Below is the revised version of the statement in support of the motion:

Statement in support of the motion.

The motion before Fellows was originally presented to Open Forum meeting at
the Society's annual conference in Glasgow in January 1996, in response to
the outrage felt by many Fellows at the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa by the
Nigerian government - a direct result of campaigns against the activities of
Shell in the Ogoniland area of the Niger Delta. On that occasion the motion
was supported by nearly 90% of Fellows present; but it was subsequently
rejected by the RGS-IBG Council.

Given the considerable difference in opinion between the Council and a
significant portion of the Fellowship, we have requested that this issue be
decided by a ballot of the entire Fellowship. We do not believe that our
concerns are met by the reasons given by the Council for rejecting the
motion, which we believe are founded on unproven or disputed evidence.
Recognising the complexity of the situation in Nigeria, our argument is not
dependent on the details of oil extraction or the local political situation,
but rather is concerned with more fundamental questions about the
implications of the RGS-IBG's association with Shell for its role as a
learned society.

Our major arguments are:

1. Shell is directly responsible for extensive environmental damage in Nigeria.
Shell's acknowledges that there are major problems with corroding pipelines
and other ageing and unsafe facilities in Nigeria. Independent experts
attest to the considerable pollution and deforestation caused by the oil
industry and their effects on the local ecosystem. Shell's activities also
have wider consequences, a Word Wide Fund for Nature report suggesting that
flaring gas in Nigeria makes a huge contribution to global emissions of
carbon dioxide and methane.

2. Shell's initiation of environmental and community programmes in Nigeria
is a direct result of international pressure.
Shell did little or nothing to counteract environmental degradation or to
divert wealth generated by the oil industry to the local Ogoni people for
most of its 30 years operating in the area. We need to continue the pressure
on Shell to ensure that it adequately repairs past damage and reforms its
operations in future.

3. The scale and relevance of Shell's environmental and community programmes
are disputed.
Some senior Nigerian environmental scientists have refused to co-operate
with Shell's programme. Shell's environmental standards in Nigerian remain
far below what would be acceptable in Europe.

4. Shell retains close links with the murderous Nigerian regime.
Shell's recent claims that is has lobbied the Nigerian government on behalf
of the Ogoni people are a complete reversal of its previous position that it
cannot intervene in the political process. Which is Shell's true position?
The RGS-IBG Council admits that large companies 'routinely' equip the
Nigerian supernumerary police and that Shell has provided the police with
weapons. In 1990, Shell called for the Mobile Police Force to provide
security during a peaceful demonstration at Umuechem. Eighty people were
shot by the police, and 495 homes destroyed. Furthermore, by operating in
partnership with the state-run Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation,
Shell is continuing to support controversial development and helping to
ensure the financial security of the regime.

5. It is unethical for the RGS-IBG to gain from the profits of the
exploitation, repression and suffering associated with Shell's activities in
Nigeria.
The Council has accepted the need for ethical criteria in its review of
corporate sponsorship. Failing to end Shell's sponsorship would render this
very welcome move meaningless.

6. Shell's sponsorship compromises the Society's position as an
internationally respected authority on environmental good practice.
The RGS-IBG is an international authority on environmental issues. Being
associated with the RGS-IBG is seen as a mark of approval for an
organisation's environmental record. Our sponsors know this. As the review
of Corporate Patronage acknowledged, corporate support risks "giving
legitimacy to a sponsor's values, which might not be consonant with the
Society's aims" and "giving credibility in the public eye to a sponsor's
activities when directly related to the Society's areas of expertise." If we
were to allow Shell to continue as a sponsor, we would be conveying the
impression that the kind of environmental despoliation experienced in Ogoni
is acceptable corporate behaviour.

7. Shell's sponsorship compromises the academic integrity of Fellows working
in environmental issues and development studies
The Society should always put its Fellows' interests first. Whatever the
truth of the accusations made against Shell, the company's reputation has
been so severely damaged both in the Third World and among environmental
groups globally, that Shell's continued association with the RGS-IBG
seriously threatens the academic integrity of Fellows working in the fields
of environment studies, development studies and economic geography. In
particular, any academic work on the Ogoni issue or its wider context is
compromised by links to the RGS-IBG, whether those links be in the form of
membership, financial assistance, publication in the Society's journals, or
mere disciplinary association with an organization claiming to represent
British Geography.

8. Ending Shell's sponsorship will not damage the long term finances of the
Society.
We believe that the Review of Corporate Patronage has established a strong
framework through which the Society can continue to benefit from corporate
support. Furthermore, the particular scheme supported by Shell - funding
undergraduate expeditions - is a high profile and worthwhile activity with
which many companies would wish to be associated. Together with other
fund-raising schemes currently being formulated by the Council we believe
that money given by Shell can be easily replenished and that the Society's
finances will not be adversely effected in the long term.

This is not a comfortable issue for the Society to resolve, but it is vital
that we make the right decision know if the RGS-IBG is to maintain its
position at the forefront of world Geography and is to keep the respect of
academics, the media, interest groups, governmental agencies and the general
public, across the globe, into the twenty-first century.

We hope that you will support the motion.






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