OECD Council Draft Revised Recommendation on Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Sustainability:

Submission of International Co-ordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC)

December 2011

CONTENTS

Part I. Introduction: NHRIs, business and human rights, and ECAs

1. NHRIs and the ICC 1.1 National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) 1.2 The International Coordinating Committee (ICC) of NHRIs 1.3 NHRIs: Key actors in human rights implementation 2. Business and human rights: the NHRI role 2.1 UN Paris Principles 2.2 UN ‘protect, respect, remedy’ framework and UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights 2.3 Business and human rights: NHRI activities 3. Export Credit Agencies (ECAs): What are they and what do they do? 3.1 OECD Recommendation on Common Approaches on Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits

Part II. OECD Common Approaches: Improving human rights protection

4.1 State responsibility under international human rights law

4.2 OECD Common Approaches: NHRI mandate 4.3 Human rights and the Common Approaches: Recommendations 4.3.1 Preamble and General Principles 4.3.2 Definitions 4.3.3 Screening and classification 4.3.4 Environmental and social review 4.3.5 Evaluation, decision and monitoring 4.3.6 Exchange and disclosure of information 4.3.7 Reporting and monitoring of the recommendation 4.4 Conclusion ANNEX I NHRIs in OECD member states and countries adhering to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

ANNEX II Human rights commitments of countries adhering to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ANNEX III Export Credit Agencies Considered in desk-top review

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 2 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

Part I. Introduction: NHRIs, business and human rights, and ECAs

1. NHRIS AND THE ICC

1.1 National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs)

National human rights institutions (NHRIs) are independent public bodies established at national level with responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights. According to the United Nations Paris Principles,1 the main functions of NHRIs include monitoring and advising home governments, promoting human rights through education and other activities, investigating human rights abuses and coordinating with international bodies on human rights issues. Over 100 countries worldwide have NHRIs, of which more than two-thirds are accredited to ‘A’ status, meaning they meet the highest standards of independence, objectivity and pluralism. Of the 29 OECD Members of the Working Party on Export Credits and Credit Guarantees, 24 have an NHRI.2

1.2 International Coordinating Committee (ICC) of NHRIs

In 1993, the International Coordinating Committee (ICC) was established to promote NHRI governance, mandate, recognition and activities. The ICC’s governing body is the ICC Bureau which draws its 16 members from the ICC’s four Regional Networks (Africa, Americas, Asia-Pacific and Europe). The ICC is incorporated under Swiss law.3

1.3 NHRIs: key actors in human rights implementation

Since the early 1990s, the essential role of NHRIs in securing effective implementation of international human rights standards at national level has been increasingly recognised. Within the UN, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) leads cooperation and capacity-building activities with NHRIs, in collaboration with other UN partners (e.g. UN Development Programme) and the UN Secretary-General reports regularly to the UN Human Rights Council on progress made.4 NHRIs are also entitled to participate in UN Human Rights Council proceedings, such as the Universal Periodic Review, as well as in monitoring of

1 UN General Assembly Resolution 48/134, 4 March 1994, http://daccess-dds- ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N94/116/24/PDF/N9411624.pdf?OpenElement. 2 ECG Members: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States Of these, only Israel, Italy, Japan, the USA and Turkey do not have a Paris Principles accredited NHRI; Turkey is considering the establishment of such an institution. 3 Further information on the ICC is available via http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/Pages/default.aspx. See also: Network of African NHRIs (http://www.nanhri.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 ); Asia Pacific Forum (http://www.asiapacificforum.net/ ) and Network of National Institutions of the American Continent (http://www.rindhca.org.ve/). 4 See http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/NHRI/Pages/NHRIMain.aspx.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 3 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

states’ performance of their obligations under specific international human rights treaties.5

2. Business and human rights: the NHRI role

2.1 UN Paris Principles

According to the UN Paris Principles, NHRIs are required to have a broad mandate to protect and promote human rights. As the current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, affirmed in March 2010, this mandate includes business and human rights as a core element.6

2.2 UN ‘protect, respect, remedy’ framework and Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

In June 2011, the UN Human Rights Council adopted the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, developed by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, Prof. John Ruggie.7 The Guiding Principles recognise that NHRIs have a critical role to play in supporting operationalisation across all the three pillars of the protect, respect, remedy framework. Under Pillar I, the Guiding Principles recognise that NHRIs may support states in assessing the alignment of national legislation addressing business with the state’s obligations under human rights treaties, and can monitor whether regulations are being effectively enforced.8 Further, NHRIs can assist states in the development of guidance for businesses and other non-state actors concerning human rights compliance. Under Pillar II, the Guiding Principles highlight that NHRIs are a source of credible, independent expertise on human rights, with whom businesses can consult, for example, in assessing how to meet their “corporate responsibility to respect” human rights in complex contexts.9 Thirdly, many NHRIs are empowered by national law to undertake mediation and conciliation activities, and in some cases have quasi- judicial functions. Accordingly, NHRIs also contribute to the provision of effective remedies for victims of human rights abuses under Pillar III of the UN protect, respect, remedy framework.10

5 See e.g. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/nhri.htm. 6 See http://www.asiapacificforum.net/services/international-regional/icc/icc-meetings/downloads/icc-23- speeches-and-documents/ICC23_Navi_Pillay.pdf. 7 UN HRC Res 17/4, Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and other business enterprises, UN Doc. A/HRC/Res/17/4, 6 July 2011. 8 Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31., 21 March 2011, p.8. 9 Ibid., p.21. 10 Ibid., p.22.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 4 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

2.3 Business and human rights: NHRI activities

2.3.1 Business and human rights: actions by individual NHRIs

Pursuant to their UN Paris Principles mandates, most NHRIs undertake certain activities relating to business and human rights. These activities may, for example, include:

 Convening round-table stakeholder discussions (e.g. Kenya, Korea, Scotland, Morocco)  Developing best practice guidance for businesses on human rights issues (e.g. Australia, Great Britain)  Investigating and conciliating communications and complaints from individuals and communities (e.g. Cameroon, India, Malaysia)  Developing benchmarks and tools to support implementation within companies (e.g. Denmark, Canada)  Legislative review and recommendations (e.g. Uganda, France)  Assessing impacts of commercial projects and activities on human rights of local communities (e.g. Malawi, Philippines)  Providing training on business-related issues (e.g. Denmark, Malaysia).

