By the Witness Radio team
When oil companies pack up after years of drilling, the pollution, scarred landscapes, and shattered livelihoods often linger long after the last rig is gone.
Communities in oil-producing regions are often left to grapple with poisoned water, rusting skeletons of abandoned infrastructure, and lost income from farming, fishing, and other ways of life. Meanwhile, the question of who will foot the bill for restoring the environment hangs in the air.
Now, three international civil society organizations are raising their voices, demanding that oil and gas companies take real responsibility when they shut down operations or hand over their assets to new investors.
The Stakeholder Democracy Network (SDN), the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Center for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) have submitted the International Principles for Responsible Divestment from Fossil Fuels to the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights.
These principles arrive at a time when countries are under mounting pressure to break free from coal, oil, and gas in the fight against climate change. Yet the organizations warn that companies must not use this transition as an excuse to abandon communities or leave their mess behind.
“Rapid closure and responsible closure of the fossil fuel industry are not mutually incompatible agendas. Both are vital to achieve climate and environmental justice and a just energy transition,” the principles state.
The proposed standards lay out a clear roadmap for what companies must do before walking away from fossil fuel projects, and what governments should demand in return.
According to the principles, companies are expected to inform communities about plans to close operations or sell assets, including when the changes will happen and what environmental and financial obligations remain outstanding.
They should also involve affected people in decisions about their own future, rather than making choices in secret boardrooms.
“This information must include divestment timelines and modalities, as well as full disclosure of all outstanding environmental and financial liabilities. Companies should proactively create spaces for participation and dialogue, so that affected people, regulators and government authorities receive relevant information and can meaningfully influence corporate decision-making.” The principles further state.
Another key demand is that companies must pay for the harm they have caused, from cleaning up polluted lands and waters to safely dismantling infrastructure and restoring damaged ecosystems.
The organizations are also pushing for companies to compensate those whose livelihoods, health, culture, and communities have suffered. This could mean financial payments, restoring sacred cultural sites, and publicly admitting the harm they have done.
When companies sell off their assets, the principles insist they must ensure that new owners have both the resources and expertise to run operations safely and cover all future closure and restoration costs.
The principles also highlight the fate of workers and communities whose lives depend on oil. They call for new livelihood opportunities, job transition programs, and social safety nets for those facing job loss when the wells run dry.
The principles also place the onus on governments, urging them to ensure oil companies do not walk away from environmental damage or leave obligations unresolved when they shut down or sell off their assets.
They urge states to craft clear, transparent plans for phasing out fossil fuel extraction, with affected communities and workers at the table for every decision that could reshape their lives.
Governments are also expected to overhaul their laws and regulations, closing loopholes that let companies slip away from projects without cleaning up pollution, restoring ecosystems, or compensating those harmed.
“States should ensure that their existing legal and regulatory frameworks related to fossil fuel divestment, including investment laws and treaties, are aligned with these Principles and that these Principles are made obligatory for companies by enshrining them in law and effectively enforcing them.” The 4-page document reads
Before any asset sale or project closure gets the green light, the principles say governments should demand independent environmental and social assessments, plus thorough reviews of infrastructure and decommissioning costs.
They also urge states to ensure companies set aside enough money for environmental clean-up and infrastructure dismantling before approving any closure plans.
When assets change hands, governments should scrutinize whether the new buyers have the money, know-how, and management skills to run the facilities safely and meet all environmental obligations left on the table.
The principles sound the alarm against letting companies hand over assets to brand-new businesses or operators with no track record of safe management, which could leave governments and communities footing the bill when disaster strikes.
They also tackle cases where previous owners have already left a trail of environmental damage. Here, governments should ensure new owners handle the clean-up while protecting affected communities’ right to seek compensation and justice from those who caused the original harm.
The organizations are also pressing governments to publish yearly updates on all proposed, approved, and rejected oil and gas asset sales and project closures, including whether companies have kept their environmental and social promises.
These concerns are painfully clear in Nigeria’s Niger Delta, where decades of oil extraction have left communities battling pollution and the collapse of their livelihoods.
Oil spills have poisoned water sources, ruined farmland, and shattered fishing livelihoods, forcing many residents to bear the high cost of an industry that has reaped enormous profits.
A United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) assessment of Ogoniland in 2017 documented extensive oil contamination and recommended a long-term environmental clean-up.
Meanwhile, some international oil companies that once operated in the region are selling off their stakes to new investors, sparking urgent questions about who will shoulder responsibility for pollution and other lingering obligations.
In March 2025, Shell completed the sale of its Nigerian onshore subsidiary, the Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), to Renaissance Africa Energy.
TotalEnergies followed with an agreement announced in January 2026 to sell its 10 percent non-operated interest in the Renaissance joint venture’s licenses to the Nigerian consortium Vaaris.
On October 27, 2026, TotalEnergies announced that it had completed the sale for US$800 million.
The company said it would retain its full economic interest in three gas licenses – OML 23, OML 28 and OML 77 – which currently account for 50 percent of Nigeria LNG’s gas supply. The transaction therefore covers its interest in the joint venture’s oil assets, rather than a complete withdrawal from its Nigerian operations.
Civil society organizations are raising doubts about whether these deals offer enough transparency on outstanding environmental damage, clean-up plans, and compensation for the communities left in the wake.
Dr Isaac ‘Asume’ Osuoka, Director of Social Action, said the people living in oil-producing areas should not be forgotten when companies negotiate the sale of their assets.
“This case is about people, not just oil assets. It is about children growing up with poisoned water, families breathing polluted air, and communities losing their health and livelihoods while international oil companies walk away with decades of profits,” Osuoka said.
He insisted that affected communities must not become corporate sacrifice zones and urged TotalEnergies to prove that its exit will not deepen existing human rights abuses.
Mr. Simon Taylor, co-founder of Hawkmoth, also questioned the transparency surrounding the transaction.
Taylor pointed to TotalEnergies’ previous involvement in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, arguing that the company should be transparent about the public-interest implications of its asset sale.
