• Vow to Sustain Pressure Until Justice Is Done
Although the struggle for environmental justice in Nigeria’s oil rich Niger Delta appears to have lost some of its steam in recent times, frontline environmental justice groups, including the Africa Network for Environment and Economic Justice (ANEEJ), Ogoni Solidarity Forum and the Niger Delta Youth Alliance have continued to campaign for justice for the people of the Niger Delta affected by oil pollution. A recent report of the outcomes of the one decade of activism made available to The Explainer documented how these groups have been applying pressure to ensure institutions in Norway hold accountable the corporate interests, which have destroyed the environment due to their activities.
Using the instrumentality of the Peoples AGM, the groups have been calling on international financial institutions to cease financing of fossil fuel projects in Nigeria. The groups, with ANEEJ Executive Director, David Ugolor playing a leading role galvanized scores of stakeholders to advocate on behalf of the peoples of the Niger Delta. The environmental justice crusaders took the struggle all the way to Norway where they put the spotlight on the roles of the Norges Investment Management Bank, also known as the Norwegian Oil Fund (NBIM), which is one of the world’s largest funds, with a value of over 12 trillion Norwegian Kroner (NOK). The bank is also one of the top three shareholders in Shell Plc, the oil giant that operates in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region. According to fact sheets made available to The Explainer, Shell is currently NBIM’s seventh largest holding, worth 60.7 billion NOK. This translates to ANEEJ data 11,000 NOK of shares for every Norwegian.
In the course of its advocacy for justice especially with the pollution and despoliation of the environment in the Niger Delta caused by Shell’s exploration of oil in Niger-Delta communities, ANEEJ and the other organizations in the coalition sought to interrogate, and thereafter debunk claims made that the business entities responsible for the pollution of Niger Delta communities, had taken steps to address the suffering caused by their activities. The environmental groups queried the role of the Norway’s Oil Fund, especially with its investment in Shell?
They asked if NBIM had at any point used its influence to improve the environmental and human rights situation in the Niger Delta, where Shell has been responsible for decades of oil spills, gas flaring, and pollution? The questions were described as very important looking at the fact that in 2013, Norway’s Ethics Council found that Shell was “responsible for serious environmental damage in the Niger Delta, with extensive oil spills causing ‘huge and long-lasting damage to agricultural areas, forest areas, wetlands, fresh water and mangroves’, with very serious consequences for vulnerable people living there.”
The Explainer gathered that the Norwegian Ministry of Finance then decided to ask NBIM to engage Shell to sort out these issues for five to ten years, rather than exclude the company from the fund. The ministry said that “active ownership can be a more effective instrument than exclusion for addressing the ethical challenges in the oil sector in Nigeria.”
According to the environmental groups, those ten years are now up. However, there is frustration that while NBIM claims significant successes from its talks with Shell, this has not translated to concrete results on the ground. Environmental groups under the Peoples AGM have also stressed that while giving the impression to institutions in Norway that Shell has reduced spills from its pipelines, improved equipment maintenance and protection, and collaborated better with local communities to clean up more areas, the reality on the ground in the Niger Delta cannot support such optimism.
According to the coalition of 30 Nigerian NGOs that represent women, youth, indigenous people and others such claims are part of the wider strategy of Shell and the Norwegian Fund to dodge accountability and leave the peoples of the Niger-Delta impoverished. In a May 2023 letter to NBIM’s CEO, Nicolai Tangen, in May 2023, the groups said: “While claiming to engage to change Shell, Norway’s Oil Fund has in fact long provided powerful financial and moral support for the company. Not much has been achieved with the Ogoni clean-up and it seems that you and your staff are at risk of being misled by Shell and its representatives.”
The Nigerian groups therefore invited NBIM staff to go to the Niger Delta to undertake a fact-finding mission to see the true state of affairs. They also urged NBIM to divest from Shell and other fossil fuel companies that contribute to climate change and human rights violations.
ANEEJ Director, Rev. David Ugolor, expressed disappointment over NBIM’s ineffective engagement with Shell. He condemned what he described as Shell’s unfulfilled promises to clean up the Ogoni land, which was contaminated by oil spills since the 1950s. Ugolor, who has also done impactful work in fighting corruption in Nigeria said Shell had also failed to compensate the affected communities and provide them with alternative livelihoods.
He said that NBIM should have used its leverage as a major shareholder to hold Shell accountable and demand more transparency and accountability from the company. For him, NBIM should have also supported the demands of the Ogoni people for environmental justice and self-determination.
