Minh Le is the Associate Country Director of Oxfam in Vietnam.

Rice is life. It is true for me and for millions of farmers and families living in the riparian countries of the Mekong River.

Almost a decade ago, I got to know about the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) via a local organization in Cambodia. I was intrigued by its potential to not only improve rice production, but also to offer solutions to the complex problems and constraints faced by smallholder farmers.

The strengthening SRI movement has become a popular topic recently in development circles and with politicians simply because everyone cares about finding a way of feeding more people and, at the same time, improving environmental sustainability. SRI literature saw a spike of scientific and public interest in the last 10 years. Some 250 scientific articles have been produced in comparison to a few dozen in the previous decade. The March 2013 issue of the journal, Farming Matters, (published by ILEIA, the Centre for learning on sustainable agriculture) is exclusively devoted to SRI. I agree with the editors that SRI is indeed about more than just more rice.

In 2006, Oxfam initiated a regional initiative to support smallholder farmers in the lower Mekong basin, catalysing SRI innovations in rice production. In Vietnam “Simple and Effective” is the motor to promote SRI. Five year later, it was reported that one million farmers (some 10% of the total national farming population) have adopted SRI, following a partial or full set of its principles. It was reported by the Plant Protection Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development that SRI adoption covered 16% of the rice land in the North and 6% of the rice land in the country overall. Though progress is being made, it is obvious that the task is not yet completed.

Vietnamese farmer Hoang Thi Lien, right, talks to Nguyen Van Do, at his SRI farm in Dong Phu commune, My Duc district, Ha Tay province. Lien is a core farmer that gives instruction for and help other farmers to cultivate SRI rice. Photo: Chau Doan/ Oxfam America

There are still millions of farmers in Vietnam and hundreds of millions elsewhere who should have the opportunity to learn about and gain confidence in agro-ecological methods such as SRI. Multi-institutional and multi-level collaborations have been the key to success of SRI scaling up in Vietnam and many attempts have been made to try similar farmer-centered approaches with other crops. I see the SRI movement as opening doors for more cooperation and genuine support for farmers, as research, extension, and practice make progress together.

So let’s move the SRI debate beyond right and wrong and focus our energy and scare resources on better addressing farmers’ risk horizons, their appetite for change, and their aspirations towards improved rice productivity. In Vietnam, finding local solutions to food production is essential to eliminating hunger and providing insurance against rising food prices.

Rice is life and it is at the nexus of urgent global challenges for meeting food needs with less land per person, diminished water availability, rising energy costs, and adverse climate changes.  It is not an over-dramatization that our planet’s future will be influenced to no small degree by how this essential grain is grown in the decades ahead.

Sandra Ascencio of the Justice Office of Peace and Integrity of the Creation Order of Young Friars in El Salvador. Photo: Jennifer Lentfer / Oxfam America

Sandra Carolina Ascencio has worked for more than ten years to protect the health of her people and her county of El Salvador from mineral mining, which is one of the most environmentally-destructive industries on the planet. Nowhere is this more apparent than in El Salvador where runoff from mining operations has polluted the San Sebastian River with dangerous levels of cyanide and iron.

As a member of the National Roundtable on Metallic Mining in El Salvador (La Mesa), Ascencio was part of a group of community activists from El Salvador who participated in a speaking tour in Canada and the US in March and April, entitled “Water is More Precious than Gold.” They shared stories from the frontlines and the ways in which the mining industry is bullying their way into Latin American communities. As part of the speaking tour, Ascencio appeared on an Oxfam-sponsored panel on land, natural resources, and food justice during Ecumenical Advocacy Days in Washington DC.

Ascencio serves as a pastoral agent with the Office of Justice, Peace and Integrity of the Creation of the Order of Friars Minor, supporting parish communities and environmental and human rights educators throughout El Salvador. Oxfam was fortunate to have Ascencio share her experiences with us in our offices.

***

Jennifer Lentfer: Tell us why you’ve come to Washington, DC.  

Sandra Ascencio: People doing advocacy work in Canada and the US want to know more about how we are organizing communities and what inspires them to resist mining. The message is the same no matter where I go. I want people to know why it is that we want open-pit, metallic mining to be banned in El Salvador.

