By Ayodele Embry, Jennifer Otitigbe, Celeste Thomas
The development of the petroleum industry
in the 1960's and 1970's transformed Nigeria from an agricultural based economy
into one that is primarily dependant on oil revenues. Behind this transition
lies a complicated web of political, social, commercial and environmental
issues. One implication of the oil
industry has been the neglect of the agricultural sector. This has lead to a
rapid decline of local self-sufficiency and a heavy dependence on foreign
imports. Another implication is the use of the oil revenues to support the
military regime. And further, there has
been a rapid deterioration of the socio-cultural fabric in many oil rich
areas. Sadly, this nation which is
wealthy in mineral and natural resources is among one of the poorest countries
in the world. Since independence from
British rule, Nigeria has been mired in political and social turmoil. The polarized economy further agitates the
masses who have no access to the wealth of their land. In this report we will examine the true
political, economic, environmental and socio-cultural price of oil. Additionally, several recommendations will
be given regarding what actions can be taken to break the chain of oil related
abuses.
Chapter 1: Oil, Politics & Ethics
by Jennifer Otitigbe
Large MNC's have become increasingly
powerful as a result of the expansion of global markets over the past few
decades. Some critics describe the
MNC's as having superseded the nation states in the running of global affairs
(Halcrow, p.7). However, while governments accept that their essential role is
to protect and provide for their people, and have for the most part signed
documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, large corporations
have no such obligation (Adler, p. 20) . Their committment to such matters is
left to the good will and somewhat vague arena of codes-of-conduct (Banfield, p.1). More dangerous is the
situation where the government in question is not stable and
non-democratic. It is in this case that
the law of the land may compromise "universal laws of ethics". From examining the history of abuses that
promulgated in this situation, it is ever more apparent that MNCs must answer
to ethical issues above and beyond governmental laws. In spite of many
regulatory measures, instances of companies dumping waste, indsutrial goods or
neglecting environmental and human rights issues are significant. When this issue is pinned up against a
region where a non-democratic government exists, the affected communities have
no mean to effectively protest such actions.
Nigeria was colonized by the United
Kingdom in the later part of the 19th century.
In 1947 the United Kingdom introduced a new Nigerian constitution,
establishing a federal system of government. The new system was based on three
regions and ethnicities, Northern (Hausa-Fulani), Western (Yuroba) and Eastern
(Igbo) based primarily on the ethnic distinctions of the country. In 1954 the Nigerian federation became
self-governing and each of the three regions operated with a significant measure
of autonomy. 1958 marked the beginning
of a constitutional convention and in 1960, Nigeria became an independent
nation. Between 1960 and 1970 the
military's ethnic composition began to reflect the growing ethnic tensions in
Nigeria. This period of time was
characterized by a coup, in which the Igbo groups came to dominate the federal
government. Furthermore, efforts to
centralize the nation were ensued. A proposal was developed to abolish the
regions in Nigeria and replace that system with 12 states. There were some divisions regarding the
distribution of the Eastern oil revenues and growing hostility towards the Igbo
in the Northern region (McCaskie, p 798).
In 1966 the mainly Igbo Eastern region attempted to form an independent
Igbo state and the Biafra civil war ensued.
The late 1970 saw a number of changes in the political structure of the
country. The 12 state structure was
adopted under military rule. Plans for
holding civilian elections were suspended and a number of contested leadership
transtitions occurred. From 1979 to
1983 there was a brief period of civilian rule brought on with the assistance
of Lt.-General Olusegun Obasanjo.
During the 1980's intense party politics and unrest in the milirary
prompted a coup on the civilian government.
Since that time there were a number of proposed and attempted elections.
The most notable happening in 1993 when Moshood K.O. Abiola was believed to
have won the election (McCaskie, p 799).
During that period in the transition program, the military leadership
changed once again. At that time,
civilian leader Chief Earnest Shonekan surrendered leadership of the government
to Maj.- General Sani Abacha. Abacha subsequently, suspended all political
activities and halted the transition program.
It was around this period of time that the international community
started to become aware of the human rights abuses and the environmental abuses
occurring in the Niger delta region.
Multinational corporations (MNCs)
involvement in Nigeria often came at a high price. As military rule overcame
the country, large multi-national corporations sought to maintain holdings on
the vast mineral resources in several regions. Corporations such as Shell,
Chevron, Mobil and Elf Antiquane had to deal with formidable challenges in order
to do business in the region (EIA p. 12).
The constantly changing national leadership made formulating contractual
agreements difficult because most of the oil dealings came through the state
owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). Furthermore, all oil in Nigeria was deemed to be the property of
the state, hence the state petroleum corporation involvement. The MNCs joined the NNPC in joint venture
agreements. Often each side had an investment obligation to each new oil
project. Traditionally, the ventures
were 60% NNPC and 40% MNC owned.
The state had in place many thorough
environmental and commercial laws to which the MNCs were expected to abide by.
The trouble was that rarely were these laws enforced. If there was an environmental issue, the state left it up to the
MNC to complete an assessment and to assume responsibility for any damages
(Jukwey, p.1). MNCs were also expected
to deal with the local communities in providing adequate compensation for land
use or abuse. In most Niger Delta areas, land ownership was communal. Prior to the oil industry involvement, most
many individuals in one community would share the use of land to produce
foodstuffs. As a result, it was not
always clear who owned the land. Often,
the oil companies would deal with one community leader in gaining use of some
lands. That compensation was
occasionally a contractual agreement and on occasion that was a bribe. Any attempts at developing the local
communities were usually very shabby and ill planned (River State Report, p.
11). The majority of the individuals in
the community did not see any benefit from the presence of the oil company.
Human Rights abuses in Nigeria were
primarily attached to conflicts over politics and oil. During the rule of several military
officials, basic human rights were often infringed upon. Political parties were not allowed to form
(Nwosu, p.1). Many civilian officials
were replaced by military officers.
Individuals who were vocal against military rule were often jailed,
tortured or executed. Labor union
activities were heavily monitored. Journalists and other activists were
perceived to be a threat to the government were also jailed or forced into
exile (Human Rights Watch Report). In
addition to this, any group or individual that threatened the government's
major source of revenue was detained or punished by the national police
force.
In the oil producing regions, most of the
human rights abuses occurred as the state and private oil security forces
attempted to deal with the growing protests against oil company negligence.
Although Oil revenues accounted for 95% of the hard currency earnings and 80%
of the government revenues the average civilian had not seen any benefit to
that money (Human Rights Watch Report).
Land owners and communities who were not duly compensated for the use or
abuse of their land were often threatened.
When many oil spills occurred, the companies tried to pin the blame on
the local communities claiming sabotage.
