corporate_banner_en

Ambatovy Nickel Project

    •  Display in:
    • en
  • Available in: en
Reference: SG/E/2012/04
Received Date: 09/05/2012
Case Name: Ambatovy Nickel Project
Complainant: Les Vergers De Madagascar (VDM) and Fikambanan’ny Mpamboly sy Mpiompy Tantely (FMMT)
Allegations:

Disappearance of bees, environmental and social impacts of the plant not properly mitigated




*Admissibility date reflects the date the case was officially registered. All other dates pertain to the date in which a stage was completed.


Case Description 

Complaint

In 2012, the European Investment Bank’s Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) received a complaint concerning the Ambatovy project, a nickel mining project in Madagascar. The project is partially financed by the European Investment Bank (EIB). The complaint consists of a number of allegations concerning the project’s impact on the environment, health and safety of the workers and the affected population as well as the resettlement carried out under the framework of the project.

EIB-CM Action

In 2018, the EIB-CM completed the Conclusions Report. The EIB-CM grouped the conclusions reached concerning the received allegations into one of the three categories depending on the compliance of the project with the applicable standards.

Most of the allegations fall under Category 1, i.e. the EIB-CM concluded that in respect to those allegations the project complies with the applicable standards.

There are four Category 2 allegations, meaning that at the time of the complaint the project encountered challenges in compliance with the applicable standards, but these challenges have since been resolved.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Finally, the EIB-CM concluded that the project is not yet fully compliant with the applicable standards in respect to two allegations, which, therefore, fall under Category 3. The EIB-CM concluded that:

  • the water contaminated by the tailings facility does not comply with the applicable standards
  • there are occasional leaks of SO2 exceeding applicable standards and it is inconclusive whether the implementation of the emergency preparedness and response system in respect to SO2 is fully satisfactory.

In respect to the monitoring carried out by the EIB, the EIB-CM concluded that the EIB fulfilled this obligation as required, albeit with one exception. The EIB did not include the project in the implementation problem list (IPL), although there were sufficient reasons to do so.

Therefore, the EIB-CM recommended to the EIB to include the project in the IPL, prepare an action plan for the aspects of the project where the applicable standards are not yet complied with and follow up on the plan’s implementation.


Project Information 

Documents


 Print