and Associated Facilities’ Compliance with the Equator Principles and IFC Performance Standards,  pproduced by Inclusive Development International, BankTrack, and African Institute for Energy Governance (July 2022). See also the community-based reviews of the human rights impact of EACOP by Oxfam and others, Empty Promises Down the Line? A Human Rights Impact Assessment of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (September 2020) and by Les Amis de la Terre and Survie, A Nightmare Named Total (October 2020) and EACOP: A Disaster in the Making (October 2022), and the preliminary environmental and socio-economic
threat analysis for EACOP conducted by WWF Safeguarding people & nature in the East Africa crude oil pipeline project (July 2017).

which supports 40 million people in the region. The pipeline also risks contaminating the high-quality groundwater relied upon by millions for consumption. In addition, the construction and operation of EACOP will threaten agricultural land, forests and wetlands relied on for farming, energy for cooking, construction materials, medicine and cultural goods.

• Impacts to ecosystems and protected areas: The EACOP would cause, and is already causing, immense and irreversible harm to local ecosystems and habitats, including from the clearing of land for construction and the risk of oil spills or leaks. In particular, the pipeline threatens to irreversibly impact a number of legally protected and/or internationally recognized wildlife areas along its route and off the coast of Tanzania.

Climate impacts: The full value chain emissions of EACOP is expected to reach 379 million metrictons of CO2 over the pipeline’s 25-year operational lifetime.2 As such, the project poses unacceptable climate risks, which are fundamentally incompatible with the Paris Agreement and a pathway to limit warming to 1.5°C.

The Complainants submit that many of the most egregious impacts associated the project are inherent to the project and are therefore impossible to adequately mitigate. The EACOP is a fundamentally unsustainable and untenable project that should not proceed.

Marsh’s role in enabling the project to proceed
In May 2022, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Financial Times reported that Marsh had secured the contract to serve as insurance broker for the construction phase of the EACOP.3 In its role as broker, Marsh is tasked with arranging insurance for the pipeline. The company pursued this contract despite internal resistance from the corporate group’s own employees, who called on management to refuse the engagement.

The EACOP cannot be constructed without insurance. It is a legal requirement under Ugandan law that the EACOP must be insured, and large-scale construction projects such as the EACOP are unlikely to be financially viable without insurance. Through its engagement as insurance broker for the EACOP, Marsh is enabling the construction of the pipeline and is therefore contributing to the above adverse impacts.

The Complainants have contacted Marsh numerous times to attempt to engage in a dialogue in relation to the EACOP and to inform Marsh of potential risks that should be reflected in its due diligence process. Marsh did not respond to any of this correspondence. Accordingly, the complainants have turned to the US National Contact Point to resolve this dispute.

Marsh’s breaches of the OECD Guidelines
The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises apply to all companies based in or with operations in OECD countries, including the United States. As a U.S.-based company, Marsh should operate in alignment with the Guidelines. The complaint alleges that Marsh has breached the Guidelines in four main ways:

Contribution to adverse impacts
The Guidelines specify that companies should avoid causing or contributing to adverse impacts, including human rights and environmental impacts, and to address such impacts where they occur. Where companies have caused or contributed to impacts, they should provide for or cooperate in the provision of remedy. Where

https://climateaccountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CAI-EACOP-Rptlores-Oct22.pdf
https://www.ft.com/content/597a2b01-fb54-4fd3-b326-dadf52dc250a
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2022-05-19/insurance-giant-marsh-signs-on-forenvironmentally-disastrous-pipeline-project

adverse impacts are only directly linked to a company’s operations, products or services by a business relationship (but the company has not itself caused or contributed to the impacts), the company must seek to prevent or mitigate the impacts.

The complaint argues that by providing insurance brokerage services, Marsh is contributing to the adverse environmental and human rights impacts that would be, or have already been, caused by the EACOP. In particular, the complaint argues that Marsh is contributing to the adverse impacts under the Guidelines6 (and is not just directly linked) because: (1) it is enabling the project to go ahead by arranging legally and financially necessary insurance coverage; and (2) in light of the wealth of publicly available information on the damaging effects of EACOP, the human rights and environmental impacts were foreseeable and should have been identified in Marsh’s due diligence process.

Due diligence

Under the Guidelines, companies must conduct risk-based due diligence to identify, prevent and mitigate adverse impacts related to human rights and the environment. The complaint argues that whatever environmental and social due diligence process Marsh may have conducted in relation to EACOP was deficient, as any adequate due diligence process would have concluded that EACOP entails unacceptable unmitigatedenvironmental and human rights risks.

Disclosure
Companies should disclose relevant information on their due diligence policies and processes, including what actions they have taken to prevent or mitigate risks that they identify.8 Marsh has failed to disclose adequate information about its due diligence policy and processes, including failing to disclose any information on the due diligence it conducted in relation to the EACOP.

