News

Shelling Out?

Nature Conservancy's 'partnership' with oil giant Shell rankles donor.

By Andrew MacLeod, 1 May 2008, TheTyee.ca

Klappan Valley Protest

Protest in the Klappan.

A Prince George forestry professor who has donated to the Nature Conservancy of Canada every year since 2000 said this year he will send his donation elsewhere.

The problem is the organization's work with the oil and gas company Shell Canada Limited, said Paul Sanborn, at a time when Shell's pushing controversial plans to extract coalbed methane from the Klappan area of Northern British Columbia. "I've not given anything this year."

The agency has a long history of protecting Canadian land, he said. He supports the goals, and has donated an average of over $100 annually for seven years. "They've done some very good work," he said. "There's no question they've got some very concrete accomplishments they can point to."

And while many fundraising organizations enter partnerships with corporations, Sanborn said the coziness between Shell and the Nature Conservancy bothers him. "For some reason this one just leaves a bad taste in my mouth," he said. "Shell is getting more public brownie points out of this than they deserve."

Coalbed methane push

Sanborn informed the Nature Conservancy of his decision in a March 28 letter. "It's really quite simple," he wrote. "You are too close to Shell Canada, and they are using this association to try to acquire an undeserved greenish aura."

That closeness is especially galling in British Columbia, he wrote. "Shell is pressing ahead with a very divisive and unwise coalbed methane project in the Klappan area of the Skeena headwaters, against strong opposition from local First Nations. People and groups that I have no problem making common cause with are opposing Shell's project."

He called the amount of support Shell has given the conservancy "chickenfeed," a tiny amount compared to the fortune the company will make in the Klappan.

A search of the Nature Conservancy's website turns up 61 documents mentioning Shell. They include a November 2007 announcement celebrating 25 years of "partnership." Shell has provided $4 million in "financial resources, volunteer support and land and mineral rights," it said.

Royal Dutch Shell plc, based in the Netherlands, owns Shell Canada Limited. According to un-audited results released April 29, the parent company had $114 million in revenue in the first quarter of the year. That's up 56 per cent from the same period a year ago.

'Not an endorsement'

The Nature Conservancy's B.C. office is closed until May 5. Nor did a national media contact in Toronto return calls.

A representative of the agency, Sabita Maharaj, did write back to Sanborn. "NCC accepts donations from any individual or organization that shares our passion for the land," she wrote in the April 9 letter. "We do not wish to deny anyone the opportunity to support our work and help preserve Canada's essential biodiversity."

The organization works with a variety of groups to make "win-win solutions" that benefit the environment, she said. Shell's support has helped protect areas in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia, she wrote. They also funded 16 interns to do conservation field work last summer.

The "partnership," she added, is "not a general endorsement of this corporation and its overall practices." She defended the conservancy's "non-confrontational" approach, saying it has worked well to protect some 7,300 square kilometres since 1962.

"We're very proud of our relationship with the Nature Conservancy," said Patty Richards, Shell's social investment manager in Calgary. "We chose the NCC because we wanted a relationship with a conservation organization that has a national focus."

While the conservancy is willing to work with businesses, she added, it has a scientific approach to conservation that Shell finds appealing.

Shell gives about $10 million a year to non-profit groups, she said.

Reputation at risk

Sanborn said the agency's reply was what he expected, and it shows the group's directors may be out of touch with what is happening in B.C., where First Nations, residents and environmental groups have expressed outrage at Shell's plans.

"It's clear Shell is not welcomed unanimously by people in that part of the province," he said.

While the conservancy shows a lack of "street smarts" by associating with Shell, Sanborn added, some members doubtless disagree with the approach. "I'm sure there must be people in that organization who are feeling some discomfort."

He added, "They risk damaging a good reputation if they don't show some good judgement in whom they choose to be publicly associated with."

As a donor there are few opportunities to direct the agency's decisions, he said. The only "vote" he gets is to withhold his cheque.

Related Tyee stories:

 [Tyee]

9  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • ME2

    4 years ago

    Re Corporate donations.

    If in return for Shell's donations, the Nature Conservancy - which is not a typical activist NGO - has not endorsed Shell's activities, and is not in a position to do so anyway - Where's the beef?

    This is not a case such as where a Corporate political donation might influence gov't policies, or where donating to an activist NGO might silence them.

    Sanborn brings this issue up only to focus attention upon Shell's pursuance of the destructive Klappan coal-bed methane project, which is indeed in itself a worthy goal.

