Total sued for acts of its subcontractors in Uganda

Total in unpublished legal territory. The oil giant became, Thursday, December 12, the first multinational in the world to have to answer to the French courts actions of one of its subsidiaries and a subcontractor. The group is accused by six NGOs of having failed in its vigilance in setting up a gigantic oil project in Uganda with heavy social and environmental consequences.

The environmental associations Les Amis de la terre and Survie, as well as four Ugandan NGOs, relied on a French law unique in the world to drag Total to the tribunal de grande instance of Nanterre. Adopted in 2017, after four years of battles between NGOs and industrial lobbies, this law on the "duty of care" of multinationals was the French response to the tragedy of Rana Plaza. The building that collapsed in Bangladesh in 2013 resulted in the death of hundreds of workers working for major Western brands. In this case, only the subcontractors had been worried by the justice at the time.

Titanic "Tilanga"

The lawsuit against Total aims to prove that times have changed, say the plaintiffs. The NGOs have in their sights the huge multi-billion-dollar project "Tilanga", which will allow the French multinational to exploit six oil fields in Uganda.

Since 2012, Total, in association with the Chinese giant China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and the British oil group Tullow Oil, has been seeking to exploit the vast black gold resources of Lake Albert on the border between Uganda and the Republic. Democratic Republic of Congo. Seven years later, the trio has still not begun to extract a single drop of oil, while controversies continue to accumulate.

The "Tilanga" project plans to drill 419 wells on 34 platforms, a significant portion of which is located in Murchison Falls, the largest natural park in the country. The French oil group, main contractor of this project which covers more than 1 000 hectares, has created a local subsidiary to carry out the development work and has partnered with a firm to manage the social aspect , including the expropriations of thousands of inhabitants of the region.

It is this last point which is at the center of the debates of the first day of hearing on Thursday with, in particular, the appearance of two Ugandans who came to testify to the weakness of the compensations proposed for the loss of their lands. The complainants believe that there is a food emergency in this case: the displaced populations often drew most of their food from the exploitation of their fields and, deprived of their land, they would not be able to afford to provide for their needs.

Social and environmental cost

NGOs are not the only ones to denounce the conditions of expropriations and the insufficiency of the measures put in place by Total to mitigate their negative effects. A Dutch commission commissioned by the Ugandan authorities to assess the environmental and social impact of the "Tilanga" project had already concluded in July 2018 that the oil companies involved in the project had been very light on the accompanying measures. for the expropriated populations. Residents had to wait more than a year after losing their land to receive financial compensation. The sums proposed - 3.5 million Ugandan shillings (856 euros) per acre - are well below the demands of the local population (21 million Ugandan shillings, or 5,140 euros).

In addition, the consultancy firm hired by Total is accused of pressuring residents to accept money rather than new land outside the area reserved for the oil complex. In addition, the main means that local people have to challenge the expropriation decisions is to address precisely these consultants paid by the French giant, says the NGO Friends of the Earth in its report on the project "Tilanga ".

The communities were deprived of the use of their land before being compensated by Total, so they had no more means of livelihood #TotalAuTribunal pic.twitter.com/A4EMJZyWn3

The environmental cost of this project will also be examined during this unprecedented trial. Drilling of oil wells may destabilize the unique ecosystem of Murchison Falls, whose World Heritage listing was studied and rejected by UNESCO in the 1990s. 500 species of animals whose habitat could be seriously threatened by the construction of new roads and an industrial city, as well as the influx of more than 3,000 workers.

These dangers have been identified by Total in its "plan of vigilance". But the NGOs, like the Dutch commission, believe that the oil group is content to carry out a sort of inventory at the Prévert risks and possible remedies without advancing a specific plan to best preserve the biodiversity of this natural park.

The French group defends itself by assuring to have fulfilled its "duty of vigilance" by detailing, generally the risks induced by its activities and what types of measures it can take to avoid the excesses of its subsidiaries and subcontractors. But he argues that the 2017 law does not require him to submit a specific plan for each of his projects. "This level of detail would make plans illegible," said Total before the TGI Nanterre.

The case submitted to the court must therefore allow the court to specify the contours of the law and its scope. If the judges agree with the NGOs, Total can be sentenced, as a first step, to review its plan of vigilance to clarify it. And eventually, subsequently, to compensate victims of the actions of subcontractors. An outcome that could have significant consequences for all French multinationals that rely on an armada of subcontractors worldwide.

Newsletter Do not miss out on international news

subscribe