Case story

  • Georgia

CAO Case - Georgia / BTC Pipeline-11 / Tsikhisjvari

Green Alternative Complaint Regarding BTC Pipeline, Tsikhisjvari, Georgia 2004

This case story originates from BASESwiki.org, a platform based on wiki style contributions from a virtual network or individuals, companies and organizations with relevant expertise. Though some of the information may be outdated or inaccurate due to the wiki-nature of the BASESwiki platform, they still present a valuable resource. ACCESS is reviewing and updating all BASESwiki case stories. 

Story

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 Action

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.


Outcome

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.

References

CAO case story page: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/case_detail.aspx?id=54

Contributor(s): This article was modified by Nicolaclayre (3), Pic1 (1), and Kyle (1).