Case story

  • Russia

CAO Case - Russia / Russkiy Mir II-02 / Taman

Resident Complaint Regarding JSC SFAT, Russia 2008

This case story originates from, 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 Though some of the information may be outdated or inaccurate due to the wiki-nature of the BASESwiki platform, they still present a valuable resource.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. 


The Russkiy Mir II project involves an IFC loan of up to $100 million to develop and build the Taman LPG/Fuel Oil terminal and port in the Black Sea, to purchase and expand rail maintenance facilities, to purchase locomotives and rail cars, and to purchase a wheel-making / spare-parts manufacturer and other rail-related infrastructure. In February 2008, a farmer living next to the project site lodged a complaint with CAO expressing concern about the proximity of a gas pipeline near his home. The complainant believes that the location of the pipeline violates Russian legislation and jeopardizes the safety and well being of his family. He requested that the company relocate him to a new location, or that it compensate him for suffering endured as a result of the situation.

CAO Action

CAO Ombudsman team conducted an assessment and site visit in March 2008, and held meetings with the complainant and his family to discuss the concerns. An NGO representing the complainant – Save Taman! – committed to assisting the complainant in scheduling a meeting directly with Russkiy Mir management so that the parties could discuss the situation directly. CAO monitored this verbal agreement, and reported the outcome to Russkiy Mir management.


Case Status: Closed

Several months following the Ombudsman assessment trip, the complainant reported to CAO that the NGO no longer represented his interests, and requested a withdrawal of his case from the CAO complaint handling process. In order to ensure there are no outstanding issues regarding this complaint, the CAO transferred the case to CAO compliance for appraisal. The complainant’s name remains confidential at his request. CAO Compliance conducted an appraisal and concluded that an audit of IFC was not merited. The case is closed.


CAO Case Story page:

Contributor(s): This article was modified by Nicolaclayre (2), Pic1 (1), and Kyle (1).