Decision

Initial assessment: a complaint against British Petroleum and Kosmos Energy raised by Lumiere Synergie pur le Développement (LSD) and “Gaalou Guett” Association of artisanal fishermen of the Langue de Barbarie

Published 6 February 2026

1. The UK National Contact Point’s (NCP) initial assessment process is a decision on whether the issues raised in the complaint warrant further examination. It does not determine whether the Respondents has acted consistently with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (the ‘Guidelines’).  

2. The OECD Guidelines’ Commentary on the Implementation Procedures of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises ^{[footnote 1]} states that generally issues are dealt with by the NCP of the country in which the issues have arisen. When an issue arises in a non-adhering country, the NCP of the country where the multinational enterprise is based can deal with the complaint.  

Summary of the UK NCP decision 

3. The complaint was filed by Lumiere Synergie pour le Développement and “Gaalou Guett” Association of artisanal fishermen of the Langue de Barbarie (hereafter, “LSD” and “Gaalou Guett”, jointly the “Complainants”) against British Petroleum and Kosmos Energy (hereafter, “BP and “Kosmos”, jointly the “Respondents”). The complaint concerns issues relating to due diligence and alleged adverse human rights and environment impacts linked to a joint venture between BP, Kosmos, Société des Pétroles du Sénégal (Petrosen) and Société Mauritanienne des Hydrocarbures et de Patrimoine Minier (SMH). BP responded to the complaint on behalf of BP and Kosmos as it is the operator of the project and holds the largest share, therefore the UK NCP jointly refers to both BP and Kosmos as the Respondents. 

4. The Complainants allege that BP and Kosmos breached Chapter II (general policies), paragraphs A2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Chapter IV (human rights), paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 and Chapter VI (environment), paragraphs 1d, 2, 3, and 4 of the 2023 version of the Guidelines.  

5. After conducting an Initial Assessment of the complaint, the UK NCP has decided that this complaint warrants further examination under all paragraphs of the Guidelines referenced in the complaint as follows: 

• Chapter II, paragraph A2 – ‘general policies’ 

• Chapter II, paragraph A11 – ‘general policies’ 

• Chapter II, paragraph A12 – ‘general policies’ 

• Chapter II, paragraph A13 – ‘general policies’ 

• Chapter II, paragraph A14 – ‘general policies’ 

• Chapter II, paragraph A15 – ‘general policies’ 

• Chapter IV, paragraph 1 – ‘human rights’ 

• Chapter IV, paragraph 2 – ‘human rights’ 

• Chapter IV, paragraph 3 – ‘human rights’ 

• Chapter IV, paragraph 5 – ‘human rights’ 

• Chapter IV, paragraph 6 – ‘human rights’ 

• Chapter VI, paragraph 1d – ‘environment’ 

• Chapter VI, paragraph 2 – ‘environment’ 

• Chapter VI, paragraph 3 – ‘environment’ 

• Chapter VI, paragraph 4 – ‘environment’ 

6. The OECD Guidelines were updated on 08 June 2023. The complaint against BP and Kosmos involves alleged non-observance of the 2023 version of the Guidelines. However, considering that some of the alleged conduct occurred prior to the updated Guidelines, the UK NCP will use the admissibility criteria, and consider the alleged harms from the GTA project before June 2023, under the 2011 Guidelines. Therefore, where the complainants have referenced Chapter II, A(11), A(12), A(13), A(14), and A(15) and Chapter VI, 3 and 4 of the 2023 version of the Guidelines in relation to alleged harms from before June 2023, the UK NCP will apply the previously numbered Chapter II, A(10), A(11), A(12), A(13) and A(14) and Chapter VI, 4 and 5 of the 2011 Guidelines. However, the complainants claim that these harms are ongoing. For ongoing harms after June 2023, the UK NCP will refer to the 2023 Guidelines as accepted above. Provisions referenced in the complaint under Chapter IV are the same in both 2011 and 2023 versions of the Guidelines.  