The issues addressed through these activities range widely, from abuses of migrant workers’ and human trafficking, indigenous peoples’ rights, resettlement and land rights, child labour, discrimination and privacy, to ensuring respect for human rights in the determination of service standards in privatised utilities, and human rights impacts of land acquisition, environmental degradation and climate change.

2.3.2 Business and human rights: recent ICC actions

The ICC Working Group on Business and Human Rights was established in 2009 to coordinate NHRI actions and further develop NHRI capacities in the business and human rights area. Subsequently, the Working Group has supported NHRI engagement on business and human rights issues with the UN Human Rights Council, UN Special Procedures and UN Global Compact, as well as with the OECD Investment Committee in the context of the 2010-11 updating of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.11

In October 2010, over 80 NHRIs participated in the ICC’s 10th Biennial Conference, Business and Human Rights: The Role of NHRIs, held in Edinburgh, Scotland. In the Conference’s concluding Edinburgh Declaration, NHRIs strongly reaffirmed the need to engage with stakeholders, including government and business, to work towards full effectiveness of human rights in the corporate sphere, for example, through advice, education, promotion and awareness-raising activities.12

11 See http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/Themes/BusinessHR/Pages/default.aspx. 12 http://www.humanrightsbusiness.org/files/1127669666/file/edinburgh_declaration.pdf.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 5 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

It was also decided to hold strategic planning workshops on business and human rights during 2011-12 in each of the four ICC Regions. In October 2011, the Network of African National Human Rights Institutions concluded its Regional Workshop on Business and Human Rights in Yaounde, Cameroon13; the Asia- Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions Regional Conference on Business and Human Rights was held in Seoul in October 201114; and the Red de Instituciones Nacionales Para la Promocion y Proteccion de los Derechos Humanos del Continente Americano took place in Antigua, Guatemala, 9-10 November 2011. The European Region of NHRIs will hold its event in early 2012.

3. Export Credit Agencies: What are they and what do they do?

Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) are public entities that provide corporations with government-backed loans, guarantees, credits and insurance to support exports and foreign investments. ECAs may be divided into three main categories:  ECAs established as state agencies or departments  Government-owned state corporations managed independently but with government oversight  Consortia of private/public companies, though still controlled by the state (e.g. via funding or regulation).15 Overall, ECAs therefore remain closely linked to the state in legal terms.

ECA activity usually focuses on support for business activities in emerging economies and countries of the global south. ECAs are a significant source of official finance and insurance for the private sector. In 2005, the OECD reported that ECAs in OECD member states provided enterprises with US$125 billion in credits, insurance, guarantees and interest support.

Sectors receiving substantial ECA-backed funding include: manufacturing for industry (e.g. base metal industries, cement/lime/plaster), energy generation and supply (e.g. construction of power plants, including hydro-electric) and the extractive sector (oil and gas, minerals).16 ECA-funded development projects in these industries have been linked to significant adverse human rights impacts, for example, forced displacement of local populations, resettlement without adequate compensation and restoration of livelihoods, security forces misconduct, environmental damage and destruction of cultural heritage.17

3.1 OECD Council Recommendation on Common Approaches on Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Sustainability (the “Common Approaches”) 13 http://www.nanhri.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=226. 14 http://www.asiapacificforum.net/carousel/news/building-human-rights-into-business-bottom-line. 15 , Halifax Initiative, Export Credit Agencies and the International Law of Human Rights, (2008), http://www.halifaxinitiative.org/updir/ECAs_and_HR_law.pdf. 16 See e.g. Export Credits and the Environment: 2010 Review of Members’ responses to the survey on the environment and officially supported export credits, TAC/ECG(2010)10/FINAL, 10-Dec-2010. 17 See e.g. Race to the Bottom Take II, An Assessment of Sustainable Development Achievements of ECA- Supported Projects Two Years After OECD Common Approaches Rev6, ECA Watch (2003).

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 6 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

The OECD Council Recommendation on Common Approaches on Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Sustainability (Common Approaches) was first adopted in 2003 and subsequently amended in 2007.18 As an OECD Recommendation, the Common Approaches are legally non-binding; nevertheless, they express the common political commitment of OECD member governments to the standards they describe.

The objectives of the Common Approaches stated in the 2007 text include:  Promoting coherence between policies of OECD Member states on officially supported export credits and policies (including relevant international agreements) for the protection of the environment  Developing common procedures and processes relating to environmental review of projects that benefit from officially supported export credits  Promoting good environmental practice in operations benefiting from officially supported export credits  Promoting a level playing field for officially supported export credits and increasing awareness and understanding of the benefits of applying the Recommendation, including amongst non-member economies.

The current version of the Common Approaches provides guidance to OECD Members on standards and procedures to be applied in:  Screening and classifying projects  Environmental review, including environmental impact assessment  Evaluating and determining applications for ECA support  Monitoring ECA-supported activities  Exchange and disclosure of information by Members, including disclosure of environmental policy statements and procedural guidance of Members’ ECAs  Reporting on implementation and operation of the Common Approaches between Members and to the ECG, including on steps to ensure compliance with the Recommendation  Exchange of information on implementation and operation of the Recommendation with civil society organisations and non-member economies  Monitoring by the OECD Secretariat of implementation of the Recommendation.

