(This is a second version. Apologies if you got both -- mailbase seems a bit
sticky at the moment)

The forum seems very quiet at the moment -- looking at the mountain of exam
papers on my desk I can guess why.  However there are a few issues that you
may want to think about in your idle moments (?)  If you get to the end of
the list thanks for reading!

In ascending order of importance?  Descending order of triviality?

1.      Geographical Magazine.
2.      RGS Council Elections
3.      Jellicoe letter
4.      Sponsorship Review (Full text)
5.      Shell Update
6.      What next?

1.      Geographical Magazine.

The May edition included letters from Steve Pile and myself responding to the
March editorial.  What it also included as the #10 prize-winning _letter of
the month_ was another whose essential message was that Geography is about
'travel and exploration' rather than anything that might resemble critical
thought.  I think the editor of the Geog Mag has firmly placed her feet in
the rugged hi-tech-open-toed-sandals-rohan-slacks-sloanes-to-Africa school of
Geography.  I suggest that anyone short of a bob or two (or even a #10
Stanford's voucher -- it's a well-known London map shop for those Geographers
who don't happen to live on the Piccadilly Line) writes to the editor calling
for a return to Empire and bemoaning the lack of decent places left to
discover. 

2.      RGS Council Elections

I'd been told that some more overtly 'critical' candidates were going to
stand this year.  Anyone know what happened?  I didn't fancy it at all, but
if I'd known I'd have bitten the bullet.  Any thoughts on who (if anyone) to
vote for?

... and what's the President's proxy vote (you can elect to let the junta
choose your candidate) doing on the ballot form of a properly democratic
organization (?!)  Does the Electoral Reform Society seriously sanction this
kind of thing.  I think we should be told.

3.      Jellicoe letter

The following letter has been sent by George Jellicoe to UK Heads of
Geography departments:

*********************************************

I apologise for intruding on you in this way at the busy examination time.
However I would be most grateful if you would kindly brinq the following
information to the attention of those members of your Department who are
Fellows and Associate Fellows of the Royal Geographical Society (with the
IBG).

You may recall that we sent you a flyer about the Open Forum here at the
Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) on
Monday, 15 April.

The background to the Forum was that a comparatively small group of Fellows
and Associate Fellows of the Society had proposed at our annual Conference at
Strathclyde University that the Society should immediately cease its
association with Shell in view of the reported environmental problems in the
Niger Delta. Shell has supported the Society for the past 9 years by
generously contributing to the funding of the Expedition Advisory Centre.

The Bye-Laws of the Society allow for any group of 6 or more Fellows to
express legitimate concerns regarding the Society or its activities by
writing to the Director and requesting that the Society's Council consider
the matter. The Strathclyde proposal which was carried by a large majority at
the comparatively small meeting was accordingly submitted to the following
Council meeting on March 18, for its consideration, through our Research and
Higher Education Division.

The Council noted the proposal and agreed that an informed response could not
be made until Council had further considered the Report of the Corporate
Sponsorship's working Group chaired by my precedessor as President, Sir
Crispin Tickell, had taken a policy decision about corporate sponsorship, and
until members had been better informed about the facts surrounding the human
and physical impact of oil exploration in the Delta.

The Open Forum was held at the Society on April 15 at which information was
presented from many perspectives about the Impact of oil extraction on the
Delta and a lively discussion ensued. The following speakers, representing a
wide spread of views, gave short presentations and thereafter constituted a
panel to which the participants put questions.

Brian Anderson, Chairman and Chief Executive of Shell Nigeria 
Nick Ashton-Jones, Environmental Rights Action 
Oronto Douglas, Environmental Lawyer 
David Moffat, Agriculture and Environment Division, The World Bank Professor
Simon Ojo, University of Lagos, Nigeria 
Gamaliel Onosode, Chairman, Niger Delta Enivronment Survey,

Although spirited and at times contentious I think the Open Forum was
generaly (sic) judged to have been a success.

At its next meeting on June 10 I shall be presenting a  paper on the issue of
Shell sponsorship and it is hoped that the Council will reach a decision on
the matter.    

