From our friends at Platform and their Remember Saro Wiwa program:

remember saro-wiwa UNEP Report: Analysis & action Following coverage in The Guardian today of UNEP’s outrageous decision to “exonerate” Shell over oil spills in Nigeria, we present analysis of this controversial issue. Read on and take action below. Global Outrage at UN Report The UNEP’s report is in direct conflict with local environmentalists and communities who have witnessed and monitored spills for many years. We take a look at the manipulative PR and politics behind Shell’s ‘exoneration’. Read more. What’s Shell & UNEP Trying to Hide? Any child educated in Nigeria knows that oil was discovered in Oloibiri, Nigeria in 1956, and that the history of oil spills is almost as long. So why does UNEP think otherwise? Read more. More Harm Than Good? There are some things the debate over oil spills in Nigeria cannot change. Shell must clean up all oil spills. But the UNEP could undermine the pressure on Shell to take action. Read more. Take Action You can help hold Shell to account: email Mike Cowing , (head of the UNEP study) and cut and paste the following questions. Please personalise, share and add your own views. 1. Why has the UNEP decided to echo Shell’s widely disputed analysis of the number and causes of oil spills in Ogoni? 2. How does UNEP justify announcing its findings on the causes of oil spills when this is not the subject of the study? 3. Why does UNEP claim that oil spills in the Niger Delta have been occurring for only 9 years? 4. What guarantees can UNEP give that its study will not be subject to undue influence from either Shell or the Nigerian government, since both are funding the project?

Read the reaction to UNEP’s report on JINN ally website remember saro-wiwa

By Ben Amunwa on August 24, 2010

Today Amnesty International joined the chorus of disapproval and outrage at UNEP’s decision to clear Shell of all responsibility for oil spills in Nigeria. UNEP has been widely criticised for recently using Shell data to announce that the company is only 10% responsible for the causes of oil spills.

“Relying on these figures would be a serious misjudgement, with potentially significant ramifications for those living in the Niger Delta,” said Audrey Gaughran, Director of Amnesty International’s Global Thematic Issues Program. “UNEP must be aware that the figures have been strongly challenged for years by environmental groups and communities. They are totally lacking in credibility.”

Amnesty went on to highlight how UNEP’s use of Shell data raises serious anomalies:

Between 1989 and 1994 Shell itself estimated that only 28 percent of oil spilt in the Niger Delta was caused by sabotage. In 2007 Shell’s estimate had risen to 70 per cent. The figure now given by Shell has increased to more than 90 per cent. Amnesty International has repeatedly asked Shell to produce evidence to support these figures. Shell has been unable to do so.

Friends of the Earth International, the worlds largest network of environmentalists, also condemned UNEP’s uncritical announcement of the disputed Shell data. Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends the Earth International and director of Environmental Rights Action in Nigeria said:

We monitor spills regularly and our observations often contradict information produced by oil companies and Nigerian regulatory agencies. If the UNEP team would ask community monitors it would avoid falling into the trap of spinning Shell’s figures. The UN assessment is being paid for by Shell so we are not surprised that it tells Shell’s version of the facts. But the reality is that several studies have placed the bulk of the blame for oil spills in the Niger Delta on the doorsteps of the oil companies; particularly Shell.

Link to article on .

Read JINN ally Nnimmo Bassey’s powerful piece from the Guardian UK on the UNEP report financed by Shell:

Report blaming 90% of spills in Ogoniland on locals stealing crude from pipelines allows companies to shirk responsibility

Outrage at UN decision to exonerate Shell for oil pollution in Niger delta

Nnimmo Bassey
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 August 2010 15.13 BST

Oil leaks from the Shell flow station in Eriemu, Nigeria Oil leaks from a Shell flow station in Nigeria. The claim that pipelines have been sabotaged is particularly attractive to oil companies. Photograph: George Osodi/AP

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is preparing to issue a report announcing that 90% of the oil spills in Ogoniland, Nigeria, are caused by the locals stealing crude from pipelines – and that Shell’s aged pipelines and ill maintained installations account for a mere 10% of the spills. Why so little, we might ask?

The UNEP has now admitted this figure is based on data from the oil industry and the Nigerian government. It’s not surprising that this is in line with what Shell used to claim in the 1980s – that about 80% of the oil spills were caused by vandalism or sabotage. This claim that infrastructure has been sabotaged is particularly attractive to oil companies, because they are then exempted from paying compensation for any resulting spills. Why accept responsibility for polluting the locals’ creeks, swamps and farmlands and destroying their livelihoods when you can blame the very same people for the mess now coating their own backyards with a toxic gloss?

