John Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue of the Niger delta region of Nigeria, particularly so early in the new Parliament. Nigeria has been held as a beacon of democracy for the rest of Africa, and the Commission for Africa points to it as an example of democracy for the rest of the continent. For that to be true, the delta region must be stable, or the fate of Africa’s largest democracy will hang in the balance.

At first glance, Nigeria appears to be a prosperous nation, enjoying its first decade of democracy and looking forward to another democratic presidential election in 2007. Under President Obasanjo’s leadership, the country has become stable. His anti-corruption drive is to be applauded, but there is still progress to be made.

Through my work with the Niger delta group and with the help of various stakeholders in the region, I have discovered that although Nigeria has massive oil wealth, its oil is also a main source of myriad problems in the delta. Oil accounts for 80 per cent. of Nigeria’s revenue and 98 per cent. of its exports, and many thousands of jobs are linked to the oil industry. Shell in Nigeria produced 1.3 million barrels of oil a day in 2004, which was up from 910,000 barrels a day in 2003. It is therefore easy to see why many people assume that Nigeria is a rich country that does not need any assistance from the international community, but we must not accept that rosy picture of it as a prosperous, democratic, oil-producing nation.

For the ordinary people living in the Niger delta, life could not be more different. The advent of massive oil companies has brought not the promised prosperity but poverty, pollution and state-sponsored militia violence, but the picture is not all bleak. The international community is beginning to recognise that something must be done to help the Niger delta. Even the setting up of the Niger delta group and the plan for MPs to visit the delta has given people in the region hope that their plight is finally being taken seriously by western Governments. It is also vital that the Nigerian Government should address the problems to ensure long-lasting peace.

A recent positive step toward securing peace in the delta was the start of the Ogoni-Shell dialogue. Representatives of the Rivers State government, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd and the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People issued separate statements last week announcing their commitment to a structured process of reconciliation aimed at drawing in all sections of the Ogoni people. The statements came after the President appointed the Rev. Father Matthew Hassan Kukah as facilitator in the reconciliation process. He will be assisted by the International Centre for Reconciliation at Coventry cathedral, which has been particularly helpful to me and others in the setting up of the Niger delta group. The people of Ogoniland have, like many other communities in the region, suffered immensely over the years, and there has been widespread mistrust.

Important as the statements are, they do not mean that peace has been secured, but they are an important first step to demonstrate the feeling that something has to change in the delta for peace and stability to be given a chance. I seek the Secretary of State’s assurance that his Department will do all that it can to help the peace process, particularly by supporting the vital work of the ICR at Coventry in encouraging all sides to talk through their difficulties and work together for peace instead of resorting to violent means of protest.

The problems brought about by the influx of oil companies in the delta are interlinked and complex, and tend to fuel each other in cycles of tension and violence. The most obvious are environmental damage, community tensions, bunkering and small arms problems. The overriding theme with all those problems has to be the Nigerian state and its failure to provide for or engage with its people who live in the delta. Without the support of the Nigerian Government and the guarantee that the 2007 elections will be free and fair in the delta, no amount of work by non-governmental organisations or foreign Governments will secure peace in the region.

To explain the problems further, I wish to highlight the environmental impacts associated with oil production, such as gas flaring and oil spills. Gas flaring is the burning off of the gas produced when oil is drilled, and takes place round the clock very close to communities all around the Delta, sometimes only a few metres from people’s candlelit homes. Recent global estimates indicate that the flaring of this associated gas in Nigeria accounts for about 20 per cent. of the total gas flared in the world, releasing some 70 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually into the air.

The practice of flaring has been prohibited under Nigerian law since 1984, but it is far more cost-effective for oil companies to make the flare continuation payments-commonly referred to as fines-levied on them by the Nigerian Government than to find better ways of using the gas. Unless the Nigerian Government tighten up enforcement, that harmful practice will continue and the amount of flared gas will increase as oil production levels increase as projected.

The second significant environmental impact of oil production is that caused by oil spills and pipe leakages, which has led to the destruction of the only means of making a living that many people had-fishing in riverine areas and farming the land. Official figures indicate that there are, on average, 300 spills or leaks a year, but many estimate that the figure is much higher. The pollution is now such that the land is unworkable and the rivers are filled with poisoned fish, leaving whole communities with no means of providing for their families.

Oil companies pay compensation to communities for drilling on their land, but that brings its own problems. It creates a culture of dependency on oil company handouts, as opposed to a peaceful and independent existence based on traditional livelihoods such as fishing and farming. The oil companies pay such compensation to what are known as host communities, which are those immediately next to where the companies operate. Designation as a host community means substantial benefits in the form of compensation payments and other development assistance such as schools and clinics. Competition for recognition as a host community has created significant intra and inter-community tensions that frequently result in violent conflict.

The Nigerian state should be supplying such facilities for its people, but the oil companies have taken on the role of quasi-states, providing for the basic human needs of communities. When they feel that they have provided enough money or facilities to justify operating on the land, they-fairly reasonably, one might think-cease to provide for those communities, leaving them feeling betrayed and abandoned.