We need real transformation in government policies of all developed countries. In the case of the US, for example, towards the kind of development the Millennium Challenge Corporation is promoting. As of now, these policies are supporting infrastructure development that benefits the mining companies, instead of looking at a true development that focuses on eradicating poverty and promoting a better quality of life in the Salvadoran population.

Lentfer: What will you remember most from your time in the US and Canada?

What I have found out in our visits to the US and Canada is that people want to know what they can do to help us and how we can work together in a global resistance movement. When I shared my experiences with the faith-based community at Ecumenical Advocacy Days, I saw how people got inspired and how they demonstrated their solidarity with us. It’s important to transmit those emotions into the work. For us, promoting everybody’s well-being remains the center of faith. Only that way, people can keep in mind that the most important things for humans to survive are water, air, and land.

Lentfer: Tell us more about the Justice Office of Peace and Integrity of the Creation of the Order of Friars Minor and the National Roundtable on Metallic Mining. What are these bodies trying to achieve?

Ascencio: The Office of Justice, Peace and Integrity of the Creation was founded in 1987 to continue spreading the voice of the church and build rapport with communities to promote justice, peace and the protection of the environment. The Mesa was formed in 2005. The Office joined the Mesa in 2007, when we realized that contamination from mining was a big issue to address when it came to our food and water and our health.

At the Order of Friars Minor, we try to maintain a spirituality based on St. Francis de Assisi, focused on serving others and relating to nature and the environment. It’s what motivates us to protect creation. The rights of the earth and the rights of human beings are one in the same.

Lentfer: Where is the national-level debate about mining in El Salvador today?

Ascencio: Currently El Salvador does not have a law to regulate water management and so that’s where the National Assembly is focused right now. Within the proposed law there is a provision that mining is not promoted. La Mesa is trying to include mining provisions in all laws.

The proposal to ban mining has been offered, but has not moved forward in the legislature. After years of remaining silent about this, the Industrial Association of El Salvador is now actively asking the government to think twice about importance of mining to the development of our country. The civil society is watching their next steps closely, due to the level of influence the Association has on the national policies, in particular in regards to the management of the use of water and land.

Lentfer: What do you say when someone tells you that mining is a “good option” for development?

Ascencio: From my spiritual perspective, mining is not a viable option. Millions of years have to pass for the equilibrium to be re-established following the impacts of contamination, and our generations will never see repair. There is already enough minerals/metals extracted that could be re-utilized. There is no need to keep extracting more. What matters most is our ways of consumption and demand for such things.

A community meeting on mining near Ilobasco, El Salvador. Photo: Jeff Deutsch / Oxfam America

Lentfer: What are some of the consequences of industrialized mining that you have seen at the community level in El Salvador?

Ascencio: In the Department of La Unión [in the north-east of El Salvador], there is still proof of contamination of a mine that operated decades ago. The river there is completely contaminated and potable water is now very scarce. After that experience, for everyone that struggles on a daily basis to get drinking water, to think of another mining project coming becomes an issue of life and death.

New mining projects are proposed in Northern areas, where there is a lot of poverty and the soils already need lots of fertilizers. These are the same areas that were very much affected by the civil war.

Lentfer: I’m sure that the environmental educators you work with are discussing much more than the environment when they meet with communities. How do you prepare them? What are some of the biggest challenges they face?

Ascencio: We educate them a lot about health problems from contamination and how to identify sicknesses. We also talk about the rights of people and the rights of the Earth and how to protect them so we have a better quality of life. If we protect the three basic elements—water, air, land—we will also have access to good food. We teach them how to open up these issues and talk about them with communities.

However, mining projects can break the social fabric of communities and divide them. Some people will always prioritize the so-called economic benefits of mining—employment and secondary businesses. What our educators must also share with the communities is the true price of mining—construction of dams that take their water, destruction of natural resources to make roads for big trucks, displacement of communities. For people with the hope of getting a job and having some security, it’s a big challenge weigh short- and long-term costs and benefits of mining. So we have to prepare our educators to talk frankly about the consequences of mining that people cannot often see.

Lentfer: So many people who have been fighting to protect their communities in El Salvador have been threatened, and even killed. Despite these risks, what drives you to continue?

Ascencio: A total commitment. My work is primarily spiritual and by conviction. God gives us each abilities to use according to our faith. When I die, I don’t want to go [up] there and think I didn’t do anything.