Yet crucial expertise which could have painted a very different picture was sidelined. Prof Richard Steiner, an international expert on oil spills, was contracted to write the manual on oil damage assessment and restoration by the UNEP in 2004. But when Shell hired the agency to carry out the present study, Steiner’s offer to provide scientific advice and guidance to the Ogoniland report was declined.

Steiner has already said that the findings now uncovered are incorrect, and has gone on to say: “Our earlier results suggest that much of the oil spilled there was due to poor practice by Shell, rather than bunkering and sabotage… it is entirely implausible that 90% of the oil spilled was due to bunkering [the act of criminal gangs stealing oil].” In short, his opinion is that this is not an independent, credible assessment.

The report does indeed rely heavily on figures produced by oil companies and Nigerian state statistics rather than on testimonies from those most affected – the communities in Ogoniland.

The National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency of Nigeria has reported a total of 3,203 oil spills in the Niger Delta region in the last four years alone.

That list lengthens every day. The records of the Nigerian Directorate of Petroleum Resources show that nearly 2.5m barrels of crude oil were spilt between 1976 and 1996. Most damning of all, 77% of this oil was not recovered and contaminated the local environment. This is an environmental catastrophe which has a long history – some notable past spills include the Escravos spill of 1978 in which 300,000 barrels of crude oil was spilled into the coastal waters and another, in the same year, caused by tank failure at Forcados Terminal in which 580,000 barrels were spewed into the environment.

It is in this polluted environment that the people of Ogoniland have had to live for decades with spill after spill. The UNEP must be, and be seen to be, an independent arbiter of what has really happened there. There should be no room for suspicion that the $10m (£6.5m) Shell paid the agency for this report will influence the outcome.

Nnimmo Bassey is chairman of Friends of the Earth International

From the CBS Business Network blog comes an article about the recent achievement of the Publish What You Pay coalition of which Justice in Nigeria Now is an active member:

Bono Versus Big Oil: The Resource Curse Battle Moves to the SEC

By Kirsten Korosec | August 17, 2010

Activists, including U2 frontman Bono, cheered — while Big Oil blasted — an 11th-hour insertion into the Dodd-Frank financial reform law last month that will require all companies registered with the SEC to disclose their royalties, bonuses and other payments to foreign governments for the extraction of oil, gas and minerals. But the fight isn’t over. It’s just moving to the SEC.

How can I be so sure? The American Petroleum Institute, the powerful oil and gas lobby group, told me so. API spokeswoman Misty McGovern wouldn’t go so far as to reveal the group’s plans, saying only that they were “in the early stages of formulating a strategy.” But she did confirm that the SEC will be the next battleground.

The amendment, inserted by Sens. Richard Lugar, R-IN., and Ben Cardin, D-MD., aims to end the so-called resource curse, in which underdeveloped countries are paid handsomely for their natural resources, but monies aren’t passed down to the poverty-laden population. The amendment not-so-coincidentally pulls directly from Lugar’s now-idled Energy Security Through Transparency Act.

The law now heads to the SEC, where the agency has about nine months to craft the wording of the regulation. Oil, gas and mining companies will lobby the commission to keep the annual reporting requirements as vague as possible. Their ideal scenario? To get the SEC to only require companies to provide aggregated information, McGowen said. For instance, instead of Exxon (XOM) having to disclose detailed payment information of each project in the foreign country where it’s operating, the company would only have to provide the lump sum paid out that year.

Companies, including Exxon, argue the law will put U.S. businesses at a distinct competitive disadvantage because their international rivals would be able to see how much they’re paying for rights to develop oil and gas fields or extract minerals.

That’s not entirely accurate. The disclosure rule forces any company registered with the SEC to follow the rules. That means companies like UK-based BP, Australia’s mining giants BHP Billiton (BHP) and Rio Tinto (RTP), Brazil’s Petrobras (PBR) and even a few Chinese energy companies, like CNOOC, have to make the same disclosure as U.S.-based Chevron (CVX). That being said, there are some national oil companies — or NOCs — that aren’t registered with the SEC and in those cases, it would be a competitive disadvantage for all the SEC-listed ones.

Exxon and the like are more supportive of what they call a more inclusive international requirement, specifically, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. It’s not that EITI isn’t a worthy organization. It is. But the new disclosure law is powerful because it’s widespread and not voluntary, which makes it far more attractive to activists seeking change right now.