Review of Progress,

Rights and Accountability in Development

Review of Progress, –

RAID is a UK-based non-governmental organisationpromoting responsible conduct and respect forhuman rights by companies around the world. RAIDworks closely with affected communities, helpingvictims of corporate human rights abuses to seekjustice through complaint mechanisms and legalaction. rough research, education and interna-tional advocacy, RAID raises awareness on humanrights issues among corporations and the public.

RAID informs and advises governments, the UN,the OECD and other bodies responsible for devel-oping and enforcing international norms on thehuman rights responsibilities of companies. RAIDadvocates for binding corporate accountabilityframeworks, and believes that companies trading onthe world’s stock markets should abide by the rulesand not bring markets into disrepute.

Cover photos: MMR, Gwenn Dubourthoumieu/CarterCenter, RAID, Emmanuel Umpula, MiningWatch Canada,ESCR-Net, Chantal Peyer/Bread for all, Kaihsu Tai, PaulRobinson, ICoCA© Rights and Accountability in Development Rights and Accountability in Development Limited (RAID) isa charity registered in England and Wales, No. RAID is incorporated as a private, not-for-profit companylimited by guarantee in England and Wales, No. Registered offices: Bladon Close, Oxford, OX AD, UK


Preface......................................................................................iIntroduction...........................................................................ii

Review of Progress, –RAID granted charitable status...........................................Action on OECD Guidelines around the world...............Anvil Mining case goes to Canada’s Supreme Court.....e London Stock Exchange – a haven for laundered

conflict assets?................................................................Parliamentarians look to RAID for advice......................RAID and partners investigate human rights and conflict

minerals...........................................................................Private security providers’ Code of Conduct Association

launched..........................................................................Collaborations.......................................................................Publications, media engagement and conferences........Future work...........................................................................People.....................................................................................Donors and contributors.....................................................Financial summary..............................................................

Contents

i

S its foundation in , RAID has been at theforefront of efforts to strengthen and implement themechanisms that can bring corporate misconduct to lightand achieve justice for victims of abuse.

RAID’s work focuses especially on ensuring thatcorporations operating in conflict-affected countrieswhere the rule of law is weak adhere to internationalnorms on human rights and corporate responsibility.rough field research in collaboration with nationaland international partners, RAID builds a detailedunderstanding of the harms suffered by individuals andcommunities as a result of corporate action or complicitywith governments, and helps those affected to seekappropriate remedies. It has been a leader in such effortsin relation to mining companies operating in the Demo-cratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), assisting victims toseek remedies in Congo and in the courts of the coun-tries where companies are headquartered.

Simultaneously, the organisation engages with gov-ernments and international organisations to press for thedevelopment of fair and just policies. RAID is workingto strengthen the effective implementation of interna-tional norms such as the OECD Guidelines for Multina-tional Enterprises, and the UN’s Guiding Principles onBusiness and Human Rights, and is also increasinglyrecognized for its innovative work on stock exchangeregulation.

RAID’s unique contribution is in linking its extensiveknowledge of individual cases with national and inter-national policy debates at the highest level.

Preface

Bronwen Manby has been Chairof Trustees at RAID since 2010.PHOTO: Andrew Testa/Panos Pic-tures for OSF

Introduction

I this, RAID’s fifteenth anniversary year, it is worthreflecting on what has been achieved in the interveningyears, and how much still remains to be done.

RAID started its existence as a sabbatical researchproject based at the Refugee Studies Centre, QueenElizabeth House, University of Oxford, with an ambi-tious three-year study into the human rights impact ofthe sale of Zambia’s state-owned copper mines. epioneering nature of this research, which uncoveredsecret, unbalanced investment agreements, ineffectualoversight by government bodies and corporate malprac-tice during the privatisation of Zambia’s state-ownedassets, has informed all of RAID’s subsequent work.

In , RAID shifted its focus to the DRC when theUnited Nations Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploita-tion of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth ofthe Democratic Republic of Congo implicated over foreign companies in the armed conflict, illicit trading inminerals and human rights violations. RAID’s researchhighlighted the way companies operating in conflictaffected countries such as the DRC were able to act withcomplete impunity. en as now, the only mechanism tohold companies to account was the OECD Guidelines forMultinational Enterprises. But these guidelines, describedas ‘voluntary’, do not have the force of law and are unableto provide a remedy to the victims of corporate abuse.

e UN’s publication of the names of companiesaccused of breaching the OECD Guidelines causeduproar. Most governments refused to investigate the UN’sallegations and, in the face of their inaction, RAID startedto file complaints, most of which were rejected outrightor simply ignored. However the critical issues raised bythe UN with regard to the role of companies in conflictaffected-countries have had a profound and lastingimpact on the business and human rights debate.

ii

Tricia Feeney is the co-founderand Executive Director of RAID.PHOTO: RAID

iii

RAID’s work on companies in the DRC forcefullyillustrated the need for the creation of a robust legalframework to hold multinationals to account. Despitethe banking crisis, excessive executive pay andcorporate tax scandals, Western governments haveshown lile political will to introduce effective measuresto regulate corporate activity for misconduct overseas.Instead states have taken a soft law, self-regulatoryapproach. RAID’s most recent work on the London StockMarket and alleged violations of EU and US sanctionsagainst Zimbabwe by UK and US companies reveals amarked reluctance to enforce existing regulations. egrowing economic and political power of the emergingeconomies has contributed to the collective loss of nerve.Nowhere is this more apparent than in the mineralssector and in the competition for control of resources.

is Review of Progress highlights RAID’s recent activ-ities. e Review covers private security companies andRAID’s submissions to the US Congress (about conflictminerals and mandatory due diligence) and to the UKparliament (about the need for reforms to market regula-tions). It provides information on legal developments inthe Anvil Mining case and the outcome of OECD com-plaints brought by RAID or its partners against compa-nies such as the Eurasian Natural Resource Corporation(ENRC) and the Forrest Group in the DRC; CenterraGold Inc. in Mongolia; and Barrick Gold Corporation inPapua New Guinea. Lastly, the Review summarizes areport on Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, aNew York hedge fund, in which RAID called on the USauthorities to investigate loans allegedly used to fundhuman rights violations by the Mugabe governmentduring the elections in Zimbabwe.



RAID granted charitable status

RAID achieved this important milestone in February .ere are clear benefits to being a charity – particu-

larly in the ability to raise much-needed funds. RAIDtherefore decided to examine whether it could achievethe advantages of charitable status while preserving thefreedom to challenge business, regulators and govern-ments on human rights grounds. Having taken advicefrom the Charity Commission and others about the bestway of achieving these aims, RAID ensured that itsconstitution was in line with its charitable objective ofpromoting human rights, and successfully applied forcharitable status.

RAID’s programme of advocacy, research, advice,education and awareness-raising remains unchanged.

Action on OECD Guidelines around the world

RAID has been involved in filing complaints in anumber of countries under the OECD Guidelines forMultinational Enterprises. In some cases, mediationunder the Guidelines has mitigated the harms caused bycorporate misconduct. However, complainants still facehuge difficulties in bringing and substantiating a case,and the system as a whole lacks teeth. National ContactPoints (NCPs) – through which complaints in each coun-try must be directed – are frequently not sufficientlyindependent of business interests and government, andlack the powers to compel companies to act responsibly.RAID continues to work for stronger, mandatory Guide-lines and for NCPs with more independence and trans-parency.