Rarely were aggressive clean up efforts ensued. The land owners who wanted to obtain
compensation for their damaged farmlands and polluted waters were turned away
by both the governemnt and the oil corporations. Initially, groups tried to combat this issue with peaceful
protests however they were detained and threatened by both the state and the
corporate security forces. The growing
youth often resorted to protesting on the corporate properties and on the
drilling sites. In the 1990's the protests gained international attention
mostly due to the organization of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni
People lead by Ken Saro-Wiwa. In a
report by the Human Rights Watch organization it was noted that "MOSOP's protests provoked a violent and repressive
response from the federal governemet, for which a threat to oil production is a
threat to the entire existing political system. " (Human Rights Watch,
Ogoni Report). Hundreds of Ogoni protestors were executed and thousands were
beaten and detained. Even while the international community began to see the
abuses in Nigeria, the MNC's claimed to have no knowledge of the events.
Companies such as Mobil, Shell and Chevron supported the ruling
military Junta by signing into strategically important joint ventures with the
state oil company and related security contracts with the state police force.
In most cases the terms of the security contracts between the MNCs and the
government were not made public. In
1996, it was discovered that Shell was quietly helping the Nigerian police to
supress environmental advocates. The
International Press Service (IPS) obtained documents which implicated Shell in
the import of handguns and ammunition to the Nigerian police through a company
called Humanitex Nigeria ( Chatterjee, P.1).
Chevron officials had authorized Nigerian Troops and hired armed
security forces to fly by helecopter to Chevron's off shore oil field where
demonstrations were taking place on a drilling platform. The protestors were demanding that Chevron
contribute to the development of the impovrished region that they were
extracting from (Knight, p. 1). Two protestors were killed and many more were
wounded as a result of these actions. Incidentally, the Center for
Constitutional Rights is in the process of suing Chevron for complicity in the
shooting deaths (Shareholders Annual Report.
When the Nigerian military annulled the
1993 civilian governement elections, the Nigerian Oil Workers Union initiated a
strike against the arrest of the winner of the 1993 vote, Moshood K.O.
Abiola. Production was slowed as a
result of the strike and Chevron as well as Mobil brought in strikebreakers
from Europe (Fleshman, p2). When Nigerian Oil Workers Union leaders lead a
strike to protest the military government, they were imprisoned with out a
trial. None of the oil companies
protested the activities of the government (Corporate Watch Report).
Several oil companies have been directly
responsible for failure to monitor security abuses. While there is nothing wrong with having security for their
operations, the MNC's failed to monitor their actions. In 1990, a Shell manager made a
"written explicit request" for protection from the Mobile Police, a
brutal security force. As a result, 80
unarmed civilians and many local homes were destroyed (Nwosu, p. 2).Abacha
indicated that he would contest the presidential election in 1998. In March of
1998, the government's political and commercial supporters increased pressure
for Abacha to be re-elected as a civilian president.
By remaining passive about the human
rights and environmental abuses, the MNCs share in the blame for the atrocities
against the Delta region protestors. In spite of the overwhelming evidence of
human rights violations and the instability of the military political system,
these companies continued to conduct business as usual. Many of the MNCs felt that they were
operating ethically if they were following the directions of the
governemnt. When any human-rights
issues came to light, they absolved themselves by claiming to not be involved
in the politics of the nation. This conclusion was highly flawed because by
joining forces with the government to do business, they were by default
involved in the politics of the government. During the 1990's the Shell
Petrolium Development Corporation, a joint venture between Shell and the
Nigerian government, was implicated in the systematic suppression of local
communities by the Nigerian security forces.
This occurred in the Ogoni land region of Nigeria. A land mass from
which 30 billion dollars worth of oil has been extracted (Davis, p2). The
community still suffers from environmental degradation and economic neglect
(Human Rights Watch Interview). None of the money has been returned to the
communituy. Even after the execution of writer and environmenmtal activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, Shell continued to deal with
the NNPC by developing a large liquefied gas project contract within weeks of
the Saro-Wiwa execution.
The response from the international
community has been varied, but more recently there have been attempts to put
pressure on the government and to corporations to stop these abuses. In February 1997, Nigeria was suspected by
the UN Human Rights Commission of gross human rights abuses. A special investigator was appointed to
Nigeria in March of that same year (McCaskie, p 804). Some foreign governments such as Canada suspended their
diplomatic representation in the country (Ibid, p. 801). The International
Labor Organization found Nigeria to be in violation of international labor
standards after the repression of the Nigerian Oil Workers Union (Corporate
Watch). Other foreign governments responded by imposing sanctions on Nigerian
imports.
The position of the United States
regarding Nigeria had been mostly one of self interest. As a whole, the US
market acquires more that 50% of all
Nigeria's oil exports. Two US companies,
Mobil and Chevron, produce more
than half of Nigeria's oil. For Shell,
the United States is it's largest market (EIA, Nigeria). Sanctions against Nigeria were rejected on
the ground that other companies would enter the Nigerian market and take over
the position of the large oil producers. Additionally, US based companies
claimed to be the only companies with the capital base to maintain the
production in Nigeria. No human rights groups or environmental activists were
involved in the analysis behind the sanction debate (Davis, p.6).
Although international pressure and the
succession of General Abdulsalami Abubakar to the head of state have helped to
reduce the repression in the Delta region, there are still strong reactions
against those who protest the oil production. On December 30, 1998 seven
youth protestors were shot and killed
by solders in Bayelsa State. Several
more were detained and beaten in days following the incident (HRW, p.8). In one particularly serious incident on
January 4, soldiers using a Chevron helicopter and Chevron boats attacked
villagers in two small communities in Delta State, Opia and Ikenyan, killing at
least four people and burning most of the villages to the ground. More than fifty
people are still missing. Chevron has alleged to a committee of survivors of
the attack that this was a "counterattack" resulting from a
confrontation between local youths and soldiers posted to a Chevron drilling
rig. Community members deny that any such confrontation took place. In any
event, the soldiers' response was clearly disproportionate and excessive
(Nwosu, p.1). On Febuary 9, 1999 three youths were shot dead while trying to
tell Agrip officials to leave the Delta (Reuters).
MNCs have a responsibility to conduct
business in an ethical manner and in a consistent nature in all of their
operating areas. It is no longer acceptable for compnies to have different
modes of operation in different lands. Advances in information technology,
information distribution and the proliferation of NGOs have made it difficult for companies to mask
their breeches of corporate responsibility (Davis, M. p.2). Many NGOs such as Corporate Watch, Human
Rights Watch and Amnesty International perform regular inquiries into abuses
otherwise neglected by the popular press. Corporations can no longer hide their
activities or deny knowledge of such abuses.
