Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) breaching. Credit: Merrill Gosho, NOAA/public domain

By Guy Dinmore
HONOLULU, Hawaii, Sep 5 2016 (IPS)

A rare case of intensive and decade-long collaboration between Big Oil, scientists and environmental activists has been hailed as a success story in protecting an endangered species of whale from extinction.

In the early 2000s, the western grey whale was thought to number about 115 off the island of Sakhalin in the Russian Far East where they would spend the ice-free summer months feeding before their winter migration. Sakhalin Energy, then majority-owned by Shell, announced plans to expand its oil and gas operations in those waters, kicking off a fierce campaign by NGOs, including WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others.We started campaigning against this project but now we are part of it.” -- Wendy Elliott, a biologist and senior campaigner at WWF-International

Protests failed to halt Sakhalin Energy but the NGOs crucially succeeded in persuading international banks to place tough conditions on their loans to the company. This included working with an independent group of scientists for the duration of the loans and projects to mitigate the impact on the whales.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature – the world’s largest environmental association of governments and NGOs – convened and administered what became known as the Western Grey Whale Advisory Panel (WGWAP) made up of 13 independent scientists. That was in 2004. Ten years later and the grey whale population was estimated to have grown to 175.

This week, the IUCN, holding its World Conservation Congress in Honolulu, hailed the panel as a “fantastic example” of conservation and how business and environmentalists can work together. NGOs involved in the project agree.

“As an NGO it has been a journey. We started campaigning against this project but now we are part of it,” Wendy Elliott, a biologist and senior campaigner at WWF-International, told a news conference.

What could have become a catastrophe has been a success, she said, calling on other financial institutions to follow this model in imposing conditions when lending to projects that impact bio-diversity.

Stewart Maginnis, IUCN global director of the Nature-based Solutions Group that oversaw the panel, noted that 90 percent of the panel’s 539 recommendations to Sakhalin Energy had been implemented, superseded or were no longer applicable. Crucial proposals that were accepted included changing the route of a proposed pipeline and adopting recommendations for seismic surveys. However it also took another fierce campaign by NGOs in 2011 to persuade Sakhalin Energy not to start building a third platform.

During the panel’s work, monitoring of one female whale, named Varvara by the scientists, found she had migrated in November 2011 from Sakhalin Island across the Pacific to Alaska and all the way south to Mexico’s Baja California Peninsula – a journey of 10,880 km, the longest recorded one-way migration of any mammal.

Maginnis stressed that the critical element in the panel’s success was its freedom and independence to draw up conclusions that were transparent – a process that involved NGO observers attending its plenary meetings with the company.

Deric Quaile, manager of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Shell, now a minority shareholder in Sakhalin Energy, called the process “fantastic” and an important part of Shell’s “journey” to improve its environmental performance.

“This panel has brought the right balance of knowledge, credibility and authority to advise in an environmentally challenging and sensitive area,” he said. “It shows business and conservation can work together.”

He said the panel experience since 2004 had helped bring about a “shift” in Shell’s approach to environmental issues. “There was a lot of mistrust and disbelief and it took a lot of time in Shell for engineers to realise that it was very useful and made good business sense. Good environmental management is a good business proposition.”

He acknowledged it had been a slow process for the company, but argued that Shell had made strides.

“Responsible environmental management is engrained in the DNA of our corporate culture,” he said.

Such a claim, however, has been hotly challenged.

Shell came under huge pressure from environmental groups before it announced last year it would abandon its Arctic oil operations, having sunk some 7 billion dollars in exploratory drilling. Its public statement blamed a tough regulatory environment by the U.S. but analysts said it was clear other factors were at play, including widespread public opposition and falling oil prices.

And last November, Amnesty International and the Centre for Environment, Human Rights and Development accused Shell of making “blatantly false” claims to have cleaned up heavily polluted areas of the Niger Delta at four oil spill sites.

“By inadequately cleaning up the pollution from its pipelines and wells, Shell is leaving thousands of women, men and children exposed to contaminated land, water and air, in some cases for years or even decades,” Amnesty International said.

A similar panel to WGWAP and also administered by IUCN is working in the Niger Delta advising on oil spill clean-up operations, involving Shell.

Maginnis said the model of WGWAP was “effective and replicable for conflict resolution, to reconcile economic development and conservation.”

However, Elliott of WWF-International warned that in the case of Sakhalin the western grey whale population remained small and that “success is very fragile”.

“There is a situation jeopardising this success,” she said, accusing U.S. oil giant Exxon of putting the western grey whale at risk with its plans to build a pier in one of the Sakhalin island lagoons where the whales feed.

“The panel expressed extensive concerns over this development but they fell on deaf ears,” she said. Experts say the pier is not necessary and an alternative exists.

