Belgium Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Didier Reynders, is on an official mission in DR-Congo and Rwanda. He should be meeting DRC President Joseph Kabila this afternoon in Lubumbashi. This will be his second official visit to Kinshasa; he first visited the country in March 2012.
As expected, discussions will be centered on the war in Eastern DRC.
However national and international civil society actors hope that this visit will not go by, without addressing the recent analysis[1] on how the oil exploration and possible oil exploitation in Virunga National Park could exacerbate the war in Eastern DRC and be one of its main causes.
An increasing number of politicians and international organizations are pointing to the recent oil strikes in Eastern DRC as one of the major triggers for the resurgence of the conflict in the Great Lakes, and the destruction of the Virunga National Park, one of the most valuable ecosystems in the Albertine Rift, providing services and livelihoods to thousands of rural communities and a UNESCO World Heritage site.
So far, Minister Reynders, has been actively engaging in this discussion with his fellow parliamentarians[2]. In a letter, he also brought this issue under the attention of his British Homologue, William Hague, expressing his concerns about the fact that SOCO, a UK company, is still pushing oil exploration in this World heritage site and has not yet complied with national and international laws on this regard.
More information:
CRIV 53 PLEN 100 13/07/2012 / CHAMBRE-3E SESSION DE LA 53E LÉGISLATURE 2011 2012 KAMER-3E ZITTING VAN DE 53E ZITTINGSPERIODE
01.10 Minister Didier Reynders:
Pour en venir aux questions relatives au parc des Virunga, nous ne sommes pas membre effectif du Comité du Patrimoine mondial mais nous avons suivi de près la situation des parcs naturels.
Je rappelle que ce Comité, avec le soutien de la France, a appelé Total et Soco à respecter les mêmes règles que celles suivies par Shell et ICMM. À la demande de la France, nous avons ajouté que Total s’était engagée à suivre une politique de non-exploitation à l’intérieur du parc. Par contre, nous n’avons pas encore reçu d’information sur la réaction de Soco à cet appel de l’UNESCO. Comme je l’ai promis au président de la commission, M. de Donnea, j’ai écrit à mon collègue William Hague qui m’a répondu partager la même préoccupation en me disant que les compagnies britanniques doivent respecter les législations environnementales nationales mais également les normes internationales.
Pour ce qui est des allégations de corruption de représentants locaux par Soco pour obtenir illégalement l’accès au parc, mon collègue rappelle dans sa réponse que le Royaume-Uni a une législation très contraignante en matière de lutte contre la corruption et que toutes les compagnies britanniques qui ont recours à la corruption sont passibles de poursuites en vertu de cette loi, même quand leurs activités sont menées à l’étranger.
À ma demande, notre représentante permanente auprès de l’UNESCO a à nouveau exprimé, lors de la réunion du Comité du Patrimoine mondial à Saint-Pétersbourg, nos préoccupations concernant les développements dans le parc des Virunga. Elle a également souligné le versement d’une éventuelle contribution financière de la Coopération au Développement belge au Fonds fiduciaire des aires protégées.
Je vais continuer à agir dans ce sens.
01.17 Georges Dallemagne (cdH):
Monsieur le président, monsieur le ministre, merci pour votre réponse détaillée et votre implication dans ce dossier, important et lourd sur le plan humain.
D’abord, deux coïncidences.
D’une part, je ne peux m’empêcher de penser qu’il existe un lienentre la découverte de pétrole dans le parc des Virunga et la résurgence de ce conflit; au contraire, le lien doit être très fort. On voit bien à quel point le pétrole n’est pas une opportunité actuellement dans l’Est du Congo, mais, au contraire, une source de conflit supplémentaire au-de là du danger qu’il comporte pour l’environnement dans le parc des Virunga.
Source: www.lachambre.be/doc/PCRI/pdf/53/ip100.pdf
[2] Parlamentarian debate 13th July 2012 and SV Post – British-and-french-oil-companies-destroying-a-world-heritage-what-are-their-governments-saying/
SAVE VIRUNGA 
In reference to the above article, we would like to make a few points clear:
SOCO International plc (SOCO)’s involvement in ‘Block V’ is at the express invitation of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Government.
SOCO adheres to all the DRC’s environmental preservation regulations, which include the continual use of environmental impact studies at each stage of any of our activities. We are also working closely with the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation (‘ICCN’).
We would like to emphasise that we are at the preliminary phase of exploration for possible hydrocarbons and, even if successful, we are several years away from concluding our scientific research. At this stage, no drilling has been planned.
We intend for our positive social impact on the ‘Block V’ surroundings to far outweigh any minor environmental impact that we may have. It is absolutely our intention to have a positive social impact on the local communities’ lives, so we can truly say as an organisation that we have been a positive presence.
We have already been in dialogue with many local stakeholders to understand their needs and priorities.
SOCO international’s responsibility does not end with adhering to the DRC’s environmental preservation regulations. SOCO wants to drill for oil in a National Park and World Heritage Site – and such activities are illegal. Soco International will have to adhere to international laws and business standards, such as the UN Global Compact’s ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption:
“Business must ensure that its operations are consistent with the legal principles applicable in the country of operation. If national law falls short of international standards, companies should strive to meet international standards and not infringe on human rights. In the rare situation that national law directly conflicts with international standards, companies are not expected to violate national laws. Instead, there may be other ways to support the spirit of international human rights standards.
Importantly, the corporate responsibility to respect exists independently of States’ human rights duties. Among other things, this means that businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights whether they are operating in an area of weak governance or in a more stable context. In areas where there is weak governance, the risks of infringing human rights may be greater because of the context. …
Because the responsibility to respect is a baseline expectation, a company cannot compensate for infringing human rights in one aspect of their business by performing good deeds elsewhere, such as through philanthropic acts, supporting human rights in other areas or by good performance on other issues, such as the environment.”
Source: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/principle1.html