I’m preparing my two children to know that my work is for God. They also need to learn the values of service and discernment. I tell them that if something happens to me, then they know that it was worthwhile. But it’s better not to think of those things otherwise you could lose your energy and motivation.

Lentfer: What do policymakers in Washington DC need to know or do to best assist you in your efforts in El Salvador?

Ascencio: You are not the only country and the only generation of this planet. What they have is enough to exist in this world. We want to see a change towards solidarity in US economic and foreign policies.

Lentfer: What gives you hope for the future?

Ascencio: I think that every person is good, in their essence. My work is not because I’m a lawyer or a scientist, but because I believe in solidarity and harmony as the principles of life. We all are on a journey to encounter our common well-being.

Thanks to Sofia Vergara for assisting with translation.

A US wheat field in Kansas. Photo via Flickr http://bit.ly/16AoUvd

An Ethiopian wheat field in Oromia. Photo: Eva-Lotta Jansson / Oxfam America

That’s why the reforms to US food aid are so important to me. As a member of the Farm Bureau, it’s also why I am so disappointed that the Farm Bureau would distort the need for those reforms in a recent editorial.

American Farm Bureau Federation President Stallman calls in to question the accountability and efficacy of using cash, rather than shipping food, when he writes that:

“Shipping a cargo load of food, rather than the money to buy food (if it is available), is the best and most secure way to ensure that taxpayer-funded international food assistance actually makes it to hungry people overseas.”

Really?!? When the distance between the US and the country we are supporting means an average of 130 days between procurement and delivery, I find this hard to believe. When over half of those taxpayer dollars that could be helping to feed people are siphoned away into the pockets of middlemen before one hungry child is fed, I’m concerned that there are many a slip between the cup and the lip.

Yes, I like to know that what I do as a farmer can help people to be fed around the world. But I don’t think that way when I consider that my “feeling good” (Stallman uses the word “pride” here) hurts the ability of other farmers in developing countries to feed themselves and their communities.

Mr. Stallman is concerned about “good international relations.” So am I. Consider the effects on a Haitian farmer with rice to sell when the earthquake hit in 2010, as “free” commodities flooded the local market in Port au Prince. This same question arises for crisis areas in other countries and their neighboring regions, where food is available, transport is closer, and markets are functioning.

The proposed reforms don’t eliminate US-produced commodities from being used for aid. In fact the majority of emergency food aid will remain in that form. But, these reforms are something of which the Farm Bureau should be “proud”.  First, they follow the conservative principle that public money needs to be used efficiently and seeks to achieve the greatest bang for the buck. Second, the reforms hope to take of advantage of and support existing markets by purchasing food locally or regionally when feasible.

From where I sit, overlooking my land on the Great Plains, US support of international agriculture has undercut neither our farmers, nor our national security over the decades. Some of the biggest markets for US commodities are in countries that used to struggle with food security. While emergency food aid may be a band-aid for a day, our support of long-term agricultural programs and market development helps create stability, more food, and new customers for our own goods.

Now that is the pathway to friendship—something we can feel good about for years to come.

“Africa is suffering from a new AIDs crisis: ‘Air-conditioned Induced Decisions.’  Our leaders live in air-conditioned homes, travel in air-conditioned cars, work in air-conditioned offices.  And it affects the decisions they make.” ~Maiko Zulu, Zambian reggae music star and activist

I had a chance to meet Maiko Zulu last week.  He wears frustration and disappointment with his country on his sleeve (and in his music).  Zambia is a country that should be improving economically.  Driven by mining large copper and cobalt reserves, economic growth has been high for the last decade, not less than 5% per year and more than 7% as recently as 2010.  The Economist in 2011 listed Zambia as one of the world’s 10 fastest-growing economies. Since, 2000, average income per capita has grown by more than 40%, lifting Zambia from “low-income country” to a “lower middle-income country.”

But high economic growth and increased average income have not translated into reduced poverty or better conditions for most Zambians.  If Zambia’s national income was a dollar, the poorest 10% of Zambians receive less than $0.02 and the richest 10% control $0.43, making Zambia one of the most unequal countries on earth. Despite good news on growth and income, Zambia is becoming more unequal and poverty is actually rising.