R RAID is now a regis-tered charity

R RAID is involved in fil-ing complaints againstcompanies operating inseveral countries

R ere have been somenotable successes

R It is sti ve difficultto bring companies tojustice


Lack of access to drinking water in the DRCIn May RAID filed a complaint against the Kazakh-owned Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC).e complaint is unrelated to the ongoing investigationinto ENRC by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office over allega-tions – which the company denies – of fraud, briberyand corruption in Kazakhstan and Africa.

e case concerns the impoverished populations ofKisankala village and Lenge village, located on twomining concessions in Katanga province controlled bycompanies associated with ENRC. Kisankala’s only cleanwater supply was in disrepair for nearly a year from July

following clashes between security guards andartisanal miners. RAID’s complaint alleges that theseclashes were triggered by actions by security guards toremove artisanal miners from the concession.

e complaint is based on ENRC’s own internalreport and the findings from five visits to the concessionsby RAID’s Executive Director and colleagues, and onwitness statements that she took from villagers.

e complaint also addresses questions aboutreselement and compensation for dispossessed villagers

Lile girls gather water from aspring near Kisankala after thesupply from the viage standpipewas cut off.PHOTO: Emmanuel Umpula

R One weakness high-lighted by this case isthe UK NCP’s apparentinability to expeditethe process even whenurgent issues have beenraised


and the alleged absence of environmental and socialmonitoring, particularly for Lenge. In addition, privatesecurity guards operating at the sites are said to haveengaged in human rights abuses.

In October the UK NCP issued its initial assess-ment on RAID’s complaint, accepting many of the issuesfor further examination on the grounds that they arematerial and substantiated. ENRC denies the allegations,but in October agreed to mediate.

ENRC has delisted from the London Stock Exchange,where it has been trading since . RAID hasexpressed concern that the company, whose registeredoffice is in London, may leave UK jurisdiction before theproblems on its concessions can be satisfactorilyresolved. However, in November ENRC stated thatit had no intention of relocating. Kazakhstan does notadhere to the OECD Guidelines.

Killing, rape and environmental destruction in PapuaNew GuineaIn MiningWatch Canada and local NGOs brought acomplaint against the Canadian mining company Bar-rick Gold Corporation in respect of its operations at thePorgera Joint Venture (PJV) gold mine in Papua NewGuinea (PNG). RAID and EarthRights International(ERI) act as advisors on the case.

e complaint alleges widespread human rightsabuses by PJV security personnel over many years,including beatings and killings of local men, and beat-ings and rapes, including gang-rape, of local women.e living conditions of people in the area of the mineare incompatible with human health and safety stand-ards. In the PNG Defense Force evicted local land-owners near the mine by burning down houses.

In addition, there are allegations of ongoing environ-mental destruction. e PJV mine disposes of nearly tonnes of tailings and sediment each year into local river

R e Canadian NCPaowed Baick to dragout the selection of amediator for months

R e delay gave the com-pany time to ro out itsown controversial reme-diation programme forvictims of rape andother abuses

R Victims did not benefitfrom independent legaladvice about the termsof the compensationbeing offered


systems, polluting the water and endangering publichealth.

e Canadian NCP accepted the complaint, and Bar-rick agreed to negotiate with the complainants – thoughit took nearly a year to agree on a mediator. By the timeof the first mediation meeting in November , Barrickhad drawn up a remediation framework for rape victims.However, the company did not make the details availa-ble for complainants to consider in advance of the meet-ing. When they finally received a copy, they were deeplyconcerned that Barrick was asking them to sign awaytheir rights to possible future legal action in order toaccess remedies from the company.

Stipulating that a negotiated agreement is in full andfinal selement is standard practice, which gives cer-tainty to both parties and stops plaintiffs seeking compen-sation more than once for the same grievance. However,Barrick’s proposal went well beyond the standard waiver,requiring victims not to participate in any legal action againstPJV or Barrick. is wording implied that victims wouldnot be able to take part in criminal proceedings againstthe company, to act as witnesses in civil actions broughtby other victims who chose not to sele, or to pursue civilclaims against the company in respect of grievancesunrelated to the remediation.

RAID had additional concerns about the proposal.Only women who had been raped by PJV employees wereeligible. is criterion excluded women raped or gang-raped by members of police Mobile Squads who werebeing housed, fed and supported by PJV on PJV prop-erty. Moreover, none of the victims had access to inde-pendent legal advice before entering into the agreement.

In January , following consultation with themediator in order to avoid any inadvertent disclosure ofconfidential material, MiningWatch Canada, RAID andERI issued a carefully worded press release outliningtheir concerns with Barrick’s offer. In response, Barrick


threatened to withdraw from mediation unless Mining-Watch Canada, RAID and ERI were excluded.

In order to protect the victims’ ability to continuewith mediation, the NGOs reluctantly withdrew. In May Barrick proposed an amended waiver, whereby avictim of sexual violence who seles with the companywill not also pursue civil action in respect of the samecomplaint. In line with the recommendations of RAIDand others, the new wording allows victims to participatein criminal proceedings as well as to instigate civil actionin respect of unrelated complaints. However, RAID andits partners remain concerned that a company allegedlyresponsible for serious human rights abuses has completecontrol over both the process and the scope of any remedy.

In May the New Zealand Superannuation Fund,which invests money on behalf of the Government,excluded Barrick Gold Corporation from its $ millioninvestment portfolio on responsible investment grounds.e Fund views Barrick’s activities as inconsistent withUN human rights and environmental standards for busi-ness. Given the lengthy period over which problemshave continued, and the slow progress made by thecompany in resolving community grievances, the Fundformed the view that ‘engagement with Barrick wouldbe unlikely to be successful’.

e company denies liability.

Forcible evictions in the DRCIn November the Compagnie Minière du SudKatanga (CMSK), which operates the Luiswishi mine inthe Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), supportedand participated in the demolition of hundreds of housesin the nearby village of Kawama. More than homeswere crushed by CMSK bulldozers, and several peoplewere injured.

CMSK was per cent owned by Entreprise Géné-rale Malta Forrest (EGMF), a subsidiary of the Belgian

R e Belgian NCP’s pro-cedures were inconsist-ent, arbitra and farfrom neutral

R e NCP took unilateraldecisions about both thescope of the discussionsand the remedy on offer


group Groupe Forrest International (GFI). After the dem-olitions, Forrest paid the miners $ each to leave, butperversely refused to compensate the villagers who hadlost their homes and all their belongings.

Two weeks before the demolitions, mine police andsecurity guards clashed with unarmed artisanal miners.Boniface Mudjani, a Kawama resident, was hit in thechest by a stray bullet while taking a bath in his home.

e bullet lodged in a life-threatening position close tohis spine and heart. Following successful negotiationsbetween RAID and GFI, Mr Mudjani underwent surgeryin November to remove the bullet at GFI’s expense(though the company does not admit liability).