7. Pursuant to Section 4 of the UK NCP’s procedures for dealing with complaints, the UK NCP will now offer mediation to both parties. The scope of the mediation offer will cover all the paragraphs of the Guidelines accepted by the UK NCP at the Initial Assessment stage. 

8. The decision to accept the complaint for further examination is not a finding against BP and Kosmos and does not mean that the UK NCP considers that BP and Kosmos has acted inconsistently with the Guidelines. 

Substance of the complaint  

9. The complaint was raised on 9 August 2024 by LSD and “Gaalou Guett”. The Complainants alleged that the Respondents has failed to comply with the following provisions of the Guidelines (see Annex 2): 

• Chapter II, paragraphs A2, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 

• Chapter IV, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 

• Chapter VI, paragraphs 1d, 2, 3, and 4 

10. The complaint concerns issues that occurred at the Great Tortue Ahmeyim (GTA) project (a deep-water offshore liquified natural gas project located on the maritime border between Mauritania and Senegal). The specific issues involve local stakeholders in the Saint-Louis region, where the GTA Project is operating. The complaint details that local artisanal fishermen feel that their livelihoods are under threat by BP and Kosmos’ operations. The Complainants allege BP and Kosmos are denying access to the GTA Project’s surrounding area to local artisanal fisherman, undermining living conditions and livelihoods of the local community.  

11. Additionally, the Complainants allege that BP and Kosmos’ operations are harmful to the environment and marine ecosystems, which further impacts the livelihoods of the local community by threatening marine habitats.  

12. The complaint sets out that BP’s Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) findings had several shortcomings, such as poor analysis on marine and coastal environment impact, uncompleted study on the project’s components, and inconvenient impact mitigation measures.  

13. The Complainants assert that the Respondents have refused to engage in dialogue with the community and have failed to respond to efforts of engagement from the community. The Complainants do not consider that the Respondents have taken the necessary steps to compensate the community for the loss of their livelihoods by denying access to their dominant fishing area.  

14. The UK NCP received a response from BP, on behalf of BP and Kosmos Energy as the majority shareholder of the GTA Project, on 1 November 2024.  

15. The Respondents argue that the allegations are neither specific nor adequately substantiated, and that the Complainants have not explained how the Respondents have failed to meet their obligations under the Guidelines. The Respondents defend the methodology and outcome of the ESIA and state that allegations regarding denying local artisanal fisherfolk access to the Jatara reef is misleading. The Respondents provide some examples of steps taken to measure and mitigate potential impacts of the GTA Project, arguing they conducted due diligence and stakeholder engagement, but note that the ESIA’s conclusion that analysing the GTA Project’s impact on specific fishing grounds is complex.  

16. In their response, the Respondents argue that the GTA Project has brought benefits to the local communities and social investment strategies, such as providing employment opportunities, sourcing from local and regional suppliers, running technical training programmes and contributing funds to capacity building and infrastructure. They contend that they considered the impact on the fishing communities by the GTA Project and received positive feedback on stakeholder engagement activities, agreeing to fund and install artificial reef in the Saint-Louis coastal region to enhance marine biodiversity and promote sustainable fishing.   

17. The Respondents consider that remedies sought by the Complainants are accessible outside of the NCP process through in-country grievance mechanisms established by state-run Direction de la Protection et de la Surveillance des Pêches and BP. They consider these mechanisms to be more suitable than the NCP process for addressing the concerns of the Complainants.    

18. A timeline and details of the UK NCP handling process can be found in Annex 1. 

UK NCP Decision 

19. The UK NCP has decided that all chapters and paragraphs cited in the complaint warrant further examination. 

20. The conclusions reached by the UK NCP in this Initial Assessment are based on the information provided by the parties to the complaint. 

21. The Guidelines set out the following criteria when considering whether the complaint warrants further examination: 

• the identity of the party concerned and its interest in the matter; 

• whether the issue is material and substantiated; 

• whether there seems to be a link between the enterprise’s activities and the issue raised in the specific instance; 

• the relevance of applicable law and procedures, including court rulings; 

• how similar issues have been, or are being, treated in other domestic or international proceedings; 

• whether the consideration of the specific issue would contribute to the purposes and effectiveness of the Guidelines. 