This analysis comes from a very important report released last week, Equity in Extractives, launched by the Africa Progress Panel.  It looks closely at the 20 African resource-rich countries that depend on extractive industries and finds they are performing quite badly in converting their mineral and energy wealth into benefits for the public. A few factoids:

• Twelve of the 25 countries in the world with the highest child mortality rates are resource-rich African countries.
• Equatorial Guinea, rich with oil, is actually now classified as a high-income country with an average income of more than $27,000 a year, higher than Poland.  But Equatorial Guinea’s child-death rate is 20 times higher than Poland’s.

In general, the resource-rich African countries are badly under-performing on basic human development and poverty reduction, despite how much money they’re making.  This chart tells the story: on the left are the countries’ ranking on wealth (actually income), and on the right is their ranking on human development indicators.  That rightward slope means people aren’t getting the health, education, and opportunity that they deserve.  Most resource-rich countries under-perform in every indicator. (Tanzania and Ghana are notable.)

One of the most interesting bits of the report is a forensic analysis that shows that inequality is growing in resource-rich countries, or at least in those the report analyzed.  The data is hard to come by, but seems to show that not only is the economic growth and revenue from oil and mining boom not being shared, but the elite are capturing (stealing?) ever more of the money over time. This means less poverty reduction than there should be, and in some cases more poverty than there was.

More than that, revenues that rightfully belong to the people of these countries are diverted through poor governance, thereby robbing the majority of citizens from the chance to improve their lives via social services and government investment intended to diversify economies. By not widening opportunities away from dependence on extractives and creating more jobs, inequality is not addressed.

Gawain Kripke and Maiko Zulu in Cape Town last week.

The paper is important, and not only if you’re interested in extractive industries.  The analysis provides useful insights and ways to look at the issues that will interest anyone who cares about development and poverty.  The paper is studiously optimistic about the role extractive resources can play in benefiting development and poverty reduction.

Meanwhile, the truth of the inequality of growth is becoming more evident to the public in these countries.  As Maiko Zulu observes above, there is a disconnect between the public interest and those of the plutocrats and oligarchs who are running the countries.

“We can’t speak of economic growth when people are dying of poverty.”

Will disconnect eventually lead to discontent?  That’s a risky proposition that could lead anywhere…

To read the Equity in Extractives report, click here.

Aid does not cause development; people do.  I’m talking about the local leaders who can access and actually use that aid effectively towards development outcomes.  Oxfam is hearing that local leaders are starting to give the US government better marks for how the US invests its aid.

These local leaders are not telling us that the US government has fixed all its problems.  And they still have many criticisms of the US approach.  But they are observing positive changes in how the US government seeks to engage them and support local priorities.

For too long the aid that the US government provided was not a useful tool for local leaders.  Too often it actually undermined what they were trying to accomplish.  But over the past few years, as the United States has confronted the limitations of this approach, a number of US policymakers and political leaders have increasingly tried to reorient US development policies and programs to make them more responsive to and useful to local partners.

But have changes in US government development policies in Washington changed practice on the ground?

The beginning of the current reform trend can perhaps be dated to the establishment of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, but since then, it has gained momentum.  The US government now has a range of policies designed to support and leverage the leadership of local partners, such as:

• Millennium Challenge Corporation – investing in locally-defined priorities and rewarding good governance;
• Feed the Future – Increasing support for and investments in national agriculture plans, and engaging smallholders in an effort to boost their success;
• Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCS)  – restoring investment choices to the country level, and doing it via a deliberate process that begins with country priorities;
• Implementation and Procurement Reform (now called local solutions) – actually making direct investments in local leadership.

Oxfam has applauded these policy approaches along the way.  They are not all directly related or comparable, but they all have the same DNA; they are built around the priorities and agency of local leaders.

But we wanted to know:  Have changes in US government development policies in Washington changed practice on the ground?  Do local leaders see a change?  And do they like the changes they see?  So we conducted extensive field interviews with citizens, civil society representatives, business people and public officials in Bangladesh, Ghana, Malawi, Peru, the Philippines, Rwanda, and Senegal to find out.

The overwhelming response we heard?  YES: 83% of the local leaders we surveyed saw a significant, positive change in the US approach over the previous few years.

This is not to say that local leaders are completely happy with the behavior and practices of the US government.  In fact, we often heard continued frustrations about difficulties working with the US government, as well as demands for the US government to continue to improve partnerships.

