On January 10, five days before the second year of the spill of 11,900 barrels of crude oil from the La Pampilla Refinery—managed by the Spanish transnational Repsol—into the Ventanilla Sea, the international law firm Pogust Goodhead—specialized in environmental and consumer group litigation—filed a lawsuit against Repsol before the district court of The Hague, in the Netherlands.
It gathers the signatures of 34,000 affected people (from artisanal fishermen to merchants) and demands compensation of 1,272 million dollars.
We spoke with lawyer Tom Goohead (41 years old, Newport, Wales), director of the United Kingdom-based firm, who visited the damaged beaches, north of Lima, on a couple of occasions.
The last one was a month ago.
“The field work carried out by our teams in the affected areas was not limited to collecting signatures.
The scope of this work was broader and was carried out in order to collect information relevant to the demand,” he notes.
The first hearing in The Hague is expected to take place in June.
Ask.
What have been your motivations for taking on the demand of the NGO Stichting Environment and Fundamental Rights and, with it, that of 34,000 people affected by the oil spill on the Peruvian coast?
Answer.
We deeply believe in the principles of corporate responsibility, equity and justice.
That is one of the reasons why we wanted to be involved in this case and do everything possible to hold those responsible accountable.
What happened in January 2022 was not inevitable.
The actions and inactions of Repsol and the La Pampilla Refinery have caused serious damage to the environment, communities and livelihoods, with effects that will continue to be felt in the region for many years to come.
Q.
You describe Repsol's behavior as contradictory.
What do you mean exactly?
A.
Repsol claims to care about the environment, but when the company is required to take actions to avoid immense environmental damage or to remedy it, it does not take adequate measures to prevent or contain that damage.
Repsol says it has entered into several negotiations and agreements with some of the victims, but the reality is that these agreements have been executed under unfair conditions for the victims.
They claim to promote social projects, but have chosen to ignore the loss of livelihood suffered by thousands of people as a result of the oil spill.
They also claim to have invested billions of soles in the remediation of the ocean, but the reality is that they have been fined on several occasions by the Organization for Environmental Evaluation and Supervision (OEFA) and the Ministry of the Environment (MINAM), in relation to their conduct. after the oil spill and its poor management to minimize the effects, and they have not paid those fines.
Q.
Repsol has stressed on several occasions that it has compensated 98% of those affected.
Have you been able to verify the veracity of this statement?
A.
We have reviewed the conditions under which Repsol claims to have “compensated” several victims, and we believe that, in many cases, this does not constitute real reparation.
At most, Repsol could say that it has provided assistance or a bonus, but not full and fair compensation for the damage caused.
Q.
The Ombudsman's Office and journalistic reports explain that these agreements have been extrajudicial and harmful because they are single payments of amounts between 50,000 and 70,000 soles (between 13,500 and 19,000 dollars), which are minimal compared to what they are entitled to.
How much should it be?
A.
Compensation for each victim will depend on their specific circumstances.
For example, there will be some victims who have suffered damage to their health;
others, to your property or your business.
This is precisely why we believe that these extrajudicial agreements need to be analyzed in detail.
As you mention, many of these agreements do not consider the full extent of the damages or do not consider the damages that are still occurring.
Tom Goodhead during the talk 'Oil Spill'.Pogust Goodhead
Q.
The number of your defendants triples the Single Register of Affected Persons, a list that Repsol emphasizes was prepared by the Peruvian Government.
How do you explain that 34,000 are affected and not 10,000, as the company indicates?
A.
The reason is simple: Repsol has not been able to identify all the affected victims.
In general, we consider that Repsol's response to the oil spill has been inadequate, untimely and insufficient.
It has been, above all, an attempt to minimize the tragedy (by incompletely reporting the affected areas, changing the number of barrels spilled, etc.).
Although the Single Register sought to list what was considered affected, the document mainly includes affected fishermen, who are members of registered fishermen's associations and merchants.
However, many fishermen and traders are not members of associations or do not participate in formal activities.
This is one of the reasons that explains the difference between the number of victims who have joined the lawsuit in the Netherlands, and confirms that Repsol did not adequately measure the situation.
Q.
According to a study by CooperAcción and Oxfam, the families of artisanal fishermen stop receiving 11,902 soles each month because they have not been able to fish for two years.
But is the loss only economic or is the tradition of fishing from father to son also in danger, since it is estimated that the damage will remain for at least six years?
A.
Of course.