NGO observers found that Exxon was disregarding its own guidelines, for example by operating boats at speed at night with the danger of hitting whales, Elliott said. She called on Exxon to drop its objections and join the panel.

Exxon did not respond to a request for comment by IPS.

WWF, in an earlier report, quoted Exxon as saying its subsidiary’s plans met Russian environmental requirements, had been approved by the authorities and had all the necessary permits. Operations would start, Exxon said.

IPS asked Maginnis if there was a danger that such panels administered by IUCN could be seen as giving the green light for energy companies to operate in areas where environmentalists would argue that no drilling at all should take place.

Maginnis replied that the IUCN would not endorse such a scientific panel for extractive operations in World Heritage Sites, which he described as “No Go” areas for development. But, in other areas, if governments gave licences and banks gave loans, then the IUCN urged pragmatism.

“There are some clear cases where we would say ‘no’. But we must be pragmatic. Without the (western grey whale) panel, there would have been a continuous decline in population numbers,” he said.

Wind energy is slowly taking off in Kenya. Credit: Miriam Mannak/IPS

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 10 2014 (IPS)

When the United Nations inaugurated the first-ever global forum on renewable energy last week, it provided a laundry list of financial pledges aimed at achieving one of the world body’s most ambitious goals: sustainable energy for all (SE4ALL) by 2030.

The forum specifically focused on the developing world where one out of five people are without access to basic energy: electricity.

According to the United Nations, Norway is expected to spend about 330 million dollars for global renewable energy this year, while Bank of America’s Green Bond has pledged some 500 million dollars over three years as part of a 10-year 50-billion-dollar environmental business commitment.

The collective 50-billion-dollar pledge was made by big businesses at the Rio+20 conference in Brazil in June 2012.

"With the Sustainable Energy For All Initiative being dominated largely by big energy corporations, multilateral development banks and private capital who seek commercial returns, it is doubtful if the interests of the energy deprived will be met at all." -- Meena Raman of the Malaysia-based Third World Network
Additionally, the Organisation for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has created a one-billion-dollar fund for energy access.

And the African Development Bank has approved sustainable energy projects totaling some two billion dollars and mobilised co-financing totaling about 4.5 billion dollars.

Brazil, meanwhile, has reached out to nearly 15 million people, once living in veritable darkness, with its ‘Light for All’ programme.

Still, the commitments and achievements fall far short of the overall target for SE4ALL.

World Bank President Jim Yong Kim said last year that financing was the key to resolving the energy crisis, with a staggering 600 to 800 billion dollars needed a year from now until 2030.

He said the three goals are: access to energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy.

“We are now starting in countries in which demand for action is most urgent,” he said, pointing out that “in some of these countries, only one in 10 people has access to electricity. It is time for that to change.”

But to make that change, the United Nations has been marshalling resources, mostly from the private sector, big business and international organisations.

At the just-concluded forum, some of the corporate participants included senior officials from Bank of America, Citigroup, Coca Cola, Deutsche Bank, Royal Dutch Shell, Philips Lighting, Statoil and Sumitomo Chemical.

The meeting was attended by nearly a thousand delegates, including government leaders, energy practitioners, representatives of international organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

But civil rights groups and activists in the energy sector are sceptical about the role of big business.

Dipti Bhatnagar, climate justice and energy coordinator at Friends of the Earth International (FoEI), told IPS the SE4ALL initiative “has been co-opted by dirty energy corporations” and the United Nations is therefore not in a position to realise its goal.

The funders are led by an unaccountable, handpicked group dominated by representatives of multinational corporations, including oil giants such as Shell, that are investing billions in fossil fuels exploitation around the world, she charged.

“We have warned [U.N. Secretary-General] Ban Ki-moon that the SE4ALL and other U.N. initiatives have been captured by dirty energy corporations which use them to greenwash their image,” said Bhatnagar.

These companies are obstructing “the rapid transformation needed to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and achieve a just and sustainable energy system.”

Meena Raman of the Malaysia-based Third World Network was equally apprehensive about the involvement of big business in SE4ALL.

“With the Sustainable Energy For All Initiative being dominated largely by big energy corporations, multilateral development banks (MDBs) and private capital who seek commercial returns, it is doubtful if the interests of the energy deprived will be met at all,” she told IPS.

The emphasis on centralised modern energy systems, which are expensive and not affordable to those who need them the most, undermines the very objective it is set to serve in term of ensuring universal access to modern energy services, Raman pointed out.

The objective of “ensuring universal access to modern energy services” must ensure that universal access needs to be prioritised.

She said a large percentage of the world’s poor in the developing countries get their survival energy needs from either collected or low-cost local-market-based traditional energy sources (which are under increasing threats from mining, expansion of urbanisation, industrialisation etc.).