RAID visited the communities to collect evidence,and in April submied a complaint to the BelgianNCP after it became clear that the Congolese authoritieswere blocking an inquiry by the prosecutor into theforced evictions. e OECD Guidelines make clear thatthe corporate duty to respect human rights exists evenwhen states fail to uphold their international human

Boniface Mudjani Tumba with anX-ray showing the buet close tohis spine and heart.PHOTO: Gwenn Dubourthoumieu/Carter Center


rights obligations. e Belgian NCP began a process tonegotiate compensation for the families. RAIDhelped to organise visas for some of the Congolesecomplainants to aend a preparatory meeting in advanceof mediation.

In September , just before mediation began, GFIsold its share of CMSK to the state mining companyGécamines for $ million. e compensation soughtwas approximately $ per affected family, enough tohelp the villagers rebuild their homes and buy maressesand cooking utensils, plus $, to rebuild infrastruc-ture such as a dispensary – well under $m in total.

Following the complaint, GFI offered to undertakesome community work at Kawama such as repairingwells to provide access to drinking water, and improvingmaternity services. Although philanthropic work for thegeneral good of Kawama’s population is welcome, it doesnothing to remedy the harms to the individuals andfamilies who were made homeless and destitute, andsome of whom were seriously injured. RAID regards thisoffer as an aempt to improve the company’s imagerather than a genuine effort to compensate the peopleaffected by the demolitions and violence. In November the affected villagers rejected the offer.

In February the Belgian NCP closed the case,with no satisfactory resolution for the claimants. eNCP did not deal transparently with the complaint,and refused to share all the relevant documents withNGOs. Since the NCP lacks powers to sanction compa-nies or award compensation, it can do lile more thandetermine whether or not a company has compliedwith the Guidelines. In this case, the Belgian NCP didnot even do that. RAID is deeply disappointed with thehandling of this case, and does not regard the proceed-ings as providing an effective non-judicial remedy forvictims.

e company denies liability.


Environmental devastation at a protected site inMongoliaIn March RAID helped a consortium of Canadianand Mongolian NGOs to draft and file a complaint aboutthe Canadian company Centerra Gold Inc.

Centerra’s Gatsuurt site, which is being developed asa gold mine, is located in a forested area near the head ofa river valley. Mongolia’s Water and Forest Law ()prohibits mineral exploration and mining at river head-waters and in forested areas. e complaint alleges thatoperations at Gatsuurt are therefore illegal.

In the Mongolian Cabinet issued a list of licensesto be revoked in the light of the Water and Forest Law,including at Gatsuurt. By the end of , Centerra hadalready completed extensive work on the mine and a-km haulage road to Gatsuurt, in what local NGOs sawas an aempt to present the government with a faitaccompli. Representatives of Mongolian NGOs say thatthey entered the site in July and recorded evidenceof continuing mine construction work. Satellite imagesconfirm that there has been extensive deforestation.

e complaint further alleges that Centerra is seekingto change the environmental law or to seek an exemp-

Deforestation and (foreground)evidence of excavations at theconstruction site for GatsuurtOpen Pit Gold Mine. e excava-tions cut across the headwater ofthe Gatsuurt River Channel(dashed line).PHOTO: Paul Robinson/South-west Research

R e Gatsuurt mininglicense lies within waterand forest protectionzones, where mining isprohibited

R A flaw exhibited by theCanadian NCP – com-mon to most NCPs – isthe lack of clarity aboutthe standard of evi-dence required to havea complaint accepted


tion that was not anticipated when the law was passed –activities prohibited under the OECD Guidelines. In aMongolian television interview in June , John Kaza-kov, CEO of Centerra Gold Mongolia, confirmed that thecompany was lobbying to change or neutralise the Act.

Herders complain that the felling and use of explo-sives have released arsenic and other heavy metals intothe Gatsuurt River, which is now too contaminated todrink safely. Livestock have developed lesions and localpeople suffer from skin disorders that they aribute tothe company’s activities.

e Canadian NCP accepted that the allegationsagainst Centerra Gold were material. However, in a blowto residents and environmental groups, the NCP rejectedmost of the complaints in November . e NCPaccepted Centerra’s assurance that it had not developedGatsuurt since late ; found the company’s lobbyingto be within acceptable limits; and ruled that the arseni-cal contamination could not be proven to result fromCenterra’s activities.

Notwithstanding these disappointing findings, thecomplaint did allow important issues to be addressed.While Centerra denied responsibility for contaminatingwatercourses, it indicated that if development at the sitewent ahead it would repair the existing damage as wellas making good any environmental impacts from futureoperations. e company has also stated that it is readyto enter into partnerships with NGOs to put in place aprogramme of reforestation and environmental protec-tion designed to ensure that it delivers a net environ-mental benefit to the country. Finally, the NCP advisedCenterra to improve dialogue with the local communityand gain a deeper understanding of local sensitivities,for example regarding access to holy sites.

RAID and other NGOs are monitoring developmentsclosely in order to ensure that Centerra abides by theseundertakings and recommendations.


Pollution from leaded fuel in developing countriesTetraethyl lead (TEL) was widely used from the s asan anti-knock additive in petrol. However, because it isso toxic, its use in motor fuel was phased out from thes, culminating with bans in all but a handful ofdeveloping countries. TEL is still used in aviation fuel.

e US-based chemicals company Innospec is theworld’s only manufacturer of TEL products. e com-pany was fined US$ million by the US Securities andExchange Commission in for bribing Iraqi andIndonesian officials to continue to sell leaded petroleven after environmental NGOs in Indonesia had suc-cessfully campaigned for a phase-out.

e lead for Innospec’s TEL was supplied by theAnglo-Swiss mining company Xstrata from its Mount Isalead mine in Australia and its Britannia smelter in the UK.

In the LEAD group, an Australian NGO, filedcomplaints against Innospec and Xstrata. e OECDGuidelines specify that ‘enterprises should… take dueaccount of the need to protect the environment, publichealth and safety’. Four OECD countries were involvedin the TEL supply chain: Australia (the source andexporter of the lead); the UK (where Xstrata had itssmelter and was traded on the London Stock Exchange);the USA (where Innospec is incorporated); and Switzer-land (where Xstrata and Innospec’s distributor wereincorporated). LEAD noted that leaded petrol is bannedin all four of these countries. LEAD also pointed out thatInnospec itself manufactures alternative, lead-free fueladditives, which could easily replace TEL.

Xstrata agreed to mediate; Innospec did not. In Feb-ruary a mediation was held in London. e LEADgroup aended via teleconference, and was representedin person by RAID’s Executive Director. Following suc-cessful mediation, an agreement was reached between theparties and the complaint against Xstrata was withdrawn.

In May Xstrata was acquired by Glencore.

R RAID was asked torepresent the Austral-ian NGO the LEADgroup, in a face-to-facemediation with Xstrata

R e negotiationsresulted in a satisfac-to resolution


T case against Anvil Mining concerns serious humanrights abuses – including torture and summary execu-tion – carried out by the Congolese military in withthe logistical support of Anvil. See ‘Fifteen Years ofAchievement,’ p. , for further details.

In January the Quebec Court of Appeal declinedjurisdiction in the case. In a bier blow to the remainingsurvivors, the court ruled that the case did not have asufficient connection with Quebec, since Anvil’s Mon-treal office was not responsible for decisions relating tothe company’s alleged role in the massacre.

