Shell under fire from international activists

By Jan Goodey
28 April 2003
from www.redpepper.org.uk

Shell, the oil giant whose drilling operations and refineries have brought misery to communities from Nigeria through to South Africa and the Philippines, found itself on the receiving end as representatives from said communities brought their concerns to the doorstep, and beyond, of the company's annual general meeting in Westminster's Central Hall (Apr 23, 2003).

During questions, angry foreign community reps berated Shell's top brass over the company's negative impact on the environment and their health in particular; the first time shareholders and directors will have heard at close-quarters - from people living in these far flung places - exactly what it's like having Shell as a neighbour.

Incidents such as one million litres of oil from un-repaired pipes seeping into South Durban houses, or carcinogenic benzene fumes from flares hospitalising children: just two examples raised during face-to-face encounters - with the community reps (see exclusive Red Pepper interviews below) going on to publicly demand that Shell directors take responsibility for the impacts of their local operations.

Following the AGM, a delegation of international representatives went to the DTI and handed in a letter to Patricia Hewitt MP, industry minister, calling on her to introduce company laws tightening up corporate responsibilities on the welfare of workers and communities as well as the environment. Friends of the Earth and the Refinery Reform Campaign organised the stakeholder representation at the AGM to draw attention to the operations of UK companies at home and abroad. They are calling on the Government to bring in new company law to recognise the rights of local stakeholders, and impose duties on directors to consult on their activities.

Failing the Challenge - a report on the Anglo-Dutch company's activities and impacts around the world (including countries not represented at the AGM protests: Tibet and Argentina) - was launched by FoE on the day of the AGM (April 23, 2003).

FoE spokesperson Craig Bennett told Red Pepper: "Since Shell committed itself to sustainable development back in 1995, we've seen vast amounts of glossy brochures and multi-million pound advertising campaigns saying how great it is on green issues. What really matters however is what Shell is doing on the ground and that is same old unsustainable business as usual, putting profits before people and the environment.

"We want Shell to change and give greater priority to these issues. We're fed up having to take on company after company on these issues, we think it's about time the government woke up and actually started to govern and changed UK company law so that there's a duty on company directors to include social and environmental issues in their decision making, with a right of redress and compensation for communities affected.

"FoE is part of the Corporate Responsibility Coalition of groups including Amnesty, Christian Aid, Unison, GMB, Unity Trust Bank, New Economics Foundation and others. Last year we tabled a private members' bill called the Corporate Responsibility Bill which has already received the support of 280 MPs.

"The government is committed to bringing in its own company law bill within the next two years and it's undertaking the biggest review of company law in 150 years. This is a clear opportunity for the government to set out a legal framework to make sure UK companies operate in a way which doesn't harm people and the environment.

"It would be outrageous for Patricia Hewitt to miss this opportunity to make company law fit for the 21st Century rather than the 19th. It's barbaric when you have the situation where the richest people on the planet get hit by financial wrong-doing as in Enron, and no-one questions the need to tighten up regulation, as we've seen with Bush and Blair's reaction. But when it's the poorest people that get hit rather than financial shareholders, then suddenly relying on the voluntary approach and letting companies regulate themselves is fine. It's ridiculous.

"The protest today was fantastic. After the AGM, community reps took a hand written letter across to Patricia Hewitt at the DTI calling on her to do something about Shell and UK companies generally and implement these corporate responsibility changes. They pointed out that unless she does vulnerable communities around the world will continue to suffer.

"Another issue raised was the giant pay rises to Shell's company directors. Rather than base these on a purely financial basis, there should be performance-related pay on social and environmental issues. Shell directors would probably be on income support. After the AGM the reps had face to face discussion with Sir Philip Watts, Shell chairman, and meetings with the major investors."

Interviews

Interview with Heetem Kalam from Groundwork SA and South African Exchange Programme on Environmental Justice:

Q. What did you want to say to Shell today?
A. As an international delegation from South Africa, Nigeria, Philippines and the US, we wanted to send a very strong message to Shell International that there are things locally at these Shell facilities which are not going as they think they are going. There is a serious problem on the ground and Shell needs to know about it, the British public needs to know about it, and Shell's shareholders need to know about it. Shell is not doing what it is supposed to be doing.

Q. What would you like to see happening?
A. We'd like to see Shell engage with good will with the communities in which they operate. There needs to be improvement in dialogue, in trying to figure out what other issues they should be dealing with, and in moving quickly from dialogue into a plan of action. Everything from dealing with the health and welfare of people in fence-line communities, to reducing the pollution and emissions from the facilities. In the case of the Philippines, the law has said that Shell people need to move out of Pandacon [an oil depot in Manila] - the law re-zoned the area from industrial to commercial, but Shell is trying to get an amendment to this law. In places like Nigeria where conditions are absolutely atrocious, Shell needs to stop operating like a government, and start working on how they can really share the wealth and the resources that they've taken from the people of the Niger Delta.