    But if Sanborn's an environmentalist, he's shooting himself in the foot with this brain-dead ploy of attacking the Nature Conservancy.

  • gassyandy

    4 years ago

    big deal

    it is only 100 bucks,

    I wish I could could come up with an excuse
    to get a $100 bottle of whiskey....

  • Moat

    4 years ago

    Tricky Business - the Shell Game

    Well, maybe Shell could turn around and say that donating to these groups helps them be more accountable? If Shell wanted to give money to David Suzuki to fight climate change... why stop them?

    I have always thought that environmental groups SHOULD buy shares in major corporations. This way, they can get to those shareholder meetings and really influence what goes on. Imagine if Greenpeace bought a bunch of shares in Shell or Exxon and started to show up for shareholder meetings?

    Either way, the "game" can be played from many angles.

  • ME2

    4 years ago

    Moat

    Minor sharehoders such as enviro groups have zilch effectiveness as shareholders re voting strength.

    They, along with other minor shareholders, are ALWAYS outvoted, if not totally ignored, by the big bloc shareholders such as the Trust funds, who through their Directorships on the Boards, are usually the same ones the minor shareholders are voting and/or protesting against.

    For a time, enviro shareholders could focus attention by showing up at a meeting and demonstrating - usually obstructively. Today the corporadoes have methods of quickly silencing these protests, and they are ignored in the media anyway.

    Though the neocons trumpet the shareholder system as proof of "Democracy in action", there is literally, absolutely, nothing democratic about the modern corporation.

  • Moat

    4 years ago

    Agree... sort of....

    ME2 wrote:

    Quote:
    Though the neocons trumpet the shareholder system as proof of "Democracy in action", there is literally, absolutely, nothing democratic about the modern corporation.

    Well, it is just like Ontario and Quebec in our federal voting system... they are similar to the large trust funds as they tend to vote in big blocks.

    If a smug environmental group is watching a corporation closely, then why should they not buy shares in this company if they know that it is well run (fiscally) and should be showing future profits? Why not short-sell poorly run companies?

    Maybe the question is.... can an environmental group be accountable enough to use the funds raised through wise investments to support their overall goal?

    Your argument regarding democracy is similar to telling a person who lives below the poverty line not to vote, as the middle and wealthy classes tend to vote in large blocks to protect their interests.

    I think it is unfair to say that there is "nothing" democratic about the modern corporation.

    Over the years, I have been invited, as a shareholder, to join class action suits against various corporations. I never bothered, as it was not worth the effort at the time.

    However, I have never been formally invited to join a lawsuit against a poorly run and dishonest government.

    At the risk of sounding like a conservative, who is really more accountable? Big government or the big corporation? Maybe it is the same beast.

  • ME2

    4 years ago

    Yeah, I'm just a stupid Lefty.

    And you think you're toying with me

    For a person with a few shares to show up at a Shell shareholders meeting (which is held only because the law demands it) and to expect to affect voting results would be sheer lunacy, and you know it.

    You also know the proceedings are only a formality, since its business has been cut and dried at the prior Board meeting.

    The only challenge the Company's management could conceivably face is if huge numbers of proxy votes were assembled, which would have to include very large institutional holdings.

    And that is the closest any corporation could ever come to internal "democracy".

    Under the Societies Act, enviro groups cannot be run as a business, and you should know that too.

    And who would ever be stupid enough to think he/she could challenge a gov't for mismanagement? Dream on, fella.

  • southdeltawalker

    4 years ago

    An island for killing?

    I live in Ladner and have heard that the Nature Conservancy owns an island in the South Fraser River and for a fee hunters can go on it and shoot ducks.
    Does anyone know if this is true or not?

  • Moat

    4 years ago

    Toying? Only with ideas

    Shell giving money to the Nature Conservancy is not a big deal in the end as long as it is a true gift with nothing in return expected. It is up to those in the Nature Conservancy to maintain their integrity and remain true to their goals.

    I still say that "social interest investor clubs" could make things interesting.

    Your dismissive comment referencing the Societies Act is far to simplistic and narrow - much like Grumpy's continual rants about Skytrain.

    Enviro groups cannot invest? Huh? They have been doing it for years, just not yet on an effective level.

    archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/climate/2000mar14.html

    I don't know what Greenpeace has done recently with Shell, but it appears they owned RDShell shares for a time.

    If there is money on the table, why leave it there for the next capitalist to grab? Is the money better in his hands, or yours?

    Well, if we cannot even trust the Nature Conservancy....

  • Moat

    4 years ago

    link error

    archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/climate/2000mar14.html

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.