In March the Canadian Association AgainstImpunity (CAAI), which represents the victims, appliedto the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal.Filing the application, the President of CAAI, RAID’sExecutive Director Tricia Feeney, pointed to the ‘abun-dant evidence proving that access to justice in othercountries has proved impossible.’

In October the Supreme Court of Canada dis-missed CAAI’s application for leave to appeal, markingthe end of any judicial relief in Canada. It is notable thatthe Canadian judicial process hinged entirely on thetechnical issue of jurisdiction. Neither the Quebec Courtof Appeal nor the Supreme Court of Canada consideredthe facts of the case, and the courts’ decisions thereforedo not represent an acquial of Anvil Mining.

Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision, theOpen Society Initiative of Southern Africa, a keyregional NGO and grant-giver, sent a message to CAAI:

You have raised the issue and made a precedent for amining companies to pay aention [to] what they are do-ing with local communities. What you have achieved isgreater than the judicia decision. e general opinionknows what went wrong and the social justice has beenin favour of these poor victims. Congratulations for that.

Anvil Mining case goes to Canada’s Supreme Court

R No judicial remedy forthe victims is availablein Canada

R RAID is pursuing otherstrategic options


e legal profession is also becoming aware of theneed for the law to keep up with globalisation. JusticeIan Binnie, a retired Canadian Supreme Court judge,told the leading Quebec newspaper La Presse that, whilethere is no law that specifically allows this type of actionbefore Canadian courts,

[judges] need to be creative… e law must constantlyreinvent itself… Globalisation has produced a lot of posi-tive effects, but there is sti no mechanism for the peoplewho suffer abuse to find justice. at means in effect thatthe cost of globalisation is borne solely by the victims.roughout the long legal process, RAID has raised

the profile of the Anvil-Kilwa case internationallythrough press releases with its partners, presentations atinternational conferences and papers at expert meetings.ese have been widely disseminated, and have ensuredthat the significance of the case is well understood.

RAID finds it deplorable that victims cannot holdCanadian companies accountable in Canadian courts fortheir alleged involvement in serious human rights viola-tions commied abroad. is case demonstrates theextreme difficulty of proving the legal responsibility ofprivate companies for human rights abuses and breaches

Family and friends of the Kilwavictims at Lubumbashi Cathedralfor a service of commemorationnine years after the massacre.PHOTO: Chantal Peyer/Breadfor a


of international humanitarian law, even when they aresupporting armed groups. e case also highlights therisk of political interference and a lack of impartiality,particularly when economic interests are at stake.

Some of those who were tortured or shot have diedof their injuries since the original trial. Pierre KundaMusopelo, a local policeman tortured during and afterthe military operation, never recovered his health anddied in November . Augustin Kyambala Mwilambe,a fisherman, was one of two villagers to survive the massexecution at Nsensele but his right arm and shoulderwere shaered by a bullet so that he could no longerwork. He died in April . e longer the case contin-ues, the fewer victims survive. However, RAID remainsabsolutely commied to supporting the remaining survi-vors in their quest for justice, and is considering allpossible options with a view to pursuing the case in analternative jurisdiction.

e London stock exchange – a haven for laundered conflict assets?

In RAID raised concerns about possible breachesof listing regulations for London’s (junior) AlternativeInvestment Market (AIM). e Central African Mining &Exploration Company plc (CAMEC) was able to trade onAIM despite the dubious provenance of its assets in theDRC, its reliance on a key manager and shareholder laternamed on EU and US sanctions lists, and an unsecured$ million loan to the Mugabe regime. RAID broachedits concerns with the UK’s Financial Services Authority(FSA) and with AIM’s compliance department, AIMRegulation, in a confidential report, Questions of Compli-ance: e conduct of the Central African Mining & ExplorationCompany (CAMEC) plc and its nominated adviser, Seymour PierceLimited. See ‘Fifteen Years of Achievement,’ p. , fordetails.

R e regulation of theLSE’s ‘junior’ market islax and poorlyenforced. RAID has rec-ommended reforms

R RAID is caing forinvestigations in theUK and the USA intotransactions that raisequestions of compliancewith US and EU san-tions against Zimbabwe


A year after the submission, AIM Regulation and theFSA had still not publicly addressed RAID’s questions.Both bodies cited ‘confidentiality’ as preventing themfrom leing RAID know the outcome of any investiga-tion, or indeed whether an investigation was taking place.

Accordingly, in July RAID published the origi-nal report in full, in order to bring its questions to theaention of a wider public. Simultaneously, RAIDreleased a follow-up, Asset Laundering and AIM: Congo, cor-porate misconduct and the market value of human rights, whichsummarised the original report and included a detailedcritique of AIM Regulation in the light of its failure todeal adequately with RAID’s questions. Asset Launderingand AIM examines problems with both the formulationand the implementation of AIM’s rules, and discussesthe human rights implications. In March Asset Laun-dering and AIM was published as a book, together with aCD-ROM containing the original submission and corre-spondence with the regulators.

After RAID’s critique, AIM Regulation set out fur-ther guidance for advisors. RAID was concerned that therequirements for due diligence on substantial sharehold-ers and controlling individuals were ambiguous: AIMnow advises that the principles of due diligence ondirectors apply equally to key stakeholders. Similarly,RAID identified many instances where price-sensitiveinformation appears to have been withheld: AIM nowemphasises the need for advisors to consider the ‘spiritand underlying purpose’ of rules governing the notifica-tion of price-sensitive information, and to follow upquestions in a meaningful way.

In a parallel development, the European Unionrevised its Transparency and Accounting Directives torequire extractive and logging companies to publishpayments they make to governments. In the UK – asadvocated by RAID – the directives will extend beyondthe main regulated markets to include AIM.


In June RAID and Global Witness convened anexpert meeting entitled Regulation and the City: ENRC andCAMEC, to examine what lessons could be learned fromthe recent controversies surrounding high-profile com-panies on the main and junior markets exploiting miner-als in unstable host countries. e G’s Lough ErneDeclaration of holds forth the prospect of bringingincreased transparency to company ownership, whichshould assist in identifying the beneficiaries of corruptdeals.

RAID monitors sanctions complianceIn late , while RAID was researching Questions of

Compliance, CAMEC was acquired by the Eurasian Natu-ral Resources Corporation plc (ENRC) – a company listedat that time on the main market of the London StockExchange. e acquisition raised issues of compliancewith sanctions and disclosure rules. In particular, thedeal involved the purchase and sale of large sharehold-ings held by entities whose assets were frozen under USand EU sanctions against Zimbabwe.

RAID submied a memorandum asking for an inves-tigation by HM Treasury’s Asset Freezing Unit (AFU),which is responsible for enforcing sanctions in the UK.RAID has subsequently filed a detailed freedom of infor-mation request asking the AFU to clarify its licensing of

Share prices displayed at theLondon Stock Exchange.

PHOTO: Kaihsu Tai

R RAID’s research hasexposed the arbitraand inconsistent natureof the sanctionsregimes in the UK andthe USA


Parliamentarians look to RAID for advice

I March RAID met Commissioners and staff of theUS Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to advisethem on the implementation of the rules for Section of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and ConsumerProtection Act, which deals with conflict minerals. SinceAugust , companies that file reports with the SECare required to determine whether minerals in theirconsumer products come from the DRC or surroundingcountries. If so, the companies must aempt to verify

R RAID routinely advisespolicymakers and legis-lators on financial con-duct and human rightsdue diligence

the sale of shares and the release of any funds to sanc-tioned individuals. RAID is currently challenging theAFU’s refusal to release information.