Additionally, many consumers do care about what corporations are doing
to the environment and to the communities in which they operate. While pressure from external groups is
important in keeping corporate entities operating ethically, the ultimate
responsibility lies in the hands of the corporation leadership and investors.
In areas where there is a sustained pattern of human rights
abuses, MNCs have a responsibility of taking action to address those issues. It
was improper for the MNCs in Nigeria to continue making deals with an illegal
governmantal entity. Instead of seeking
to use their influence to address the issues and concerns of their operating
areas, the MNCs in Nigeria largely kept quiet.
Furthermore, they were complicent in the supression of groups and individuals
who tried to protest aginst many of the commercial and political
injustices. While not all MNCs took the
same course of action, the major MNCs in Nigeria did. After the annullment of the 1993 elections, Volkswagon suspended
their vehicle assembly operations in Nigeria conditional on the transition to
civilian rule (Adler, p.2). Had the oil
industry followed suit, there may have been a large impact on the illegal
military governnment.
More and more, companies in Africa as
well as in other countries are realizing the importance of altering their
traditional business patterns. It is important that companies realize that
there can not be a dichotemy between their financial interests and those of the
local communities from which they extract the wealth. The International Labor Organization Agreement, 169 requires oil
companies to negociate with local land owners and communities for access
permission even when they have already received permission from the central
governments. Honneywell, Inc. has developed a global-reaching yet regionally-specific
code of ethics and the corporation regurlarly revisits ethics issues. The global code of ethics was developed
jointly with business partners all over the world. The regional-specific portions seek to address the corporate
stand on local ethical issues. It helps
to leave little room for ambiguity. By
publishing a monthly newsletter, each region has a venue of talking about
potential ethics violations and how to avoid them. (Davids, M., p. 43)
As Nigeria progresses toward a new
democratization program, it is even more critical for the country leadership to
find viable ways of dealing with the "oil problem". In June of 1998, General San Abacha died
suddenly and Gen. Abdusalami Abubakar took position as the head of
state. Shortly after he took power, he
proceeded to develop a plan for Nigeria's transition to democracy. On February 26, 1999, Nigeria had a
democratic election for the presidency. General Olesegun Obasanjo, who stepped
down from power in 1979, was declaired the new democratic leader of Nigeria.
His presidential election has not been without controversy. Claims of vote rigging and inconsistencies
were brought to light almost immediately after the election results were
posted. Regardless, the civilian presidency
is to begin on May 29, 1999. The new
civilian president has a very difficult task ahead. Widespread distrust due to years of military rule, self-serving
government officials and corruption must be reversed. The industrial and agricultural state must be revamped. The educational and health systems of the
country are in need to be rebuilt. The
overall quality of life for the Nigerian citizen must be improved.
It is critical for the Nigeria to address
the issue of privatization with caution.
Most of the major industries in Nigeria are state owned. When Abubakar came to power he began
privatization initiatives. On one hand
privatization can be a beneficial way for Nigeria to stimulate competition in
primarily the oil/energy industry. Areas such as transportation and
telecommunications are also ripe for development. The government continues to
encourage private-sector competition by breaking up it's stronghold on the
telecommunications and power industries. On the other hand, if privatization is
not handled effectively, it will result in massive foreign ownership and
control of Nigeria's industries.
Companies such as Shell, Chevron, Mobil, Texaco, Elf Aquitanie and Agrip
have benefitted since 1996 when the National government started to divest of
some of it's shares in various joint venture agreements. Because of the large capital investments it
has been difficult for smaller local companies to benefit from privatization.
The notion of foreign entities owning Nigerian oil continues to be a major
source of unrest in oil-producing regions of Nigeria (Mabogunje, p.813). The myth that privatization leads to the
development of efficient services, technology transfer and skills transfer is
negated by the impact of the developments in the oil industry. After more than two decades of having the oil production managed by foreign
multinationals, Nigeria is essentially, less capable of producing oil itself
than it was in the 1970's.
·
Develop a
code of ethics to combat corruption in the civilian government and in the military leadership.
·
Establish a
process to take control of monitoring and preventing human rights abuses.
·
Develop
programs to train military and police forces to prevent human rights abuses.
·
Establish a
process to monitor, control and prevent environmental abuses. This group should
bear the capability to take immediate action to deal with clean up issues and
prosecute organizations which do not take responsibility for their
environmental damage.
·
Appoint an
independent council to deal with local community oil and land compensation
issues.
·
Initiate
the development of a special committee to investigate the implications of
privatization.
·
Begin to
identify opportunities to foster domestic ownership of various industries.
·
Begin
aggressive development of industry, trade and agricultural policy.
·
Develop a
global operations code of ethics. Localize that code jointly with the regional
representatives or partners.
·
Address all
environmental issues resulting from your product regardless of it was initiated
by internal or external forces.
·
Senior
management and investors must take responsibility for monitoring corporate
ethics, especially in developing nations.
The must also be committed to taking decisive action when human rights,
environmental or social abuses are occurring as a result of, in close proximity
to and directly because of their operations or products.
·
Consult
with local communities to provide compensation for the use and abuse of their
land regardless of the legal ownership.
·
Create a
dialogue between the local communities in which they operate as a means to
understand their true impact on the community and to make the best possible
decisions regarding the quality of life of those communities in which they
operate.
·
Appoint an
independent organization such as an NGO to monitor their activities. Make all
records of fees and payments to the NGO public information.
·
Put
pressure on governments that engage in human rights abuses.
·
Develop
policy to prohibit the development of business ties with illegal or oppressive
governments regardless of the economic implications on your country.
·
Utilize
NGOs to help uncover human right and environmental abuses faster.
·
Develop
policy for monitoring activities of MNCs based in your home country.
An anonymous policy maker was quoted as
saying that "While in most cases ethical behavior implies respect for the
law, not all ethical behavior is reflected in the law" (Adler, p.20). The
first responsibility for resolving the injustices surrounding oil lies with the
Nigerian government. However, multinational oil companies operating in Nigeria
cannot avoid their own share of responsibility. It is not enough simply to say
that the political environment in Nigeria is as difficult for the oil companies
as it is for anyone else, and that the oil industry does not have the power to
alter government policy towards the oil regions. The oil companies contribute
towards the discontent in the delta and to conflict within and between
communities that results in repressive government responses. The oil companies
have an ethical and corporate responsibility to ensure that oil production does
not continue at the cost of communities in which they operate simply because of
the threat or actual use of force against those who protest their activities.
