Home > Press releases > 2002
30 Aug 2002
BP and other oil companies have demanded an extraordinary and outrageous deal, giving them complete freedom from regulation for a pipeline they propose to build across Turkey.
The planned 1760km oil pipeline is backed by BP (UK), Unocal (US) Statoil (Norway), Turkiye Petroleum (Turkey), ENI (Italy), TotalFinaElf (France), Itochu Oil (Japan), Delta Hess (US/Saudi Arabia) and the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan. It would stretch from Baku on the Caspian Sea, through T'blisi in Georgia, to Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. Slated for completion in 2005, it would operate for at least 40 years.
The BP-Turkey agreement, known as the Host Government Agreement (HGA),
creates a corridor running through some of Turkey's most politically
volatile regions. The corridor would effectively be outside the national
government's jurisdiction for the lifetime of the proposed project.
The HGA was published in Turkey's Official Gazette on
10 September 2000 but only recently obtained and analyzed by a group
of NGOs (FOEI, CRBM, Cornerhouse, KHRP, PLATFORM, CEE Bankwatch Network,
Ilisu Dam Campaign). It exempts the companies from obligations under
any current or future Turkish law that may threaten the project's profits,
including environmental, social and human rights legislation. The only
Turkish law not superseded by the agreement is the Constitution. [1]
The HGA allows the consortium building the pipeline to demand unlimited
protection from Turkish security forces, without safeguards against
human rights abuses. Under the vague wording of the agreement, paramilitary
units could be placed along the pipeline route to pre-empt "civil disturbance"
or "terrorist" activities. Since the pipeline cuts repeatedly through
villages and bisects established ownership patterns, people could find
themselves cut off from their families or land and be forced to trespass
regularly on oil company property in their daily lives.
Other provisions in the HGA include unfettered access to water, regardless
of the needs of local communities, and exemption from liability in the
event of an oil spill or any other harm caused by the pipeline consortium.
The Turkish government can intervene only temporarily in the case of
an "imminent" and "material" threat to the public, the environment or
national security.
But what would constitute such a threat remains undefined. Nor is
it clear who would decide whether such a threat existed. Local communities
and neighbouring countries appear to be left without recourse for damages.
The route chosen for the pipeline is one of the most expensive possible
for Caspian oil exports. According to BP Chairman John Browne, its profitability
will be dependent on 'free public money' [2] - much of which will come
from funding sources like the World Bank and export credit agencies.
The legal agreement signed with the Turkish government further props
up the project by preventing the Turkish government from taking any
actions that could disrupt its "economic equilibrium".
The NGOs have slammed the agreement as "colonialist" and reminiscent of the discredited
OECD proposal for a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) which was rejected in
1998.[3]
Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth commented: "This is a clear example
of why the Earth Summit must deliver global rules on corporate accountability. Left
to their own devices, corporations are quite happy to put profits before people.
BP wants to waive the rules, destroying the environment and trampling on the
rights of local communities with impunity."
Nick Hildyard of the Cornerhouse commented: "Turkey is now divided
into three countries", "the area where Turkish law applies; the Kurdish
areas under official or de facto military rule; and a strip running
the entire length of the country, where BP is the effective government.
The MAI was rightly rejected by governments for eroding national
sovereignty under pressure from civil society," said Nick Hildyard
of the Corner House. "Now these companies are trying to revive the
MAI by negotiating directly with undemocratic governments." Anders
Lustgarten of the Kurdish Human Rights Project commented that Turkey
"has recently charged students signing a Kurdish education petition
with membership of an illegal terrorist organisation, and charged a
father who named his daughter after a Kurdish character in a popular
soap with sabotage of the state. "These precedents do
not instil confidence in the way such nebulous terms as 'civil disturbance'
and 'terrorism' will be applied under this agreement."
Similar agreements between governments and the oil companies have also been negotiated for Georgia and Azerbaijan. Commenting on the implications for Georgia, Manana Kochladze of Green Alternatives stated: "The requirement to compensate the consortium for any disruption caused to the 'economic equilibrium' of the project by new social and environmental laws severely curtails the development possibilities for our country."
[1] For a detailed analysis of the Host Government Agreement, contact
the press office of FOE in London.
[2] Financial Times, "Wisdom of Baku Pipeline Queried", 4th
November 1998.
[3] Negotiated in secret, the MAI was roundly rejected by national parliaments
and the public after its contents were leaked to non-governmental organisations
and broadcast on the internet. The agreement would have empowered private
investors to extract compensation from foreign governments for legislation
that adversely affected their investments, regardless of the public
interest. The HGA has similar provisions.
Contact details:
Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood St.
LONDON
N1 7JQ
Tel: 020 7490 1555
Fax: 020 7490 0881
Web: www.foe.co.uk/feedback.html
Media team
