|
Human Rights Watch
Observations
on SPDC Integrated Environment and Community Development
Stakeholders’ Workshop,
Warri 13-15 March 2001
Human
Rights Watch endorses the idea of consultation with communities and
experts about Shell’s operations in Nigeria, and we believe that
the “stakeholder workshops” held in recent years have played a
positive role in some respects.
In particular, they have exposed SPDC staff directly to
criticism by people outside the company, which is a healthy process;
they have allowed Shell to impart information about what the company
is attempting to do to a wider audience than would otherwise be the
case, and they have
been able to feed information into the attempt to reshape Shell’s
community relations. However,
based on the recent workshop in Warri, we do have concerns about the
extent to which these workshops can genuinely affect SPDC’s
business practices.
The
workshop took place over two days, at the Petroleum Training
Institute in Warri. There were more than 500 participants from
government, media, NGOs, and communities all over the delta, as well
as many SPDC staff from different parts of the organization..
There were several plenary sessions, in which SPDC gave
presentations about aspects of its efforts to improve Shell’s
performance (such as ensuring compliance with ISO 14001 standards)
but much time was spent in smaller groups (though some were still up
to 80 people) known as “syndicates”, discussing different
topics. The ten
syndicates on the first day were on topics chosen by SPDC; the
syndicate topics for the second day were pulled from questionnaires
filled in by each participant on arrival which asked for each person
to indicate their concerns about SPDC’s operations and their
proposed solutions. The
conference concluded with a communiqué presented on behalf of the
participants to Ron van den Berg, the managing director of SPDC.
•
Participants
Firstly,
probably a majority of those attending the workshop were individuals
who are looking for money from SPDC in one way or
another—“benefit captors,” in the language of development
experts. They were
local government chairmen, traditional leaders, individuals running
NGOs involved in development work such as skills training, academics
who would like to be hired to work on Environmental Impact
Assessments, etc. There
were some genuinely independent people there, and it did not appear
that anyone was deliberately excluded from attending, but such is
the experience of people attending previous workshops and the
reputation of SPDC in general, that many of those who are most
outspokenly critical of SPDC did not think it worthwhile to attend.
A more targeted approach of private meetings with individuals and
representative groups might be more productive (as well as cheaper). In addition, a large number of those who attended (including
the journalists) were paid to do so in addition to having their
expenses covered. In
these circumstances they are hardly likely to maintain an objective
view.
•
Presentations
While
much of the information presented by SPDC at the meeting was useful,
some of the presentations did not entirely reflect the reality on
the ground. For
example, there was a spokesperson for a group of young men from a
model farm funded by SPDC, who spoke in praise of the project, and
the group itself sang to all of us attending the workshop.
However, reports from those who have visited the project
indicate that these young men are simply paid a salary to live at
the farm, a salary which bears no relationship to the income brought
in by their farming activities, and receive virtually no training in
small business management or other tools that might give the project
a long term impact. Such
examples do not inspire confidence in the other information
supplied. There was
also no discussion of SPDC’s future planned funding of development
projects, whether this will continue to rise or whether—which is
said to be the case—it will be substantially reduced.
•
Choice of “syndicate” topics
The
list of topics chosen by SPDC for the small group “syndicates”
on the first day largely focused on community development and not on
other aspects of SPDC’s business
affecting community relations. Although the workshop is billed as
focusing on the environment and community development, the context
in which community development projects are funded is of key
importance in assessing their strengths and weaknesses—for
example, in many cases SPDC’s community development workers are
simply not welcome in communities because of the bad relations
between the community and SPDC that have built up over the years in
relation to other incidents. If
a “stakeholders’ workshop” concentrates only those aspects
where Shell is doing more than is legally required—that is,
carrying out development projects at all—then the feedback
received is inevitably going to be, “Yes, Shell is doing the right
thing, but more is needed,” even if in fact the development
projects are not very successful (which has apparently been
confirmed by a recent external review of SPDC’s development work).
However, it is clear that even where SPDC has carried out
successful development projects, the company is undermining this
work in other ways. For
example, despite the constant calls for peace in the delta as a
prerequisite for development, made at this workshop and elsewhere,
SPDC (like the other oil majors and service companies) is a
significant contributor to conflict through—for example—the
system of paying youths on “standby.”