If no action is taken to deal with the heart of the discontent in the Niger
Delta region, and in Nigeria as a whole, it may become far more dangerous for
oil companies to conduct business in the region.
Chapter 2: Environmental Destruction
by Celeste Thomas
Nigeria is a beautiful country blessed with many natural resources. The exploitation of oil in Nigeria is causing serious environmental problems. This section of our report will explore the impacts of oil exploitation on the environment. We will also provide suggestions of methods Nigeria can take to prevent future environmental degradation.
The majority of the oil in Nigeria is in the Niger Delta. The Niger Delta is one of the world’s largest wetlands. It is an expansive floodplain produced by centuries of sediments and silt from the Niger and Benue Rivers. The Delta is composed of four main ecological zones including mangroves, fresh water swamp forests, coastal barrier islands, and lowland rainforests. The mangrove forest is Nigeria is the third largest in the world and the largest in Africa. The freshwater swamp forests of the delta region are the vastest in West Africa. The Niger Delta has extremely high biodiversity with unique plant and animal species.
In recent years the international community has been preoccupied with greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. This focus on gas emissions has overshadowed another gas related environmental problem, namely oil spills. The consequences of oil spills are more certain and more urgent for developing countries like Nigeria than global warming.
Oil spillage constitutes a very serious danger to the security of life in affected areas. Statistics from the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) indicate that between 1976 and 1996 a total of 4,835 oil spills occurred releasing 2.5 million barrels (over 100 millions gallons) of oil into the environment. Reports estimate that only 23% of the spilled oil were recovered. The largest spill in Nigeria is the Forcados terminal spill in July of 1979 was 570,000 barrels were spilled (Ikporukpo, 1984: 199). Another large spill occurred in January of 1980. More than 400,000 barrels of oil, according to the DPR, spewed into the Atlantic Ocean from a Texaco facility (HRW).
In 1998, two serious spills occurred. On January 12, 1998 a major spill of more than 40,000 barrels of crude oil leaked from the pipeline linking Mobil’s Idoho platform with its Qua Iboe onshore terminal. In March of 1998, a further spill of 20,000 barrels took place from Shell’s Jones Creek flow station, in the brackish water of the mangrove forest killing enormous numbers of fish.
There are several causes of oil spills in Nigeria; the most common one is equipment failure. A lot of the equipment that multinational corporations like Shell and Chevron use in Nigeria is old equipment that should have been replaced years ago. Shell identified the cause of the spill in 1998 as “pipeline failure”. If the pipelines are being used beyond their lifetime, they will fail. Many pipelines and flowlines are old and subject to corrosion. Fifteen years is the estimated safe lifespan of a pipeline, but in numerous places in the delta pipelines aged twenty-five years can be found (HRW).
Some of the literature states that the second largest cause of oil spills is sabotage (Ayodele, 1983: 299). Members of the community are angry and frustrated with the oil companies. When they try to do peaceful demonstrations, police arrest them. Some of them may decide then to make a statement by destroying a pipeline. I question, however, if sabotage is the second largest cause of oil spills. The communities concerned dispute claims of sabotage. Community leaders point at that there is nothing or little (if compensation is paid) to gain from polluting their own drinking water and destroying their own crops. The DPR indicates that only 4% of all spills in Nigeria were caused by sabotage during the period 1976-1990.
Human-error also accounts for some oil spills. An employee may make an error somewhere down the operation line or may be impatient when loading oil tankers. Nevertheless, the overwhelming cause of oil spills in Nigeria is equipment failure.
Oil spills have considerable impact on the natural resources of the Niger Delta upon which the people of the area depend. One immediate result of a spill is the widespread pollution of rivers, creeks, ponds, and wells, which are the usual sources of water for drinking and general domestic u se in the rural Niger Delta. Crude oil contains thousands of different chemicals; many of them are toxic and known to be carcinogenic. A lot of them have no determined safe threshold for human exposure. Following the major Texaco spill of 1980, it was reported that 180 people died in one community as a result of pollution. In January of 1998, Nigerian opposition radio reported that about 100 villagers from communities affected by a major Mobil spill had been hospitalized as a result of drinking contaminated water. Oil companies are also blamed for the deaths of children caused by drinking polluted water.
The pollution of water also prevents natural aeration of the sea and many marine organisms are killed. Dead fish are often visible floating on the surface of water or washed up on beaches. If fish are not killed then they ingest the oil. Often, local residents complain that fish taste of kerosene, indicating hydrocarbon contamination. In many villages near oil installations, even where there is no recent spill, an oily sheen is visible on the water. This same water is used for drinking, bathing and general domestic use daily. The long term effects of this are unknown and have not been studied, but people are drinking toxic carcinogens everyday. A sample taken in April 1997 from Luawii in Ogoni, where there had been no oil production for four years had 18 ppm hydrocarbons in the water. This level is 360 times the level allowed in drinking water in the United States and European Union. A sample from Ukpeleide, Ikwerre, contained 34 ppm, 680 times US standards.
Soils are also affected. The degree to damage to soils depends on the level of contamination. Where the pollution is serious, soils become less fertile because nutrients essential to plant growth become scarce, while those that are more toxic to plants become more available. This effect on soil microorganisms may persist for several years. A geographer based at Uyo University in Akwa Ibom State described to Human Rights Watch how soils in communities near the Qua Iboe area where Mobil has its stank farm had very high hydrocarbon content. Local fauna and flora, including periwinkles - a major food source for local people - had died out.
The overall effect of oil spills on the delta is unknown. One zoologist said, “the bottom line is that oil companies have never tried to find out what the effect of oil spills is” (HRW). Whatever the long-term impact on the environment, in a region where the traditional economy is dependent on natural resources, the destructive effects of oil spills destroys the livelihood of families dependent of farming and fishing. Even a small leak can wipe out a year’s food supply for a family, with it wiping out income from products sold for cash. The consequences of such loss of livelihood can range from children missing school because parents are unable to afford the fees, to virtual destitution. In order to make ends meet; people have changed their occupations so that they are not directly dependent on the physical environment, or taken on supporting occupations (Ikporukpo). Some fisherman have abandoned fishing altogether. In spite of the problems, many fisherman and farmers have not been able o change occupations because the opportunities open to them are restricted. Even if the land recovers for the following year, the spill has consequences over a much longer period for the families directly affected.
Department of Petroleum Resources regulations require the body responsible for a spill to clean the site and restore it to its original state so far as possible. Soil at a spill site on land must contain no more than 30 ppm of oil after six months. In many cases it is clear that land affected by spills is not properly or promptly rehabilitated. At Kolo Creek flow station spill that Shell alleged was caused by sabotage occurred in July 1997 and was cleaned by putting contaminated soil into pits. One year later, during flood season, the community believed that a new spill had taken place when this oil was released back into the water (HRW).