Identity of the party concerned and its interest in the matter 

22. The OECD Guide for NCPs on the Initial Assessment of Specific Instances states that the Complainant(s) should have some interest in the matters they raise in their submissions: “Organisations with mandates or objectives related to certain Responsible Business Conduct-related themes may also have an interest in issues touching on those themes (e.g., instances of environmental harm, forced labour etc.). An NCP may consider the mandate of an organisation as well as its stated objectives, while considering the legitimacy of its interests in the matter”. 

23. The complaint is raised by Lumiere Synergie pur le Développement (LSD) and “Gaalou Guett” Association of artisanal fishermen of the Langue de Barbarie. LSD is a Senegalese NGO working to hold international investors to account. The organisation promotes human rights across extractive industries in Senegal, supporting communities affected by development projects. The LSD supports affected communities to file complaints with independent remedial mechanisms to obtain redress, and conducts advocacy activities to influence development. It is a partner of the “Gaalou Guett” fishing association, and a member of OECD Watch network. 

24. The “Gaalou Guett” Association of artisanal fishermen of the Langue de Barbarie is one of 22 fishing associations that represents the interests of Senegalese fisherman in the Langue de Barbarie nature reserve in Saint-Louis, Senegal.  

25. While the Respondents argue in the response that it is unclear which communities the Complainants represent, arguing that the Complainants do not represent the interests of all those in the local community. The UK NCP engaged with community members during the initial call with the Complainants to discuss the UK NCP process and timelines. Individual community members had an opportunity to raise questions about the NCP process. The UK NCP is satisfied that these organisations, LSD and “Gaalou Guett”, represent the interests of people living in local communities and those allegedly impacted by the operations of project.  

26. The UK NCP finds that both Complainants has established a legitimate interest in this matter and considers it pertinent to carry out the Initial Assessment.  

Whether the issue is material and substantiated 

27. The Complainants assert that the Respondents have failed to conduct adequate stakeholder engagement and due diligence on its operations in relation to the GTA Project, alleging that the ESIA conducted in 2018 is “scientifically unsound”. They argue that the project is negatively impacting the human rights of the local fishing community by reducing the diversity and availability of fish and fishing grounds, damaging livelihoods.  

28. The Complainants have provided copies of the letters from the Association of Artisanal Anglers of Saint-Louis to the companies and local and national authorities raising concern over the impact the project has allegedly had on local communities and refers to the findings of Nansen scientific expedition off Mauritania and Senegal in 2021. The report of the expedition reflects that there are concerns regarding the lack of scientific information on the presence of cold-water coral reefs where the pipelines for the GTA project will cross. The expedition found evidence of unknown living cold-water coral reefs in the GTA pipeline corridor and nearby canyons in which twice as many species were documented compared to what was documented on non-reef habitats in the area. Many of which are fish species are of commercial interest.  

29. Additionally, the UK NCP received links to multiple articles shared by both the Complainants and the Respondents which highlights concern over the ESIA with regards to the research conducted and the interpretation of the findings, noting the project poses risks to biodiversity in the area.  

30. The Respondents rely on the findings in the ESIA in its response to the UK NCP, relying on the ESIA findings that the area in which the project is located only accounts for only 2% of national catches: “Few fisherman operate in proximity to the Mauritania-Senegal maritime border as the waters there are less rich than they are farther north.” ^{[footnote 2]}  Additionally, the Respondents also argue that issues relating to depleted fishing stocks date back further than the establishment of the project. BP have shared information referencing concerns over fish stock relating to industrial fishing, including reports published by World Bank and news articles. The Respondents further assert that it is challenging to attribute loss of fish stock to a particular group as there are “no systems that define ownership of, access to and/or use of fishing resources or fishing grounds in the maritime waters of Mauritania or Senegal”. 

