Oil giant blamed for 10% of 9m barrels leaked in 40 years • Report claims rest of leaking oil caused by saboteurs
by John Vidal
A three-year investigation by the United Nations will almost entirely exonerate Royal Dutch Shell for 40 years of oil pollution in the Niger delta, causing outrage among communities who have long campaigned to force the multinational to clean up its spills and pay compensation.
Oil pipelines in Okrika, near Port Harcourt. The UNEP denies it has been influenced by Shell, which paid for its $10m, three-year study. (Photograph: Ed Kashi)
The $10m (£6.5m) investigation by the UN environment programme (UNEP), paid for by Shell, will say that only 10% of oil pollution in Ogoniland has been caused by equipment failures and company negligence, and concludes that the rest has come from local people illegally stealing oil and sabotaging company pipelines.
The shock disclosure was made by Mike Cowing, the head of a UN team of 100 people who have been studying environmental damage in the region.
Cowing said that the 300 known oil spills in the Ogoniland region of the delta caused massive damage, but added that 90% of the spills had been caused by "bunkering" gangs trying to steal oil.
His comments, in a briefing in Geneva last week, have caused deep offence among the families of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the eight other Ogoni leaders who were hanged by the Nigerian government in 1995 after a peaceful uprising against Shell's pollution.
With 606 oil fields, the Niger delta supplies 8.2% of the crude oil imported by the US. Life expectancy in its rural communities, half of which have no access to clean water, has fallen to little more than 40 over the past two generations.
Communities accept that bunkering has become rife in some areas of Ogoniland, but say this is a recent development and most of the historical pollution has been caused by Shell operations.
Last year, Amnesty calculated that the equivalent of at least 9m barrels of oil has been spilled in the delta over the past half a century, nearly twice as much as the 5m barrels unleashed in the Gulf of Mexico by the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Tonight the investigation was accused of bias by Nigerians and environmental groups who said the study - paid for by Shell and commissioned by the Nigerian government, who both have massive oil interests in the region - was unbalanced.
Ben Ikari, an Ogoni activist, said: "Nobody from Ogoniland would be surprised, because the federal government of Nigeria and Shell are the same cabal that killed Ken Saro-Wiwa and others."
Ben Amunwa of London-based oil watchdog group Platform said: "The UNEP study relies on bogus figures from Shell and incomplete government records. Many Ogoni suspect that the report's focus on sabotage and bunkering will be used to justify military repression notorious in the Niger delta, where non-violent activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, were executed."
Cowing defended the UN report. In a series of emails seen by the Guardian, he said: "UNEP is not responsible for allocating responsibility for the number of spills being found in Ogoniland. Rather, we are focusing on the science. The figures referred to are those of the ministry of the environment and the department of petroleum resources.
"This is a Nigerian issue, not a UNEP issue. However, I would add that from our extensive field work throughout Ogoniland we have witnessed, on a daily basis, very large scale bunkering operations.
"It's very controversial. We cannot say whether a particular spill is from one cause or another. Our observation is that there is a serious [bunkering ] problem. I am being seen to be siding with the oil companies, but I am not.
"We were provided with the official spill site list. This is given by the oil companies themselves but is endorsed by the [government] agencies. We are not on the side of the oil companies."
He denied the UN was being influenced by Shell or the government. "We believe that it is correct that Shell [Nigeria] fund the study, as this is in compliance with the internationally accepted norm of the 'polluter pays'. No party ... will be able to influence the science."
The full report, due to be published by December, is expected to warn of an environmental catastrophe.
"This is not directly comparable to the spills that occurred in the Gulf [of Mexico]," said Cowing. "But we have a serious and profound problem."
Tonight, environmental groups expressed shock at the report. Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends the Earth International and director of Environmental Rights Action, Nigeria's leading environment group, said: "It is incredible that the UN says that 90% is caused by communities. The UNEP assessment is being paid for by Shell. Their conclusions may be tailored to satisfy their client. We monitor spills regularly and our observation is the direct opposite of what UNEP is planning to report."
A June 2009 report by Amnesty International called the damage in the delta a "human rights tragedy", and blamed the government and oil firms, mainly Shell, for years of pollution. It recognised that oil bunkering had caused spills, but said "the scale of this problem is not clear".
The UN report saw more than 1,000 soil and water tests and other investigations carried out, and hundreds of communities consulted. The data generated is the first step towards a massive clean-up.
Oil production in the delta started during the 1950s, but was suspended in the 90s due to unrest. The oil fields in Ogoniland have since remained dormant.
Monday, August 30, 2010
World Bank Land Grab Report Under Fire
July 29, 2010, 8:21 AM ET
Source: Wall Street Journal
The World Bank has prepared a report on massive investments into developing world agriculture, a practice shorthanded as land grabbing.