The Oil Pipelines Act provides that compensation is due “to any person suffering damage (other than on account of his own default or an account of the malicious act of a third person) as a consequence of any breakage or leakage from the pipeline or an ancillary installation, for any such damage not otherwise made good”. The Act also provides for valuation to take into account damage to crops, “economic trees” (economically valuable trees) and loss in value of land (HRW).
The oil companies pay compensation at uniform rates for spills, where they are not attributed to sabotage. Shell argues that 60% of land spills are due to sabotage, the DPR disagrees. The fact that Shell is not required to pay compensation for spills attributed to sabotage may encourage the company to say that spills that were actually caused by equipment failure were sabotage attacks. Even when compensation is agreed in principle at oil company rates, compensation payments rarely reflect the true value of loss to the local communities (HRW). Communities claim that the compensation they receive is nothing compared to the loss they suffer. They also dislike the uniform rates because it allows oil companies to refuse to take into account the particular circumstances of each case. An any case, one-time payments cannot compensate for the continuing loss of income and livelihood that would normally be supplied for the natural resources destroyed by the oil.
The various laws dealing with oil pollution of natural resources in Nigeria may be divided into two groups - those that deal specifically with oil and those that are less specific. The most fundamental of the first group is the Petroleum Decree of 1969. This decree contains a Drilling and Production Regulation that states:
“The licensee or leasee shall adopt all practical precautions to prevent the pollution of inland waters, rivers’ water resources, the territorial waters of Nigeria, or the high seas by oil mud, or other fluids or substances which might cause harm or destruction of fresh water or animal life, and where any such pollution occurs or had occurred, shall take prompt steps to control and, if possible, end it.”
There have been several laws of the second type dealing with the protection of resources, especially water, from various pollutants (Ikporukpo, 1984, 202). In this case, pollution is not restricted to oil, and some of the laws existed before the first attempts at oil exploration. For example the Water Ordinance of 1913 forbids the fouling of water meant for water works. A more recent law has provisions against the pollution of water for human and even animal consumption - the Federal Public Health Ordinance of 1958. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act of 1988 vested the authority to issue standards for water, air, and land quality in a Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA). Regulations made by FEPA govern the environmental standards in the oil and other industries. In 1992, the Environmental Impact Assessment Act was passed. It requires an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to be carried out “where the extent, nature, or location of a proposed project or activity is such that it is likely to significantly affect the environment.”
Unfortunately, in practice there is little enforcement of the requirements to carry out EIA’s, either by FEPA or by the DPR’s regulations. One study concluded that “Most state and local government institutions involved in environmental resource management lack funding, trained staff, technical expertise, adequate information, analytical capability and other pre-requisites for implementing comprehensive policies and programs” (HRW).
Multi-national corporations in Nigeria are destroying the environment and for the most part this destruction is going unchecked by the Nigerian government and the international community. FEPA and DPR have been ineffective at managing oil pollution. The laws are not enforced and are therefore, ignored. Nigeria is a beautiful country being exploited for its natural resources; oil is only one of several. Inhabitants of these oil areas, who are frequently being exposed to carcinogenic and toxic chemicals and whose livelihoods are being destroyed are not being compensated and are not being heard by the government. Hopefully, the democratization process discussed in the earlier section will work and Nigeria can begin to manage the situation effectively.
The new Nigerian government should consider the following policy measures for improvement:
A legal framework for preventive and remedial actions against oil spills already exists. This framework made it mandatory for oil companies to adopt “Standard Oil Industry Practices” (Ayodele, 1983: 295). The implementation of this requirement would mean the use of blow-out preventers, cathodic protection of pipelines, periodic testing and replacement of pipes and tanks and other preventive measures. Given that the greatest number of oil spills is caused by equipment failures, it is more than evident that this provision has not been strictly followed. Nigeria should begin enforcing its environmental laws.
Experiences in Nigeria have shown that relief materials were never readily made available to victims of oil disasters. The country should form a special fund for this purpose. All oil companies operating in the country should pay an annual fee, which could be made proportional to their oil production levels. This fund could be made available for relief operations whenever there is any oil mishap. In addition to this will be enforcement of the compensation regulations that already exist for the company causing any spillage or pollution.
Sizable proportions of the employees of the oil industry in Nigeria are indigenous. Nonetheless, they are not in positions of control in the industry. As long as aliens control the technology of oil production, equipment, etc., Nigerian’s environmental problems will remain. Unfortunately, leaders in the multi-national corporations have negligible feeling for people who are not of the same nationality as themselves. Therefore, this new Nigerian democratic government must expedite technology acquisition so Nigeria can control its own resources. We’re sure that if Nigerians are able to control their own industry there would be a tendency to consider the immediate environment and the long term impacts of oil exploitation.
by Ayodele Embry
Introduction
Nigeria came into being in the late 19th century when British colonialism arrived in West Africa. In 1960 Nigeria was given its independence and since that time, it has been ruled by a succession of military rulers with several brief periods of democracy. Nigeria’s 100 million citizens make it the largest population in Africa and critical to the development of the entire continent. Political and economic instability have marred the nation and prevented it from reach its full potential. Since the mid-1900s when oil was first discovered in Nigeria, much has changed in the socio-cultural landscape of the country. The advent of the petroleum industry has caused numerous changes in the quality of life, including declining health care and educational systems, a lack of employment opportunities and a loss of culture for the people of Nigeria, especially in the Niger Delta. Recent democratic elections give hope for improvements by the new government when the transfer of power takes place in May of 1999. The social issues facing Nigerian citizens must be addressed so that the nation can take its place in the world economy.
Nigeria is ecologically blessed with not only rich land but also an excellent climate (Umoren, 127). Because of Nigeria’s distinct climatic zones and abundance of natural resources, Britain was able to exploit several crops on Nigerian soil during colonialism. Groundnuts were grown in the north, cocoa in the southwest and palm oil in the southeast (Wright, 2). These agricultural products were totally earmarked for Britain, beginning the nation’s dependence on foreign, not domestic consumption for economic stability.
At independence, agriculture accounted for more than half of all exports and two-thirds of the gross domestic product (GDP) in Nigeria (Wright, 3). During this period, each region of the nation contributed substantially towards the national economy (Umoren, 127). The expansion of the petroleum industry in late 1960s and early 1970s radically transformed Nigeria’s agricultural based economy and the entire societal fabric. Oil exploration began in 1938 and Shell-BP Petroleum Development Company was the only player until 1954 when American owned Mobil Exploration (Nig) Limited joined followed by several other multinational corporations including Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, Gulf, Mobil, and Standard Oil (Nwankwo, 2). However, it was not until 1958 that the government took active interest in oil industry and in 1971, the Federal Government set up the Nigerian National Oil Company to work, produce, transport, store, and market petroleum (Abali, 5).
