Media reports over the past days and weeks have indicated that it is UNEP’s determination that 90 per cent of oil spills are linked with so called ‘bunkering’ and criminal activity.

In referring to this data UNEP clearly indicated that these figures represented official estimates of the Government of Nigeria, based in part on data supplied by the oil industry.

Yet 2 weeks ago, on 10 August, the UN was telling a very different story. Here is a direct quote from the UN in Geneva, which blames the 90% of the spills on the Ogoni people, and only 10% on Shell.

“The Gulf of Mexico situation was an operational accident. What was happening in the Niger Delta was a very different situation. This was a proliferation of oil spills through criminal activities, through the theft of oil by sabotaging the oil wells and also sabotaging the main pressurized supply lines. Only around 10 per cent of the oil spills by number and by volume actually related to equipment failure.”

This message is still available on the UN website. There is no reference to Shell or government figures. There is no “clear indication” that UNEP is using the bogus oil company data. To deny this would be factually incorrect. UNEP should accept that they made a highly significant mistake in blaming the Ogoni people for the spills. Worst of all, they have failed to hold Shell accountable for causing over four decades of ecological devastation. Ogoni activists who have struggled long and hard against Shell’s environmental and human rights abuses, are deeply saddened and disappointed with UNEP’s decision and its denials.

If UNEP admits its error, and holds Shell accountable for its decades of oil spills as an independent study should, then there might be some measure of faith in this flawed report.

“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.

Well No 1, at Oloibiri, Niger Delta

As any child educated in Nigeria will tell you, oil was discovered in Oloibiri, Nigeria in 1956. Oil spills in Nigeria date back to those early days of exploration and production and increased significantly with the expansion of infrastructure onshore and offshore in 1970s.

All the more shocking then that Mike Cowing, the UNEP’s leading expert on its study in Ogoniland, is reported to have made the startling claim that oil spills in the Niger Delta “have probably been continuing for nine years”, at a press conference in Geneva on 10 August 2010. Such glaring inaccuracy casts doubt over the credibility of the forthcoming report, which the authors have been forced to admit will be “controversial”.

Cowing’s statement is further evidence that UNEP is attempting to hide the historical impact of Shell’s oil spills. For village communities like Ejama-Ebubu, this adds insult to injury. They have waited over 40 years for Shell to clean up several massive oil spill that devastated their land. The Federal High Court in Nigeria fined Shell over $100 million in damages from the spill. However, Shell has refused to pay, and as of writing the damaged ecosystem has still not been cleaned up. Devastating spills like these have been commonplace throughout the Delta for almost as long as oil production in Nigeria.

A three-year investigation by the United Nations will almost entirely exonerate Royal Dutch Shell for 40 years of oil pollution in the Niger delta, causing outrage among communities who have long campaigned to force the multinational to clean up its spills and pay compensation.

The $10m (£6.5m) investigation by the UN environment programme (UNEP), paid for by Shell, will say that only 10% of oil pollution in Ogoniland has been caused by equipment failures and company negligence, and concludes that the rest has come from local people illegally stealing oil and sabotaging company pipelines.

UNEP’s heavy focus on sabotage and theft comes as no surprise, as the study is being bankrolled by Shell and the Nigerian government.  UNEP’s report is in direct conflict with local environmental groups who monitor almost daily spills caused by neglect. They claim that the majority of spills are the result of mechanical failure; in other words, worn out, leaky infrastructure (like this abandoned Shell well-head in K-Dere, Ogoniland, above right).

It is widely known that Shell under-reports its spill volumes and frequencies. UNEP’s confidence in Shell’s data is misplaced, misleading, and unfortunate, coming at a time when oil companies are under increasing pressure to address the risk of oil spills.

Aggressive independent oversight is part of the solution, but this is unlikely to be provided by a Shell-sponsored report. UNEP’s findings are a distraction from the destructive legacy of Shell’s oil spillage in the region, which Amnesty International called a ‘human rights tragedy’ in a recent report.

Whilst oil production continues apace, there is very little sign that Shell is doing anything to repair & replace its ageing pipelines which are causing widespread pollution in the Niger Delta. Shell has stalled for years on a comprehensive clean up of 52 years of spilling. Never lacking excuses when held responsible, Shell claims lack of funding, security concerns and now blames the problem entirely on impoverished locals.