The presence of the oil companies and their quasi-state role has served only to worsen the ethnic tensions in the delta. Ethnic and tribal tensions are inherently linked to the abject poverty there, where only 27 per cent. of households have access to safe drinking water, two thirds of Nigerians live on less than a dollar a day, and the destruction of farming and fishing means that there are no legitimate means of social mobility.

The people of the delta are resourceful, and were independent and hard working before oil production polluted their land and created a culture of dependency on oil company handouts. There are few legitimate employment prospects for the average young person in the delta. There are no resources for setting up small businesses, because of a complete absence of micro-credit. As a result, there are large numbers of disaffected and disillusioned youths in the delta with nothing to do, no money and no legitimate means of earning any, and, hence, no status in society. Political leaders have exploited that. They have actively recruited, paid and armed local youths in order to secure their political and economic interests. The consequences of that political manipulation were felt particularly strongly in the Rivers state in 2004, when fighting between armed gangs, which at one point were supported by senior members of the state government, spiralled out of control.

Unless there are alternatives for these young men, they will continue to engage in militia activities linked with the bunkering of oil, and that will lead to an explosion of violence. That is particularly pertinent in the run-up to the 2007 federal and state elections, as the jostling for positions of power has already begun. Armed youths are used by local politicians to intimidate Opposition supporters and the local population in order to secure an election victory.

I urge the Secretary of State to look at the situation that young people in the delta face, and to recognise how easy it is for them to be co-opted into a life of violence. I also urge him to look at what long-term development initiatives could be started in the delta, to work with the non-governmental organisations that are on the ground there and to support development projects. As I have mentioned, the lack of any form of micro-finance makes it impossible for people to set up small businesses; perhaps the Department for International Development could assist with that, so that people can pursue sustainable and profitable livelihoods.

In recent months, it has been reported to me by people returning from the delta that the situation with the militia gangs is heating up considerably. Many commentators believe that the delta is about to explode, and if that is to be prevented something must be done about it very soon. Whereas only a few years ago these gangs were fighting each other with small knives, handguns and home-made weapons, now they have AK47s and many other heavy weapons. Therefore, gang warfare has taken a serious turn for the worse. This new influx of arms has been funded by bunkering, which leads me on to the final problem that I wish to highlight.

Bunkering is the theft of crude oil at source. It involves tapping into pipes and diverting the flow of oil to barrels belonging to the bunkerers, which are then shipped offshore and transported mainly to west African countries, but also much further afield to America and Europe. The sums made from bunkering are immense, as is the scale of operations. Industry figures estimate that 100,000 barrels of oil are stolen every day; 10 per cent. of daily output is therefore lost to oil theft.

Given the current price of a barrel of oil even at black market prices, it is clear that bunkering is big business. Many of the gang rivalries that I have mentioned have been linked to bunkering, as rival leaders fight for control of bunkering routes. Bunkering money is also used to buy the arms for the gangs. Therefore, we can see how bunkering is fuelling tribal tensions in a number of ways.

As I have said, the importance of a stable Niger delta cannot be overstated, yet neither the media nor the British Government have paid much attention to the region. That is beginning to change, and it should be welcomed.

We have a window of opportunity to make a real difference and secure a stable Niger delta, but in six to eight months that opportunity could be lost. The run-up to the 2007 federal and state elections could either cement democracy in Nigeria or cause a massive explosion of militia violence in the delta, leading to untold bloodshed and massive instability for the rest of Nigeria-Africa’s largest democracy.

Nigeria is to be applauded for its courageous move to democracy, but the reality for the people in the Niger delta is not rosy. In the 2003 elections, there was widespread vote rigging in the delta, enforced by heavily armed militia youths employed by political candidates, including members of Obasanjo’s ruling party. Unless things improve, feelings of disenfranchisement from and abandonment by the Nigerian state will fester even more. That, along with the massive amount of small arms and the poverty and general civil unrest that exists there, is a recipe for disaster. It would be a disaster not only for the delta but for Nigeria as a whole.

In addition, if we view Nigeria as the vital part of Africa that it clearly is, we must act now to secure peace and stability in the country. As we prepare for the G8 summit in Gleneagles, and as all eyes turn to what we are going to do to help Africa, we must not take for granted the country of Nigeria, and assume that its vast oil wealth and democracy are a reality for all its citizens.

Finally, the issue in the delta is no longer how much oil money the region is getting proportionate to its population. If it were indeed the case that the delta was receiving a disproportionately large percentage of oil revenue compared with the rest of Nigeria and that that money was genuinely getting to the people, we would not be having this debate. The reality is that poverty is widespread and that some form of reaction to that is inevitable. The people do not feel that they are being listened to, and if that does not change, violence will be almost inevitable. If Nigeria turns to revolution, then what are the consequences for Africa?

If we cannot solve the problems of, and help support, a country like Nigeria with all its oil wealth, what chance do we have with Africa as a whole? How can we solve the corruption of a continent if we cannot solve the problems of just one country?

I hope that I have not been too negative or alarmist in my analysis of the situation in the delta. Much progress has been made. However, it is important that we are all aware of the reality of the situation. I am concerned about the meagre progress that seems to have been made following the Adjournment debate secured this time last year by my former colleague Bill Tynan. I press the Secretary of State for a firm policy commitment from his Department with regard to the Niger delta.

Filed under: speeches by admin