Under the Common Approaches, a “project” is broadly defined: ECAs need to apply the Common Approaches to any application they receive for support for any export of capital goods or services to any commercial, industrial or infrastructure undertaking, including the primary project site, as well as any associated facilities.19

18 Revised Council Recommendation on Common Approaches on Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Sustainability, TAD/ECG(2007)9, 12-Jun-2007, http://www.oecd.org/document/29/0,3746,en_2649_34181_46163165_1_1_1_1,00.html.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 7 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

3.2 OECD Common Approaches: human rights deficit

The 2007 version of the Common Approaches focuses on potential environmental impacts of projects supported via instruments of OECD member states’ ECAs, and does not include any explicit reference to human rights.20 While it can be acknowledged that ECA-supported projects have potential to contribute in important ways to realisation of human rights, in exporting and importing countries, for example through job creation, as well as via social benefits of supported projects,, ECA-supported business activities have been implicated in widespread human rights abuses.

For example, ECA-supported projects have been associated with increases in landlessness and rural poverty, displacement of indigenous populations and resettlement without due consultation or compensation, security forces misconduct, environmental damage, including impacts on water, corruption, lack of consultation with impacted communities in general and destruction of cultural heritage.21

Such impacts have been brought to the attention of the international community in various fora, including specific instances before National Contact Points under the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises,22 UN human rights treaty monitoring bodies23 and UN Special Procedures,24 in addition to advocacy by civil society

19 Draft Council Recommendation on Common Approaches on Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Sustainability, TAD/ECG(2011)9REV, 20-Oct-2011. 20 Revised Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2007)9. 21 See e.g. ECA Watch, Race to the Bottom, Take II, An Assessment of Sustainable Development Achievements of ECA-Supported Projects Two Years After OECD Common Approaches Rev6, (2003). 22 For instance, specific instances were raised before the UK NCP regarding the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. In a 2011 final statement, the UK NCP concluded: “The company failed to identify specific complaints of intimidation against affected communities by local security forces where the information was received outside of the formal chanels’ and recommended that the company consider and report on ways that it could strengthen procedures to identify and respond to reports of alleged intimidation by local pipeline security”, Revised Final Statement, UK NCP, 22-February-2011. 23 For example, in 2011, the UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) expressed concern regarding the Ilisu dam in Turkey, an ECA-supported project, stating: “The Committee is deeply concerned at the potential impact of the Ilisu dam under construction and other dams on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights in the areas concerned, especially with regard to forced evictions, resettlements, displacement, and compensation of people affected, as well as at the environmental and cultural impact of the construction of these dams,”: UN Doc. E/C.12/TUR/CO/1, 12-July/2011, para.26; Submission to CESCR, Parallel report to 5th Periodic Report of the Federal Republic of Germany on implementation of ICESCR, Brot fur die Welt; FIAN Deutschland; GegenStromung; Deutsche Kommission Justitia et Pax; MISEREOR (March 2011). 24 E.g. the UN Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, considered the role of lenders such as Australia’s ECA in financing projects in host countries facing political, social and human rights challenges, urging the Australian Government to “…ensure accountability and transparency in EFIC’s [Australia’s Export Finance and Insurance Corporation] operations, particularly those undertaken under its National Interest Account,”: United Nations Information Centre for Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific, News 11-February-2011, available at http://www.un.org.au/UN-expert-on- foreign-debt-and-human-rights-discusses-Australian-aid-news317.aspx ,

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 8 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

campaigns and affected communities. ECA conduct is also being scrutinised with reference to state human rights obligations in national law.25

Part II. OECD Common Approaches: Improving human rights protection

4.1 State responsibility under international human rights law

Under international human rights law, states have a duty to respect, protect, promote and fulfil human rights. The state duty to protect human rights includes an obligation to regulate organs of the state through appropriate legislation, policies and adjudication; state responsibility may also extend to actions of non-state entities, for instance, those which fall under the effective control of the state. States are therefore responsible for ensuring that ECAs do not violate international human rights which the state has undertaken to uphold. This principle applies whether ECAs are, in legal terms, public bodies, private companies or operate as public/private consortia. ECAs also have the responsibility to respect human rights.

Consequently, where ECAs are public bodies, they also have a legal duty to take adequate measures to regulate and monitor the activities of private companies they support so as to avoid human rights abuses resulting from state-supported projects. Where ECAs fail to take adequate measures, this could result in state complicity in any such abuses.

The link between the ‘state duty to protect’ against corporate human rights abuses and ECA human rights obligations is affirmed in the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. For example, under Guiding Principle 4, it is provided that: “…states should take additional steps to protect against human rights abuses by business enterprises that are owned or controlled by the state or that receive substantial support and services from State agencies such as export credit agencies and official investment insurance or guarantee agencies, including, where appropriate, by requiring human rights due diligence.”26

In the Commentary to Guiding Principle 4, it is further noted: “Where a business enterprise is controlled by the State or where its acts can be attributed otherwise to the State, an abuse of human rights by the business enterprise may entail a violation of the State’s own international law obligations,” and that,

“Where these [State] agencies [such as ECAs] do not explicitly consider the actual and potential adverse impacts on human rights of beneficiary enterprises, they put themselves at risk – in reputational, financial, political

25 See e.g. Corner Hourse, Analysis of ECGD and the UK Human Rights Act, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/resource/ecgd-and-human-rights-act. 26 UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31. 21 March 2011, p.9.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 9 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

and potentially legal terms – for supporting any such harm, and they may add to the human rights challenges faced by the recipient State”.27

The UN Guiding Principles also name ECAs in connection with the need for policy coherence: to fulfil their duty to protect against corporate human rights abuses, states must ensure respect for human rights in a consistent manner across all relevant policy domains and by all government agencies, including ECAs.28 Of further relevance, the UN Guiding Principles highlight that states must ensure compliance with human rights standards, in particular, with regard to state aids to business activities in conflict-affected areas.29

4.2 OECD Common Approaches: NHRI mandate

As described above, NHRIs of OECD Member states have a legal mandate at national level to promote human rights and monitor state compliance with international and national human rights obligations, and under the UN Paris Principles, NHRIs’ institutional mandate includes business and human rights as a core element. NHRIs thus have legal and institutional locus to participate in the current review of the Common Approaches. Moreover, as key actors in promoting human rights implementation at national level, NHRIs should be recognised as interested parties to the Common Approaches and the views of NHRIs should be taken properly into account by OECD Members, Council and Secretariat in the context of the present Review and on a continuing basis.