SHAKE! reflects the distinctive approach of PLATFORM, which attracted me to them in the first place: challenging the misdeeds of the largest centres of power in the world – corporations and banks as vast as Shell, BP and RBS – using, in part, the resources of creativity and art. One example is standing outside the Stephen Lawrence Centre right now – the Living Memorial to Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight of his fellow activists, executed for their role in the non-violent resistance to Shell’s abuse of the land and people of Ogoniland in the Niger Delta. A sculpture in the form of a Nigerian bus, it’s just one of the many creative interventions made by PLATFORM in pursuit of social and environmental justice.

So I was naturally excited about the opportunity to get involved with bringing these elements to the sorts of people – indeed, as mentioned, some of the very people – that I work with on a daily basis. And, of course, I was excited about doing it in the Stephen Lawrence Centre, another memorial, this one to the British teenager whose murder was subject to an investigation that led to the Metropolitan Police being condemned as ‘institutionally racist’. The SLC is certainly a living memorial, and I see it as an act of hopeful defiance in the face of hatred, injustice and cynicism.

The bulk of the work done at SHAKE! has been creative. Having been introduced to the stories of Ken Saro-Wiwa and Stephen Lawrence, and having been fortunate enough to meet in person Doreen Lawrence, Stephen’s mother, the participants have responded both personally and analytically, and used these responses to form the basis of what they have produced. There have been three groups – music, video and spoken word, which are beginning to work together. Poems have been spoken over African beats; a roving film-crew is interviewing hopeful DJs. We haven’t reached the end of the course yet, where things will all tie together, but I just spoke to one of the participants. He told me that he didn’t know what to expect, but he’s found an outlet to express himself where there are no holds barred. He has other outlets – sometimes he boxes – but he’s enjoyed a different kind of outlet, one that ‘feels gentle’. The discussions about ways people have challenged injustice led him to tell me that ‘knowing that there are ways of making a difference inspires you’.

I’ve also been touched. Seeing young people feel moved by injustice, and feel grasped by a commitment to act against it, is affecting. We are already talking amongst ourselves about how to continue our connection with the participants, to create an ongoing exploration of all that’s been raised here. I guess this is another way of saying – it’s been a good week so far! But there isn’t a lot more time for all this reflection – there’s work to be done…

This rhetoric is welcome, but Nigeria’s National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA) is a muzzled watchdog, easily overshadowed by oil giants, like Shell. Under current regulations, a single payment of $7,000 to NOSDRA completely discharges oil companies from having to clean up major oil spills. Such token fines would be unthinkable in the US or UK, but companies like Shell have exploited the lack of oversight for decades, with widespread human misery and environmental devastation the result.

President Goodluck Jonathan must empower Nigeria’s environmental regulators to bite as well as bark. Allowing companies a free hand to pollute will continue to devastate the Delta’s marginalised poor, and make a mockery of Nigeria’s sovereignty.

While US lawmakers decried the fact that only $71 million had been paid out last Tuesday, the contrast with the Niger Delta is striking. Victims in the small village of Ebebu have waited for 40 years for Shell to clean up a major oil spill. The average life expectancy in the region is 45 years. Delays are the norm for oil spills in Nigeria. Communities wait weeks, months and even years before companies respond to oil spills and even longer before they pay minimal compensation.

A compensation fund, like that created within one day of US negotiations with BP, is urgently required for Niger Delta, where villagers have battled oil giants in costly litigations only to receive inadequate compensation or nothing at all.

Since companies get off the hook easily in the Nigerian courts, some victims, like Alali Efanga have taken their claims to a District Court in The Hague, home of oil giant Shell, in a case brought with Friends of the Earth Netherlands. Companies headquartered in London, The Hague or Houston must be held responsible, and activism is needed from governments, courts and civil society to force companies to compensate victims who have lost everything because of oil production. The same level of accountability applied in the US must be applied in Nigeria.

In the Niger Delta, companies like Shell routinely under-report spill figures and volumes to limit their liabilities in terms of fines and diminish the amount of compensation owed to victims in local communities. When faced with environmental disasters, oil companies will do anything to avoid responsibility, even if that means telling blatant lies.

The consequence is that nobody in Nigeria knows exactly how many oil spills there are or how much oil is spilled. The real figures may be much higher than even the most reliable (conservative) estimates. Companies keep their data secret, but if the real figures were ever known, the potential liability facing oil companies could be enormous. Elsewhere, Chevron for instance, is facing a $27 billion lawsuit after being accused of 26 years of dumping toxic waste in the Amazon…