31. The ESIA also reflects some stakeholder consultation with local fishing communities in which they raised concerns regarding fishing access and over biodiversity and species loss. In response, BP committed to developing an artificial reef. Nevertheless, based on the information shared by the Parties, progress on the development of the artificial reef since it was committed to in 2018 warrants further consideration. The Respondent’s response to the complaint in November 2024, stated that a contract for the artificial reef was awarded on 15 October 2024 (after this complaint was submitted to the UK NCP by the Complainants) and stakeholder engagement is ongoing, no further information had been provided. BP have not detailed whether they responded to the letters sent by the Association of Artisanal Anglers of Saint-Louis, but state that they operate a grievance mechanism in which these issues can be raised through.  

32. The UK NCP however notes that as part of the Respondent’s comments sent on 5 January 2026 in response to the UK NCP’s draft initial assessment, it has stated that ”as of 29 November 2025, the artificial reef has been fully installed and will now be subject to monitoring and post-installation”.  

33. BP further argue that the ‘safety zone’, which is also criticised by the Complainants for reducing access to fishing grounds, is a small area with the intention “to minimis[e] the risk of collisions and ensure safety for both the GTA Project workers and the fisherfolk”.  

34. They assert that the importance of the extractive industries for the Mauritanian and Senegalese economies and that the project has created job and training opportunities for those in the local communities in this sector. 

35. The UK NCP considers that the information provided by the Complainants is material and substantiated. They provided a report and multiple articles on the environmental impacts of the project, as well as accounts and letters from, and articles about, community members’ experiences which suggests to the UK NCP that these issues a plausible and credible. The UK NCP considers that the information provided relates to all the provisions of the Guidelines which have been raised in the complaint.  

36. The Respondents provided some information around due diligence and stakeholder engagement, relying on the findings of the ESIA, as well as access to remedy and human rights and environmental policies. However, the UK NCP considers that the Complainants have provided plausible information regarding the potential inadequacy of the ESIA and stakeholder engagement. Additionally, the complaint does not concern whether the businesses have adequate policies in place, but whether they conducted effective due diligence and stakeholder engagement in relation to their potential human rights and environmental impacts linked to the project. Therefore, the UK NCP considers that this complaint warrants further consideration.  

Whether there seems to be a link between the enterprise’s activities and the issue raised in the specific instance 

37. Although the OECD Guidelines do not include a single definition of the term ‘multinational enterprise,’ the updated 2023 version of the Guidelines read: “[t]he international nature of an enterprise’s structure and its commercial form, purpose, or activities are main factors to consider in this regard” ^{[footnote 3]}. 

38. The complaint was raised against two businesses, BP and Kosmos.  

39. BP is a British multinational oil and gas complaint headquartered in London. BP jointly owns the Great Ahmeyim (GTA) Project with Kosmos, holding approximately 56% of the GTA Project’s interests in Senegal and Mauritania. Kosmos is an international deepwater exploration and production company with assets in oil production and gas development. Kosmos is headquartered in Texas, US and holds 27% of the GTA Project’s interests in Senegal and Mauritania. Petrosen (Senegal’s national oil company) and SMH (Mauritania’s oil company) also have holdings in the GTA Project (Petrosen 10%; SMH 7%). 

40. The UK NCP coordinated with the US NCP and consulted the parties to the complaint to determine which NCP would lead on the handling of this complaint. It was agreed that the UK NCP will lead due to BP owning the majority of the GTA Project. BP provided a response to the UK NCP on behalf of BP and Kosmos. 

41. The UK NCP is satisfied that both enterprises are covered by the Guidelines due to their international operations.  

42. “The Guidelines concern those adverse impacts that are either caused or contributed to by the enterprise, or are directly linked to their operations, products or services by a business relationship, as described in paragraphs A.11 and A.12.”^{[footnote 4]}  

43. The allegations made in the complaint are directly linked to the operations of BP and Kosmos.  

44. The Respondents state that “analysing the GTA Project’s impact on specific fishing grounds is complex, as no fishing ground losses can be linked to one specific locality in Senegal” and note that fishing losses can be linked to other variables. They assert that the ESIA found the loss of potential fishing grounds in Senegal and Mauritania to be negligible.  