By the mid-1970s, petroleum dominated the Nigerian economy. Nigeria moved from an agricultural economy based on the export of palm oil, cocoa, and groundnuts to a petroleum economy based on crude oil extraction (Umoren, 127). The oil boom of the mid to late 1970s provided a huge influx of wealth into the country. However, while petroleum became the mainstay of the economy in terms of both export revenues and attracting foreign investments, it has never been influential in terms of employment for the Nigerian people (Wright, 103).
As the Nigerian government focused its attention on the petroleum industry, the agricultural industry was neglected. Under-investment, a steady drift away from the land to urban centers, increased consumer preference for imported foodstuffs (particularly rice and wheat) and outdated farming techniques continued to keep the level of food production well behind the rate of population growth (Van Buren, 811). The country of 100 million people was forced to import food at high Western prices to feed its people, even domestic staples such as rice and beans (Nwankwo, 11). However, at the same time the Western countries encouraged Nigeria, like other Third World countries, to sell to them at low prices, leading to a further decline in the agricultural industry (Nwankwo, 4).
Not only has the agricultural sector in Nigeria been ignored, but so has the industrial sector. Unlike many developing countries where the agricultural based economy is replaced by a labor intensive manufacturing industry, there were few industrial jobs to take the place of the disappearing agricultural development (Nwankwo, 59). Even in 1995, manufacturing only accounted for only 5% of the GDP (Van Buren, 814). The contraction of agriculture and manufacturing has led to high unemployment and an increased sense of frustration (Ambitious Economic Programme).
The oil boom had a crucial impact on domestic politics as revenues accrued to the federal government. The growth of oil revenues combined with and reinforced a trend towards the centralization of power by the military government (Wright, 108). Because of the lack of other industries, state governments became dependent on the national government for funds, contributing heavily to the contraction of social services in recent years. The influx of wealth also contributed to rampant corruption, making Nigeria one of the most corrupt governments in the world (Wright, 3). Corrupt officials have easy access to government funds and since the oil boom first began, millionaire generals have become common. There has been an estimated $176 billion of unaccounted oil revenues during the 1980-1992 period (Wright, 109). The masses have become impoverished while handfuls of millionaires consume and spend (Nwankwo, 45).
Today, petroleum accounts for more than 90 percent of export revenues and 80 percent of government revenues (Wright, 103). Nigeria’s oil reserves are concentrated in seven states of the federation: Abia, Akwa Ibom, Delta, Edo, Imo, Ondo and Rivers (Abali, 7). All of the oil producing states are located in southern Nigeria with Delta State producing 38.6 percent of the nation’s crude oil. This makes the Niger Delta region stability crucial to the national economy (Oil Wars; Abali, 8). However, the abundance of petroleum resources has brought little profit to those who live beside them. Instead it has brought widespread environmental devastation and forty years of oil production directed by the military government has left the Delta peoples poorer, sicker, less nourished, and less educated than the rest of the country. The northern generals who have ruled the country since independence have kept it starkly developed, without roads, bridges, electricity or running water. Oil spills have damaged fishing grounds and farmland, leading ethnic groups to campaign for a share of oil wealth and power, severely disrupting the output of the petroleum industry, relations with corporations, and the economic welfare of Nigeria (Rupert).
The phenomenal growth of oil revenues in the 1970s and early 1980s also contributed to “skewed” economic and industrial development in Nigeria (Wright, 107). Funds were plentiful, resulting massive increases in public spending and an ambitious industrialization program (Wright, 109). It has also encouraged the tendency of oil producing nations give aid like advanced industrial countries, at the expense of internal economic development (Nwankwo, 37). Many of the programs were import intensive and, as a result, substantially increased Nigeria’s dependence on foreign countries and weakened domestic trade. When the economic crisis hit Nigeria in the 1980’s many of the projects were left unfinished.
Despite its considerable agricultural and mineral resources, Nigeria is ranked by the World Bank as a low-income country, and is among the 20 poorest countries in the world on the basis of per-capita income (Van Buren, 810). Nigeria has literacy rates among lowest in world (Wright, 103; Umoren, 133-34). Interestingly, literacy rates were actually higher during colonialism. Some would say that Nigeria was better off before self-government. Then, they had year round schools, food to eat, predictable government, families with self worth, and a country respected abroad (Umoren, 1). Today, the nation is embroiled in political instability, a crumbling economy, serious social woes and a dearth of public services.
There is a Marxian dictum that states that changes in the economic base of a society produces corresponding changes in the entire social system and this can be seen vividly in the case of Nigeria (Anikpo, 6). The emerging petroleum economy had a direct and disturbing affect on the Nigerian people. During the 1970s and early 1980s, oil revenues and general economic strength and confidence provided for the development of a burgeoning middle class and rising salaries. However, the dominance of a single export product has also made Nigeria especially susceptible to the global market forces. These market forces led to the collapse of the economy in the 1980s as the international price of oil plummeted. The middle class has been devastated by inflation, unemployment and deteriorating public services (Lewis, 319). Millions of well-educated Nigerians who once formed an ambitious middle class have fled the country in frustration, in search of employment opportunities and political stability while avoiding the human rights violations so prevalent in Nigeria today (White).
The government has used revenue allocation which discriminates against oil-producing states and further strains state class relations (Anikpo, 7). Government policies have helped to deprive rural peasants of the full benefits of oil production despite their direct absorption of all of the negative impacts of the enterprise. These policies have ensured a conducive environment for oil exploration, but been detrimental to the people (Wright, 103). Multinational oil companies have been allowed to cause environmental degradation and done little to improve quality of life for those closest to oil operations (Wright, 109).
Most communities in the Niger Delta have been similarly affected by the influx of colonialism and petroleum. The Igbo town of Izombe, made of up 19 small villages, is one example. Like many of southern Nigeria’s inhabitants, the Igbos had lived under democratic rule long before colonialism. They believed strongly in the unseen presence at all times of ancestors and the superior wisdom and sanctity of elders. They felt that it was the freedom of the individual to achieve self-actualization through good deeds and hard work. The people of Izombe had no tradition of a paramount chieftaincy and ruled largely by consensus. They had an open social mobility system and stressed community ownership of land. Individuals simply held plots on behalf of the community and had no outright ownership (Anikpo, 13).