Sustainable Development
The Guidelines requires companies to operate in a manner that contributes to sustainable development and respects internationally recognized human rights. The complaint alleges that Marsh is undermining sustainable development efforts by supporting EACOP, as it is a fundamentally unsustainable project that poses unmanageable climate, environmental and social risks.

Remedies Sought
To remedy these breaches and bring its operations back into alignment with the OECD Guidelines, the Complainants are calling on Marsh to:
• Publicly confirm whether or not it is currently acting as broker for the EACOP, and disclose whether it has any involvement in the associated Tilenga, Kingfisher, or Kabaale refinery projects.

OECD Guidelines, General Policies, paras 11-12; OECD Guidelines, Human Rights, paras 1-6; OECD Guidelines, Environment, paras 3 and  Guidance on when companies will contribute to adverse impacts is at: OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, page 70; OECD Guidelines, General Policies, commentary para 14; OECD Due Diligence for Responsible Corporate Lending and Securities Underwriting, pages 44-45 OECD Guidelines, General Policies, paras 10-12.; OECD Guidelines, Human Rights, para 5; OECD Guidelines, Environment, para. OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, page 33; OECD Guidelines, Disclosure paras 2-3. OECD Guidelines, General Policies, paras 1-2; OECD Guidelines, Human Rights, paras 1-6.

• Cease its role as broker for the construction of the EACOP and make a public statement to this effect. In addition, Marsh should not be broker for future renewals of insurance cover (such as for the operation phase of the project).
• Fully disclose its current human rights and environmental due diligence policies and procedures.
• Publicly disclose the due diligence process that it undertook in relation to the EACOP specifically, including any areas of risk it identified and the actions it took to prevent or mitigate those risks.
• Adopt and disclose an effective due diligence policy and procedures for future potential engagements. The procedures should set out how Marsh identifies and addresses the environmental and human rights impacts associated with the companies and projects for which it provides insurance brokerage services.
• Stop publicly claiming to be committed to the Sustainable Development Goals unless it ceases its support for the EACOP and improves its environmental and human rights due diligence procedures.

The Complainants request that the US NCP offer its good offices to resolve this complaint. In particular, the Complainants request that the NCP consider these allegations and issue recommendations to bring Marsh back into compliance with the Guidelines.

What happens next?
The US NCP must first determine whether the complaint is admissible, including by assessing whether there is a likely link between Marsh’s activities and the issues raised, and whether the issue is material and substantiated. If the NCP accepts the complaint, it will offer to bring the complainants and Marsh together for a mediated dialogue, subject to both parties’ voluntary participation. Through this mediation, the parties will attempt to negotiate a resolution of the issue.

At the end of the process, the NCP will publicly issue a final statement which outlines the allegations of the complaint, any outcomes reached during the mediation, or reasons why an agreement was not reached. The NCP may also issue recommendations as to how the Guidelines are to be implemented.

Further background on the OECD, OECD Guidelines, and National Contact Points
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is an intergovernmental organization with 38 member countries, created to promote economic growth, prosperity and sustainable development.

Because Marsh is based in the United States, a member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), it should follow the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. The OECD Guidelines are recommendations from governments to multinational enterprises with operations or headquarters in OECD adhering countries. The Guidelines set out non-binding principles and standards for responsible business conduct across a range of issues, including human rights and the environment.

All OECD countries are required to establish National Contact Points within their governments. National Contact Points (NCPs) are a unique grievance mechanism responsible for receiving complaints from people or organizations who allege that companies have not complied with the Guidelines.

More information on the US NCP’s procedures can be found here: https://www.state.gov/u-s-national-contact-point-for-the-oecd-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises/a-guide-to-the-u-s-national-contact-point-for-the-oecd-guidelines-for-multinational-enterprises/#FinalStatement
https://usoecd.usmission.gov/mission/oecd/about-the-oecd/

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Business, UN, Govt & Civil Society urge EU to protect sustainability due diligence framework

Published

on

As the publishing date for the European Commission’s Omnibus Simplification Package proposal draws closer, a coalition of major business associations representing over 6000 members, including Amfori and the Fair Labor Association, has called on the EU to uphold the integrity of the EU sustainability due diligence framework.

Governments have also joined the conversation, with the Spanish government voicing its strong support for maintaining the core principles of the CSRD and CSDDD.

Their call emphasises the importance of preserving the integrity of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).

These powerful business voices have been complemented by statements from the UN Working Group on Business & Human Rights, alongside 75 organisations from the Global South and 25 legal academics, all cautioning the EU against reopening the legal text of the CSDDD.

Additionally, the Global Reporting Initiative has urged the EU to maintain the double materiality principle of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, meanwhile advisory firm Human Level published a briefing exploring the business risks of reopening level 1 of the text.

Concerns stem from fears that reopening negotiations could weaken key human rights and environmental due diligence provisions, undermine corporate accountability and create legal uncertainty for businesses.

The European Commission’s Omnibus proposal is expected to be published on 26 February.

