Hasty responses from the Government may favor Repsol, warns jurist

Orlando Vignolospecialist in administrative law and professor at the University of Piura, argued that, in Peru, there is a serious overlapping of powers and public administrations involved in environmental care, which was evident after the spill of almost 3 million square meters of oil, coming from the La Pampilla refinery, operated by Repsol.

However, this is not an unlikely or unusual disaster, says the jurist and professor at the University of Piura.

“It has happened in South America. In Peru, there was a similar one in Talara. Unfortunately, environmental legislation in general is not prepared for this type of disaster”, he assured.

“On the one hand, there is the Navy, with the Dicapi, which is the maritime authority. On the other hand, there is Osinergmin that sees the energy infrastructure and, in addition, we have the recently created OEFA, which is the environmental authority”, he said. The latter, highlights Vignolo, must be present in all sectors because its authority is transversal.

The urgency of action required by a disaster such as that of the La Pampilla refinery shows that “a minimum order and a protagonist who is in charge of matters of extreme urgency, related to spills or environmental disasters, are lacking.” The public administration, which would assume the leadership, should be the one in charge of heading a crisis committee.

“A single sanctioning entity is needed for matters of extreme urgency,” said the professor.

Do not advance opinion with Repsol

In addition to the absence of the determination of a single sanctioning entity, there are legal problems that could arise due to hasty responses from various sectors.

In addition, he said that the other entities and public and political actors must pronounce themselves with “prudence and pertinence” regarding this type of case, so as not to encourage future adverse scenarios.

“Saying that it is an ecocide, as the Minister of Justice has declared, could be used by the private sector to say that there is an advance of opinion, which could take the trial to international jurisdiction (…). Repsol could prosecute these matters”, highlighted Vignolo Cueva.

“It is not legally correct because it attacks the presumption of innocence and good name,” he added.

Repsol: legal responsibility

According to the jurist, transport by ship to carry out maneuvers on the high seas has protocols established worldwide, so the idea that the lack of notice from the Navy has prevented the work from stopping should be ruled out.

“The ordinary duty of diligence of a company like Repsol is not suppressed nor does it conflict with the Navy’s lack of notice,” he said.

It remains to be investigated whether the La Pampilla refinery actually had a comprehensive contingency plan. If this were not the case, it would also be an omission by OEFA, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Energy and Mines, highlights the expert.

“High-risk activities must have a very high level of caution. Let us also remember that the refinery is located in a highly populated area.” The latter, emphasizes Vignolo, is a risk that raises the standard of diligence in the company’s actions.