Oxfam spoke to a narrow number of people in a group of countries where US reforms are most advanced.  Thus it would be wrong to generalize too broadly about how what we heard might apply in other cases and contexts and it is much too early to draw conclusions about the developmental impact of most of these still short-lived reforms.

But, what we can say is that we are getting early positive feedback on how local partners are observing changes in US approaches.  Those we interviewed overwhelmingly observe increased US alignment with partner country priorities, more stakeholder engagement, and ultimately, more opportunities for local leaders to build partnerships with the US government that they didn’t have before.

In particular, the US government has a lot more work to do to close the feedback loop with local actors.  While three out of four of the people we surveyed told us they were having more and improved communication with US government development personnel, two thirds still felt they lacked influence over US government decisions regarding development in their country.  This information can help inform how these steps in the right direction are taken forward and strengthened.

The fight now is not only to ensure that these reforms prevail politically in Washington, but also to help improve their implementation and accelerate their progress, in order to restore the United States’ historic role as a global development leader.

These US government reforms to support local ownership have been hard to implement, both politically and practically.  But Oxfam believes this remains the most direct path to supporting local leadership over the development agenda.  One civil society leader in Bangladesh framed the ownership challenge thusly:

“If you have a direct road or a diverted road, which way do you go?  You go the direct road.”

You can read the survey findings and Oxfam’s recommendations by clicking here. 

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Chair of the Africa Progress Panel. UN Photo/Evan Schneider

The Africa Progress Panel’s 2013 report “Equity in Extractives” was released today in Cape Town and focuses on steps to take to ensure that Africa’s oil, gas and mining boom actually benefits the majority of African’s rather than a select few. The panel includes the former head of the IMF, Michel Camdessus; former US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin; former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo; former first lady of Mozambique Graca Machel; and Peter Eigen, founder of Transparency International and former chair of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, among others.

These heavy hitters stand behind a report that says there “is no credible evidence to indicate that the Dodd-Frank requirements will impose significant additional costs, let alone threaten the competitive position of some of the world’s largest companies.” The report says that the “Cardin-Lugar” or Section 1504 provision of Dodd-Frank and forthcoming European Union disclosure requirements provisions represents an important opportunity for African civil society groups to work with multinational companies to “achieve higher standards of disclosure” but notes that some companies appear “to be squandering that opportunity” with the US lawsuit.

In advance of June’s G8 summit, the report says “all countries must adopt and enforce” project-by-project disclosure standards such as in the US and EU—“as major players in Africa’s extractives sector, Australia, Canada and China should be the next countries to actively support this emerging global consensus.”

Oxfam’s new Executive Director, Winnie Byanyima, is from Uganda, a country undergoing its own oil boom, and is in Cape Town for the World Economic Forum Africa. She said “African governments must use oil, gas and mining to raise revenue, but this boom must not steamroll the rights of communities living on top of Africa’s mineral wealth. It is important that local communities are informed and consulted about extractive industry projects that affect them.”

With the political boost from today’s African Progress Report we are one step closing to realizing the so far unrealized potential of Africa’s resource endowment.

According to a recent Gates Foundation report, “When women don’t control resources and income, their households may suffer from malnutrition. Men are less likely than women to reinvest their income in the health of the family.”  In a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, women are deemed to be the key to food security indicating that “if women had equal access to agricultural resources and services, food security would be greatly improved and societies would grow richer, and not only in economic terms.”

But it isn’t just NGO’s and UN bodies claiming a good return on investment when providing resources and opportunities to women, Goldman Sachs, the large investment firm also conducted research with the World Bank and concluded that “investments in women—particularly in education and labor force participation—lead to read GDP growth, as women take their earnings and invest them back in their families and communities.” And just last week the billionaire and investment guru, Warren Buffett also expressed his bullish take on women in an essay published in Fortune magazine where he declares his optimism for America’s future lies with American women, untapped resource!