In mid- RAID also provided information to theTreasury and to the US Office of Foreign Assets Controlabout CAMEC’s acquisition of platinum assets inZimbabwe. Both EU and US sanctions against Zimbabwewere in force at the time. As part of the deal, CAMECmade a $ million loan to the Zimbabwean govern-ment, finance that originated with a US hedge fund,Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC. e moneywas used by Mugabe to fund a campaign of violenceagainst opposition supporters, enabling him to retain thepresidency in the election.

While waiting to hear whether the authorities are totake action, RAID wrote to several pension funds in theUK and the USA that use Och-Ziff to manage invest-ments. Funds that have led the way in promoting ethicalinvestment must scrutinise the records not only of thecompanies in which they hold shares but also of theirfund managers. At the same time as finance originatingwith Och-Ziff funded a campaign of violence con-demned by US unions, many union members wereunwiingly invested in Och-Ziff via their pension funds.


that the minerals do not finance or benefit armed groupsin those countries, and they must admit publicly if theyare unable to do so. Companies subject to the rule arerequired to file their first report in May . In February the Congolese government introduced domesticlegislation requiring all companies and individuals oper-ating in the DRC’s tin, tantalum, tungsten and goldsectors to undertake supply-chain due diligence in theline with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance.

In autumn RAID submied comments on theFinancial Services Bill under consideration by the UKParliament to reform, inter alia, the Financial Servicesand Markets Act. RAID’s report Polishing the Family Silver(November ) was a response to the Financial ServicesAuthority’s consultation paper Enhancing the Effectiveness ofthe Listing Regime. e work has significance not only forthe regulation of the London Stock Exchange, but forjunior and main markets around the world.

In May RAID submied evidence to the ForeignAffairs Commiee concerning the Foreign and Com-monwealth Office’s human rights work in . RAID’ssubmission dealt with foreign mining assets and theregulation of the London Stock Exchange; the function-ing of the sanctions regime; and the regulation of privatesecurity providers.

In September RAID’s Executive Director wasinvited to speak at an expert meeting of the All-PartyParliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption. RAID pro-vided input on the lax regulation of AIM (the ‘junior’market of the London Stock Exchange) to the Business,Innovation and Skills Select Commiee inquiry into theUK extractive industries, which is due to report in spring. e Commiee is examining inter alia the corporategovernance concerns raised by the number of extractiveindustries companies listed in the UK, and the reputa-tional risks for the UK and UK financial institutions inbeing a centre for such businesses.


RAID and partners investigate human rights and conflict minerals

Report exposes abuses of DRC mineworkersD – RAID’s Executive Director visited min-ing areas in the Katanga province of the DRC with repre-sentatives of Amnesty International, to gather informationon the activities of non-OECD companies. is workfocuses on Chinese businesses, and follows the ground-breaking RAID survey of working conditions ChineseMining Operations in Katanga, Democratic Republic of the Congo(), which synthesised the experiences, concerns andrecommendations of Chinese and Congolese workers.

Much of the mining in Katanga is done by artisanalminers, who frequently work with bare hands, withoutprotective clothing, and in poorly ventilated under-ground shafts where temperatures can be extremelyhigh. ey rarely have access to safety equipment, andare exposed to a range of health risks such as fallingrocks and dust inhalation. Every year scores of them dieor are seriously injured when mineshafts collapse.

Miners are no longer allowed, as they were in thepast, to remove minerals from mining sites in order tosell them. Instead, they are obliged to sell to on-sitetraders, who are effectively agents of the concession-holders and typically pay far below market value. Arti-sanal miners caught removing minerals from the site areroutinely beaten by guards and sometimes killed.

Chinese state-owned and private companies havebeen purchasing and processing minerals obtained fromartisanal sources in Katanga since the mid-s. In Jan-uary a US$ billion resources-for-infrastructuredeal was signed between a consortium of Chinese Stateconstruction companies and the DRC’s state-owned min-ing company Gécamines. is deal has boosted the influ-ence of Chinese mining companies in the DRC, while theCongolese authorities have an increased incentive tosupport these companies’ commercial interests.

R RAID is working withpartners to expose theproblems and make rec-ommendations forimprovement

R Chinese-owned miningcompanies in the DRChave a great deal ofpolitical influence andare often accused ofbeing insensitive tocommunity concernsand entitlements undercustoma law


e fieldwork uncovered a number of serious humanrights problems.§ Mining conditions are often extremely dangerous. In

the rare cases when ventilation systems are put inplace, they depend on small – often manual – pumps.Serious or permanent injuries are not uncommon,and accidents are not always properly recorded.

§ Child labour is widespread. ere are an estimated tobe between , and , artisanal miners inKatanga, of whom some , are children under .

§ ere are no adequate legal safeguards to preventabuse. Guards can detain people and lock them incontainers, sometimes for days at a time. Beatings arefrequent and sometimes fatal.

§ A community of around families was forciblyevicted from Luisha when the Chinese mining com-pany CIMCO acquired rights to their land. e vil-lagers were not compensated for the loss of theircrops and fruit trees, and were left living in tents, inan area with no housing or other infrastructure suchas clean water supply, markets or schools.

§ Access to water has been blocked. In Luisha, theChinese-Congolese company COMILU dug a deeptrench about three metres wide to block access to the

Kashana Ngombe, the mother ofIsaac Mukeba Muzala, an arti-

sanal miner kied in mysteriouscircumstances after being accusedof stealing minerals. According to

his family, his head had beencrushed and there were bruisesand scratches a over the body.

PHOTO: RAID


site, cuing off a rural road that had been used fordecades by local people to reach their fields and fetchwater. What had been a –-minute walk to thefields and back became a two-hour journey.e OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply

Chains of Minerals from Conflict Affected and High-Risk Areasrequires all actors in the supply chain to conduct duediligence aimed at ensuring that they do not contributeto human rights abuses. Companies operating on theground have responsibilities to the local population, evenwhen the State lacks the capacity or the will to fulfil itsown obligations. Businesses worldwide that trade in cop-per from these mines sustain and profit from the abusesthat RAID identified, and must be regarded as complicit.

e findings from the field trips, together with aseries of recommendations, were published by AmnestyInternational in as Profits and Loss: Mining and humanrights in Katanga, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Fieldwork investigates supply chains for tin, tungstenand coltanResearchers from RAID and Action contre l’impunité pour lesdroits humains carried out field work over a -monthperiod from April , visiting a number of mine sitesin Manono and Mitwaba Territories in Katanga. In theProvincial capital, Lubumbashi, the researchers dis-cussed the certification programme and the humanrights context with Congolese officials and UN agencies.In Manono and Mitwaba the researchers had meetingswith a range of officials including the Territorial admin-istration, the Service d’Assistance et d’Encadrement d’Artisanalet Sma Scale Mining (which oversees small-scale and arti-sanal mining), the Division of Mines (a subordinate bodyof the Direction des Mines under the Mining Ministry) andthe mine police.

e researchers interviewed staff from the US capaci-ty-building organisation Pact and the tin industry trade

R Working conditionsare ve poor for arti-sanal miners, includingtens of thousands ofchildren


body ITRI, which have been working together since to implement ITRI’s Tin Supply Chain Initiative, iTSCi.ey also interviewed representatives of companies, min-ing cooperatives and small-scale miners’ groups thatparticipate in the iTSCi programme. e research inclu-ded independent visits to a number of mine sites inCentral Katanga where artisanal miners – men, womenand children – shared their experience of the mineralsupply chain and human rights abuses they had experi-enced or witnessed. Sites visited include Camp-Sowe,Mwika , Nsele and Kankeza in Mitwaba Territory; andDragon, Ngobo, Djibende, Lusonde and Mwikmpweto inManono Territory. In addition the research included adesk-based study of reports prepared by the OECD, inde-pendent auditors, ITRI and Pact. A report is in prepara-tion.

