ENVIRONMENT: Some Activists Doubt Oil Company’s Promises

By Pratap Chatterjee Reprint | | Print |

Pratap Chatterjee

SAN FRANCISCO, Apr 13 1997 (IPS) - The announcement by the Royal Dutch Shell oil company of a new business code with respect for human rights has been welcomed by leading activists, but others have their doubts.

Some like Amnesty International openly applauded the March statement by Shell that its new code will seek to achieve respect for human rights “in line with the legitimate role of business.” Others, such as the San Francisco-based Rainforest Action Network, say it has yet to see anything more than rhetoric from the company and, in a recent editorial, the New York Times said activists must “press Shell to live up to its new statements”

The Anglo-Dutch oil company has stated it will consult with local groups before beginning sensitive projects, and that it will require managers to report on whether operations comply with human rights criteria.

The new approach to human rights followed the worldwide publicity over the compamny’s operations in Nigeria, where Shell is the largest oil, and the Nov. 1995 execution of environmentalist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other activists of Nigeria’s Ogoni tribe. They had sought to bring attention to the damage done to their land following years of oil seepage and flaring – the burning off of natural gas.

The Niger river Delta had long been a scene of protests. In 1992 and 1993, the Nigerian government sent in troops and police at the request of the oil company to fight sabotage at its installations. Human rights observers said the unrest led to the deaths of as many as 2,000 Ogonis and, despite their pleas, Shell failed to use its influence to intervene on behalf of the nine who were hanged.

In recent weeks, the company has suffered a series of closures at oil operations in the country. Shell attributes the actions that forced these closures to protests being carried out by minority communities — including the Ijaw group — over the federal government’s restructuring of local governments, but others are not so sure.

“The Ogoni problem seems to be repeating itself in other oil areas,” Nigerian lawyer Enock Fubara told reporters here. “The problem essentially is that…the minorities produce the oil, but the proceeds from it go to develop the major tribes in the north, east, and west.”

Shell’s new approach to its drilling operations includes efforts to involve local communities in its operations. In central Peru’s Urabamba region where the company is searching for natural gas, Shell says it is going to great pains to design a model of environmental management and investments in “social capital” — out of concern for the forests and the peoples of the region.

Murray Jones, the Shell environmental chief in Peru, promises that the company will take all possible precautions to prevent problems. He says that initially, all wastes will be treated. The company eventually plans to re-inject waste deep below the water table to prevent contamination of the local environment.

Some critics, however, continue to voice concern over the company’s safety audits of its operations and say is not equipped to deal with major catastrophes.

They point to an incident in February, when Shell staff brought in fuel oil by barge to the main operations facility in the village of Nuevo Mundo to supply four newly constructed steel storage tanks.

Although the amount of oil brought in was relatively small, but there were about 12 oil spills on land and five in the river – some of them as large as 55 gallons. One of the barges was taken out of service because of recurring problems. A number of local people were pressed into emergency service using makeshift equipment to mop up the mess.