“This is not necessarily because there are no modern energy services available in that society or locality, but largely because these poor people cannot afford those modern (and higher cost) energy services.”

Forcing the poor to the commercial energy market without foolproof systems to guarantee energy access for the poor will create more deprivations, more inequities, more distress, she argued.

Addressing the forum, Ban said,”Sustainable development is not possible without sustainable energy.”

Ban also launched the U.N. Decade of Sustainable Energy for All (2014-2024) focusing on energy for women and children’s health during the initial two years.

Bhatnagar told IPS the world’s current energy system is unsustainable and unjust.

“It is harming communities, workers, the environment and the climate.”

“To provide sustainable energy to those who are now excluded, we urgently need to transform our current, corporate-controlled energy system into one that empowers people to build clean, democratically controlled, renewable energy systems,” she warned.

Raman told IPS the first priority should be to drastically reduce the threats to the poor’s free access to free or low-cost energy services (while improving their quality of use with modern technological/technical & social inputs – and this has multiple benefits, including the health of women and small children).

She said the objective of providing “modern energy services” to those without such services at present, can thus be achieved only when the state plays a policy-determined role, and the market economy is strongly regulated to take cognizance of the widely differing capacities to buy energy services.

She said it cannot be done by de-regulating and privatising such services to big capital and markets.

“Too much emphasis on the private sector and market-economy is bound to concentrate more modern energy access to those who can afford to buy.”

Thus, the role of enlightened and inclusive state policies and actions will be paramount and should increase, rather than decrease, said Raman.

(END)

The U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit against the Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum Company brought by alleged human rights victims.

The ruling, which was handed down Wednesday, is seen as a serious setback for the Ogoni community in the Niger Delta, who alleged gross human rights abuses during the mid-1990s by the military government in power at the time."What we have here are allegations of horrific acts of violence, including torture, facilitated by large multinational corporations in Nigeria, that essentially will go unanswered for." -- HRF's Raha Wala

In addition, the decision essentially cuts off the U.S. courts system from those attempting to redress wrongs allegedly committed by multinational companies, particularly in developing countries.

In the widely watched Kiobel vs. Royal Dutch Petroleum case, the victims had accused the oil company of being complicit in the crimes against them, including torture, extrajudicial killings, rape and crimes against humanity.

Yet the justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, found that Shell’s connection to the United States was too tenuous, despite the fact that it does business in the country, and hence could not be sued under U.S. law. Critics say this is precisely what the U.S. law in question, known as the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), was created to do.

“The ruling today is a real tragedy,” Raha Wala, senior council at Human Rights First, a Washington-based advocacy group, told IPS immediately after the decision.

“It means that the doors to justice will be shut for a large category of foreign individuals who really have nowhere else to turn to receive redress for international human rights issues including torture and extrajudicial killings. I think the Supreme Court really missed the mark today with its ruling.”

In the case, the plaintiffs alleged that the Ogoni had protested against widespread environmental destruction and land degradation resulting from oil exploration in the Ogoniland region of the Niger Delta. In response, they said, throughout 1993 and 1994 the Nigerian military systematically targeted Ogoni villages in terror campaigns of looting, rape murder and property destruction.

These attacks were said to have culminated in the executions of a group of people known as the Ogoni Nine, environmentalists who included the renowned playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa. The nine were hanged following a military tribunal widely condemned as illegitimate.

The Ogoni had hoped to find justice in U.S. courts by filing a civil action against Royal Dutch Shell under the Alien Tort Statute. For decades, the statute has served as a tool for holding individuals, corporations and governments accountable for international human rights violations.

Yet Tuesday’s ruling, coming after a decade-long fight, could now irreparably weaken the statute. (A full history of the case can be found here.)

“Essentially what the court said is that the ATS – which is designed to allow lawsuits for violations of both the laws of nations and international law – no longer applies extra-territorially,” Wala said.

“So what we have here are allegations of horrific acts of violence, including torture, facilitated by large multinational corporations in Nigeria, that essentially will go unanswered for because the Supreme Court construed this law very narrowly.”

Indeed, Wala says Wednesday’s decision goes against decades of use of the ATS.

“The Supreme Court has interpreted this law in a way that has been inconsistent with the last 30 years of legal precedent,” she said. “During that time, the ATS has been used repeatedly to bring human rights cases into federal courts. Today’s decision is really a disservice to victims of human rights violations.”

State courts open

The decision will almost certainly have a profound effect on the global effort to give redress to victims of corporate-linked human rights abuses. Some are also worried that it will now make it more difficult to deny safe havens to alleged torturers and war criminals.

While the case is viewed as a departure from a trend toward greater accountability for serious human rights violations, Marco Simons, the legal director for Earth Rights International, a Washington advocacy group, says that the door to the ATS has not yet been closed.

