CAO, Green Alternative Complaint Regarding BTC Pipeline, Tsikhisjvari, Georgia 2004
|CAO, Green Alternative Complaint Regarding BTC Pipeline, Tsikhisjvari, Georgia 2004|
|Company:||Baku Tiblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline|
|Case Type:||Oil, Gas, Mining, & Chemicals|
|Sector:||Oil, Gas & Mining|
|Title:||CAO, Green Alternative Complaint Regarding BTC Pipeline, Tsikhisjvari, Georgia 2004|
|Participants:||CAO, IFC, Baku Tiblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline, Green Alternative|
|Synopsis:||The complaint alleged that he was promised and did not receive compensation for construction trucks travelling over his pasture in the construction of an oil and gas pipeline.|
|Original Author: Compliance Advisor / Ombudsman of the World Bank|
|Case Story Website:|
The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil and gas pipeline is a 1,768 km long crude oil pipeline stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. It is the second longest oil pipeline in the world and passes through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. IFC has invested $250 million since 2003 and the total project cost is approximately $3.6 billion. The project is operated by BTC Co., which comprises a consortium of 11 partners. To date, CAO has received 33 complaints in relation to the project ranging from individuals to communities to local organizations. In May 2004, the CAO received seven complaints related to the BTC pipeline project in Georgia, filed by a Georgian NGO named Green Alternative on behalf of affected residents. Among the complaints was a claim from an individual in Tsikhisjvari, who alleged that BTC construction vehicles drove across his pasture on a regular basis for which he was promised compensation that was never received.
CAO accepted the complaint for further assessment on June 8, 2004 and released an assessment report in September 2004. The report recommended independent facilitation to help the parties reach an agreeable solution. CAO also attempted to facilitate negotiations between the complainant and BTC Co.
Date of Last Action: 2006/06/16
Case Status: Closed
Despite considerable effort, the CAO was unable to help the parties reach a settlement in this dispute, and the complaint was closed on June 16, 2006.