4.3 Human rights and the Common Approaches: Recommendations

To ensure coherence between the Common Approaches and existing international human rights law obligations of OECD Member states,30 the deficit in human rights protection noted should be addressed by:

 Introducing explicit references to human rights and relevant international human rights standards into the Common Approaches, text wherever relevant and, in particular, into the statement of objectives in the chapter on General Principles, in the Definitions, and in the list of international standards in the chapter on Environmental and Social Review31  Amending the Common Approaches to ensure all definitions and descriptions of project “impacts” encompass all relevant human rights impacts, including through aligning the definition of social and human rights impacts in the 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid., UN Guiding Principle 8: “Horizontal policy coherence means supporting and equipping departments and agencies, at both the national and sub-national levels, that shape business practices – including those responsible for corporate law and securities regulation, investment, export credit and insurance, trade and labour – to be informed of and act in a manner compatible with the Governments’ human rights obligations”, pp.11-12. 29 Ibid., UN Guiding Principle 7, pp.10-11. 30 See Annex II: Human rights commitments of countries adhering to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. 31 Draft Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2011)9REV, paras.18-22.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 10 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

Definitions of the Common Approaches with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises32  Revising the Common Approaches to ensure that all procedures provided for, both of individual ECAs and of OECD Members and Secretariat in concert (including screening, risk and impact assessment, monitoring and reporting) are adequate to prevent, mitigate and/or remedy any negative human rights impacts of ECA supported projects, as well as their environmental or other social impacts  Introducing explicit requirements regarding access to remedy for company related human rights abuses, including through the provision of project-level and ECA- and/or national level grievance mechanisms accessible to project-affected individuals and communities, in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and other relevant international human rights standards relating to accessible and effective remedy  Recommending that members require enterprises benefiting from ECA support to undertake to abide by the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

The following paragraphs advance specific recommendations to meet these objectives, with reference to both the 2007 Common Approaches text and the revised October 2011 Draft Council Recommendation.33 The recommendations are informed by the 2010 Review of Member Responses to the Survey on the Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits34 and a review of ECA information for 15 OECD countries.35

4.3.1 Preamble and General Principles

As noted, until now the Common Approaches have focussed on environmental impacts of projects supported by ECAs and do not mention impacts on human rights or human rights standards. However, if an ECA does not take appropriate steps to identify and address potential human rights risks and impacts of supported projects, it will fail to discharge the state duty to protect human rights, if it is an organ of the state, or the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, if it is a private company. As outlined above, in either case, such a failure will bear directly on the legal responsibility of the relevant Member state to uphold its international human rights commitments.

To bring the Common Approaches into compliance with OECD Member states’ existing human rights obligations under international law, the Preamble and General Principles chapter must:

32 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, http://www.oecd.org/document/28/0,3746,en_2649_34889_2397532_1_1_1_1,00.html 33 Draft Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2011)9REV. 34 OECD, Export Credits and the Environment: 2010 Review of Members’ responses to the survey on the environment and officially supported export credits, TAC/ECG(2010)10/FINAL (10 December 2010). 35 See Annex III for list of ECAs whose information was considered; note that the review was based on publicly available information from ECA websites only.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 11 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

 Recognise the duty of Members to protect, respect, promote and fulfil their international human rights obligations, including by requiring their ECAs to consider the actual and potential positive and negative human rights impacts of new projects in their decisions to offer official support for export credits  Identify ensuring corporate respect for human rights in the context of ECA supported activities as a core objective of the Common Approaches.

To this end, and subject to the above recommendations, adopting the proposed text at preambular paragraph 7, General Principles paragraph 3. and 4. ii), iv) would represent an advance on the 2007 text.

Recommendation: To adopt the proposed text at Preambular paragraph 7, General Principles para. 3 and 4. ii), iv) paragraphs, however, with an amendment to fully align the references to international human rights standards and human rights due diligence, as follows:

 General Principles, paragraph 4. ii): Undertake appropriate environmental and social reviews for projects and existing operations, including due diligence in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

4.3.2 Definitions

Definition of human rights impact

As noted above, the definitions of risk and impact in the 2007 text are limited to environmental considerations, and do not include human rights.36 Although contained in the Screening and Classification chapter of the 2007 version, the definitions given there have implications for screening, review, monitoring and reporting as the definition is cross-cutting within the Recommendation. It is therefore essential that the definitions of risk and impact be amended to address human rights.

The 2011 proposed Definitions chapter makes a significant advance in this regard in providing a stand-alone definition of social impact, including human rights.37 However, it is essential that the definition of human rights impacts provided does not limit consideration to select topics, but aligns with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, including the concept of due diligence to identify and address the full range of potential human rights impacts.

36 Restricted reference is made to social impact, however, the primary focus is on environmental impacts: see Revised Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2007)9, fn.2, where, environmental impact is defined as ‘including all relevant environmental and social impacts addressed by the international standards applied to projects in accordance with Paragraph 12.’ Further, Annex II: Environmental Impact Assessment Report, which outlines the basic information that should be included in an Environmental Impact Assessment (based on the World Bank Operational Manual – OP 4.01) is focused on environmental, rather than social or human rights, impacts. 37 Draft Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2011)9REV.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 12 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

Recommendation:  Definitions chapter: “Social impacts” include, but are not limited to, labour and working conditions, community health safety and security, land acquisitions and involuntary resettlement, indigenous peoples, and cultural heritage human rights impacts identified and assessed in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Social and human rights impacts include those that are addressed by the international standards applied in accordance with paragraphs 18-22.

