Assistant Secretary of State, Thomas Countryman, made a statement last week that the US will sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in the very near future. He made it during a panel I was honored to speak on hosted by the Atlantic Council entitled, “What’s at Stake in the UN Arms Trade Treaty.” The panel also featured remarks by Retired Major General D. Allen Youngman, who represents small arms manufacturers, and David Bosco of Foreign Policy Magazine.

Assistant Secretary Countryman chose his words carefully and made clear that he could not commit the US to signing the treaty the day it opens for signature on June 3. But the debate among us on the panel that day underlines why signing the treaty on June 3 is so critical.

The panel focused on the question of whether the ATT would actually change anything. The critique I heard went something like this: because the ATT leaves it up to State Parties themselves to determine whether an arms transfer is appropriate in the context of the treaty guidelines, the treaty is unlikely to change behavior.

I am not going to argue that this critique has no merit; the treaty offers the world great promise only if governments have the political will to follow its terms. My colleagues at the Control Arms Campaign recently published a document succinctly explaining what the treaty does. The treaty establishes high global arms trade standards and states that certain arms transfers are never appropriate. The treaty will stigmatize arms transfers that would facilitate atrocities or other human rights abuses. Governments, regardless of whether they are a party to the treaty, will be compelled to follow the treaty standards or face international condemnation.

In addition to the stigma placed on certain arms transfers, the treaty’s standards are enforced by a requirement that States “take appropriate measures to enforce national laws and regulations that implement the provisions of this Treaty” and that States meet to discuss implementation and raise concerns. Many States see international arms transfers as a legitimate means of protecting themselves, their allies, and civilians. Such decisions are considered a sovereign right and most countries were unwilling to delegate that decision to any other actor or court.

Given this reality, implementation and enforcement of the treaty is dependent on the political will of State Parties to the ATT. It is up to all of us—both civil society and governments who support the treaty—to ensure that countries implement the treaty in a way that helps save lives and serves as part of the foundation for greater prosperity. Responsible implementation of the treaty must be compelled through local civil society calling on their own governments to act, international civil society naming and shaming those who violate the treaty or fail to implement provisions, and by State Parties strongly encouraging other countries to abide by the treaty and providing leadership by example.

Because the success of the treaty is dependent on political will, the opening day of signature, June 3, is of immense importance. Many countries who are skeptical of treaty will be closely observing the events of June 3 to see which States are willing to demonstrate their intent to be bound by the treaty and champion its provisions.

The United States is the world’s largest arms manufacturer and exporter. It is also the country with arguably the most advanced system of arms export controls. As with most international norm building exercises, most eyes will be focused on the actions of the United States.

If the US government decides to sign the treaty, and clearly demonstrates in its words and deeds that the treaty is in US interest, other countries will follow. Yet, if President Obama fails to provide leadership and sign the treaty on June 3, I fear that other countries will get the message that the US is not interested in the treaty becoming strong international law.

The US provided strong leadership in March by taking the extraordinary step of co-sponsoring the ATT resolution in the UN General Assembly and breaking the block of Syria, North Korea, and Iran. But US leadership must not end there. I definitely agree with my fellow panelists that treaties without action are worthless words on a piece of paper.

So sign the treaty on June 3, Mr. President. Help the US take the first step towards the treaty living up to its ideals.

Gina Castillo is the Agriculture Program Manager at Oxfam America.

Most of us think that accidents are unforeseeable and not preventable. But that is not the case when it comes to why people who are poor are hit again and again by events that make it difficult for them to escape poverty.

Today Oxfam released a new report, No Accident: Resilience and the Inequality of Risk. The report shows that disaster risk is being dumped on to millions of people living in poverty because of climate change and because of unfair practices.

Take weather-related events as an example. Due to urbanization and climate change, there are increasingly more people living in places that are susceptible to disasters. Since 1970 the number of people exposed to floods and cyclones has doubled. Those are the “big shocks”—the ones that get media attention and galvanize donors and governments into action, as was certainly the case when Haiti suffered its devastating earthquake in January 2010. Yet, there are also “small shocks” such as illness, death, or a harvest failure, that can push a family that is just hanging on to destitution.

Consider this figure below, which shows how one family in Port-au-Prince, Haiti coped in the year after the 2010 earthquake, which sadly killed two of their youngest boys. The father lost his job and the family was heavily reliant friends and neighbors who provided them with most of their meals until mid-May, as well as emergency-related grants and services. After this, they were forced to sell their livestock. An Oxfam grant allowed them to pay off their debts and to start a small business, but their household income still dropped by 88 per cent. Unfortunately, the shocks continued. The family invested in a market garden, which was later destroyed by Hurricane Tomas in October 2010. They also bought food to sell, but some of this was looted during election violence in November 2010.

