|Oil infrastructure project in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey|
|Lead NCP||United Kingdom|
|Supporting NCP(s)||France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, United States|
|Description||Specific instance notified by several NGOs regarding the activities of BTC Corporation operating in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.|
|Theme(s)||Concepts and principles, Disclosure, Environment, General policies|
|Date||29 Apr 2003|
|Host country(ies)||Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey|
|Industry sector||Transportation and storage|
The UK NCP issued three statements related to this specific instance:
In April 2003, the UK NCP received a request for review from several NGOs alleging that BTC Corporation (BTC) had breached the concepts and principles, general policies, disclosure, and environment provisions of the Guidelines in relation with the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, an oil infrastructure project crossing Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. The NGOs also contacted the French, German and US NCPs with regard to their concerns. The UK NCP lead the work on this specific instance with input and close co-ordination with the other NCPs involved.*
The NGOs specifically alleged that the company exerted undue influence on the regulatory framework, sought and accepted exemptions related to social, labour, tax and environmental laws, failed to operate in a manner contributing to the wider goals of sustainable development, failed to adequately consult with communities affected by the project and undermined the host governments' ability to mitigate serious threat to the environment and human health & safety.
* the German and French NCPs independently assessed the NGO's request.
In December 2003 the French NCP requested that the NGOs reformulate their request. The NGOs did not respond and the NCP concluded its involvement in 2007.
The German NCP assessed whether or not the allegations applied to the German subsidiary the NGOs had referenced in their request, and found that it had not been involved in the consortium in question or in any other part of the project. In its decision of July 2003, the German NCP found that a subsidiary company cannot be held generally responsible for the activities of its parent company.