“From now on, if a foreign multinational corporation has participated in crimes against humanity in another country, you can’t sue them in the U.S. simply because they have a presence in the U.S.,” he told IPS.

“It’s not enough that the defendant is a corporation doing business in the U.S. – now there needs to be some greater connection to the United States than that.”

At the same time, he notes, Wednesday’s decision only applies to federal courts. Further, and importantly, the justices did not decide that corporations are immune from the ATS, as Shell’s lawyers had suggested.

“So, foreign corporations doing business in the U.S. can still be sued under the ATS for the crimes they have committed around the world, but only at the state court level,” he explained.

“Beyond this, we don’t really know what additional connection might be required. It could mean that only a case against a U.S. corporation can be tried, or maybe the case would have to require some company involvement within the United States, such as corporate decision-making being made here.”

He says this issue will be argued in court for some time to come.

Waibite Amazi, a fisherman in Nigeria's troubled oil-rich delta region, spreads out his net outside his homestead, Nigeria. Farming and fishing is the main source of livelihood for the impoverished, rural population here. Courtesy: Dulue Mbachu/IRIN

By Toye Olori
LAGOS, Nigeria, Jan 31 2013 (IPS)

The decision by The Hague over Shell’s liability for polluting in the Niger Delta shows that justice is possible – but it is extremely hard to achieve if you are taking on a massive multinational, says Amnesty International’s Africa programme director Audrey Gaughran.

While The Hague dismissed most of the landmark case brought by the four Nigerian farmers and environmental pressure group, Friends of the Earth, against a subsidiary of international oil giant Royal Dutch Shell, the judges ordered Shell Nigeria to compensate one farmer for breach of duty of care.

Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company, is the largest oil and gas company in Nigeria, Africa’s top energy producer, which produces more than one million barrels of oil per day.

The Nigerian farmers and Friends of the Earth filed the suit in 2008 in The Hague, where Shell has its joint global headquarters, seeking unspecified reparations for lost income from contaminated land and waterways in the petroleum-rich Niger Delta.

One of the farmers, Friday Alfred Akpan, from Ikot Ada Udo village, had complained that the oil leakage in his community had destroyed his 47 fishponds. He said the destruction of the ponds had resulted in his inability to fend for his family.

The pollution was a result of oil spills in 2004, 2005 and 2007, the complainants said.

The Niger Delta, which accounts for 50 percent of this West African nation’s oil exports, has about 31 million inhabitants. Farming and fishing is the main source of livelihood for the impoverished, rural population here.

According to AFP, the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth welcomed the one compensation order but was stunned to have lost the other cases.

“Clearly it’s good news that one of the plaintiffs in this case managed to clamber over all the obstacles to something approaching justice,” Gaughran told IPS from Lagos on Wednesday, Jan. 30.

“Given the really serious difficulties of bringing these cases at all, the significance of today’s ruling is that one plaintiff prevailed and will get damages.

“However, the fact that the other plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed underscores the very serious obstacles people from the Niger Delta face in accessing justice when their lives have been destroyed by oil pollution.

“It is clear that governments need to look at the formidable obstacles claimants face, especially when taking massive oil companies to court,” he said.

Wale Fapohunda, a commissioner with the National Human Rights Commission in Lagos, told IPS that the fact that the case was filed in The Hague showed a lack of faith in the Nigerian judicial system which is plagued by corruption.

“We need to focus and ensure that our own justice system is able to respond to human rights violations, particularly when they are committed by multinationals against citizens,” said Fapohunda, who is also a managing partner of the Legal Resources Consortium and the former secretary of the Presidential Commission on the Reform of the Administration of Justice in Nigeria.

“The trend now is that because victims in the region are often intimidated by the multinationals who believe they are close to our justice system, affected persons in the region will continue to find justice outside our shores, and that is bad for us,” said Fapohunda, who is also on the international advisory board of Penal Reform International.

Lawrence Quaker of Human Rights Law Services, Lagos, said the case as a good example of how Nigerians are beginning seek international justice amid the failure of the country’s judiciary.

“The filing of the case in The Hague shows that some people are losing confidence in the Nigerian judiciary and are going outside to seek redress. An example is the conviction of former Delta State Governor James Ibori in the United Kingdom.” In April, Ibori was convicted of fraud for allegedly stealing almost 77 million dollars intended for Nigeria’s poor. Prior to the case, Ibori had been tried in Nigeria on the same charges and had been found not guilty.

“It shows that the judiciary abroad is not biased and we can take cases against companies to their motherland for adjudication and get a fair hearing,” Quaker told IPS.

Shell hailed the judgment as a victory. Castelain was quoted by AFP as saying: “We are very pleased by the ruling of the court today. It’s clear that both the parent company, Royal Dutch Shell, as well as the local venture … has been proven right.”