The report is due for publication next month, but leaks are already getting out, and causing a stir among Brussels’ huge development activist community.
Amid the food and land bubble leading up to 2008, African land became the target of big corporations and sovereign wealth funds.
Most famously, Daewoo Logistics Corp. in 2008 was able to get a 99-year lease on a spread of land in Madagascar as big as Qatar, a deal that was later overturned after a coup.
The World Bank report criticizes land grabbing for not meshing with proper development strategies and leading to conflict.
Development advocates are up in arms about the Bank’s handling of the report, which say flatly contradicts the Bank’s own policy of encouraging international trade and investment. That’s why the bank proposes releasing it at the height of the summer, when noone will be watching, they claim.
In a phone interview, Olivier de Schutter, a Belgian who has been U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food since 2008, explained the outrage.
“The World Bank encourages these investments,” he said. “They argue it’s a solution for the lack of equipment, the lack of storage facilities in the development world.”
“Investment is needed,” continued Mr. de Schutter, who teaches at the University of Louvain in Belgium and Columbia Unversity. “But not investment under any conditions. You don’t want to encourage or allow a market for speculators.”
The arrival of big outside investors “often pushes the original land users off the land,” he said. “It’s an important consequence for communities who have no legal titles.”
His goal, and that of other development activists, he said, is to raise awareness about the land grab issue. “The World Bank is a complex animal, it’s not going to change right away.”
Still, he added, “this report is embarrassing for the Bank, and that’s why they’re releasing it in the middle of summer.”
A World Bank official said the Washington-based institution would never seek to muffle the work and findings of its researchers.
Source: Wall Street Journal
The World Bank has prepared a report on massive investments into developing world agriculture, a practice shorthanded as land grabbing.
The report is due for publication next month, but leaks are already getting out, and causing a stir among Brussels’ huge development activist community.
Amid the food and land bubble leading up to 2008, African land became the target of big corporations and sovereign wealth funds.
Most famously, Daewoo Logistics Corp. in 2008 was able to get a 99-year lease on a spread of land in Madagascar as big as Qatar, a deal that was later overturned after a coup.
The World Bank report criticizes land grabbing for not meshing with proper development strategies and leading to conflict.
Development advocates are up in arms about the Bank’s handling of the report, which say flatly contradicts the Bank’s own policy of encouraging international trade and investment. That’s why the bank proposes releasing it at the height of the summer, when noone will be watching, they claim.
In a phone interview, Olivier de Schutter, a Belgian who has been U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food since 2008, explained the outrage.
“The World Bank encourages these investments,” he said. “They argue it’s a solution for the lack of equipment, the lack of storage facilities in the development world.”
“Investment is needed,” continued Mr. de Schutter, who teaches at the University of Louvain in Belgium and Columbia Unversity. “But not investment under any conditions. You don’t want to encourage or allow a market for speculators.”
The arrival of big outside investors “often pushes the original land users off the land,” he said. “It’s an important consequence for communities who have no legal titles.”
His goal, and that of other development activists, he said, is to raise awareness about the land grab issue. “The World Bank is a complex animal, it’s not going to change right away.”
Still, he added, “this report is embarrassing for the Bank, and that’s why they’re releasing it in the middle of summer.”
A World Bank official said the Washington-based institution would never seek to muffle the work and findings of its researchers.
ICTR Defense Lawyers Condemn Murder of ICTR Lawyer Mwaikusa: Continuing Threats from Rwandan Government
ARUSHA, TZ --The Bureau of the ICTR Association des Avocats de la Defense (ADAD), notes with sadness and alarm the murder of our ICTR colleague, University of Dar es Salaam Law Professor Jwani Mwaikusa, who was shot to death at his home on July 14. Professor Mwaikusa had recently prevented the transfer of ICTR defendants to Rwanda on “lack of fair trial” grounds, and announced the appeal of his client’s July 3 conviction.
Our colleague’s murder is not an isolated incident. Within the past month, a prominent Rwandan opposition journalist was also shot to death in front of his home; a former Rwandan general survived an apparent assassination attempt in front of his home in South Africa, where he is seeking asylum; the de-capitated body of the Rwandan Green Party Vice-president was found near his abandoned car and, the Party’s President has been publicly threatened with assassination.
Hundreds of potential Rwandan opposition candidates and supporters have been arrested or disappeared. Presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire was arrested for suggesting that both Tutsi and Hutu were victims during the 1990-94 civil war and genocide, and her Dutch, U.S. and Rwandan lawyers were also arrested.
