BAKU-CEYHAN PROJECT BREAKS GROUND, FAILS TO ALLAY RESERVATIONS
Press Release from KHRP, Corner House, Ilisu Dam Campaign
September 18, 2002: The elaborate formal ground-breaking
ceremony for the Baku-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline project, featuring a battery of
dignitaries including the presidents of Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia and
the US Energy Secretary, takes place in Baku today against a backdrop of unanswered
questions.
Widespread concern, including several articles in major media outlets, has
already been raised over the “colonialist” implications of the
Host Government Agreement (HGA), the contract signed between Turkey and BTC
Co., the consortium of oil companies--led by BP--backing the BTC project.
The agreement exempts the oil companies from all domestic Turkish legislation,
both extant and future, bar the constitution.
The HGA also forces Turkey to pay compensation to BTC Co. in the event that
the project’s “Economic Equilibrium” is disrupted, and creates
a corridor through some of Turkey’s most volatile regions which is outside
the control of the Turkish polity, effectively dividing Turkey into three
countries.
A Fact-Finding Mission to the region last month, undertaken by a coalition
of concerned international NGOs, discovered further deficiencies in the planning,
design and implementation of the BTC project. These include issues of consultation,
compensation and resettlement, and the treatment of ethnic minorities in the
region, as well as the socio-political context in which the project is taking
place.
Consultation: The
BP Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) claims to have consulted, either
directly or by telephone, approximately 270 communities within or near the
pipeline corridor [1]. Yet
of the rural settlements visited by the FFM – all of them both directly
affected by the pipeline and on the BTC/BOTAS list as having been consulted
– only half have, in fact, received any form of consultation at all
[2].
One ‘community’ [3],
recorded as having been consulted by telephone, had been deserted for many
years. Houses had fallen into ruins; there were neither telephones nor anyone
to answer them. Less than one-quarter of the FFM’s sample of other concerned
parties had been officially informed about the project [4].
Questionnaires distributed are vague, skewed, fail to provide adequate information
and discourage objections to the project. Responsibility for liaising with
affected communities rests on the construction contractor, an obvious conflict
of interest.
The FFM therefore found the BTC project in violation of four World Bank guidelines
on consultation [5].
Compensation: BTC
Co.’s insistence, in contradiction to earlier claims, on compensating
only formally registered landowners, plus the absence of up-to-date land surveys,
means that only a tiny fraction of land users will be compensated. Since many
of the registered landowners are dead, and their descendants can only access
their compensatory accounts through impossibly costly court action, BTC Co.
will be paying the dead while depriving the living.
There is strong evidence to suggest that compensation amounts will be far
below market value, and there are no public funds available to those who wish
to challenge their valuations. Turkey’s high inflation rates mean that
expected delays in payment will nullify compensation even further.
The FFM therefore found the BTC project in violation of at least two World
Bank guidelines on compensation, those on Involuntary Resettlement and Indigenous
Peoples.
Ethnic groups and social context:
Although the BTC travels through regions with large Kurdish and Çerkez
ethnic populations, at no point does the EIA name such minorities, nor does
it discuss the implications of the presence of ethnic minorities for the project.
The lack of freedom of expression in the region invalidates the entire concept
of free consultation and discussion. The Turkish polity's powerful commitment
to an ideology of civic unity and the "indivisible integrity" of
the state has been associated with the often brutal repression of political
and cultural expressions of ethnic minority identity.
Limitations on Kurdish cultural expression also make proper consultation impossible.
No written Kurdish documents on the proposals are available, for example,
since broadcasting or publishing in Kurdish was banned until August 2002.
Those interviewed by foreign delegations are fully aware that dissenters are
likely to be visited by police or village guards (korucular), and so may modify
their responses accordingly.
BTC and BOTAS make no reference to the delicate socio-political context in
which they operate.
For further information, please contact Anders Lustgarten on 020 7405-3835, or at alustgarten@khrp.org
[1] BTC Project EIA, Supplement II Series
C: Social Baseline Maps.
[2] The FFM’s sample is, of course,
small, and the FFM does not suggest that it is representative of the whole
route. However, for a random sample to find so many communities wrongly reported
as having been consulted is very worrying.
[3] Haçibayram village in Erzincan
province, marked on Map 20 C of the EIA's Supplement II Series C: Social Baseline
Maps
[4] These were not explicitly identified
by BTC/BOTAS as having been consulted, but belong to the "stakeholder"
groups identified on p. A1-16 of the EIA. This group included three journalists,
two mayors, representatives of two political parties, two lawyers, and an
NGO.
[5] Operational Policies on Consultation,
4.01Environmental Assessment, 4.04 Natural Habitats, 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement
and 4.20 Indigenous Peoples.
For further information please contact: Kerim Yildiz, Executive Director / Philip Leach, Legal Director / Angela Debnath, Public Relations Officer Kurdish Human Rights Project on the address below.
Please e-mail KHRP at khrp@khrp.org,
to be placed on our Press Release mailing list.