Figure 1: One family’s experience after the 2010 Haiti earthquake

We highlight this family’s story because it is not atypical.  People work hard to get out of poverty, as studies have shown.

So why is it so difficult for people to get ahead? In the aid world, we talk often of vulnerability. But we cannot talk about vulnerability as a random twist of fate. It’s about politics, power, and inequality. As a result, risk is dumped on poor countries and their inhabitants, asis certainly the case for climate change. 50% of carbon emissions are generated by 11% of people, the consequences of which are left to poor countries and the most vulnerable are the hardest hit. Women often face higher risks because of gender discrimination and cultural norms, yet shoulder the burden of managing families. They have fewer opportunities economically, resulting in lower income and fewer options when it comes to managing risk.

Why does this happen? Our research showed that while measuring vulnerability is difficult, countries with more vulnerable populations also tend to be those with greater income inequality. Governments need to tackle inequality and ensure that risk is better shared across society. Thankfully there is increasing awareness that excessive inequality is corrosive to growth.

Aid cannot fix inequality and disproportionate risk. Governments can. Targeted action to support society’s most vulnerable (basic services such as education health, and access to decision-making) is needed to even out inequalities, reduce risk, and build resilience.

Because some accidents are preventable.

As a mother of two, I now know that all my years of schooling did not prepare me nearly as well for working life as being a mother. As all mothers know, mothers are the ultimate project managers and multi-taskers, juggling many tasks at once, carrying out strategies but always being nimble to change course on a dime in the face of a temper tantrum, dirty diaper, or sick child. But for mothers in the developing world there are even bigger and more dire challenges, like where the next meal will come from, how to get medicine for a sick child, or finding potable drinking water. And yet, mothers in the developing world learn to cope with these challenges daily. That’s why so many are now realizing that investing in women is the key to feeding the planet and to economic growth.

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

We’re still looking over the details, but the first look at President Obama’s proposal to overhaul the international food aid program looks very good. Oxfam has been working this issue for more than a decade and we observe that the changes would:

(1) Cut funding of the primary food aid program (PL 480), which in FY13 was funded at $1.36 billion.

(2) Shift $1.1 billion to a different disaster response budget account under USAID for emergency food assistance. This would allow using more flexible food assistance tools like local purchase of food, or using vouchers instead of food distribution;

(3) Shift $250 million to a development budget account at USAID to support longer-term food assistance programs with food aid resources. This is an addition to the $80 million in funding within this account that is already available for this purposes, bringing total DA funding for non-emergency food aid to $330m;

(4) Create a new highly flexible $75 million emergency contingency fund; and

(5) Shift $25 million to the US Maritime Administration to ensure that US military readiness of the US shipping industry is maintained, since less food aid is likely to get shipped overseas.

A child in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia stands near a wall made of USAID food aid containers in the flood-destroyed area of Bahere Tsege in 2006. Photo: Liz Lucas/Oxfam America

The proposal would end the practice of “monetization” which provides cash to NGOs doing food security programs in developing countries but is highly inefficient and wastes a lot of money.  The proposal would require that 55% of the emergency food aid be procured from the US.  We hope that there is a continuing effort going forward to reduce the requirement that US food aid is tied to domestic sourcing. We recognize that US commodities still have a role to play in addressing hunger, but USAID should not have its hands tied in making the decision about how best to reach those in need.

Already today, two Republican Senators have expressed openness to looking at the proposal and making reforms.  Looks like this could have legs!

USAID Administrator Raj Shah will make a speech on the proposal later today.

For our readers who live in Washington, DC or who are planning to visit this month, you are cordially invited to a pop-up gallery exhibit in Washington, DC, from April 10^th to the 21^st,  featuring photographs from the acclaimed photographer Emma Hardy, just in time for the World Bank’s Land and Poverty conference and the World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings.

Woman collecting water snails for food, Andong slum, Cambodia. Photo: Emma Hardy / Oxfam

Where: Avenue Suites Hotel, 2500 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC 20037. (Metro: Foggy Bottom)

When: Wednesday, April 10^th to Sunday April 21^st, 5 to 10pm daily.

Access to the gallery is free. Visitors who mention Oxfam at the bar enjoy specials from 5 to 7pm daily.

For more information, email krobbins@oxfamamerica.org or see www.oxfam.org/land.

A community of 1,367 families were uprooted from central Phnom Penh in June 2006 and forcibly relocated to open swamp land in Andong, 13 miles from the city and their livelihoods. Why? To make way for a shopping mall that is yet to be built. Hardy traveled to Cambodia to capture the story of this community and others, fighting to reclaim their rights to own, inhabit, and work the land they once owned.