During and RAID regularly participated inmeetings of the International Conference on the GreatLakes Region (ICGLR) and the OECD to review anddiscuss implementation of the OECD Due Diligence Guidance

A young mother engaged to washminerals at an artisanal mining

site, Katanga, June 2012.PHOTO: Emmanuel Umpula


Private security providers’ Code of Conduct Association launched

O the past years RAID has interviewed numerousvictims of human rights abuses related to private militaryand security companies (PMSCs), and has worked closelywith affected communities and NGOs in Africa and theAmericas to hold the perpetrators to account.

In September , following a joint initiative of theSwiss Government and the International Commiee of theRed Cross, an initial statement of good practice forPMSCs was published. Since then, a series of stakeholderworkshops and meetings have been held in order todevelop a more formal code of conduct and an oversightmechanism. RAID’s Executive Director Tricia Feeney hascontributed regularly as a member of the Working Groupon the Resolution of ird Party Grievances.

e discussions led to the agreement of an Interna-tional Code of Conduct (ICoC) in November . Ini-tially adopted by PMSCs, it has now been signed byover companies from countries. Further meetingssince have concentrated on disseminating the ICoCand developing a charter for its Oversight Mechanism.In September RAID and Human Rights First organ-ised a meeting in London for UK and European NGOs,seeking their input into the ongoing debate about theform and reach of the Oversight Mechanism.

e International Code of Conduct for Private Secu-rity Service Providers’ Association (ICoCA) held its inau-gural conference in Montreux in September . TriciaFeeney was elected to the Board of Directors.

R RAID is contributingto the developmentand dissemination ofgood practice guide-lines for privatesecurity companies

for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affectedand High-Risk Areas and the ICGLR Regional CertificationMechanism. Carolyn Norris, a RAID consultant, aendedthe th meeting of the ICGLR-OECD-UN GoE (Group ofExperts) Joint Forum on Responsible Mineral SupplyChains in Kigali, Rwanda in November .


Collaborations

C with other NGOs continues to be animportant means for RAID to increase its impact anddisseminate its analysis. During – RAID’s success-ful partnerships have included working with:§ Action contre l’impunité pour les droits humains (ACIDH,

DRC) and the International Federation of HumanRights on achieving redress for the victims of theKawama evictions (see p. )

§ L’association africaine de défense des droits de l’homme(DRC), ACIDH, L’entraide missionnaire (Canada), theCanadian Centre for International Justice and GlobalWitness on the Anvil Mining case (see p. )

§ Amnesty International on the report into miningconditions in Katanga (see p. )

§ the International Commission of Jurists to write thereport Access to Justice: Human rights abuses involving cor-porations: Democratic Republic of the Congo, which hasbeen used to increase awareness among prosecutorsand judges regarding corporate human rights abusesand the difficulties in holding perpetrators to account

§ Human Rights Watch, the International CorporateAccountability Roundtable, Global Witness and oth-ers, calling on the US Securities and Exchange Com-mission to publish rules on reporting relating toconflict minerals. Following pressure from RAID andothers, the rules (which legally should have beenreleased by April ) were finally published inAugust , and took effect from January

§ the International Network on Economic, Social andCultural Rights (ESCR-Net), developing its Corpo-rate Accountability strategy

§ Oxfam GB on mediation with the London-basedNew Forests Company regarding the eviction ofvillagers, and the consequent loss of their liveli-hoods, to make way for new timber plantations.

R RAID works closelywith local groups andinternational partnersto achieve results


RAID has built a strong reputation with the mediacommunity for reliable research and informed comment,and Tricia Feeney, RAID’s Executive Director, is much indemand among media researchers and producers draw-ing on her expert knowledge of corporate human rightsissues. Feeney has briefed journalists from business newsagencies, national daily and weekly newspapers (includ-ing the Financial Times, the Wa Street Journal, Outlook ofIndia, the Daily Telegraph) and the broadcast media (BBCRadio’s File on , BBC Television’s Panorama, BBC WorldService, Radio Okapi of the DRC).

RAID’s work has been covered extensively in thepress as well as on television and radio. Among the verylarge number of media outlets reporting on RAID’sprojects were the Wa Street Journal, the BBC, CBC News(Canada), Africa Focus, Radio France International, RadioTélévision Belge Francophone, Yahoo News, AllAfrica News,La Presse (Canada), Sky Financial News, the Independent(Zimbabwe); agencies such as Reuters, Bloomberg andMarketWire; many financial and mining-related tradepublications; and many online news outlets.

Reports, briefings and articles“L road to justice: Anvil Mining and the Kilwa mas-sacre”, Openspace on International Criminal Justice, OSISA,March , pp. –. At hp://www.osisa.org/sites/default/files/long_road_to_justice-patricia_feeney.pdf.

“Request for Review of Centerra Gold’s Operations atthe Boroo Mine and at the Gatsuurt gold deposit, SelengeProvince, Mongolia”, RAID, OT Watch, MiningWatchCanada and others, March .

Access to Justice: Human rights abuses involving corporations:the Democratic Republic of the Congo, International Commis-sion of Jurists and RAID (Geneva: ICJ, ). Athp://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads///

Publications, media engagement and conferences

R RAID disseminates itsresearch extensivelythrough the media andat national and inter-national conferences


Democratic-Republic-of-Congo-rights-abuses-corporations-publication-.pdf.

“Complaint Against George Forrest Internationalunder the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enter-prise”, referral to the Belgian National Contact Point,FIDH, RAID and ACIDH, April .

Asset laundering and AIM: Congo, corporate misconduct andthe market value of human rights, July . Republished as abook in March (Oxford: Rights and Accountabilityin Development, ).

Polishing the Family Silver RAID response to the FSA’sConsultation Paper CP/,

November .Demolitions at Kawama, Briefing Paper, November .“Did money from a New York Hedge Fund and US

Public Pension Investments help finance human rightsviolations in Zimbabwe?”, RAID backgrounder, July .

Sanctions, violence, pensions and Zimbabwe: A New Yorkhedge fund, a London-traded mining company and the stealing ofan election?, RAID Briefing Paper, July .

Press Releases February : “Congolese massacre survivors to pur-sue justice at the Supreme Court of Canada”.

March: “Centerra Gold Inc. flouting Mongolia’senvironmental protection laws: organizations file com-plaint with Canadian Government”.

March: “Congolese victims’ pursuit of justiceagainst Canadian Company goes to Supreme Court”.