Explicit reference to international human rights standards

The proposed 2011 Common Approaches preambular text to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and human rights impacts implies consideration of international human rights standards. However, reference to such standards is not systematically integrated throughout the current draft, for example, in the stipulation of laws and standards to be applied in paragraphs 18-22 of the Environmental and Social Review chapter.

Recommendation: Paragraphs 18-22 of the 2011 proposed text should explicitly include international human rights standards amongst the international standards to be considered for purposes of environmental and social review. Thus,

 IV. Environmental and Social Review, paragraph 20, point three: …where appropriate the relevant aspects of internationally recognised standards, such as international human rights standards, and European Union standards that are more stringent than those standards referenced above.

 IV. Environmental and Social Review, paragraph 22: Projects should, at minimum, in all cases, comply with host country standards, or international human rights standards where these are more stringent. Members should, therefore, secure confirmation that the project complies with all local legislation, and other relevant host country regulations, and international human rights standards insofar as relevant.

Annex 1: Illustrative List of Category A Projects

Annex I, in both the 2007 and 2011 texts, provides an Illustrative List of Category A projects, as well as some guidance as to social impacts of projects or activities that may give rise to Category A classification. As highlighted by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, businesses in any sector can potentially impact on the full range of internationally-recognised human rights. Consequently, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, including the concept of due diligence, under the Guiding Principles, emphasises the need for companies to adopt procedures to identify and prioritise human rights risks and impacts within their given context, instead of pre-determining a fixed list of human rights that businesses in a given sector or geographical location should consider.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 13 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

Recommendation: To align with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, as well as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, Annex I of the 2011 proposed text should be amended as follows.

 Annex 1, paragraph 29: Projects which are planned to be carried out in environmentally or socially sensitive locations or are likely to have a perceptible impact on such locations, even if the project category does not appear in the above list. The categorisation of sensitive areas should include human rights considerations. Sensitive locations include, but are not limited to, national parks and other protected areas identified by national or international law, and other sensitive locations of international, national or regional importance, such as wetlands, forests with high biodiversity value, areas of archaeological or cultural significance, conflict-affected areas, and areas of importance for indigenous peoples or other vulnerable groups.

 Annex 1, paragraph 30: Projects involving significant land acquisition and resettlement, resettlement of indigenous peoples or involuntary resettlement.

 Annex 1, paragraph 31: Projects with significant potential adverse social or human rights impacts, as addressed by the standards applied in accordance with paragraphs 18-22. Identification and assessment of actual or potential adverse social and human rights impacts should involve meaningful consultation with potentially affected individuals and communities, their legitimate representatives, other relevant stakeholders and credible independent sources

4.3.3 Screening and classification

Screening and classification

In the 2007 text, the Common Approaches do not specify the type of information applicants must provide to an ECA during the screening and classification process, or where responsibility should be allocated within an ECA for screening applications. Only some ECAs, for instance, involve a specialist environmental practitioner in the screening process.

Recommendation: The Common Approaches should set a clear requirement that information requested from applicants for screening and classification purposes should be appropriate and adequate to identify and assess any potential adverse human rights impacts of projects. They should further include a requirement that screening and classification be performed by a practitioner appropriately qualified to undertake environmental, social and human rights risk and impact assessment.

 III. Screening and classification, paragraph 5: Members should screen all applications for officially supported expert credits covered by this

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 14 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

Recommendation with the aim of identifying which applications should be classified and, where appropriate, subsequently reviewed. The parties involved in an application, including applicants (exporters and lenders) and project sponsors, should provide all information necessary to carry out the screening and sufficient to identify actual and potential adverse environmental and social impacts of projects as addressed by the standards applied in accordance with paragraphs 18-22 of the Recommendation. The screening should take place as early as possible in the risk assessment process and be performed a practitioner appropriately qualified to undertake environmental and social risk and impact assessment.

Application of the Common Approaches to existing operations

The OECD Common Approaches distinguish between existing operations and new projects. Existing operations will be assessed for potential environmental and/or social risks before official support is granted, but are not required to be classified and subjected to review.38 To ensure OECD Members meet their obligations under international human rights law, where assessment of existing projects indicates actual or potential adverse human rights impacts, the classification and review regime of the Common Approaches should be applied to any applications for support relating to such projects.

Recommendation:  III. Screening and classification, paragraph 8: Applications relating to existing operations are not required to be classified, unless initial assessment indicates significant potential adverse environmental and/or social impacts. Initial assessment shall include consideration of potential environmental and/or social risks before any final commitment to provide official support. In undertaking this assessment, Members should take into account the industry sector, location and other information available relating to environmental and social impacts, before taking a decision. Where such information indicates actual or potential adverse environmental and/or social impacts, the project shall be subject to classification and review under Sections IV-VI of this Recommendation. If an application is not classified, it is not required to be subject to Sections IV-VI of this Recommendation.

Project categorisation

The 2007 Common Approaches requires initial screening and classification of a project for which ECA support is being sought to determine whether the project falls into one of three possible project categories, each category reflecting a different level of environmental risk, as follows o Category A projects: “significant adverse environmental impacts”

38 Draft Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2011)9REV, para.8.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 15 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

o Category B projects: “impacts are less adverse than those of Category A… impacts are site-specific, few if any of them are irreversible”, and o Category C projects: “minimal or no adverse environmental impacts”. 39

The 2011 proposed revision represents a significant advance on these definitions, which were not adequate to address human rights impacts of ECA-supported business activities, by its explicit references to the social impacts of projects.40

Recommendation: The 2011 proposed revision should be adopted, with minor further adjustment to ensure a consistent definition of social and human rights impacts throughout the Common Approaches, as follows.

 III. Screening and Classification, paragraph 9: o Category A: a project is classified as Category A if it has the potential to have significant adverse environmental and/or social impacts which are diverse, irreversible and/or unprecedented. These impacts may affect an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works. Category A in principle includes projects in sensitive sectors or located in or near sensitive areas. An illustrative list of Category A projects is set out in Annex 1. o Category B: a project is classified as Category B if its potential environmental and/or social impacts are less adverse than those of Category A projects. For example, these impacts may be few in number, site-specific, few if any are irreversible, and mitigation measures may be are more readily available.