(Apologies for any typos caused by scanning this.)
*********************************************

You may want to respond to your Head of Department (I'm told that the RHED
committee knew nothing about this circular). I have written the following
words to my HoD:

I wish to welcome both the review of sponsorship arrangements and the open
forum on Nigeria which took place as a consequence of the Strathclyde motion
and vote.  The review is an important first step towards the formation of a
fully formualted ethics policy appropriate for the RGS, and the forum set an
important precedent.  I hope to see the RGS used again as a forum where a
range of voices can be heard publicly on important and controversial issues
central to contemporary Geography.  

        I resent the repeated use of the phrase 'comparatively small' in
Jellicoe's letter.  If he believes that the vote in Strathclyde was the work
of a small marginal group within British academic Geography then I am afraid
that he is sadly mistaken.  While the initial impetus given by the executions
in Nigeria may have declined, I believe that a substantial number of
academics remain deeply disturbed by the uncritical relationship between what
claims to be the representative learned society of British Geography and a
multi-national oil company with a poor environmental and human rights record.
As I suggested at Strathclyde, Shell is involved in a complicated dispute in
Ogoniland, yet the sponsorship arrangement places the RGS (and by implication
British Geography in general) unambiguously on the side of the powerful
against the poor, the marginal and the dispossessed.

********************************

4.      Sponsorship Review

DRAFT REPORT OF THE CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP WORKING GROUP

Submitted to Council of the Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of
British Geographers) on Monday 18th March 1996.

Members of the working group

Sir Crispin Tickell (Chair), Professor Peter Haggett, Professor Ron Johnston,
Professor David Rhind, Professor Judith Rees, David Hall and Dr Tim Unwin
(Secretary).

Preamble

Corporate sponsorship is not new. We now take for granted the benefits to
research and scholarship provided in the past by, for example, News
International's sponsorship of the Rupert Murdoch Chair of Media Studies and
IBM's funding of the Environrnental Change Unit in the University of Oxford.

Without such support, the world of scholarship and research would have been
much the poorer. In addition, the pressures on learned societies and research
and education bodies are becoming ever more acute. There is therefore an
understandable pressure to seek external new funding to facilitate the work
of such bodies.

Learned societies and related bodies also have a very strong commitment to
scientific integrity and are rightly concerned about any question that
support buys influence. This paper arises from discussion on these issues
within the Fellowship of the Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute
of British Geographers) and in the Council of that body. It sets out the
issues involved and makes a set of recommendations. These are designed to
enable the society both to attract increased support and also to operate
ethically and to be seen to do so.

The main points considered by the working group were:

I . Advantages and Disadvantages of Corporate Support for a Learned Societv

It was noted that the Society is not unique in its relationships with
financial supporters, and that whatever applies to other learned societies
also applies to us.

Advantages include:

the provision of financial support to enhance the Society's activities

the maintenance of subscription levels at a level lower than would otherwise
be the case

enabling the Society to develop its charitable objectives and better to
propagate its aims

fostering closer links with the worlds of academe, industry, commerce and
government

Disadvantages include the risks of

givillg legitimacy to a sponsor's values, which might not be consonant with
the Society s anlls

 giving credibility in the public eye to a sponsor's activities when directly
related to the Society's areas of expertise

 compromising the academic freedom of members of the learned Society

 fallout from adverse publicity affecting a sponsor

2. The current position

The Working Group agreed that the activities of the Society had benefited
from support from Shell, British Airways, Land Rover and more recently HSBC
Holdings (Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation). Funding from these
supporters, known as Corporate Patrons, had been generously given, mainly to
support specific areas of the Society's activities, notably the Expedition
Advisory Centre, the Society's overseas research projects, and logistical
assistance, as in the form of flights. Other companies have generously
supported various of the Society's activities.

The relationship between the Society and its main Corporate Patrons,
established over the last five years, has so far, not been subject to any
formal agreement other than an exchange of letters. The main Corporate
Patrons have generally demanded little acknowledgement in return for their
money, although Land Rover specifically requested that their support be given
appropriate publicity, in part because, on top of its donation, Land Rover
has also provided vehicles for the Society's overseas research programmes.
Consequently, it was decided that the logos of all of the main Corporate
Patrons should be put on the Society's notepaper and publications, and be
displayed in the Society's lecture theatre and main entrance.