So to all those mothers and multi-taskers, here is a list of 10 (thought there are undoubtedly more) tasks that women in the developing world take on each day:

1. Child rearing

This mother and child fled their villages and had just arrived at the El Salaam camp in North Darfur. Photo: Eva-Lotta Jansson / Oxfam America

2. Cooking

Cooking “arroz chaufa” (stir fried rice) in the communal pot, village of San Jacinto, Peru. Photo: Evan Abramson /Oxfam America

3. Growing commodity crops for sale

Etchi Avla on her cocoa farm in Botende, Ivory Coast. Photo: Peter DiCampo / Oxfam America

4. Selling at the market 

Since she received an Oxfam cash grant, this market vendor in Darfur is able to support her children, brothers and sisters. Photo: Elizabeth Stevens/Oxfam America

5. Fetching water

Jainaba Bojang carries a tub of water home from a bore hole and water pump in the village of Oupat, Gambia. Photo: Rebecca Blackwell:Oxfam America

6. Chopping and gathering firewood

Howa Abdullha comes back to Kebkabiye, North Darfur, carrying firewood she has gathered outside town. Photo: Eva-Lotta Jansson / Oxfam America

7. Laundry

Hencia Josena does laundry at work in a Haitian hospital. Photo: Liz Lucas/Oxfam America

8. Maintaining the house

Members of Ratnaweera family stand outside their new house in Sri Lanka.  Photo: Atul Loke/Panos for Oxfam America

9. Growing crops for food

This Cambodian farmer used system of rice intensification (SRI) practices to cultivate rice. Photo: Patrick Brown/ Oxfam America

10. Caring for elders

These three elders at the Internally Displaced Persons Magunga Camp noted that they had family looking after them. Photo: Liz Lucas/ Oxfam America

A recent story by Dan Charles on mysteries related to the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) highlights some critical issues in current SRI debates. First, intensified labor demands can be an obstacle to initial SRI adoption in some locales. Second, since development work must be contextual, we must be cautious in broadly applying research findings from one context. Third, the analysis of agriculture innovation must extend beyond agronomic techniques and productivity measures to impacts on households and communities and the incentives or disincentives they generate.  Unfortunately, on this last point, Charles’ story did not discuss the fact that monetary incentives are not the sole reason why farmers adopt SRI. Non-monetary benefits also play a role.

Vietnamese farmer Hoang Thi Lien, 53 at her SRI (system of rice intensification) farm in Ha Tay province, Vietnam. Chau Doan/Oxfam America

After an impressive record of SRI adoption in Vietnam, Oxfam’s initiatives to support SRI in Haiti’s Artibonite Valley encountered varying challenges. One obstacle to adoption in Haiti has been the increased labor demands, similar to what the study by Takahashi and Barrett found in Indonesia.  In contrast, labor intensification did not pose a significant constraint in Vietnam, in part because it is minimized after farmers have become more efficient in SRI techniques. So, yes, increased labor demands can be a significant factor in SRI adoption and impact.  But how labor “acts” in these dynamics varies between locales. It will depend on many factors, including average parcel size, rural labor supply, alternative labor opportunities, and the point of comparison—i.e. the labor demands of the traditional growing practices under local conditions.  Every experience of SRI is not the same.

However, Takahashi and Barrett’s research (pdf) is very important, welcomed, and highly relevant.  They are correct that there has been little solid evidence on how SRI adoption affects household income and household welfare more broadly. In an effort to address this gap, Oxfam recently initiated a rigorous SRI impact evaluation study in Haiti in collaboration with researchers Michael Carter and Travis Lybbert of the University of California at Davis. They were selected, in part, because they had not been immersed previously in the SRI debate and could offer a measure of independence.

In the village of Quatorzieme, Oxfam is helping a small group of women experiment with innovative practices of growing rice known as System of Rice Intensification or SRI. Brett Eloff/Oxfam America

Unfortunately, Charles’ article leads toward a more simplistic conclusion than is warranted.  The story focuses on reported dis-adoption rates and on Takahashi and Barrett’s demonstration that SRI adoption does not lead to any significant increase in household income in their study area. However, in their research these authors go on to ask:  “If there is no observable economic gain, why have farmers shifted from the conventional rice cultivation practices to SRI in the first place and only 18 percent of those who had experimented with SRI had disadopted [sic] by the time of our survey?”  (page 32)  They suggest that additional incentives for SRI adoption include preferring on-farm over off-farm work, not needing to travel for employment, being closer to home for child care, cultural values of keeping women closer to home, and/or more leisure time. In other words, there must be net household welfare gains—gains significant enough to persuade farmers to adopt SRI for the long-term—even if there is no income increase. But their data does not allow further analysis of those non-monetary benefits. The picture is more complex and promising than the story implies.