The entire social and political superstructure was altered due first to the colonial encounter and then to the oil encounter. These people who worshiped their own Gods and ruled democratically had fundamental changes in their culture forced upon them by colonialism. Christian religion and schools destroyed the value base in Izombe religious cosmology. Furthermore, the introduction of the warrant chief system to facilitate British indirect rule subordinated the traditional lineage headship (the elder) and diminished rule by consensus (Anikpo, 14).
When oil came to the Delta, it was an image blessing, giving rise to a new social consciousness and providing political weight to historically less powerful states (Anikpo, 11). However, the initial blessing of oil revenue and power was short lived. The pollution of water sources and farmlands through crude spillage continue to increase. This combined with the neglect by government of the traditional agricultural sector led to the breakdown of agriculture in the southern region (Anikpo, 21).
Peasant lands in the Delta region were predominantly held collectively in family, kinship, clan or communal units. This often caused conflict between companies and landowners when trying to purchase land (Onyige, land use, 98). To ease the process for the oil multinationals, the Land Use Act vested the ownership of all lands to state governments and left it up to the governments to properly reimburse landowners. This commodification of land led to the displacement of many farmers and intense disputes, especially since much of the land ownership was not publicly recorded (owing to the culture of community ownership) (Anikpo, 22). This was detrimental to many small farmers who often were not paid for their land (Onyige, land use, 98). Men were forced to travel between sites for up to 6 months to haggle for oil claims on lands confiscated by the government. Others spent months following oil officials, with hopes of becoming contractors, claim agents or laborers (Onyige, Direct, 45). However, little employment has been available.
Those who found work in the oil industry did not fare much better. Oil workers are often viewed as easily bought and corrupt and receive a tremendous amount of resentment from their communities. However, much of the situation is beyond their immediate control. There is frequent use of police presence to control workers and harsh policies are often written into their contracts. Furthermore, the government officials in work education programs talk of consequences and instill fear in workers while good wages further keep them in line (Ihonvbere, 92). This climate of intimidation has discouraged oil company workers from speaking out against their employers.
The conditions of the new oil-based economy changed the role of women as well. In precolonial agriculture, male labor carried more status and provided the bulk of the workers while women were relegated to more traditional roles (Wright, 58). Advanced, capitalist production has provided timesaving substitutes for trade goods and services normally done by hand and further destroyed the rural economy (Anikpo, 24). Female economic roles in craft industries such as weaving and pottery were wiped out by foreign competition. In recent years, male input into agriculture has drastically decreased while relative female input has increased (Onyige, Direct, 51).
The arrival of the petroleum industry has had other negative affects on Nigerian society and culture. The rising population of traders, mainly male oil company workers without families, has led to the proliferation of good stores and beer parlors. Scandalous promiscuousness living between oil company men and young women has increased and prostitution has become a major industry in small oil villages. There has also been an increased security risk and growing crime rates as a result of the rapidly expanding nightlife in restaurants and beer parlors. The influx of people employed in the well-paid energy sector has caused the cost of living to increase substantially, exacerbating poverty. Port Harcourt and the other urban areas of the region are among the most expensive in Nigeria (Human Rights Watch). Oil workers prefer not to buy through traditional means of haggling and are willing to pay higher prices, causing inflation. However the oil sector employs only a small percentage of the workforce and not enough to absorb the impact of inflation (Anikpo, 23). The region is left with a labor aristocracy of high wages surrounded by a great mass of un- or under-employed citizens (Human Rights Watch).
As a result of environmental devastation, many of the people in the Niger Delta are in poor health. Hypertension has been on the increase, more miscarriages have taken place, respiratory diseases are becoming more common and the overall temperature has increased due to a proliferation of gas flare points. Because of the increased poverty in the region in recent years, there is virtually no hospital equipment, drugs, or medical programs available (Anikpo, 23). For example, state programs for immunization of children have declined drastically. In Rivers State 85 percent of children were immunized in 1989, dropping to 15 percent in 1991 while in Delta State 80 percent of children were immunized in 1990, dropping to 40 percent in 1993. The situation has grown steadily worse in the past decade and future decades will see increased health problems as children born to these conditions become adults (Human Rights Watch).
Education levels in the Niger Delta are below the national average, which is already low. Approximately three quarters of Nigerian children are believed to attend primary school, and national adult illiteracy is estimated at 43 percent, but in parts of the Delta, attendance at primary school drops to less than a third and illiteracy is presumably correspondingly higher. This is in contrast to the position at independence, when the Delta still benefited from education as a result of its previous contact with European missionaries (Human Rights Watch). The university system is also in complete disarray because of a lack of government support and harsh military reaction to human rights protests on campuses.
The problems seen in Izombe have been replicated across the Niger Delta, leading to general a lack of education, employment and self-empowerment, intense poverty, poor health, and a culture of despair. The deep poverty of the delta – alongside the luxurious homes and lives of the military rulers, political allies and the US and European oil firms who are their partners – has left people desperate, frustrated, and bitter. The people have gone to the oil companies with demands for scholarships and agro-based industry to provide an alternative food source for those dispossessed of farmlands (Anikpo, 19). But, the corporations pass the blame to the government who in turn, passes the blame back to the corporations, while the people live in squalor. In recent years, this sense of poverty and despair has led many Delta youth to attempt to reclaim their region’s splendor through armed confrontation with the military and multinational oil corporations. Nigeria has lost an estimated N8.3 billion in oil sales owing to the raging war between youths in the oil-producing states of Delta, Rivers, Bayelsa, and Akwa Ibom and multinational oil companies operating in Niger Delta (Oil Wars). It is a sad fact of life that the Nigerian military serves as a hired gun for transnational oil companies although most companies officially deny this fact until they are exposed. Human rights violations have persist throughout the country. Armed bands of disillusioned youth that would be better served with employment or educational opportunities are instead waging guerilla-style warfare. Thousands have lost their lives and yet the government, multinational oil corporations and Western democratic powers continue to look the other way.
Oil in Nigeria has been a mixed blessing. It has pumped billions of dollars into economy that could not
absorb it. The oil industry has damaged
the fabric of Nigerian society by destroying the economic base of
self-sufficiency (Anikpo, 24). As one
Nigerian said, “we used to work with our hands, then we went to school and
discovered oil” (Umoren, 132). The
petroleum economy is producing affluence for few while causing severe
impoverishment of many. It is no
coincidence that the most severe poverty is in same areas of oil
extraction. Because there has been no
deliberate government or oil company program for agricultural reinvestment,
poverty has increased substantially throughout the 1990s (Onyige, Direct,
45). Multinational oil companies and
the government are equally responsible for much of the environmental and
economic anguish in the Niger Delta.