The Mwaikusa murder also follows the illegal arrest of other lawyers. U.S. Law Professor Peter Erlinder was arrested in late May on “genocide-denial” charges based on his public statements arising from his work in the ICTR Military 1 Trial, in which four former senior military officers were acquitted of “genocide conspiracy” charges in February 2009, and his representation of Madame Ingabire. ICTR defense lawyers refused to participate in proceedings after his arrest, and he was released after an international campaign.
But, the Rwandan government refuses to recognize meaningful UN-granted immunity for Erlinder or other ICTR defense counsel. Defense lawyer Peter Robinson (a former Assistant U.S. Attorney) has asked to withdraw from the ICTR representation because a meaningful defense is not possible, under current conditions. Other ICTR defense attorneys are considering similar measures.
Rwandan government threats to ICTR defense counsel are also not isolated incidents. In 2006, ICTR defense lawyer Me. Gakwaya was arrested on a Rwandan “genocide” warrant when he arrived at the ICTR to represent his client and, although he was eventually released, he was forced to end his ICTR work. Many other defense team members have been forced to give up ICTR work, because of threats, or arrest, by the Rwanda government. The Erlinder arrest, Mwaikusa murder and continuing threats against defense team members make clear that the ICTR cannot guarantee the safety of defense team members, anywhere in Africa.
In addition, during the past-2 months credible media reports have documented the systematic withholding of evidence helpful to the defense by the ICTR Prosecutor, which further deepens our concern because only the losing side in the Rwanda civil war has been prosecuted at the ICTR. The ADAD Bureau is deeply concerned that the impossibility of meaningful defense at the ICTR has called into question the legitimacy of the ICTR, itself, an open question.
ADAD calls on the UN Security Council to ensure the safety of ICTR defense teams; to undertake an independent investigation of the Mwaikuza murder; and, to re-establish the integrity of the Tribunal by fully disclosing evidence of crimes committed by both the former and current Rwandan government .
- 30 -
Prof. Peter Erlinder
Wm. Mitchell College of Law
St. Paul, MN. USA
651-290-6384
Our colleague’s murder is not an isolated incident. Within the past month, a prominent Rwandan opposition journalist was also shot to death in front of his home; a former Rwandan general survived an apparent assassination attempt in front of his home in South Africa, where he is seeking asylum; the de-capitated body of the Rwandan Green Party Vice-president was found near his abandoned car and, the Party’s President has been publicly threatened with assassination.
Hundreds of potential Rwandan opposition candidates and supporters have been arrested or disappeared. Presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire was arrested for suggesting that both Tutsi and Hutu were victims during the 1990-94 civil war and genocide, and her Dutch, U.S. and Rwandan lawyers were also arrested.
The Mwaikusa murder also follows the illegal arrest of other lawyers. U.S. Law Professor Peter Erlinder was arrested in late May on “genocide-denial” charges based on his public statements arising from his work in the ICTR Military 1 Trial, in which four former senior military officers were acquitted of “genocide conspiracy” charges in February 2009, and his representation of Madame Ingabire. ICTR defense lawyers refused to participate in proceedings after his arrest, and he was released after an international campaign.
But, the Rwandan government refuses to recognize meaningful UN-granted immunity for Erlinder or other ICTR defense counsel. Defense lawyer Peter Robinson (a former Assistant U.S. Attorney) has asked to withdraw from the ICTR representation because a meaningful defense is not possible, under current conditions. Other ICTR defense attorneys are considering similar measures.
Rwandan government threats to ICTR defense counsel are also not isolated incidents. In 2006, ICTR defense lawyer Me. Gakwaya was arrested on a Rwandan “genocide” warrant when he arrived at the ICTR to represent his client and, although he was eventually released, he was forced to end his ICTR work. Many other defense team members have been forced to give up ICTR work, because of threats, or arrest, by the Rwanda government. The Erlinder arrest, Mwaikusa murder and continuing threats against defense team members make clear that the ICTR cannot guarantee the safety of defense team members, anywhere in Africa.
In addition, during the past-2 months credible media reports have documented the systematic withholding of evidence helpful to the defense by the ICTR Prosecutor, which further deepens our concern because only the losing side in the Rwanda civil war has been prosecuted at the ICTR. The ADAD Bureau is deeply concerned that the impossibility of meaningful defense at the ICTR has called into question the legitimacy of the ICTR, itself, an open question.
ADAD calls on the UN Security Council to ensure the safety of ICTR defense teams; to undertake an independent investigation of the Mwaikuza murder; and, to re-establish the integrity of the Tribunal by fully disclosing evidence of crimes committed by both the former and current Rwandan government .
- 30 -
Prof. Peter Erlinder
Wm. Mitchell College of Law
St. Paul, MN. USA
651-290-6384
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