Source: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Kenya: Court halts flagship carbon offset project used by Meta, Netflix and British Airways over unlawfully acquiring community land without consent

Published

on

“Landmark Court Ruling Delivers Devastating Blow To Flagship Carbon Offset Project”, Friday, 31 January 2025.

A keenly-watched legal ruling in Kenya has delivered a huge blow to a flagship carbon offset project used by Meta, Netflix, British Airways and other multinational corporations, which has long been under fire from Indigenous activists. The ruling, in a case brought by 165 members of affected communities, affirms that two of the biggest conservancies set up by the controversial Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) have been established unconstitutionally and have no basis in law.

The court has also ordered that the heavily-armed NRT rangers – who have been accused of repeated, serious human rights abuses against the area’s Indigenous people – must leave these conservancies. One of the two conservancies involved in the case, known as Biliqo Bulesa, contributes about a fifth of the carbon credits involved in the highly contentious NRT project to sell carbon offsets to Western corporations. The ruling likely applies to around half the other conservancies involved in the carbon project too, as they are in the same legal position, even though they were not part of the lawsuit. This means that the whole project, from which NRT has made many millions of dollars already (the exact amount is not known as the organisation does not publish financial accounts), is now at risk.

The case was first filed in 2021, but judgment has only recently been delivered by the Isiolo Environment and Land Court. The legal issue at the heart of this case was identified in Survival International’s “Blood carbon” report, which also disputed the very basis of NRT’s carbon project: its claim that by controlling the activities of Indigenous pastoralists’ livestock, it increases the area’s vegetation and thus the amount of carbon stored in the soil.

The ruling is also the latest in a series of setbacks to the credibility of Verra, the main body used to verify carbon credit projects. Even though some of the participating conservancies in the NRT’s project lacked a clear legal basis and therefore could not ‘own’ or ‘transfer’ carbon credits to the NRT, the project was still validated and approved by Verra, and went through two verifications in their system. Complaints by Survival International prompted a review of the project in 2023, which also failed to address the problem.

Caroline Pearce, Director of Survival International, said today: “The judgement confirms what the communities have been saying for years – that they were not properly consulted about the creation of the conservancies, which have undermined their land rights. The NRT’s Western donors, like the EU, France and USAID, must now stop funding the organization, as they’ve been funding an operation which is now ruled to have been illegal…

The lawsuit accused NRT of establishing and running conservancies on unregistered community land, “without participation or involvement of the community,” including not obtaining free prior and informed consent before delineating and annexing community lands for private wildlife conservation.

The complaint reads, in part, “(NRT), with the help of the Rangers and the local administration, continue to use intimidation and coercion as well as threats upon the community leaders where the community leaders attempt to oppose any of their plans.” The case was brought by communities from two conservancies, Biliqo Bulesa Conservancy (which is in the NRT’s carbon project area and where 20% of the project’s carbon credits were generated) and Cherab Conservancy, which isn’t.

These two conservancies, the court has ruled, were illegally established. Permanent injunctions have been issued banning NRT and others from entering the area or operating their rangers or other agents there. The government has to get on with registering the community lands under the Community Land Act, and has to cancel the licences for NRT to operate in the respective areas. The NRT’s carbon offset project is reportedly the largest soil carbon capture project in the world.

Source: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

France: CSOs criticise French government’s call for “massive regulatory pause” on EU legislation, incl. CSRD and CSDDD

Published

on

“Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive : France advocates for indefinite postponement, to the detriment of social and environemental justice,” 24 January 2025

According to a document made public by Politico and Mediapart, the French government, via the Minister of Economy Eric Lombard, intends to bring to Brussels an agenda of all-out deregulation which, in addition to suspending the application of the text “sine die”, would call into question entire sections of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. This irresponsible position risks precipitating the unravelling of a text necessary in the face of the climate and social crisis, a text that France nevertheless declares to have supported.

[…] The instrumentalization of the simplification of the law to weaken a directive is dangerous and unacceptable for European democracy.

According to the document published this morning in the press, France would request an indefinite postponement of the application of this directive, a significant increase in the application thresholds, or even the removal of the clause that would allow in the future to specifically regulate the activities of financial actors. These numerous modifications would lead to an exclusion of nearly 70% of the companies concerned, even though only 3,400 of the 32 million European companies (i.e. less than 0.1%) were covered under the previous thresholds according to the NGO SOMO.

In reality, as during the negotiation of the text, France is merely echoing the demands made by several employers’ organisations hostile to the duty of vigilance, including AFEP and Business Europe. In doing so, France is actively contributing to undoing the progress achieved by citizens in recent years.

For our organisations, human rights and environmental associations and trade unions, the position expressed by France is irresponsible and incomprehensible. Last week, more than 160 European associations and trade unions repeated their opposition to a questioning of European Sustainable Finance legislations.

We call on the President of the Republic Emmanuel Macron and the Bayrou Government to reconsider this position as soon as possible and to reiterate France’s support for the European duty of vigilance, for the other texts of the Green Deal which are vital for people, the climate and biodiversity, and for respecting their implementation timelines.

Source: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter