Oil, Shell ordered to compensate Niger Delta residents for environmental damage
Environment — di Valentina Neri
After a lengthy legal dispute, residents of the Niger Delta have prevailed over oil giant Shell — setting an important precedent.

After a lengthy legal dispute, residents of the Niger Delta have prevailed over oil giant Shell — setting an important precedent.
Sabotage alone cannot be blamed. The oil spills that between 2006 and 2007 severely polluted the Niger river delta in Nigeria also occurred because the local subsidiary of oil giant Royal Dutch Shell failed to exercise adequate oversight — and then did not clean up the contaminated area either. This was established on Friday 29 January by the Court of Appeal of the Netherlands, based in The Hague, which ordered the company to compensate four local residents and begin remediation of the waters as soon as possible. In doing so, it marked a decisive milestone in a legal dispute that had been ongoing for years — and, above all, set an important precedent that could pave the way for further compensation claims.
Oil spills from pipelines in the Niger Delta are a sorry routine, the New York Times recalls. Villagers have long pointed the finger at oil companies which, they say, fall short on maintenance and safety measures. This is also the argument put forward by the four Nigerian farmers who took Shell to court in 2008, assisted by the Dutch office of environmental organisation Friends of the Earth — joining the now sizeable group that contends oil operations in the Niger Delta have severely undermined the population's quality of life.
This specific case had already been ruled on by the District Court of The Hague in 2013, but it reached the opposite conclusion. The oil spills and the resulting environmental damage were never actually disputed, yet the company always maintained it had been the victim of sabotage. At the time, the court had accepted this argument and absolved the company of all liability. The Court of Appeal, however, added a further element: the spills occurred because certain valves were opened without authorisation, but Shell's subsidiary did not do enough to monitor them. It must therefore adopt new systems to prevent this from happening again. The oil company may now appeal the ruling before the Supreme Court.
In Nigeria, where oil operations have more than sixty years of history behind them, Shell alone manages around fifty fields and nearly 5,000 kilometres of pipelines. Among the facilities present in the territory, however, 73 per cent are corroded and in need of replacement; in theory they have a useful life of fifteen years, yet it has happened on more than one occasion that they have remained in use after thirty years or more. This is what emerges from a technical analysis published by WikiLeaks. Hence the oil leaks, a heavily compromised territory, and the unhealthy conditions in which the population is forced to live. Life expectancy in the Niger Delta, Friends of the Earth points out, is ten years lower than in the rest of the country.

Environmentalists, engaged in a sustained battle to uphold the rights of the environment and the community, are celebrating. Beyond the size of the individual compensation awards, this precedent means "victims of environmental pollution, land grabbing or resource exploitation now have a greater chance of winning a legal battle against the companies involved," notes Donald Pols, director of Friends of the Earth Netherlands. "People in developing countries are no longer without rights when facing multinationals."
"There is finally justice for the people of Nigeria who suffer the consequences of Shell's oil," declared Eric Dooh, one of the four citizens who brought the legal action. "It is a bittersweet victory because two of the plaintiffs, including my father, did not live long enough to see the end of this process. But the ruling gives hope for the future of the people of the Niger Delta."