Home Complaints database Peruvian Indigenous Federations et al. vs. Pluspetrol
Complaint

Peruvian Indigenous Federations et al. vs. Pluspetrol

Pluspetrol’s oil contamination in Peruvian Amzon

Date filed
11 March 2020
Keywords
Current status
No resolution
Sector
NCP

Allegations

On 11 March 2020, four indigenous federations – FEDIQUEP, FECONACOR, OPIKAFPE, and ACODECOSPAT – from the Loreto region of the Peruvian Amazon filed a specific instance at the Dutch NCP They were supported by co-complainants Peru EQUIDAD, SOMO, Oxfam Peru, and Oxfam Novib. The complainants contend that Netherlands-based oil company Pluspetrol Resources Corporation B.V. (Pluspetrol) failed to conduct adequate due diligence to prevent adverse environmental and human rights impacts from its oil extraction operations in the Amazon rainforest and remediate adverse impacts to which it caused and contributed.

Pluspetrol purchased oil extraction operations, rights, and liabilities in Peru’s Lot 1AB from another private company in 2000 and subsequently operated until 2015 using a range of harmful practices, including failing to replace corroded and leaking pipelines, dumping production waters (waste waters), allowing and failing to adequately clean up oil spills, and burning oil inappropriately. The complainants and the Peruvian government now hold Pluspetrol responsible for remediating approximately 2,000 contaminated sites, the vast majority of which Pluspetrol has refused to remediate. The contamination caused and contributed to by Pluspetrol is also likely linked to serious health impacts in indigenous communities, including high cadmium and lead levels in blood. The complainants allege that Pluspetrol‘s actions have breached the OECD Guidelines’ provisions on due diligence and remediation (Chapters II and IV) and community members’ rights to food, water, land, and self-determination. The complainants also contend that Pluspetrol has breached the Guidelines’ provisions on taxation (Chapter XI) and has failed to disclose material information relevant to its operations, in breach of the Guidelines’ provisions on disclosure (Chapter III).

The complainants have attempted resolution with Peruvian administrative and judicial authorities to no avail. They now hope that involvement of the Dutch NCP will prompt Pluspetrol to commit to remediating the contaminated sites and improving its human rights, due diligence, and tax governance practices.

Relevant OECD Guidelines

Outcome

On the 20 April 2021, the Dutch NCP accepted the case against Pluspetrol for further examination and offered its good offices to the parties. The NCP asked both parties whether they were willing to engage in a mediation process with the aim of agreeing how the issues can be successfully addressed. The parties accepted the NCP’s good offices, but Pluspetrol rejected them. The NCP’s initial statement does not clarify the reason for Pluspetrol’s rejection of mediation.

This case is particularly interesting because it is the first time that an NCP has accepted a complaint against a mailbox company and it is one of the first cases to deal with taxation issues. Pluspetrol’s headquarters are officially located in the Netherlands, even though there are very few people working there and it seems like this is a structure used for sending money to the Bahamas. The official location of the headquarters allowed the complainants to file a complaint at the Dutch NCP.

On 3 September 2025, the Dutch NCP published its final statement. The statement includes determinations that Pluspetrol is not compliant with the standards of the OECD Guidelines on multiple fronts, including that the company:

  1. Fails to provide adequate transparency regarding its activities, corporate structure, and taxation, and does not sufficiently demonstrate that it acts in the spirit of tax legislation.
  2. Has entered into agreement with Indigenous communities that contain clauses potentially disadvantageous to these communities, which violates the expectations of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the human rights chapter of the Guidelines.
  3. Has not take sufficient measures to prevent negative environmental impacts, and thereby also insufficiently addressed the related health risks, violating the right to health of local communities.
  4. Despite making some efforts to remediate pollution caused by a predecessor, used techniques that were inadequate and that led to additional pollution and a failure of effective remediation.

The Dutch NCP provided several recommendations to the company concerning disclosure and taxation, the rights of Indigneous Peoples and meaningful stakeholder engagement, environmental pollution and the right to health, and remedy. The NCP will follow up after one year to assess whether these recommendations have been implemented.

More details

Defendant
Complainants
Affected people

Documents