April: “NGOs Complain to Belgian National Con-tact Point for the OECD Guidelines for MultinationalEnterprises about George Forrest International’s IllegalDemolition of Houses in the DR Congo”.

July: “e London Stock Exchange – A haven forlaundered conflict assets?”

November: “No justice in Canada for Congolese massacrevictims as Canada’s Supreme Court dismisses leave to appeal”.


January : “Rape victims must sign away rightsto get remedy from Barrick”.

February: “Illegal Demolitions in DRC – GeorgeForrest International Refuses Compensation for Dispos-sessed Villagers”.

May: “OECD complaint filed against EurasianNatural Resources Corporation (ENRC) regarding DRCmining communities”.

July: “Five lost years: how money from a USHedge Fund and a British Mining Company keptMugabe in power”.

September: “e UK Action Plan on Business andHuman Rights will bring lile comfort to victims ofcorporate abuse”.

October: “Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation(ENRC): OECD Complaint Admissible, Says UK Govern-ment Watchdog”.

Meetings and conferences addressed or aendedTricia Feeney, RAID’s Executive Director, is in greatdemand as a speaker and panellist at seminars andconferences. Meetings and conferences addressed andaended include:

November : “Anvil Mining and Human RightsAbuses in the Congo: Seeking Justice through CanadianCourts”, Centre for International Policy Studies, Univer-sity of Oawa, Oawa.

January : International Conference, Couptionand Human Rights – the Arab Spring. Organised and Chairedby Tricia Feeney for the Centre for the Study of Govern-ance and Transparency, Kellogg College, University ofOxford.

February: “Global Companies: Enemies or Friendsof Human Rights?”, St Antony’s College, Oxford; StAntony’s Visiting Parliamentary Fellowship seminar series.

March: Forum on International Regulation of thePrivate Security Sector, Lancaster House, London.


March: CSO workshop on UK implementation ofthe UN Guiding Principles.

– March: Meetings with the Securities andExchange Commission in Washington, DC on the Dodd-Frank Act’s Section on Conflict Minerals.

March: OECD/UK Department for Business, Inno-vation and Skills meeting on OECD National ContactPoints and the Extractive Sector.

– May: ICGLR-OECD-UN Group of Experts JointMeeting on Implementation of the Due Diligence Guidancefor Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affectedand High-Risk Areas in the Great Lakes Region.

May: Meeting on the draft charter of the Interna-tional Code of Conduct for Private Security ServiceProviders, hosted by the Foreign Office, London.

– August: Open-ended Inter-governmentalWorking Group on Regulation of Private Military andSecurity Companies, Geneva.

– September: “Private Military And Security Com-panies”, XXXVth Round Table on Cuent Issues of Interna-tional Humanitarian Law, Sanremo.

September: Human Rights and Private Milita andSecurity Companies – Ensuring Accountability. Round tablemeeting organised by RAID and Human Rights First(see p. ).

– October: “Child Rights and the Business Sector:Urging states and private companies to meet their obli-gations”, th Sion International Child Rights Seminar. Interna-tional Institute for the Rights of the Child (IDE) with theUniversity Institute Kurt Bösch (IUKB), InternationalCommission of Jurists (ICJ), Competence Centre forHuman Rights, Zurich University. Tricia Feeney raisedthe plight of children working in the exploitative andunsafe extractive industries of the DRC, including, children working on mining sites in Katanga’scopperbelt. She also pointed out the serious problems inboth the Eastern DRC and Katanga, where armed groups

(cont.)


(Mai Mai) and the Congolese national army (FARDC)troops routinely use threats and coercion to force menand children to mine for minerals, turn over their min-eral production, and pay illegal “taxes”.

– November: ICGLR-OECD-UN Group ofExperts Joint Meeting on Implementation of the DueDiligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Mineralsfrom Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas in the Great LakesRegion.

– December: UN Forum on Business and HumanRights. (RAID arranged for Dickay Kunda, a representa-tive of the Kilwa victims, to speak on access to justice.)

January : Represented NGOs at a meeting inLondon with senior social environmental staff from theEuropean Bank for Reconstruction and Developmentabout concerns over the Oyu Tolgoi Project, Mongolia.

– February: Drafting Conference for the Over-sight Mechanism of the International Code of Conduct(ICoC) for Private Security Service Providers, Montreux.

– May, with Emmanuel Umpula N’Kumba ofACIDH: th meeting of the ICGLR-OECD-UN GoE(Group of Experts) Multi-Stakeholder Forum on duediligence in the tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold supplychains, OECD Conference Centre, Paris. Presented find-ings on human rights abuses related to artisanal miningand conflict in Northern Katanga (see p. ).

May: “International Regulation of the Private Secu-rity Sector”, briefing on the upcoming establishment ofthe Oversight Mechanism of the International Code ofConduct (ICoC) for Private Security Service Providers,Australian High Commission, London.

June: RAID helped organise a meeting on PrivateMilitary and Security Companies, chaired by ElizabethWilmshurst at Chatham House. e meeting broughttogether various stakeholders to discuss the UK Govern-ment’s policy on improving and monitoring humanrights compliance by Private Security Companies. Dis-


cussion focused on the new International Code of Con-duct Association, launched September (see p. ).

June, with Global Witness: Regulation and the City:ENRC and CAMEC. Expert seminar.

June: Foreign and Commonwealth Office event onthe raising of standards across Private Security Compa-nies working in complex environments, FCO, London.

– June: Global Forum on Responsible BusinessConduct, OECD Conference Centre, Paris. Tricia Feeneywas a speaker at the session on Stakeholder Engagementand Due Diligence in the Extractive Sector.

July: Tricia Feeney was invited to the launch of theUK EITI Multi-Stakeholder Group meeting, BISConference Centre, London.

September: Tricia Feeney spoke at an event heldby the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corrup-tion, jointly chaired by the Group’s co-chair CatherineMcKinnell MP and Baroness Stern. e meeting was alsoaddressed by the Rt. Hon Clare Short in her capacity asChair of the International Board of the Extractive Indus-tries Transparency Initiative.

– September: International Code of Conduct forPrivate Security Providers’ Association inaugural confer-ence, Montreux. Tricia Feeney elected to Board of Directors.

October: RAID invited by Freeport-McMoRan Cop-per and Gold company to a “Stakeholder Assurance andVerification Meeting” on its Corporate-level HumanRights Impact Assessment. Emma Grylls spoke on humanrights and security issues at Freeport's Tenke-Fungurumemine in the DRC.

October: Fall Meeting, American Bar Association,Section on International Law , London. Tom Brad-ford, a barrister, spoke on behalf of RAID in the session“Human Rights and Environmental Protection: Fromtentative embrace to powerful partnership”.

– November: Tricia Feeney was a speaker and panelmoderator at the People’s Forum on Business and Human


Rights, Bangkok. Meeting jointly organised by Interna-tional Network on Economic, Social & Cultural Rightsand Asian Forum for Human Rights & Development.

– November: Carolyn Norris, a RAID consultant,aended the th meeting of the ICGLR-OECD-UN GoE(Group of Experts) Joint Forum on Responsible MineralSupply Chains in Kigali, Rwanda (see pp. –).