Another member of the delegation, Affiah Foh Bridget, a peace-building and conflict prevention practitioner in Nigeria’s Niger Delta region, also weighed in on the situation in the Niger Delta and the lack of accountability on the part of Shell. Bridget, who is the Executive Director of Ideal Women Advancement Initiative, a group that empowers women in oil-bearing communities, expressed concerns about NBIM’s investment in Shell. She said the concerns are real because the Norwegian Fund supports a company that harms women’s health and well-being. She said women bear the brunt of oil pollution in the Niger Delta, as they depend on natural resources for their livelihoods. Bridget equally made the point that oil spills destroy their farmlands and fisheries, while gas flaring causes respiratory problems and miscarriages.
The women’s rights activist admonished that NBIM should have invested in renewable energy and sustainable development projects instead of fossil fuels. For her also, NBIM should have also engaged with women’s groups in the Niger Delta to understand their needs and aspirations. As a mark of solidarity and support, the Nigerian activists were not alone in their criticism of NBIM’s engagement with Shell. Several Norwegian civil society organizations have also called on NBIM to divest from Shell and other oil companies that violate human rights and damage the environment.
They argue that NBIM’s engagement strategy has not produced any meaningful results in terms of improving Shell’s practices or reducing its emissions. They say that NBIM’s investment in Shell contradicts Norway’s commitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change and its own Climate Act.
They say that NBIM should follow the example of other funds that have divested from fossil fuels for ethical and financial reasons. They say that NBIM should align its portfolio with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement and invest in green and social solutions that benefit people and the planet.
They said that they believe that Norway, as a country that values democracy and human rights, should not support a company that violates these principles in another country. They said that they expect NBIM, as a fund that claims to be responsible and ethical, to act accordingly and divest from Shell.
The Explainer gathered that as far back as 2013, Norway’s Ethics Council travelled to the Niger Delta to investigate Shell. The Council’s report, submitted to the Ministry of Finance in 2013, validated all of the community’s concerns. The Council found that Shell was “responsible for serious environmental damage in the Niger Delta, with extensive oil spills causing ‘huge and long-lasting damage to agricultural areas, forest areas, wetlands, fresh water and mangroves’, with very serious consequences for vulnerable people living there.”
The Council also found that Shell had failed to prevent or reduce the risks of oil spills, to respond quickly and effectively when they occurred, and to clean up and rehabilitate the affected areas. The Council noted that Shell had hired local contractors and groups that did substandard or incomplete work, and that there were still large oil spills from way back in the 1970s that had not been cleaned up in Ogoniland.
The Council concluded that Shell had a responsibility for the serious damage to the environment and the local people’s livelihoods, and that the extent of oil spills from Shell’s operations was too large and unacceptable. The Council recommended that Shell should be put on a watch list for four years, towards possible exclusion from the fund’s portfolio after that time if Shell had not improved its performance.
However, this publication learnt that Norway’s Finance Ministry chose not to follow the Ethics Council’s recommendation. Instead, the ministry asked NBIM to engage with Shell for five to ten years on the issues raised by the Council, to bring Shell’s performance in line with its ethical standards. The ministry said that “active ownership can be a more effective instrument than exclusion for addressing the ethical challenges in the oil sector in Nigeria.”
NBIM staff thereafter held a series of engagement meetings with Shell staff in recent years and bought more Shell shares, raising its holding from 2.3% to 3.1%. The coalition of NGOs pushing for a sustainable environment free of oil spills and pollution have also noted that NBIM has subsequently been engaging Shell on climate strategy, while voting to endorse Shell’s 2023 U-turn on its climate pledges. To worsen things, the groups noted that NBIM voted to back Shell’s management on every point at the company’s 2023 AGM, despite Shell’s plans to dilute its already weak climate strategy. It was also pointed out that NBIM backed the management of climate-destructive companies such as BP, TotalEnergies and Toyota, while voting against many other climate-conscious investors.
Similarly, the Independent Monitor of the Ogoniland Clean-up, released by Stakeholder Democracy Network (SDN) and other civil society organizations showed that the clean-up of Ogoniland, which was launched in 2016 after a UN Environment Program assessment in 2011, has been slow and ineffective. The report shows that only 11 out of 21 sites have been cleaned up, and that none of them have met the remediation standards set by NOSDRA. The report also shows that the clean-up has not addressed the underlying causes of pollution, such as oil theft, illegal refining, and pipeline vandalism. The report also shows that the clean-up has not addressed the underlying causes of pollution, such as oil theft, illegal refining, and pipeline vandalism.
In 2021, the UK Supreme Court and the Dutch Court of Appeal both reached judgements that support the charge that Shell bears responsibility for the oil spills and the damage they cause in the Niger Delta. The UK Supreme Court ruled that two groups of Nigerian farmers and fishermen can sue Shell in London for compensation and remediation. The Dutch Court of Appeal ordered Shell to pay compensation to four Nigerian farmers and to install a leak detection system in its Nigerian pipelines, as it does in Europe. In the light of these realities, the coalition of NGOs have vowed to sustain the pressure on NBIM and Shell until the people of the Niger Delta get reprieve and justice.