4.3.4 Environmental and social review

Including social and human rights aspects in impact assessment

The explicit reference to social impacts in the environmental and social review process, and accompanying guidance on impact assessment found in Annex II of the 2011 proposed text would represent a significant step towards alignment of the Common Approaches with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises, and these revisions should be adopted.

Explicit reference to international human rights standards

As outlined above in section 4.3.2 Definitions, it is essential that standards for environmental and social review expressly include international human rights standards as relevant.

Information considered in undertaking review

39 Revised Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2007)9, para.6. 40 Draft Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2011)9REV, para.9.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 16 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

Paragraph 13 of the 2011 proposed text provides guidance on information that should be considered by ECAs when undertaking environmental and social review. This includes reference to the timing and location of construction, but not to the project lifecycle as a whole. Furthermore, the 2011 proposed text suggests that a link to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises be introduced via a reference, in this context, to reports by National Contact Points. On the other hand, the proposed text does not recognise scope for ECAs to consider information regarding actual or potential adverse environmental, social or human rights impacts of ECA-supported projects that might come to light via other channels.

Recommendation: The Common Approaches should explicitly recommend that ECAs give due consideration to relevant and credible information regarding ECA- supported projects, in particular concerning their potential adverse environmental, social and human rights impacts, from any source, as follows.

 IV. Environmental and social review, paragraph 13: When undertaking a review, Members should where appropriate: o Consider the potential environmental and/or social impacts of any associated facilities, taking into account the timing and location and project lifecycle of their construction; and o … o Take into account any relevant and credible information regarding supported projects, including the potential adverse environmental and social impacts of such projects.

Engagement with impacted communities and interested stakeholders

The Common Approaches 2007 Revision offers only minimal guidance to ECAs on engagement and consultation with project-affected communities and stakeholders.41 The text does not stipulate, for example, circumstances under which site visits or direct consultation should be carried out by the ECA as part of the environmental review process. The 2011 proposed text, by contrast, explicitly refers to the need for consultation with project-affected local communities and other stakeholders when undertaking environmental and social review. This proposed amendment would improve the Common Approaches and their alignment to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and should be adopted.

Recommendation: The 2011 proposed revision regarding consultation with project affected communities and interested stakeholders should be retained and further strengthened as follows.

41 See Revised Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2007)9, Annex II: Environmental Impact Assessment Report, p.13, para.8, stating that an EIA should include records of any consultations with: “affected people, local non-governmental organisations and regulatory agencies”.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 17 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

 IV. Environmental and social review, paragraph 14: …The information supplied should include, but may not be limited to: o A description of the project, its lifecycle and geographic, ecological, social context. o … o The standards, practices and processes that the parties involved in the project intend to apply, including confirmation that the project complies with local legislation and other host country relevant regulations, or relevant international human rights standards, where these are more stringent. o The reports of any public engagement, including consultations, with local communities directly affected by the project, their legitimate representatives and credible independent expert sources as appropriate, and with relevant stakeholders, such as civil society organisations that have expressed an interest in the project.

Environmental and social review requirements for category B projects

The Environmental and social review chapter of the proposed 2011 text addresses the process to be followed by ECAs in conducting Environmental and Social Review of applications for support for projects classed as Category A, B and C, respectively.

For Category A projects, it is recommended that Environmental and Social Impact Assessment be undertaken.

For Category B projects, the Common Approaches do not require that impact assessment be undertaken, but do require the generation of project information “appropriate” to the identification of the environmental and social impacts of the project.42

For Category C projects, no environmental and social review is required.

Recommendation: The Common Approaches should be amended to require that adequate information is provided for the review of category B projects.

 IV. Environmental and social review, paragraph 16: For the review of category B projects, members should require appropriate information to be provided by the applicant that is adequate to address the relevant environmental and social impacts of the project. …

4.3.5 Evaluation, decision and monitoring

Evaluation, decision and monitoring

42 Draft Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2011)9REV, para.16.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 18 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

Both the 2007 text and the 2011 proposed revision of the Common Approaches provide limited guidance as to where an application for support should either be declined due to environmental, social and human rights concerns, or approval should be conditional upon certain criteria being met.43 Neither is clear or sufficient guidance given regarding the assignment of responsibility for evaluation, determination of applications and monitoring or follow-up of corrective action requests.

Recommendation: To ensure compliance with OECD member states’ existing international human rights obligations, the Common Approaches must provide ECAs with a clear basis for legitimately declining to support a project on the basis of human rights concerns identified in screening, classification, review, monitoring or reporting, and likewise should establish the possibility of conditional approval for project support.

 V. Evaluation, decision and monitoring, paragraph 25: Members should evaluate the information resulting from screening and review of a project, and decide whether to request further information, decline or provide official support. Where an application does not meet the international standards stipulated in paragraphs 18-22, the application should be declined or support should be conditional on the design, implementation and monitoring of measures to eliminate or mitigate potential adverse environmental and social impacts, this may include re-design of the project or partial suspension of the project during mitigation. Evaluation and decision regarding project support should involve a practitioner appropriately qualified to undertake environmental and social risk and impact assessment. Where it cannot be demonstrated that adverse social impacts amounting to human rights abuses can be eliminated, an application for project support should be declined.

 V. Evaluation, decision and monitoring, paragraph 26: In the event that support is to be provided, Members should decide whether this should involve conditions to fulfil prior to, or after the final commitment for official support, e.g. prevention and/or mitigation measures, covenants, monitoring requirements. In this context, Members may require a project sponsor to devise further action plans to describe and prioritise the mitigation measures, corrective actions, monitoring activities and timetable necessary to manage the project’s environmental and/or social impacts in a manner consistent with international standards and best industry practice. Where environmental and social review discloses potential adverse environmental and/or social impacts, the Member shall require the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to eliminate and mitigate such potential adverse impacts as a condition of

43 The 2007 Revision states only that, based on the information from screening and review ,ECAs should “… decide whether to request further information, decline or provide official support”: Revised Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2007)9, para.15; see also Draft Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2011)9REV, para.25.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 19 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

project support. This should include a requirement for an adequate impact mitigation and monitoring action plan.

