메뉴 건너뛰기

참여연대 공식일정+ 더보기

PSPD    People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

  • Int. Solidarity
  • 2019.06.17
  • 1096

Summary of the Complaint for the Xe-pian Xe-namnoy Dam Collapse 

 

 

[Parties]

 

1. Complainant: 

  • < Korean Civil Society Task Force Team for the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Dam Collapse> is a network of Korean NGOs formed in response to the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Dam Collapse.

 

2. Respondents:

  • Respondent 1: The Export-Import Bank of Korea
    • Respondent 1 was entrusted with the management of the Economic Development Cooperation Fund (EDCF) by the Korean government. With regard to the present case, it acted in capacity of the manager of the EDCF. 
    • In addition, as explained in detail below, Respondent 1 engaged in commercial activities gaining economic profit by acting as financial advisor to the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy project and receiving remuneration for such services. 
  • Respondent 2: SK E&C Co. Ltd.
  • Respondent 3: Korea Western Power Co. Ltd.

 

[Violation of the Guidelines]

 

1. Summary

  • <Poor Design and Construction (Respondent 2)> was the main cause of the collapse. Human lives and property of the local population were destroyed on account of the collapse, constituting “infringing on the human rights of others”, “adverse human rights impacts caused by business activities” and failure to “collect and evaluate adequate and timely information regarding the environmental, health, and safety impacts of business activities.” 
  • <Inadequate response at the time and in the aftermath of the collapse (Respondent 2,3)> constitutes “infringing on the human rights”, “adverse human rights impacts caused by business activities”, failure to “carry out human rights due diligence on adverse human rights impacts” and failure to “maintain contingency plans for preventing, mitigating, and controlling serious environmental and health damage from their operations, including accidents and emergencies.” 
  • <Inadequate human rights due diligence in the course of management of the EDCF and performance of financial advisory services (Respondent 1)> constitutes “adverse human rights impacts caused by business activities” and failure to “prevent and mitigate adverse human rights impacts linked to their business operations by a business relationship.” 

 

2. Violations of guidelines on human rights, environment, and general policies provisions

  • Respondent 2: Problems in Design and Construction
  • Respondents 2, 3: Failure to take adequate measures at the time of collapse
    • The respondents and PNPC discovered critical defects to the dam several days prior to the collapse. Even though they were not able to implement any substantial repairs, they requested evacuation of the local population only on the day of the collapse when the dam had already sunk by 1 meter.
    • In light of the above, the fact that respondent 2 and 3 did not consider the circumstances and geographical distribution of the population and local conditions and did not request evacuation of the local population before the day of the collapse constitutes “infringing on the human rights”, “adverse human rights impacts caused by business activities”, failure to “carry out human rights due diligence on adverse human rights impacts” and failure to “maintain contingency plans for preventing, mitigating, and controlling serious environmental and health damage from their operations, including accidents and emergencies.”
  • Respondents 2, 3: Failure to take emergency release of water in a timely manner 
    • The saddle dam that collapsed also had a flood spillway. However, Respondent 2 and 3 only started activating the emergency spillway on July 22, 2018 at 9:00pm. They failed to timely open the emergency spillway by activating it a day earlier even though on July 20 there was heavy rainfall and sinking of the dam. The failure to decide on emergency water release even though having been aware of the initial danger of overflow also constitutes negligence in commissioning procedure of the dam. 
  • Respondents 2, 3 :  Did not undertake preventive measures
    • The environmental impact assessment report pointed out that it is necessary to devise an Environmental Emergency Response Plan which is a type of EAP (Emergency Action Plan) to provide against natural disasters, especially floods during construction and operation (the environmental impact assessment report, pp 299, 312). However, neither respondent 2 nor 3 provided any report on whether such plan was devised, trained and/or such plan or system was actually implemented prior to the collapse.  
  • Respondent 1: Did not properly assess adverse risks in management of the EDCF and in performance of the financial advisory agreement
    • It is known that Respondent 1, under the financial advisory agreement, reviewed documents including agreements relating to the project and reports by consultants, provided support in communicating and negotiating with potential lenders, provided advice in drafting financial documents such as term sheets, and support in fulfilling prerequisites to withdrawal. 
    • Respondent 1 in relation to the loan agreements entered into by Respondents 2 and 3, should have reviewed various licensing processes and reports by various consultants including the environmental impact assessment report and provided adequate and accurate opinions. Specifically, Respondent 1 should have identified necessary measures to be undertaken by the commissioner and the constructor per the environmental impact assessment report and confirmed whether such measures were actually implemented. However, even though the environmental impact assessment report explicitly stated that an EAP including a disaster risk reduction plan and environmental risk response plan should be devised, it appears that Respondent 1 failed to make necessary assessments or monitor, meaning that it failed to carry out due diligence in spite of being aware of the risks. Therefore, Respondent 1 “contributed” to adverse human rights impacts caused by Respondents 2 and 3.

 

3. Violation of disclosure provision

  • Respondents 2, 3 : Refuses to meet with civil society after the dam collapse and maintains silence on disclosure of information requests
  • Respondents 2 : Merely contradicts the result of investigation committee without providing any detailed data
  • Respondent 1 : Does not have a general policy about disclosure of information relating to the EDCF and fails to disclose information relating to the present case

 

4. Requests to the NCP

  • We request to the Korean NCP to take sufficient, appropriate measures for the victims in line with the OECD guidelines 
 
 
지금 내가 할 수 있는 참여와 행동에 동참해주세요
참여연대 회원가입·후원하기
목록
제목 날짜
Sign Korea Peace Appeal Now! 2020.07.30
PSPD Annual Report 2019 2020.06.23
The 20th Anniversary Declaration of PSPD 2019.07.20
How to find PSPD? 2012.11.17
About PSPD 2017.06.09
[Annual Report 2018] Monitoring Economic and Financial Power   2019.07.09
[Joint Statement] Call for the renewal of the mandate of the SOGI IE   2019.07.08
[Statement] GPPAC welcomes historic meeting at the DMZ   2019.07.04
[Open Letter] The Peace Process on the Korean Peninsula should proceed without in...   2019.06.27
PSPD English Newsletter, June 2019   2019.06.25
[Summary] NCP Complaint for the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy Dam Collapse   2019.06.17
[Annual Report 2018] Studying Civic Movement and Democracy, Institute for a Parti...   2019.06.10
[Annual Report 2018] Learn the Challenges, Academy “Neutinamu”   2019.06.10
[Annual Report 2018] Youth Life Can Be Better   2019.06.10
[Annual Report 2018] Personal Information is Not for Sale.   2019.06.03
[Annual Report 2018] We Watch Abuse of Power and Corruption from National Institu...   2019.06.03
[Statement] Investigation confirms Xepian Xenamnoy Dam collapse not a “force maje...   2019.05.30
[Annual Report 2018] We demand defense and foreign policies appropriate to the er...   2019.05.22
[Annual Report 2018] We Want Responsible International Development Cooperation   2019.05.22
PSPD English Newsletter, May 2019   2019.05.20
© k2s0o1d4e0s2i1g5n. Some Rights Reserved