3. Corporate Support

The Working Group distinguished between 'uncommitted core' funding and
'targeted' support .

It was agreed that:

 there were potential difficulties in accepting uncommitted core funding from
specific companies

 it was desirable to receive uncommitted funding from charitable foundations

 even in the case of targeted support, there were ethical considerations to
take into account

 the Society should continue seek financial support from sponsors, subject to
clear guidelines

It should go without saying that corporate support would not entitle the
donor to a seat on the Society's Council or Committees.

It was agreed that the term "corporate supporter" would be more appropriate
than "Corporate Patron" across all areas of the Society's activities. The
word "Patron" should only be used for its original purpose in referring to
royal patronage.

The Working Group attached particular importance to the drawing up of clear
guidelines which would determine the ethical, environmental and other
criteria for acceptance of financial support. Officers and Staff of the
Society should use these guidelines in their dealings with corporate
supporters, would report on these activities to each Council meeting, and in
the Society's Annual Report.

4. Recommendations

The Working Group recommends that:

 Strenuous efforts should be made to increase the level of corporate support,
subject to meeting the guidelines recommended below. Such support has
considerable value to the Society in general as well as in monetary terms.

The Society should actively continue to seek the receipt of financial support
from charitable foundations for all purposes.

The Society should actively seek targeted support from appropriate companies.
A small standing group should be established by Council to:

 draw up and review periodically criteria against which all potential
supporters can be evaluated

 prepare broader ethical guidelines concerning the Society's activities

 be responsible for advising on the Society's corporate support policy, and
give advice, as appropriate, to the Officers and Staff of the Society in
their dealings with corporate supporters

There should be clear accounting procedures, indicating the uses to which all
corporate support has been directed. These should be reported to Council and
noted in the Society's Annual Report.

Corporate Patrons should be renamed corporate supporters across all areas of
the Society's activities.

Logos of all supporters should be used appropriately to indicate the specific
areas in which their support had been received, as on expedition notepaper or
conference brochures, but not on the Society's general headed notepaper or
journals and series.

Any Society displays should where possible indicate the specific purposes for
which corporate supporters have provided funding or other assistance.

Full acknowledgement of all financial support received should be clearly
indicated in a form agreed between the supporters and the Society.

It will be important to explain these changes to all existing main Corporate
Patrons in sympathetic fashion at the top level.

*************************
Again, apologies for any typographical errors caused by scanning this in.  I
think the proposals make interesting reading ...  

 

5.      Another word about our sponsors

You may have watched the two recent World in Action programmes on Shell and
Ogoni. These programmes and the protests at the Shell AGMS last week keep
Shell's record (and by association the beneficiaries of its largesse) in the
public eye. 

The second programme was a restatement and reinforcement of previous
allegations about Shell's continuing close links with the Nigerian regime,
the company's role in the Umuechem massacre in 1990, and its attempts to buy
arms.

The first programme contained new developments, particularly a statement by
Bopp van Dessel, ex-Shell environmental officer in Nigeria  


*****.  An extract is included here.      
**************************

In this press release I would like to give a short explanation as to why I
decided to contribute to the Shell Nigeria documentary and what I hoped to
achieve. 

After two years of being the internal environmental person in Shell Nigeria
and after a year of networking behind the scene, I still did not see any
improvement on the environmental side of Shell Nigeria's operations. Two
concrete things happened that helped me decide on going public - what would
be my final attempt towards making a positive contribution to developments in
the Niger Delta. 

First was the PR campaign of Shell Netherlands in late 1995 in which (again)
far too "flexible" truths were used with too little acknowledgement of
responsibilities. The friendly meeting I requested and received with Shell,
resulted in nothing.  

Second was the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa: with that, the situation really
got out of hand. Even though Shell's direct guilt is unlikely, in my view,
Shell's responsibilities for developments leading to the current situation in
the Delta is beyond any doubt.