 V. Evaluation, decision and monitoring, paragraph 30: Members should, where appropriate, encourage project sponsors to make ex post monitoring reports and related information, including concerning how environmental and/or social impacts are being addressed, publicly available at regular intervals, including in forms accessible to project-affected individuals and communities, and interested stakeholders.

Grievance mechanisms

Neither the 2007 nor the 2011proposed text of the Common Approaches provide means for project-affected individuals and communities to raise concerns and grievances regarding ECA-supported projects.

Access to remedy forms the third pillar of the United Nations Business and Human Rights “protect, respect, remedy” Framework, including both judicial and non- judicial mechanisms. This can include project and organisational-level grievance mechanisms that do not interfere with availability of judicial remedies.44

The Common Approaches do not reference grievance mechanisms and individual ECAs seldom reference grievance mechanisms or require that applicants/clients have a grievance mechanism in place for impacted rights-holders and stakeholders. Furthermore, ECAs tend not to have a grievance mechanism in place for rights- holders and stakeholders to raise concerns about ECA activity or conduct. Whilst it may be the case that concerns can be raised on a case-by-case basis, by and large, formal requirements and relevant procedures are not presently in place.

To ensure effective access to remedy by project-affected individuals and communities, and align the Common Approaches with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the Common Approaches should refer to grievance mechanisms that are compatible with international human rights principles45 both at the project level and the ECA level.

Recommendation: As part of impact assessment and monitoring specifications, the Common Approaches should require applicants/clients to have in place a project-level grievance mechanism and ECAs should monitor the implementation of such grievance mechanisms.

 V. Evaluation, decision and monitoring, new paragraph, following paragraph 27: Members should require ECA supported projects to have in place a project-level grievance mechanism that is accessible to impacted individuals and communities and compatible with the best practice 44 See UN Guiding Principles, especially 22, 27, 28, 29, 31. 45 See UN Guiding Principle 31.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 20 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

principles for non-judicial grievance mechanisms outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The establishment and implementation of such grievance mechanisms should be monitored by the Member.

Recommendation: The Common Approaches should require Members to ensure that a grievance mechanism is in place that can receive complaints from individuals and communities affected by projects supported by the Member’s ECA.

 V. Evaluation, decision and monitoring, new paragraph, following paragraph 30: Members should have in place a grievance mechanism that is accessible to individuals and communities affected by supported projects, in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

4.3.6 Exchange and disclosure of information

Recommendation: To ensure consistency, within the Common Approaches, the exchange and disclosure of information provisions in Chapter VI should be aligned with the above recommendations.

 VI. Exchange and disclosure of information, paragraph 34: Subject to the legal provision on public disclosure in Members’ countries, Members should make available to the public at least annually environmental and social information on projects classified in Category A and Category B for which a Member has made a final commitment with respect to providing official support, including the type of information reviewed and the international standards applied, monitoring information, details concerning grievance mechanisms, and an ECA contact point for obtaining additional information.

 VI. Exchange and disclosure of information, paragraph 35: The ECG shall: o Exchange views on a regular basis with appropriate civil society organisations, including business, industry, banking and trade union associations, national human rights institutions, and other non- governmental organisations, on the operation of the Recommendation.

4.3.7 Reporting and monitoring of the recommendation

Chapter VII, paragraph 39 of the proposed 2011 text further suggests how members can address human rights in relation to the provision of officially supported expert credits.46 The proposed text here, and at paragraph 40, should be adopted to ensure the progressive inclusion of human rights within the ambit of the Common Approaches, and to promote greater coherence between Members, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

46 Draft Council Recommendation, TAD/ECG(2011)9REV, paras. 39 and 40 C, point 4.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 21 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

4.4 Conclusion

The 2011 proposed revision’s suggested amendments for explicit inclusion of references to social risks and impacts, including human rights impacts of the Common Approaches represent an advance on the current 2007 version of the Recommendation.

However, only with further amendments to safeguard human rights in the context of ECA supported projects and activities, as addressed in this submission, will the Common Approaches be adequately aligned with members’ existing obligations under international human rights law, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 22 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

ANNEX I: NHRIs in OECD member states and countries adhering to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

OECD member state NHRI Name of NHRI and its status 1. Australia Y Australia Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission A 2. Austria Y The Austrian Ombudsman Board B 3. Belgium Y Belgium Centre for equal opportunities and opposition to racism B 4. Canada Y Canadian Human Rights Commission A 5. Chile N - 6. Czech Republic Y Czech Republic Ombudsman 7. Denmark Y The Danish Institute for Human Rights A 8. Estonia N - 9. Finland Y Parliamentary Ombudsman of Finland 10. France Y National Consultative Commission of Human Rights A 11. Germany Y The German Institute for Human Rights A

12. Greece Y Greek National Commission for Human Rights A 13. Hungary Y Hungary Parliamentary Commissioner on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities 14. Iceland N - 15. Ireland Y Irish Human Rights Commission A 16. Italy N - 17. Israel N - 18. Japan N - 19. Korea Y Republic of Korea National Human Rights Commission A 20. Luxembourg Y Luxembourg Consultative Commission of Human Rights A 21. Mexico Y Mexico National Human Rights Commission A 22. Netherlands Y Netherlands Equal Treatment Commission B 23. New Zealand Y New Zealand Human Rights Commission A 24. Norway Y Norwegian Centre for Human Rights A 25. Poland Y Poland Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection A 26. Portugal Y Portugal Ombudsman Office A 27. Slovak Republic Y Slovak National Centre for Human Rights B 28. Slovenia Y Slovenia Human Rights Ombudsman B 29. Spain Y Spain The Office of the Ombudsman A 30. Sweden Y Sweden (BO) Children’s Ombudsman A Sweden (DO) The Swedish Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination (DO) A Sweden (HO) The Swedish Disability