These are just a few examples of the type of damage environmental disasters like this leave behind.
Other types of losses, such as loss of property (boats, equipment, animals), physical or psychological harm, increased cost of living, or reduced use or enjoyment of the natural landscape, also need to be considered.
Regarding the possible loss of traditions or other lasting effects over time, it will be important for the judge to consider that, in effect, this type of disaster can have consequences that could last even for 10 years or more.
Q.
In a statement dated January 15, Repsol states that the beaches of North Lima have been ready for months for fishing, commerce and recreational activities, and that all this is supported by recognized and qualified reports.
How many of the affected beaches meet environmental quality standards and do not represent any threat to people or marine fauna?
A.
We are aware of this statement made on January 15.
However, it is not exact.
Only recently, after Repsol's communication, some of the affected municipalities such as Ancón and Chancay confirmed that there are still beaches affected by the oil spill, which are closed to the public and have not been reactivated for human activities.
Q.
By the way, has it been possible to establish what the impact has been on marine species?
A.
The full scope has not yet been determined.
But, according to the United Nations report, by 2022 the affected areas included more than 500 hectares of marine species reserves, more than 1,400 hectares of sea and land, and 37,000 metric tons of contaminated sand.
Q.
The company maintains that its claim is unfounded and they consider that the case should be addressed in Peru.
Why was it necessary to take it to the court in The Hague?
A.
The company's statements that indicate that the lawsuit is unfounded have been made without even having reviewed the arguments presented in the lawsuit, regarding the responsibility of the Repsol Group in the oil spill, which is another example of its lack. of commitment to affected parties.
This also demonstrates their inability to meet the corporate responsibility standards generally expected of European companies.
Pogust Goodhead was commissioned by Stichting Environment and Fundamental Rights (SEFR) to bring the case against three companies that are jointly responsible for the damages, due to their involvement in the operation of the refinery;
La Pampilla Refinery, SAA, RELAPASAA, established under Peruvian law;
Repsol Perú BV, incorporated under Dutch law, and Repsol SA, incorporated under Spanish law.
This case has been brought before the courts of the Netherlands because Repsol Perú BV, jointly responsible for the damage caused by the oil spill, is a Dutch company.
Q.
A lawsuit like this is a long and expensive journey.
Do you see a conciliation possible?
R.
_
This is a possibility that we always consider in our cases.
We are open to dialogue with Repsol to reach an agreement as long as it is in the best interest of the victims.
Q.
What is your opinion about Repsol being one of the sponsors of the Peruvian soccer team?
A.
These large polluting companies use their profits to try to improve their image, but it is time for Repsol to do the right thing, which is to fairly compensate the victims for their environmental crime in Peru.
A group of people listen to the director of Pogust Goodhead.Pogust Goodhead
Q.
Is it true that if Stichting Environment and Fundamental Rights wins the case, it would keep 25% of the compensation?
A.
These types of claims operate under the “no win, no fee” principle.
This means that individuals do not have to pay anything unless the lawsuit is successfully resolved (including via settlement).
If the case is successfully resolved and we obtain compensation on behalf of a victim, SEFR's funders will receive 25% of the damages, but SEFR, being a non-profit foundation, will not receive any compensation.
SEFR will also not charge any fees if the lawsuit is lost.
Q.
How could a tragedy like this be avoided?
A.
What happened in January 2022 was not inevitable.
The actions and inactions of Repsol and the Refinery have caused serious damage to the environment, communities and livelihoods, with effects that will continue to be felt in the region for many years to come.
Likewise, Repsol's behavior after the disaster, by delaying a rapid and complete response, demonstrated a total disregard for the lives affected and the delicate ecosystems destroyed due to its lack of action.
This case is ultimately about accountability and justice.
These are corporate responsibility standards that must be adopted and implemented to avoid tragedies like this.
Q.
How are your other lawsuits going, such as the one you have against the British-Australian mining company BHP over the Mariana disaster?
A.
In June 2022, BHP's appeal was rejected, meaning they will be held accountable for their role in the disaster, in a 118-week trial, starting in October 2024. In August last year , the Brazilian Vale, the second largest mining company in the world, joined the process in the English courts following a lawsuit filed by BHP for Vale to pay up to 50% of the damages caused by the Mariana dam disaster.
Pogust Goodhead is preparing for trial and there is a case management conference scheduled for next week to decide next steps.
Follow all the information from El PAÍS América on
and
X
, or in our
weekly newsletter
.