Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell must take responsibility, critics say. Shell is trying, but is facing a failing government and sabotage, says the oil company. But who is right? The Dutch parliament has held a hearing on oil extraction in Nigeria and its impact on the local population.

Activist Sunny Ofehe, founder of the Hope for the Niger Delta Campaigns (HNDC), was present at the hearing:

“There are many people in the villages who are waiting for the outcome of this hearing. And I want to tell you that, while you do your duty as elected representative of this country... you might face pressure from the giant companies who have the money and the resources to stall this process that has begun today. But as you ponder... I want you to have deep down in your heart that more than 26 million people are dying from environmental devastation... every fuel tank you fill [is] at the expense of somebody's health.”

Profound distrust
Mr Ofehe admits that the oil company has been trying to improve relations with the local population of the Niger delta, but argues that this is not enough. He and other speakers pointed out that, as long as people are still suffering the consequences of oil pollution and the practice of burning off excess natural gas, the profound distrust of Shell will not disappear.

Shell argues that it is often impossible to mend leaking pipelines and clean up leaked oil. On top of which, they say that many of these leaks are the result of sabotage. Shell's sub-Saharan Africa executive vice-president Ian Craig says the situation is very complicated:

“A situation of high population density, unemployment, poverty, political marginalisation and of course corruption. Leading to frustration and criminality. This extreme and challenging environment is then compounded by the major shareholder [the state of Nigeria] having chronic underfunding problems... We had to shut down about 50 percent of the production because the militants made it too dangerous to continue working.”

No clarity
Shell refuses to pay compensation to victims if a leak is caused by sabotage, because it would only encourage more acts of sabotage. However, critics accuse Shell of deliberately exaggerating the number of sabotage-related incidents.

Various NGOs have criticised the oil company’s attitude. They say Shell should put more pressure on the Nigerian government to take action against abuse, and the company should take on a more active role in fighting environmental pollution. Meanwhile, Shell refuses to provide clarity about its contacts with the Nigerian government. Confidentiality is essential between business partners, Shell says.

Amnesty International spokesperson Audrey Gaughran says the oil company is putting pressure on Nigerians.

“In our engagement with the Nigerian government, particularly at [the] local level, there was a degree of fear of Shell. Local regulators in particular were very afraid to speak about Shell unless they could be guaranteed not to be named. They feared losing their jobs if they told the truth about how Shell operates. At the federal level we face serious challenges. The government knows there’s problems; it’s not doing enough... [but] there are things that are Shell's responsibility and it cannot point to the government of Nigeria.''

Well-considered interest
The oil company says the situation in Nigeria is difficult to control. “So why don’t you leave the country? one of the MPs asked. However, Peter de Wit, CEO of Shell Netherlands, rejected that option:

After the hearing, the MPs from the Dutch Socialist Party, Labour Party and Christian Union expressed disappointment. The Christian Union said Shell has a moral obligation to improve the situation in Nigeria. The conservative VVD, the main coalition partner in the minority cabinet, proposed the European Union draw up regulations and formulate policy. 

MPs have not said what they will do with the information gathered during the hearing.