by Tom Wheeler

"This is not something we are trying to PR away," claims Martin Christie of Shell International. "This is a measured and considerate management tactic. We are working very hard to manage the situation."

Speaking at the Issues Management Conference, a November 1997 gathering of top corporate PR executives, Christie was there to unveil Shell's new model of environmental management and local participation for its latest gas-drilling project in Peru, which seeks to position Shell as a fierce protector of the rainforest.

Titled "Creating Sustainable Development in a Jungle of Stakeholder Demands," Christie's presentation promised to explain "the intricacies of what is an extremely complex issue management process in Peru."

Shell plans to drill for natural gas as part of a 40-year, $3 billion project in what was originally set aside as a homeland for uncontacted indigenous peoples in the jungles of Peru. The project is hailed as one of the most ambitious and largest gas operations in South America.

The company hopes to exploit a gas field that is believed to contain 11 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 600 million barrels of natural gas liquids.

Although Christie chose not to discuss Shell's scandal-ridden history, recent bad publicity is the obvious driving force behind its new-found emphasis on what Christie described as "building, nurturing, maintaining and enhancing partnerships" in order to achieve better "management of perceptions internationally."

The best-publicized recent scandal occurred in late 1995 when the Nigerian government executed Nobel Peace Prize nominee and environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, along with eight other Ogoni tribesmen, for opposing Shell's Niger Delta operations.

Today, Christie says, Shell is "not trying to take people on." Instead, it is trying to "look at the issues more broadly," to "revisit human rights principles," and to be "open and transparent" by assuming that "all documents will be considered public."

Kinder, Gentler Drilling

As part of this retooling, Shell now welcomes input from observers and experts, has actively sought "external verification," and aggressively promotes Shell's efforts to "save the rainforest."

Under its "Camisea Community Strategy," Christie says that the company will obtain permission from local people before doing any work. It has also promised not to build roads to the site and developed what it calls an "offshore concept." All materials are to be brought in by helicopter. Shell will forbid hunting and fishing by staff, personnel are not allowed to wander off the worksite, and it will ensure minimal pollution and clean up all waste.

Shell is also allowing third-party monitoring and is actively "looking for partnerships" by inviting 35 non-governmental organizations to "monitor the project from an environmental and social standpoint."

"Some of my business colleagues ask, are we going to have to do this on every project?" said Christie. He responded in the affirmative and reasoned that image-conscious industries have an opportunity "to capture the learning from this type of approach" and to break from the past "when we were control freaks."

During the early stages of the Peru project, he said, Shell "shared the project guidelines with people seeking input and advice. . . . We were trying very hard."

Apparently, not hard enough. Despite all these efforts, the Peruvian gas operation has already drawn charges of environmental destruction. Peruvian activists have complained that the local people have little idea what is happening at the drilling site or what future operations might involve.

Complaints have surfaced blaming Shell for causing the Cashiriari River to turn a dark color, and local villagers have complained about the decline of wildlife. Shell has been blamed because it has no erosion controls on its operations, which are situated in the headwaters of the Cashiriari and Camisea rivers. The constant noise from helicopters delivering workers and materials is also having an impact.

And environmentalists claim the current problems are minor compared to what will occur when Shell begins the actual extraction of natural gas, which has not yet commenced. Waste material from the wells could contain heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, and mercury, which are highly toxic.

Christie also claims Shell will compensate the local people for the use of the land. In exchange for two hectares of land for the first well in Armihuari, Shell promised the village of Cashiriari that it would supply electricity for three communal houses, as well as tin roofs and medicines. However, Shell admits that it exceeded the amount of land it could use by 50%, and local communities charge that Shell has paid little in compensation and funded only token community programs.

Another problem is the land-use agreement does not guarantee any compensation for accidents, contamination of local rivers, or destruction of the forests. Agreements with other communities have been criticized, and Shell has been accused of creating divisions and problems for the indigenous peoples without offering much in the way of compensation or security against pollution.

When someone in the audience asked Christie if there was any opposition to the project, he admitted that some international environmental groups were opposed but the local populations were "exceedingly positive." When the questioner pressed further, Christie hesitated for a moment, then meekly changed his story, admitting that not all the locals were "supportive of the project."

Apparently, many locals remember an oil drilling project Shell launched a decade ago. According to environmentalists and human rights activists, that project disrupted the economy and undermined the culture. Shell workers abused local women and brought diseases that killed a major part of another indigenous community of Nahua peoples who have lived in isolation for centuries.

Tokens of Appreciation

There is no denying that Shell has worked very hard to shine its tarnished image. Last year the Shandwick PR firm helped Shell create a website at <www.shell.com>, which showcases its "hard work" to improve its environmental record.

In 1996, Shell pledged with great fanfare to sponsor a hospital in Nigeria with a $250,000 donation in the hopes of starting a "better relationship based on trust and respect." Unfortunately, the gesture wasn't well received, and Ogoni activists angrily denounced the move as a "public relations gimmick."

Environmentalists and activists have charged that Shell's self-congratulatory rhetoric has not produced real improvements in how the company does business.

In January 1997, the World Council of Churches (WCC) released a 106-page report that called Shell's environmental record in Nigeria "distasteful." The report accused Shell of not working in the interests of the local people. The report claims the Ogoni people in Nigeria do not benefit from the oil industry and end up suffering the brunt of environmental devastation, military repression, judicial as well as extra-judicial murder.

In May 1997, the Rainforest Action Network released a separate report accusing the company of spilling oil in Peruvian rivers, ignoring the views of the indigenous population and also colluding with the Nigerian Army.

For the corporate media, however, a few buzzwords about "sustainable development" seem to go a long way. Christie bragged about a Shell-sponsored tour in which journalists were invited to inspect its facilities in Peru. The trip, he said, led to "some good press coverage" in the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal, which ran a glowing story titled, "Oil Companies Strive to Turn a New Leaf to Save Rain Forest."