– December: Tricia Feeney: “Do Non-Judicial Griev-ance Mechanisms Undermine Human Rights?”, as part ofthe panel “Access to Remedy: Opportunities and chal-lenges for judicial and non-judicial grievance mecha-nisms”, UN Forum on Business and Human Rights, Geneva.

December: “Accountability and Victims’ Access toRemedies”, Montreux + Conference, Montreux. Con-ference organised jointly by the Swiss Government andthe International Commiee of the Red Cross, in cooper-ation with the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Controlof Armed Forces. e conference marks the fifth anni-versary of the signing of the Montreux Document whichreaffirms the obligation on states to ensure that privatemilitary and security companies operating in armedconflicts comply with international humanitarian andhuman rights law.

RAID’s Executive Director TriciaFeeney speaks at the People’sForum in Bangkok, November2013.PHOTO: ESCR-Net


RAID will continue to engage in mediation with ENRCunder the auspices of the UK National Contact Point,with a view to resolving outstanding human rights issuesrelated to the company’s Congolese mines. RAID hopesthat a resolution will be possible despite ENRC’s delist-ing from the London Stock Exchange.

RAID will maintain its efforts to strengthen theenforcement of stock market regulations. RAID willpursue a complaint with the Alternative InvestmentMarket (AIM) about the listing of a shell company whosedirectors have a demonstrably poor track record of com-pliance. Under UK and US sanctions against Zimbabwe,RAID will continue to seek disclosure of information on,and to press for an investigation into, transactions byCAMEC and Och-Ziff.

e UN Guiding Principles prescribe that both Stateand business have roles to play to ensure access to effec-tive non-judicial grievance mechanisms as a complementto judicial mechanisms. However, non-judicial mecha-nisms have inherent weaknesses that often underminehuman rights and may even cause harm to complainantsand/or the affected communities they represent.rough its research, RAID will critically examine anumber of non-judicial grievance mechanisms and,drawing on detailed case studies, assess whether there isa gap between human rights principles and the proce-dures and outcomes of these mechanisms. RAID willalso work towards the development of effective certifica-tion, monitoring and complaints procedures for privatesecurity companies.

RAID will also continue to work for justice for thesurvivors of the Kilwa massacre. Following the disappoint-ing ruling in the Supreme Court of Canada, RAID isconsulting lawyers as to the feasibility of filing a claim ina different jurisdiction.

Future work


ere is still, then, much work for RAID to do. Oneshould not end, however, without acknowledging thatover the past fifteen years there has been significantprogress on some issues that RAID has campaigned for.In June the Human Rights Council of the UNadopted a set of Guiding Principles on Business andHuman Rights. In addition to such guidance, manypractical tools have been developed to assist companiesin identifying and preventing human rights abuses.ere is, though, still deadlock over the issue of legalaccountability for serious corporate-related humanrights violations. Globalisation has increased the reportsof corporate abuse in the developing world. Whileinvestment treaties and political risk insurance seek toprovide multinational companies that operate even ininherently unstable environments with ever greater pro-tection, international human rights law has not yetdeveloped instruments capable of ensuring an effectiveremedy for the victims of corporate abuse. is imbal-ance urgently needs to be addressed, for without corpo-rate accountability there is no deterrence and noprospect of reparation for the victims of violations. R


People

RAID staffTricia Feeney Executive DirectorTom Kenny Senior Research ConsultantFran Copeland Financial OfficerIlana Cravitz Communications Co-ordinatorBen Yudkin Publications Consultant

Board of TrusteesRAID’s Trustees serve in their private capacities.

Bronwen Manby (Chair), Senior Programme Adviser,Africa Governance Monitoring and Advocacy Project(AfriMAP), Open Society Foundation

Dr David Grylls, Fellow of Kellogg College, Univer-sity of Oxford

Seema Joshi, International Business and HumanRights Director, Amnesty International

Dr Mikko Kuisma, Senior Lecturer in InternationalRelations, Oxford Brookes University

Anneke Van Woudenberg, Senior Researcher for theDemocratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in Human RightsWatch’s Africa division

Emmanuel Umpula N’Kumba, Executive Director,Action contre l’impunité pour les droits humains (ex officio)

Legal AdviserDan Leader, barrister, Leigh Day & Co.


Donors and contributors

RAID gratefully acknowledges the generous support ofour funders, without whom our work to promote humanrights and responsible business conduct would not havebeen possible. In particular, we thank§ Sigrid Rausing Trust§ American Jewish World Service§ Open Society Institute for Southern Africa§ Ford Foundation§ Fondation des droits de l’Homme au travail – FDHT.

RAID is very grateful to Nicholas Garner and Avia-tion Partners for donating our beautiful new typefaces,Combi serif, italic and sans.


Financial summary

RAID’ accounts may be obtained from CompaniesHouse or by writing directly to the Trustees at RAID’sregistered address: Bladon Close, Oxford, OX AD,UK. In due course, accounts will also be available fromthe Charity Commission. (Since RAID became a regis-tered charity only in , charity accounts are not yetavailable.)

Below is a summary of RAID’s financial position forthe year ended September .

£Income 190,722Administrative expenses (132,891 )Interest 13Surplus for the year 57,844

RAID had net assets (capital and reserves) of £,.

e accounts were independently examined and signedoff on January by John Richard Hunter, FCA,Hunter Marshall & Company Limited, Hinksey Court,West Way, Oxford, OX JU.

RAID was involved with the Kilwa case right from the outset… spearheadingthe campaign for justice in our case at the international level… RAID is ahuman rights organisation with a ‘human soul’.

Dickay Kunda, Kilwa victim

RAID has played a big part in taking the Kilwa case forward. We owe RAIDour hope of – one day – seeing justice done.

Adele Mwayuma, Kilwa victim

RAID’s work is detailed, well-focused and deeply researched, and providesinsightful and innovative responses to issues of legal accountability ofcorporations for abuses of human rights. Its contribution is especiallyimportant in regard to access to judicial and non-judicial remedies, includinggrievance mechanisms, in conflict zones. Tricia Feeney has impressiveexperience on the ground and is enormously determined and dedicated.

Professor Robert McCorquodale, Director, British Institute of International andComparative Law

RAID conducts hard-hiing and meticulous research in some of the mostchallenging environments in the world, bringing to light the connectionsbetween human rights and corruption in natural resource development andgiving an international voice to people whose stories would otherwise remainin the shadows.

Jonathan Kaufman JD, Legal Advocacy Coordinator, EarthRights International

Tricia Feeney and RAID have been at the forefront of challenging systemicpaerns of human rights violations involving corporations and pushing theboundaries of existing remedies in efforts to secure justice for affectedcommunities. RAID co-founded the Corporate Accountability WorkingGroup a decade ago to help coordinate and magnify the advocacy of ESCR-Netmembers, and has continued to provide vital leadership to a growing globalmovement to secure binding human rights regulation and effective remedyfor violations.

Chris Grove, Director, International Network for Economic, Social and CulturalRights (ESCR-Net)

I admire RAID’s magnificent work in the field of business and human rights,particularly in the DRC but also in other parts of the world… I wish you everysuccess for 2014.

Emmanuel Umpula N’Kumba, Director, Action contre l’impunité pour les droitshumains (ACIDH)

Documents

Review of Progress,