Strong evidence supports claims that SRI offers multiple monetary and non-monetary benefits both to adopting farmers and to society at large: increased yields and land productivity that offer smallholder farmers the possible welfare gains suggested above, that stabilize rural communities and that provide increased food production; decreased green-house gas emissions; water savings; and decreased chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. So, while we do need to understand SRI adoption incentives and household impacts, we also hear an additional set of questions: How can we better mobilize knowledge and resources to create the conditions required for increased adoption of SRI and other agro-ecological methods? Why is there not more private and public investment in SRI? What policies and strategies do we need to advocate for SRI? How do we recognize the social benefits of SRI and generate incentives accordingly? How do we help farmers get past the initial increase in labor demands, instead of letting that be a game stopper?

SRI is too promising to leave its future to the whims of an ideological and narrow debate. Years ago my mentor Thomas McCollough, a social ethicist, taught me the importance of asking the right questions.  Let’s ask those right questions—all of them.

Oxfam has no problem with the approval of the US-Mexico TBA which simply lays out the rules for how hydrocarbons reserves in the Gulf of Mexico that straddle our maritime borders would be developed.

We do have a big problem with an irrelevant provision inserted into the bill designed to weaken the payment disclosure requirements in Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, also known as the Cardin-Lugar provision. That law provides for the annual disclosure of payments made by oil, gas and mining companies to host governments around the world – final rules were issued by the SEC in August last year. H.R. 1613 would exempt any covered company from reporting payments from in accordance with any transboundary hydrocarbons agreement anywhere in the world.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) – backed by companies such as Exxon, Shell, Chevron and BP – is suing the SEC in federal court and is now hoping that its Congressional allies can help weaken this landmark law. Oxfam is intervening to defend the rule. Meanwhile, the European Union has reached agreement to put in place similar reporting requirements.

I spoke this week with Neil Brown who was, until very recently, a top Senate Republican aide working on energy issues for Senator Lugar, who was the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His response: “this exemption is unnecessary and inclusion would only forestall quick approval of this important agreement.”

He should know. As both the co-author of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority staff report for Senator Lugar on “Oil, Mexico and the Transboundary Agreement” as well as someone intimately familiar with the “Cardin-Lugar” provision in  Dodd-Frank, Mr. Brown would know if the reporting requirements in Dodd-Frank Section 1504 present any issue in approving the US-Mexico TBA. The short answer – they don’t. The minority staff report envisions reporting under Section 1504 and says that under Section 1504 covered companies “would already have to disclose payments” to the SEC if “they invest in Mexico”.

The US-Mexico TBA requires that certain information be kept confidential unless disclosure is required by law. The TBA text demonstrates that the US and Mexico have already made the correct policy judgment that the specific confidentiality provisions of the TBA should be subordinated to each country’s commitment to openness and subject to each country’s disclosure requirements. Nothing in the TBA would require the exemption provided by H.R. 1613.

Tellingly, the Senate Energy Committee has introduced a bi-partisan bill, S. 812, sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to approve the US-Mexico TBA, and it contains no Section 1504 exemption provision. If Congress is truly interested in approving this agreement and providing the “rules of the road” for joint development of oil and gas reserves straddling the US-Mexico maritime boundary, then it should adopt the clean Senate bill without the reporting exemption.

Former Senator Jeff Bingaman, past Senate Energy Committee chairman, told Reuters that the exemption proposed by the House “complicates things significantly” for passage of the bill. Referring to the Section 1504 exemption language, he said, “They’ve added in some things that are going to make it difficult to pass in that form.”

The Mexican Congress ratified the TBA a year ago, and the Obama administration – and the oil industry – would like to see it approved. The Obama administration, though, has made clear that implementation of Section 1504 is a priority.

In a letter to Oxfam, Sec. of State Kerry said, “The Department of State and Administration strongly support transparency in the extractives sectors, as outlined in Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank, and the new rule issued by the SEC. The new SEC standard directly advances our foreign policy interest in increasing transparency and reducing corruption, particularly in the oil, gas and mineral sectors.”