45. Nevertheless, the UK NCP considers that the Complainants have provided information to indicate a plausible link between the Respondents’ activities and the issues raised in the complaint. The UK NCP considers that information provided by both parties demonstrates credible challenge to the standard of the ESIA and the impact of the project on the environment and rights of local fisherman. Therefore, the UK NCP considers there to be a direct link between the enterprise and the issues raised in the complaint.  

The relevance of applicable law and procedures, including court rulings 

46. The complaint and response do not cite any directly applicable law, however the Respondents notes that they have an Inter-Governmental agreement with Senegal and Mauritania to develop the cross-border natural gas field. Additionally, they argue that there is no system in Senegal and Mauritania that define ownership of, access to and/or use of fishing resources or fishing grounds in the maritime waters. Nevertheless, the UK NCP does not consider this to influence the NCP’s ability to contribute to the resolution of the issues raised in the complaint. 

47. Furthermore, the Respondents does not consider that the UK NCP is the most appropriate platform for resolving the issues raised in the complaint. The Respondents assert that there are already specific non-judicial in-country grievance mechanisms established by BP (as operator of the GTA Project, on behalf of the other shareholders of the project) and by DPSP, a Senegalese government body. They consider their mechanism to be “more suited than the NCP process to manage the diverse and complex nature of the interests and wishes of local communities and other stakeholders, with whom we have engaged (and continue to engage) in relation to much of the matters underlying this Complaint[s]”. BP provides detail of the grievance mechanisms available and states that it promotes its availability to the community. However, the UK NCP does not consider that this does not mean that the UK NCP process would not contribute to the resolution of the issues. The UK NCP does not consider that the presence of a parallel mechanism and/or proceeding undermines the effectiveness of the UK NCP process in resolving issues that relate to the Guidelines or require the UK NCP to reject a specific instance. 

How similar issues have been, or are being, treated in other domestic or international proceedings 

48. There is no reference in this complaint to procedures nor formal parallel proceedings by either the Complainants or the Respondents. However, the Complainants has indicated that the Association of Artisanal Anglers of Saint-Louis has sent letters to the local and national authorities regarding the alleged infringement of environmental and human rights.  

Whether the consideration of the specific issue would contribute to the purposes and effectiveness of the Guidelines  

49. The Respondents argue that the Complainants fail to “articulate the specific allegations against [them], and in particular how [they] are alleged to have failed to meet [their] obligations under the referenced provisions in the OECD Guidelines”. However, the UK NCP considers that the Complainants have provided relevant information relating to all the provisions raised in the complaint under the General Policies, Human Rights and Environment Chapters of the Guidelines.  

50. The UK NCP believes that accepting the complaint could reinforce the importance of due diligence, responsible business conduct, and the need for enterprises to mitigate adverse human rights and environmental impacts.  

51. The UK NCP considers that accepting this complaint would contribute to the effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines, as offering good offices could facilitate an exchange of dialogue between the parties, in so far as the issues relate to the Guidelines. 

Next steps 

52. Pursuant to section 4 of the UK NCP procedures for dealing with complaints, the UK NCP will offer mediation to both parties after the conclusion of the Initial Assessment. 

53. The mediation offer is voluntary and if any party to the complaint declines mediation, the UK NCP will conduct a further examination of this complaint. 

54. A Further Examination would include the UK NCP providing: a determination on whether the company has acted consistently with the OECD Guidelines. Should the UK NCP determine that the company has not adhered to the guidelines, the UK NCP may provide non-binding recommendations for improving the company’s adherence to the OECD Guidelines. 

