Campaign to Right Shell’s Wrongs to Continues.
Communities living on the fenceline of Shell’s operations from around the world met with Shell CEO van de Veer to ask for concrete commitments to solve their serious environmental and health problems. Van de Veer agreed to a direct line of communication from the fenceline communities to the highest level of decision making of Royal Dutch Shell. However, Van der Veer did not want to take ultimate responsibility for the operations of his local facilities. The fenceline groups continue to be concerned by this Shell’s policy.

Shell admitted that stakeholder dialogue must be improved and that monitoring of emissions can be done better. Shell claims that it cannot prescribe or dictate specific improvements to local plant managers. Shell refused to use objective criteria to engage community groups on environmental issues.

Before Shell AGM in April 2006, the groups will report to Shell and the public what progress has been made on these issues. The groups will continue to campaign locally and globally to stop Shell’s wrongdoings. Shell will be expected to deliver on its promises particularly in projects under development where crucial construction decisions will be made, such as County Mayo, Ireland and Sakhalin Island.

“Shell talks about its philosophies, but philosophy doesn’t fix pipelines and it doesn’t cure pollution related illness” says Norbert George from Curacao. “The ball is in Shell’s court to show that they live up to their standards and it should be demonstrated by concrete actions.”

“Shell’s double standards have been well documented,” said Desmond D’sa from NiZA partner oganisation SDCEA (Durban, South Africa). “They use cleaner and safer technologies at the Shell refinery in Denmark than they do in Durban for example.”

Shell’s management agreed to a direct line of communication for fenceline neighbors to the CEO and to consider the installation of real time fenceline air monitoring at their refineries, but declined to agree to the following requests: objective criteria for engaging appropriate stakeholders on environmental issues (denied); expedited timeline for upgrading aging equipment in developing countries- (denied); joint process to determine responsibility for contamination from operations- (denied); erase double standards in their operations in developed nations versus developing nations – (disagreement of facts).

The delegation from Shell consisted of high level of senior managers. From the fenceline communities there were representatives from the Nigeria, South Africa, Curacao, Texas and Brazil. Shell’s operations have been a concern of the global alliance of their neighbors for three years. The groups have issued numerous reports documenting Shell’s poor performance. For more information see: www.shellfacts.com