Case story

  • Finland

Parties

OECD NCP Finland - Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente (CEDHA) vs. Botnia S.A.

Botnia's Orion pulp mill project in Uruguay

This case story originates from BASESwiki.org, a platform based on wiki style contributions from a virtual network or individuals, companies and organizations with relevant expertise. Though some of the information may be outdated or inaccurate due to the wiki-nature of the BASESwiki platform, they still present a valuable resource. ACCESS is reviewing and updating all BASESwiki case stories. 

Story

CEDHA’s complaint alleges that Botnia’s Orion pulp mill project will impact local communities’ economic livelihoods and human rights. The complainants maintain that the project is plagued with environmental problems, including the company’s failure to collect and provide reliable information about the project’s real and foreseeable impacts. The complaint also states that the project is straining regional diplomatic relations between Argentina and Uruguay. Two related complaints have been filed. A case against the Export Credit Agency Finnvera which is supporting the project was filed with the Finnish NCP. A case against Nordea, a financer of the project was submitted to the Swedish and Norwegian NCPs.

Outcome

The Finnish NCP invited CEDHA to a meeting on 30 August 2006 in Helsinki to discuss all three complaints. In a December 2006 statement, the Finnish NCP concluded that the evidence presented did not prove that Botnia had failed to comply with the Guidelines.

Botnia S.A/Metsä-Botnia Oy was thought to be committed to enhancing sustainable development in all of its business operations, improving its operations on a continuous basis, and doing business in a responsible manner. The Finnish NCP Reasoned that because Botnia S.A has stated it adheres to the principles of the UN Global Compact it is ensured that the company will use acceptable methods and adhere to internationally acceptable practices also in the future work on the project.

Also, the NCP found it important that the Uruguayan Government has not questioned the investment and instead has supported it because of economic and other benefits. In response, CEDHA lodged two complaints with the OECD’s Investment Committee and Finland’s Parliamentary Ombudsman concerning the Finnish NCP’s decision to reject the complaint in January 2007. In February 2007, the Finnish NCP refused to review its decision.

References

OECD Watch case story page: http://oecdwatch.org/cases/Case_86