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 23 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

OECD member state NHRI Name of NHRI and its status Ombudsman A Sweden (JämO) Ombudsman for Equal Rights A 31. Switzerland Y Switzerland Federal Commission against Racism (FCR) B 32. Turkey N - 33. United Kingdom Y Great Britain, Equality and Human Rights Commission A Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) A 34. United States N -

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 24 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

ANNEX II: Human rights commitments of countries adhering to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

l l f d r l l l s s i d n i

t Countries o 6 e A e A n a h i e h

t 0 s f h a f i

h g m C l i 0

t l o i o

adhering to T m

u

2 9 4 f a r b e f R

i

n h n

7 8 o o a l h o 5 c

OECD o n o t 9 e 9 s i i a I F 6 o i t n t s

f c 1 1 c l , r 9 i c

l a S l o

Guidelines o D n t i

e 1 i t e n n , e t A l

a i t s b h c c e r u n t f t o n i o i r

e m a e r h o m o i t P m 6 i l m w C e g t e P o

o i m 6 n

Signature (S) o E d r p r a s

h 9 o M e R n n p e i P W n n e s i t

1 h o i a a h t

Ratification (R) d t o e h t a e c 0 l n s t s s m n s i i h r

i t n h 9 r u t E O i n r v t a o n i i h D

9 e f c P

n o n d a m 6 g s n 1 C s i

i P d r r

i l o n o n 6 g

6 o

n f e o s e R n o a 0 t a E 9 D

i

n

o c o k t e n l t o i 0 n

l 1 i r r o t e l n e n o a i n i t s 2 a a r i o o t r n t i o h t f e e n i n t u n u c m e t h t n n v t a W e r m l e v a a a g n e t n E i v n t o v u n

n F v o R a o i o e n

R n T o n C

f e

v m a C n o C r t m o r C o e

i o o l o l

s r T r i C l g h C

a f i t s a C t n c

a 9 i

l g n n l n s s M n 8 i m a n a n o

e a o r i i n l o i 9 g o n l t D v i t n o d o t 1 a o a n A a o i n s F a a i

t n r o t r v f n n o n r i r a e a g o o r t o C e

i e n n e t e t P n t N r s t r

t n n e n D e I n e I 0 t h v I t e r 2 n g v n n I i o I n o R o C C CERD ICESCR ICCPR CEDAW CAT CRC CRPD S R S R S R S R S R S R S R S R S R Australia S R S R S R S R S R S R - - - - S R Austria S R S R S R S R S R S R - - S - S R Belgium S R S R S R S R S R S R - - S - S R Canada S R - R - R S R S R S R - - - - S R Chile S R S R S R S R S R S R S R S R S R Czech Republic - R S R - R - R - R - R - - - - S R Denmark S R S R S R S R S R S R - - S R S R Estonia - R - R - R - R - R R - - - - S - Finland S R S R S R S R S R S R - - S - S R France - R - R - R S R S R S R - - S R S R Germany S R S R S R S R S R S R - - S R S -

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 25 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

Greece S R - R - R S R S R S R - - S - S - Hungary S R S R S R S R S R S R - - - - S R Iceland S R S R S R - R S R S R - - S - S - Ireland S R S R S R S R S R S R - S - S - Italy S R S R S R S R S R S R - - S - S R Israel S R S R S R S R S R S R - - - - S - Japan S R S R S R S R S R S R - - S R S - Korea S R - R - R S R - R S R - - - - S R Luxembourg S R S R S R S R S R S R - - S - S - Mexico S R - R - R S R S R S R S R S R S R Netherlands S R S R S R S R S R S R - - S - S - New Zealand S R S R S R S R S R S R - - - - S R Norway S R S R S R S R S R S R - - S - S Poland S R S R S R S R S R S R - - - - S - Portugal - R S R S R S R S R S R - - S - S R Slovak Republic - R - R - R - R - R - R - - S - S R Slovenia - R - R - R - R - R R - - S - S R Spain - R S R S R S R S R S R - - S R S R Sweden S R S R S R S R S R S R - - S - S R Switzerland - R - R - R S R S R S R ------Turkey S R S R S R R S R S R S R - - S R United Kingdom S R S R S R S R S R S R - - - - S R United States S R S - S R S - S R S - - - - - S - Sources: 1. Review of OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: Submission of International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions. Annex 1. 2. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 21 Dec 1965: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx? src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-2&chapter=4&lang=en 3. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966: http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&lang=en 4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3&chapter=4&lang=en 5. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV- 8&chapter=4&lang=en

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 26 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

6. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 10 Dec 1984: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en 7. Convention on the Rights of the Child 20 Nov 1989: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en 8. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families 18 Dec 1990: http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-13&chapter=4&lang=en 9. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance 20 Dec 2006: http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-16&chapter=4&lang=en 10. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 13 Dec 2006: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV- 15&chapter=4&lang=e

OECD Common Approaches: Submission of ICC of NHRIs, December 2011 27 INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (ICC)

Annex III: Export Credit Agencies Considered in desk-top review

Australia (Export Finance and Insurance Corporation) Austria (Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG) Belgium (Office National du Ducroire/Nationale Delcrederedienst) Canada (Export Development Canada) Czech Republic (Export Guarantee and Insurance Corporation) Denmark (Eksport Kredit Fonden) Finland (Finnvera Oyj) Germany (AuslandsGeschaeftsAbsicherung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland) Hungary (Hungarian Export Credit Insurance Ltd) Japan (Nippon Export and Investment Insurance) Korea (Korea Export Insurance Corporation) Netherlands (Atradius) Norway (Norwegian Guarantee Institute for Export Credits) United Kingdom (Export Credits Guarantee Department) United States (Export-Import bank of the United States)

28