"We are concerned that an agency of the United Nations is being used as cover for corporate involvement in China's exploitation of colonized areas," added Ms Reynolds. "By committing itself further to PetroChina without waiting for the publication of UNDP China's survey or taking time to consider the implications of UNDP ChinaÕs findings, Shell is demonstrating strong support for ChinaÕs political objectives in East Turkestan and a singular lack of concern for the very people it professes to care about; the vulnerable and the oppressed."

Notes:

Shell states that it has received feedback from UNDP China about the survey, but the report is apparently not expected until mid July.

Concerns about the Social Impact Assessment for the 'West - East' Pipeline, and relevant findings of World Bank Independent Inspection Panel's review of World Bank consultation in 2000 include:

1. UNDP has not yet provided Free Tibet Campaign and partner NGOs with the survey instruments, although it has promised to do so. Correspondence has so far not revealed detailed information about how the survey was conducted, including questions asked and information on who conducted the survey beyond Tsinghua University and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (a prestigious university - source of many of China's top leaders and an arm of central authority that conducts innumerable tasks for government.) No information has been provided about who "independent international social experts" apparently involved in the survey are.

2. UNDP has stated that "[its] involvement in carrying out a social impact assessment is not about putting the basic premise of the project in question but rather to try to identify in the best possible way what the local communities want to get out of it." This statement underlines the political nature of the project and suggests that expressing opposition to it is not an option. (World Bank Inspection Panel finding: "practical alternatives are neither identified nor systematically compared." (Para 35)

3. Lack of information about the project. UNDP claims to have carried out 'corrective action' when it discovered that the level of knowledge affected people had about the pipeline was inadequate, but has provided no information about what information was given and how it was 'delivered'. UNDP further states that it detected no State pressure, but has not provided evidence to support this statement. (World Bank Inspection Panel finding: "The Inspection Team's short field visit, though it recorded many positive comments about the proposed Project, also yielded some disturbing and dramatic examples of what can only be described as a climate of fear, through which some individuals nevertheless managed, at great perceived risk, to express their opposition to this Project.")

4. Unclear definition of affected people. Tibet campaigners have asserted that, since the resource heritage of Uighur people is to be extracted and transported to eastern China, many millions of ethnic Uighurs could be defined as 'affected people'.

5. Lack of specific guidelines for corporate sector engagement in China. (World Bank Inspection Panel finding: Bank staff repeatedly told the Panel that "in China things are done differently" ... in the context of its political and social systems. (Para 14). In the case of the World Bank, Tibet campaigners concluded that the Bank's procedures were more flexibly applied in China, when in fact they should have been more rigidly implemented, to ensure vulnerable people were protected.)

Contact: Alison Reynolds +44 20 7833 9958 mobile +44 7711 843884