Annex 1 (timetable) 

9 August 2024	The UK NCP receives the complaint
19 August 2024	The UK NCP confirms receipt of the complaint
12 September 2024	The UK NCP offers separate meetings with the parties to discuss the Initial Assessment process and the parties’ prospective interest in mediation
17 September	The UK NCP and US NCP coordinate and agree that the UK NCP will lead on the complaint
1 November 2024	The UK NCP receives Respondent’s response to the complaint.
1 December 2025	UK NCP drafts the Initial Assessment and shares both the Initial Assessment draft and the factual commentary grid with parties for comment
5 January 2026	Both parties submit factual commentary to UK NCP with their response
28 January 2026	UK NCP incorporates factual comments in the initial assessment
6 February 2026	UK NCP publishes the Initial Assessment on gov.uk

Annex 2 (the chapters/provisions) 

The Complainants refer to the following provisions of the 2023 Guidelines: 

II General Policies 

Enterprises should take fully into account established policies in the countries in which they operate, and consider the views of other 

stakeholders. In this regard:  

1. Respect the internationally recognised human rights of those affected by their activities. 

11. Carry out risk-based due diligence, for example by incorporating it into their enterprise risk management systems, to identify, prevent and mitigate actual and potential adverse impacts as described in paragraphs 12 and 13, and account for how these impacts are addressed. The nature and extent of due diligence depend on the circumstances of a particular situation. 

1. Avoid causing or contributing to adverse impacts on matters covered by the Guidelines, through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur, including through providing for or co-operating in the remediation of adverse impacts.  

2. Seek to prevent or mitigate an adverse impact where they have not contributed to that impact, when the impact is nevertheless directly linked to their operations, products or services by a business relationship. This is not intended to shift responsibility from the entity causing an adverse impact to the enterprise with which it has a business relationship.  

3. In addition to addressing adverse impacts in relation to matters covered by the Guidelines, encourage, where practicable, entities with which an enterprise has a business relationship to apply principles of responsible business conduct compatible with the Guidelines.  

4. Engage meaningfully with relevant stakeholders or their legitimate representatives as part of carrying out due diligence and in order to provide opportunities for their views to be taken into account with respect to activities that may significantly impact them related to matters covered by the Guidelines  

IV Human Rights 

States have the duty to protect human rights. Enterprises should, within the framework of internationally recognised human rights, the international human rights obligations of the countries in which they operate as well as relevant domestic laws and regulations: 

1. Respect human rights, which means they should avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved.  

2. Within the context of their own activities, avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts and address such impacts when they occur.  

3. Seek ways to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their business operations, products or services by a business relationship, even if they do not contribute to those impacts.  

5. Carry out human rights due diligence as appropriate to their size, the nature and context of operations and the severity of the risks of adverse human rights impacts.  

6. Provide for or co-operate through legitimate processes in the remediation of adverse human rights impacts where they identify that they have caused or contributed to these impacts. 

VI Environment 

In particular, enterprises should:  

1. Establish and maintain a system of environmental management appropriate to the enterprise associated with the operations, products and services of the enterprise over their full life cycle, including by carrying out risk-based due diligence, as described in Chapter II, for adverse environmental impacts, including through: 

d) providing the public, workers, and other relevant stakeholders with adequate, measurable, verifiable (where applicable) and timely information on environmental impacts associated with their operations, products and services based on best available information, and progress against targets and objectives as described in paragraph 1.b. 

2. Conduct meaningful engagement with relevant stakeholders affected by adverse environmental impacts associated with an enterprise’s operations, products or services.  

3. Consistent with the scientific and technical understanding of the risks, where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, taking also into account human health and safety, not use the lack of full scientific certainty or pathways as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent or minimise such damage.  

4. Maintain contingency plans for preventing, mitigating, and controlling serious environmental and health damage from their operations, including accidents and emergencies; and mechanisms for immediate reporting to the competent authorities.

1. 2023 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business (Page 69) ↩

2. ESIA, Greater Tortue / Ahmeyim Phase 1 Gas Production Project, Volume 2 (June 2019, page 136) ↩

3. Chapter I: Concepts and Principles, OECD Guidelines 2023, page 12 ↩

4. Commentary on Chapter II: General Policies, OECD Guidelines 2011, page 23, and OECD Guidelines 2023, page 17 ↩