It is not my intention to help chase Shell out of Nigeria. Nigeria is
actually a sad country and working there is extremely difficult. Without
organisations that can pull something together, things will never improve.
Shell is such an organisation, and maybe even the only one in Nigeria. In my
opinion the Niger Delta needs Shell! But absolutely not the Shell we have
seen in the Delta for the past thirty five years. Instead the Delta needs a
Shell that knows and acknowledges its weaker aspects and accepts
responsibility for its mistakes on its own initiative, in time and
adequately. 

As long as Shell continues to publicly deny mistakes, environmental double
standards and maintains its claim to have the situation under control, it
continues to put its own employees in Nigeria into difficulties. It also
keeps the door for dialogue and co-operation with other involved parties
firmly shut. What is left is what we have seen the past years: a increasingly
aggravated battle between Shell, the media, NGOs and politics. It's a battle
that costs a lot of energy but contributes nothing to the Delta, its
inhabitants and its environment. It's a battle over guilt and not
responsibilities. And it is exactly those responsibilities that Shell, the
operating company of thirty five  years, has weighing heavily on its
shoulders. 

For me the environmental behaviour of Shell in Nigeria (and especially the
pace at which it improves) is not acceptable. I hope Shell will drop its
"faultless and almighty" image and accept all the available help. Then the
environment could be used, through clear positive results, as a vehicle on
the road to general improvements, just as Ken Saro-Wiwa used the environment
to draw attention to the general deteriorating situation in Ogoniland and the
Niger Delta. 

Then Ken's death would not have been in vain and there would be something to
look forward to for the people and the environment in the Delta and Shell
could bring words and deeds together. 

Bopp van Dessel
Rotterdam May 12, 1996


**************************

6.      What next?

This is in part a response to Gerry Kearns' email after the Nigeria
conference, which I feel raised important issues about the best strategy for
critical geographers in relation to the RGS.  

Reading between the lines of 'Earl' Jellicoe's letter (who I can't help but
think of as 'Eeny-meeny-miny-mo' after his _comparatively_ sensitive chairing
of a forum on Africa -- what word can have been going through his
subconscious at the time?), and talking with RGS-'insiders' (well some still
talk to me), it doesn't take a genius to work out that some relationship with
Shell will survive the Council meeting of June 10th (I hope I'm falsely
prejudging the debate there.)  

I'm told that the reasoning goes something like this:  

After the open forum we won't drop Shell because:

1.      Shell's record is improving in the Niger Delta

2.      Even MOSOP is not calling for Shell to leave Nigeria, therefore it's
OK for the RGS to maintain a relationship with them.

As most of us are in exam mode what would you give for these arguments? 2:2?
3rd?  Fail?  I spoke with MOSOP UK last week (who are due to have a private
meeting with Eeny-meeny, which could be interesting), and they didn't seem
much impressed with the logic either. Argument 1 could be useful for
child-abusers who have started to use a smaller hammer on their kids, while
argument 2 is merely a reflection of Shell's near-monopolistic hold on the
Nigerian economy (and hence on the welfare of the Nigerian population), and
that MOSOP is operating in the real world.  
I would be more honest if they said they put the money and loyalty to old
friends before ethics and environmental concern.

It would be useful to have the debate that Gerry tried to initiate, and it
would be interesting to know what support there was for either 

a) a motion of no confidence if people find the Council decision
unacceptable, 

or b) a public process of co-ordinated resignation with letters to the press
explaining the situation and arguing that the RGS is _not_ representative of
the geographical community in the UK.

or both, or nothing, or something different?? 

The RGS AGM takes place on 4th June at 4.30pm (ie before the Council
statement). It's funny how the timing of all these meetings seems designed to
spin the processes out. (Realpolitik or just a traditionally autocratic
society's way of doing its business?).  I can't see much point in organising
anything dramatic when so many people have other commitments (isn't it funny
how the open forum coincided with the AAG, and the AGM is in the middle of
exams), but you may want to go along just to voice disapproval of
'comparatively small' references in the annual review.  I understand that
opponents of Shell may distribute leaflets outside the meeting.

If you've got this far thanks for sparing the time and energy.  
Back to my marking.

David Gilbert.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%