My guess is that the oil industry lobby wants this TBA approved far more than it wants this unnecessary Section 1504 exemption. Surya Gunasekara, a tax and trade counsel with the American Petroleum Institute told me that there is “no doubt” that API cares more about Gulf of Mexico access than the proposed Section 1504 exemption.

Recent statements from the Peruvian government do not bode well for implementation of Peru’s new Indigenous Peoples Consultation Law (Consultation Law). The landmark law, passed in 2011 and now being implemented, requires the Peruvian government to consult indigenous peoples affected directly by development policies and projects such as oil drilling, mining, roads and forestry. Consultations must aim to achieve agreement or consent. If implemented effectively, the law could help reduce the number of violent conflicts that frequently emerge in the country’s oil and mining industries.

However, last week Peru’s Vice Minister of Culture Ivan Lanegra—responsible for overseeing implementation of Peru’s Consultation Law—resigned in protest following Executive branch declarations that highland (or campesina) communities do not qualify as indigenous peoples. At the same time, the Peruvian government announced that it will proceed with 14 mining projects located in the Peruvian highlands without prior consultation with neighboring communities.

The Peruvian government should recognize publicly that many highland communities meet national and international criteria for identifying indigenous peoples, and should immediately begin prior consultation processes in accordance with the law. At the same time, the less progressive companies currently fighting the law in Peru should recognize that if they do not comply with law they will be at a competitive disadvantage in the end.

Worrisome signals from the government

Photo: Jessica Erickson / Oxfam America

In a speech on April 28, President Humala stated that, “Basically there are no native communities…in the sierra [highlands], the majority are agrarian communities resulting from agrarian reform. For the most part native communities are found in the jungle, those called ‘no contactados’ [uncontacted communities living in voluntary isolation]”. This worrisome statement fails to recognize that communities living in voluntary isolation represent only a small percentage of indigenous communities inhabiting forested areas in Peru, and directly contradicts the Consultation Law which states that highland or Andean communities may be considered indigenous peoples as long as they meet certain objective criteria specified in the law. Peru also has a law protecting indigenous knowledge of biological resources which states that highland communities may be considered indigenous peoples.

Peru’s Cabinet (Consejo de Ministros) claims that by moving ahead with 14 mining projects without prior consultation with communities they are attempting to “unfetter” these projects from bureaucratic requirements. However, the government’s approach is shortsighted. If it chooses to proceed with projects impacting indigenous peoples without consultation it would violate not only its own laws, but also international human rights law.

Human rights and business case for community consent

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples James Anaya stated in a public speech in Lima on April 25:

In my work as special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples for the United Nations, the majority of the problems that reach my attention reflect a lack of adequate consultation with indigenous peoples, in particular on decisions related to development or natural resource extraction projects on their territories…Various treaties, in addition to [International Labor Organization] Convention 169, support the consultation standard…Consultation and its link to the principle of free, prior and informed consent are central elements for a new model of relationships and development.

In fact, if Peru proceeds with mining projects without consulting indigenous communities, the government will risk being taken to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has interpreted Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) to apply to development projects with significant impacts and has, in several instances, ruled that states failed to meet their FPIC obligations.

In addition, while the government may hope to woo mining companies by bypassing consultation processes, ultimately this approach will be to the detriment of mining companies’ bottom lines as well given the high economic cost of social conflict in the extractive industries. A 2011 study by researchers from Harvard Kennedy School and the University of Queensland found that a world-class mining project (capital expenditure between US$3-5 billion) stands to lose approximately US$20 million per week in lost productivity as a result of delayed production from social conflict. In Peru, mining giant Newmont reported that it lost approximately $2 million per day in the first few days alone after local protests paralyzed its Conga mining project.

In recent years, several oil and mining companies have adopted public policies in favor of securing community approval prior to moving projects forward. We recently released a report showing that 13 of 28 oil and mining companies reviewed have made public commitments to FPIC (five with explicit commitments and an additional eight with indirect or qualified commitments). Companies are beginning to get the message – those that fail to consult communities early and adequately risk facing delays and huge costs down the road.

Implications for the Latin America region

Currently, several other countries in Latin America are considering developing consultation laws similar to Peru’s Consultation Law. Peru has emerged as a leader in the region on community consultation issues, but stands to lose that position if the law is not implemented adequately. A rollback of the law could have serious repercussions for many indigenous communities affected by oil and mining projects throughout Latin America.