A report in the Economist (May 12 2001) entitled "Helping but not developing" castigates Shell for its efforts to promote development in the oil producing regions of Nigeria. The problem is not the money it has spent ($150M) or the type of project –ranging from the electrification of villages through building schools and hospitals, to micro credit schemes run by women, but an independent report commissioned by Shell. The report involved UNICEF, the World Bank and Pro Natura among others, and criticised the projects for being too centralised, and for essentially buying off the locals with gifts. Overall it judged less than a third as successful, with about another third partially successful.

The criticisms are probably justified but hardly reflect badly on Shell. How many other agencies in Nigeria or anywhere else in developing countries for that matter, submit their projects to this sort of external review? Few if any, and when they do they also are often found to be centralised, short-termist, badly planned and of moderate success at best. The problem is not Shell but external development administered by do-gooders, whether OXFAM, Save the Children, or oil companies trying to improve their image. External aid is a bad way to encourage development because projects funded this way follow the donor rather than the recipient’s priorities. Failure by charities and governments usually gets covered up in self-congratulatory reports and results in demands for yet more money. At least oil companies like to see results for their efforts, and are brave enough to submit themselves to independent review. In the long run their development projects are likely to improve. Shell should be commended not castigated for this effort.

Jim Thornton Leeds 20 May 2001