The money given to young men to do nothing then undermines
social structures and leads to conflict with other young men who
have not benefited; and is used to buy weapons, feeding a cycle in
which the long term trend is towards ever more violence.
The
set of syndicates topics discussed on the second day, based on the
“ticket items” noted in the questionnaires participants
completed on arrival, did reflect concerns about more controversial
subjects, such as the payment of compensation.
But again, they did not include debate on these wider issues
about conflict in the delta.
•
Choice of questions asked
In
the syndicates participants were first given a presentation by an
SPDC staff member on the topic concerned, and asked to consider a
series of questions, the first of which was “Is Shell moving in
the right direction?” This
structure, and the phrasing of the question, resulted in a number of
what could be described as “false positives.”
If a Shell staff member gives presentation describing what
the company says it is doing or planning to do, but there is no
independent evaluation of that information indicating what is
actually happening on the ground, then the response from
participants is likely to be unduly positive.
If participants had been asked “is Shell doing the right
thing now?” then it is likely that the responses would have been a
great deal more negative.
While
the workshop organizers emphasized that the purpose of the
consultation was to focus on solutions and not on problems, this
type of question structure leads to a situation in which the
problems are not even acknowledged. It is not possible to find
solutions without understanding the problems faced, which will
require a frank assessment of the situation today. Furthermore, as a practical matter from the point of view of
Shell’s public relations, participants at such a workshop must
have the opportunity to state the problems they feel to be most
pressing, or they will feel that their input has been manipulated
for the company’s purposes.
•
Inaccurate reporting to plenary
One
of the most worrisome aspects of the workshop was the fact that in
at least two, and possibly more, of the syndicates, the report to
plenary by the (SPDC) rapporteur of a syndicate discussion did not
reflect the conclusions of those who participated in the syndicate.
For
example, the report to plenary from the syndicate which discussed
compensation payments for oil spills, land acquisition and other
issues was completely inaccurate. After the presentation from an
SPDC staff member on the company’s policies and plans (including
an ongoing review of the current system), there was a heated
discussion during which it became clear that the current process is
not working and that there are very serious problems.
The chair then put three options to the group to answer the
question “Is Shell moving in the right direction?”: (1)
“yes”; (2) “no”; (3) “no, but it appears from the
presentation that there are some attempts being made to change
direction.” Out of
maybe thirty people, the only ones answering “yes” worked for
SPDC. The rest, the
great majority, said either “no” or “no, but.” Yet when it
came to the report to plenary the rapporteur said that the
conclusion was “yes, but there is more to do.”
Something very similar happened in the syndicate discussing
Environmental Impact Assessments, where a clear majority saying no
had somehow become a “yes, but there is more to do,” when the
rapporteur give his report. These
outcomes can give the impression that the entire process is
worthless to those whose views have been ignored.
More
positively, the structure of the first set of syndicates did allow
the reports to be changed if they did not reflect participants’
views. The second
meeting of the EIA syndicate did in fact amend the report from the
syndicate to be “no” rather than “yes.”
It remains to be seen whether the final report from the
workshop will reflect this change.
•
Participation of Shell staff
While
it is important for Shell staff to be present at such a workshop in
order to give information to participants and for them in turn to be
exposed to the concerns of community members, there were problems in
practice with the participation of so many SPDC staff members at
this workshop. During
the syndicate discussions, SPDC staff, in addition to participating
in the discussion to give their views, as was appropriate, also
attempted to influence the conclusions coming out of the syndicates,
by simply objecting to points that did not match their world view.
If the workshop is at least in part for Shell to find out what
outsiders think then the reports must reflect what non Shell staff
think. Given the
problems with inaccurate reporting of syndicate conclusions to
plenary described above, it is clear that Shell staff should not be
rapporteurs from any discussion group.
•
Final communiqué
The
communiqué was presented without any debate or even a formal vote,
after a drafting process which was not explained or made public in
any way: as a question of pure process is absolutely unacceptable
for a communiqué to be presented as if it were adopted by consensus
when participants hear it for the first time as it is read out in
plenary as an official document.
Bronwen
Manby
Wednesday,
April 04, 2001
Back to the top
|