Q. And in South Africa, are there any examples you can give of communities affected by Shell's operations?
A. The fence-line communities of South Durban next to the oil refinery for example, have an incredibly high rate of asthma, and high disproportionate rate of cancer. This is not anecdotal information, we have medical/scientific studies that show that rates of asthma in children compared to a control group are significantly higher. We know that during flares and releases, Shell has been responsible for putting thousands of pounds of noxious and hazardous chemicals into the air, everything from benzene to toluene to zyline, some of these chemicals are know carcinogens.

They have got underground pipes and a lot of these are old, rusting and leaking. Last year a million litres of petrol, leaked into the ground and came up into people's homes. For one, this is your product, something you sell in a station for 4-5 rand; we talked to shareholders and told them this is your profits, but at the same time it's polluting the ground water and making people sick. Shell's response is, we're not going to replace this pipeline we're just going to patch it up where we can. That's not good enough.

Q. And are people protesting?
A. There's been a lot of protest, there's been a lot of efforts to engage the oil refinery there in true and open dialogue. The Shell refinery there, we believe is not sincere in its dialogue with the communities, they're always setting preconditions to the meetings, they want them to sign confidentiality clauses, or not to speak to the media. We're saying you need to have unconditional dialogue with the community. We've come to Shell International to say there's a problem in south Durban you need to step in and start building the trust on the ground so we can move forward.

Interview with Oronto Douglas, deputy director of Environmental Rights Action, who has campaigned for many years to improve Shell's activities in Nigeria.

Q. Can you tell of the current situation in Nigeria with Shell?
A. I come from the Niger Delta and I work on environmental/human rights issues and I am involved in corporate accountability and liability claims. I am a lawyer and over the past 10-15 years have been working to compel Shell to do the right thing. Internationally Shell seems to have mastered the art of telling the world that they are doing better and therefore trying to cover up what they are doing on the ground.

There has been protest, conflict and shut-downs in the Niger Delta for the last three years. Now one would have expected that since the hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the campaign of the Ogoni people that Shell would have done better in the community areas of the Niger Delta. Instead there has been rebellion against environmental degradation and the exploitation of oil in an irresponsible way. Last year women decided to launch a major campaign against Chevron and Shell, they moved into the cities and towns and closed down Shell offices and Shell had to bring in the military to displace the women. They also occupied the flue stations and the oil rigs of Chevron.

Now with all these things happening Shell is able to push out quite brilliantly that everything is normal, everything is perfect and what is happening in the Niger Delta is communal conflict. Shell continue to do what would not be tolerated in Europe or America. There is very serious and intense trouble over scarce resources and the allegation that has been found to be true that Shell in its joint venture relationship with the government had appropriated land purely for oil drilling and in its operation had been responsible for polluting the water and the land - the crops no longer grow. While the world seems to be buying the cover up of ethnic strife.

In terms of long term strategy we are campaigning for corporate accountability and we are demanding ecological restoration, so that the waters and land can become productive for generations to come. So that when the oil is gone local people can rely on the land for survival.

Q. What did you actually say to Shell today?
A. They attempted to gloss over the issues of the Niger Delta. They talked of 'a bit of tension' there. A bit of tension for a region which provides for 14% of their profit, they dismiss it as ethnic conflict there and say there's democratic elections going on that will lead to a better relationship when in actual fact the EU brought out a report yesterday (22 April 2003) saying that the elections were rigged and that six states declared bogus results. People are dying, the villages are being wiped out because of oil, military occupation is taking over the whole of the region and they are saying 'a bit of tension'. It's a clear demonstration of how they value human life in that part of the world.

Interview with Hope Esquillo-Tura, community representative of Pandacan oil depot in Manilla, The Philippines

Q. What did you bring to the attention of Shell today?
A. We are campaigning for the relocation and phasing out of the Shell oil people in Pandacan. Our campaign is called the United Front and it is to oust oil people, because of the continued negative effects their operation is causing the communities. But most importantly, because the oil people have been in Pandacan for the past 90 years, the expansion of workers means that there is overcrowding and fence-line communities are so close to the depots.

There have been numerous instances of oil leakages resulting in schools shutting down, and the hospitalisation of residents as a result of exposure to the emissions. Now there is another factor - the oil depot is considered as vulnerable to terrorist attacks, as it is located right in the middle of a populated area, the presidential palace overlooks it and there have been warnings from terrorist groups of attacks. A law in 2001 reclassifying the area from industrial to commercial, gave Shell and two other oil companies six months to cease their operation. Now instead of closing they have negotiated with the mayor and now there is only a call for the scaling down of their operation. So to us this means Shell and others continue to operate in Pandacan in complete defiance of the law.

Further information: www.foe.org.uk

Fair use notice