However, ultimately, it will be up to the Nigerian people to force their
government to provide for their needs and cease corrupt practices that have
become a way of life.
On February 27, 1999, the Nigerian people voted for a President, culminating months of democratic elections for local, state, and national political leaders. Although observers viewed some irregularities in the balloting, it seems as though the first national election since the overturned election in 1993 may be successful. However, it will take more than just the democratic election of a president to turn Nigeria around.
As we reflect on the recent historic vote for a national democratic government in Nigeria, there is a need for the government and multinational corporations to take responsibly for their past and current abuses and help the Nigerian people to reclaim their pride and culture. The national leadership must be committed to democratic governance for the people, not the military. The government and multinational corporations must work together to clean up the environment. The people must have the opportunity to have potable water, soil free of contaminants, and electricity so that they can become more self-sufficient. Corruption must cease so that the nation’s wealth can be broadly distributed to all Nigerians. The educational system must be returned to its former glory and the government must encourage citizens to take up fields relating to agriculture, technology, and the environment so that they can help to fix the environmental problems, rebuild the nation’s agricultural economy, and lure back the middle class. But, it is not enough to just bring back the middle class. Nigeria has had a history of foreign investment in financial institutions such as banks and the oil industry, but it has yet to attract investments, which can provide substantial employment for its people. The Nigerian government must encourage Nigerian citizens to invest in their homeland and provide employment through technology, agriculture, refineries and manufacturing because money alone is not enough.
Many doubt the success of the democratization of Nigeria. Many are just waiting to see what happens. For better or for worse, the people of Nigeria have spoken. They have the right to live their lives free of human rights abuses and corruption. Now that they have spoken, it is up to the people of Nigeria, the international community, and the multinational corporations to ensure that Nigeria makes a successful transformation.
Bibliography
Abali, Deson. “Impact of oil on Nigeria’s Foreign Policy.” Essays on Nigerian Politics and Government; Foreign Policy Series January 1996: Vol. 1 No. 1.
Adler, Ilya. Double
Standards. Business Mexico. Volume 8, Issue 12. Mexico City. 1999.
Ayodele, A.S. “The Conflict in the Growth of the Nigerian Petroleum Industry and the Environmental Quality”. Socio-Economic Planning. 1985, 295-305.
Anikpo, Mark. “ Dynamics of socio-cultural change in Nigeria’s oil producing communities: The case of Izombe.” Energy and Social Development in Nigeria. Lagos, Nigeria: Longman Nigeria Plc, 1996.
Banfield, Jessie. The
Corporate Responsibility Debate. African business. London, UK. Nov 1998. P. 30.
Chatterjee, Pratap. Shell
Faces Lawsuit for Nigerian Activities. Corporate Watch. Nov 8, 1996.
Davids, Meryl. Global Standards,
Local Problems. Journal of Business Strategy.
Boston, Jan/Feb 1999
Davis, Jennifer. Business:
Target or Partner in Promoting Positive Economic and Political Change.
Conference Proceedings: Strategies for Transnational Civil Society. January 30,
1998.
Fleshman, Michael. Mobil in
Nigeria:Partner in Oppression. The Assault on Human Rights.
Halcrow, Allan. Global
Business Offers Political Lessona. Workforce. Cost Mesa. Volume 3, Iss. 6,
November 1998.
Human Rights Watch
interviews, Elele-Alimini, July 11, 1997.
Human Rights Watch/Africa,
"The Ogoni Crisis: A Case Study of Military Repression in Southeastern
Nigeria," A Human Rights Watch Short Report, vol.7, no.5, July 1995.
Human Rights Watch. THE PRICE OF OIL: Corporate Responsibility and Human Rights Violations in Nigeria’s Oil Producing Communities: http://www.hrw.org/hrw/reports/1999/nigeria/index.htm, 1999.
Ihonvbere, Julius. “Class struggles in the oil industry, the ‘rentier’ state and labor control in Nigeria” Energy and Social Development in Nigeria. Lagos, Nigeria: Longman Nigeria Plc, 1996.
Ikporukpo, C.O. “The Management of Oil Pollution of Natural Resources in Nigeria”. Journal of Environmental Management. 1985, 199-206.
Jukwey, James "Nigerian
Troops Head to Oil Town to Restore Order," Reuters, April 23, 1997.
Knight, Danielle.
Rights-Nigeria: Oil Giant Had Role in Killings. Corporate Watch. Oct 2, 1997.
Lewis, Peter. “Politics and the Economy: A downward Spiral.” Dilemmas of Democracy in Nigeria Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 1997.
Manby, Bronwen. The Price of
Oil: Corporate Responsibility and Human
Rights Violations in Nigeria's Oil
Producing Communities. Human Rights Watch- Africa Division. January 1999.
McCaskie, T.C. Recent
History of Nigeria. African World Book.
Nwankwo, Arthur. After Oil, What Next: Oil and Multinationals in Nigeria. Engugu, Nigeria: Fourth Dimension Publishing Co., 1982.
“Oil Wars” AfricaNews Online October 14, 1998: http://www.africanews.org/west/nigeria/stories/19981014_feat2.html.
Onyige, Peter. “The direct effects of oil exploitation on the development of Nigerian Agriculture” Energy and Social Development in Nigeria. Lagos, Nigeria: Longman Nigeria Plc, 1996.
Onyige, Peter. “Land use and policy in Nigeria: Relevance for oil producing communities in Nigeria” Energy and Social Development in Nigeria. Lagos, Nigeria: Longman Nigeria Plc, 1996.Okogu, B.E. “Oil Spill Hazards at the Upstream Level”. Energy Policy. 1994, 393-402.
Philip Nwosu, "Navy
Reads Riot Act to Youths in Oil-Producing Areas," Post Express Wired,
September 6, 1998.
Platts Commodity News
(London), March 25, 1998
“The Price of Oil”. Human Rights Watch Web page http://www.hrw.org/hrw/reports/1999/nigeria
Reuters News Report,
February 9, 1999.
Rivers State Government, Report of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the Umuechem Disturbances.
Rupert, James. “Denied Wealth, Nigeria’s Poor Take Dire Steps.” The Washington Post November 8, 1998: A18.
Umoren, Joseph. Democracy and Ethnic Diversity in Nigeria. New York: University Press of America, Inc, 1984.
U.S. EIA, "Nigeria
Country Analysis Brief."
White, Jack. “Desperate for Democracy.” Time July 20, 1998: Volume 152, No 3.
Wright, Stephen. Nigeria: Struggle for Stability and Status. Boulder Colorado: Westview Press, 1998.
Van Buren, Linda. Recent History of Nigeria. African World Book.