Sideways News

Oil giant BP is being sued in the High Court by 95 Colombian peasant farmers, who claim the construction of an 830km pipeline has destroyed crops and water supplies, rendering the land unsuitable for the subsistence farming upon which they and their families depend.

The accusations
The farmers, or campesinos – many of whom are illiterate – allege that they were misled during initial consultations and claim that they were not offered compensation commensurate with the level of damage that was caused. An environmental impact assessment carried out prior to the construction "wholly failed to identify the scale and severity of the adverse consequences", court documents state.

BP is accused of negligence in failing to effectively mitigate the environmental impact of the construction, which the Claimants’ lawyers affirm was their responsibility as Project Operators. In particular, failure to revegetate the soil adequately is said to have led to “a very significant degree of soil erosion”, causing landslides and contaminating water supplies.

The documents go on to claim that “the water has become unsuitable for animal or human consumption and has rendered farming on the land extremely difficult”, to the extent that “the region has been profoundly and adversely affected causing many farms to close or drastically reduce production and causing some farmers to leave the land".

Duty of care
In response to this, BP denies that it “owes any relevant duty of care” to the claimants, stating that it “did not design, construct or operate the pipeline” and was “at no stage responsible for its maintenance". The company refutes liability for long-term environmental damage, blaming deforestation and cattle grazing for soil erosion and dismissing claims of widespread environmental damage as “significantly inflated".

BP also alleges that, since the farmers accepted compensation at the outset, they have compromised any further claim, and that any oral or written agreements do not constitute binding contracts under Colombian law.

BP Exploration discovered two oil fields in Colombia in 1998 and 1992 and joined forces with the state-owned Ecopetrol and four other multinationals in construction of the OCENSA pipeline (Oleoducto Central S.A.) in 1995, which carries the crude oil from the central Casanare region across 40 municipalities and 192 villages to the northern port of Coveñas, from where it is transported globally.

The route crosses the volatile Department of Antioquia, where the OCENSA pipe has become a target for guerrilla groups at war with paramilitaries thought to be contracted by the Colombian government to defend it.

Previous settlements
Marta Hinestroza, a local lawyer who was granted political asylum in the UK after being told that her name had appeared on a paramilitary hitlist, first brought the case to the attention of Leigh Day & Co solicitors, who negotiated an out-of-court settlement for a separate group of farmers in 2006. BP admitted no liability in that instance.

Paul Dowling, a solicitor for Leigh Day – the firm that recently won damages from oil traders Trafigura for claimants in the Ivory Coast – told Sideways News: “Colombia isn’t an environment where people are quick to challenge the actions of a multinational company. There are certain dangers associated with questioning authority."

The claimants' stories
In a country where 50% of the population are living below the poverty line, Claimant Jorge Mieles was keen to believe he would be fairly compensated: “I was made to understand that I would share in the profit of the pipeline and that my quality of life would improve dramatically. I was told that in time my house would not even be good enough to keep my pigs in."

Mieles is unlikely to be so trusting in future. “I feel like I have been abused”, he reflected. “The constructors of the pipeline knew that they were dealing with an uneducated population. They shouldn’t use their knowledge to cheat peasant farmers. The greatest impact I have suffered is to my water supply. A farm without water is a dead farm. My life has changed.”

Can a positive out possibly compensate?
But if the case is successful, can these farmers ever recover what they say they have lost? Oscar Barrios Dimas, whose father Jose Gabino Barrios is claiming damages, hopes to feel “partly compensated” but went on to admit: “in
another sense, I feel that it is impossible to recuperate what we had. For example, the local lake and the lifestyle that we had will never be returned to us.”

Of course, there’s a wider issue at stake. This is a landmark case and, if the court finds in favour of the claimants, it could act as a warning for multinationals to act with a greater sense of social and environmental responsibility. Oscar Barrios Dimas, whose father is claiming damages, hopes that the case “will send a message to companies that we campesinos have rights that we can exercise".

SIDEWAYS News for fresh perspectives