The World Bank influences how land is bought and sold on a global scale. Oxfam’s GROW’s campaign is calling for urgent action from the World Bank to halt the speed and scale of land grabbing around the world.

Add your voice here and consider yourself invited to the exhibit! We hope to see you there!

Emily Greenspan is an extractive industries policy and advocacy advisor with Oxfam America.

Oxfam America’s Extractive Industries Team today released new research:

Human Rights and Social Conflict in the Oil, Gas, and Mining Industries: Policy recommendations for national human rights institutions.

Let me try to break down what the paper is all about.

Godfried Ofori, of the Concerned Citizens Association of Prestea, stands in front of a mine pit and waste dump area near Golden Star Resources mine in southwest Ghana. Photo: Jane Hahn / Oxfam America

What do we mean by social conflict?

More than 500 protesters took to the streets in Prestea in the western region of Ghana in 2005 to demonstrate against Bogoso Gold Mines (a subsidiary of Golden Star Resources), resulting in injuries to seven protesters. Tensions grew as a result of alleged water pollution and damage to homes from mining explosives and eventually led to project suspension.

Social conflicts and controversies surrounding large-scale oil and mining projects often stem from concerns around potential or actual environmental impacts and land acquisition disputes, and sometimes erupt into violence. Past Oxfam blogs have highlighted examples of this in countries where we work like Peru and Ghana.

Oxfam America’s recommendations for companies and government agencies charged with managing the oil and mining industries primarily aim to increase community participation in decision making around projects, and ultimately at preventing social conflicts. National human rights institutions (NHRIs) represented one interesting policy avenue that we had yet to address.

What do we mean by a national human rights institution?

State-sponsored NHRIs–tasked with protecting and promoting human rights– have grown in popularity in recent decades. To date, the UN International Coordinating Committee on NHRIs has accredited 99 of these institutions globally. The closest equivalent agency in the US would likely be the US Commission on Civil Rights, which is tasked with informing national civil rights policy and studying alleged deprivations of voting rights and discrimination.

While NHRIs take on a diversity of forms and functions, they will often provide human rights education, hear human rights complaints, mediate complaint resolution, and/or enforce remedies. Some of these institutions are charged with a narrow mandate to protect the human rights of particular groups (e.g., minorities or persons with disabilities) or to protect particular rights (e.g., anti-discrimination), while others have a broad mandate to protect and promote all human rights for all persons. Some NHRIs, like Ghana’s, have a formal mandate to investigate complaints about human rights abuses by private entities, including businesses, while others do not.

In the context of the extractive industries, NHRIs may be called on to address a wide range of human rights abuses. These could include, for example, impacts on the right to property such as by forced displacement or damage to crops or houses, or violence directed at local communities by police or security forces.

How can NHRIs better address social conflicts related to extractive industries?

The new Oxfam research launched in Washington, DC today presents a framework for evaluating NHRIs’ impact on promoting and protecting human rights in the context of the extractive industries, and how this framework can be applied in individual country contexts. The research identifies five categories of determinants for NHRI effectiveness: independence, power, promotion, empowerment, and remediation. These were based on a growing body of literature on effectiveness factors for NHRIs, and then prioritized based on the unique features of oil and mining projects, e.g. their long-term, large-scale nature and their tendency to impact remote and marginalized communities.

An open pit mine in the town of Prestea, Ghana, where Oxfam parter organization, WACAM, has been supporting the Concerned Citizens Association of Prestea in its efforts to negotiate with a mining company around issues related to air and water pollution, and the proposed expansion of mining operations. Photo: Jeff Deutsch / Oxfam America

The research includes a case study on Ghana’s NHRI, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ). Based on a literature review and interviews with civil society leaders, mining industry representatives, and CHRAJ officials in Ghana, researchers applied their new framework with CHRAJ to come up with recommendations to strengthen its effectiveness in the mining and emerging oil sectors. Results indicate that CHRAJ should develop a systematic and targeted strategy for communicating with communities affected by oil, gas, and mining operations. Information provided by CHRAJ should ideally provide community members with a clear understanding of their rights, how extractive projects may violate them, and how to seek remedy if these rights are violated.

Why should NHRIs engage more with communities?

While the new framework for evaluating NHRI effectiveness will generate different results based on differing country contexts, the finding in the Ghanaian context that community engagement should be a key priority for NHRIs will likely resonate in many of the countries that experience human rights abuses and conflict around mining and oil projects. Often the complex impacts of extractive projects are difficult for community members to anticipate or respond to, particularly when they involve politically-charged issues such as resettlement or technical issues such as water pollution from mine runoff. When NHRIs engage with more informed and active communities, they will find their education and enforcement mandates much easier to fulfill.

If more NHRIs begin to effectively and proactively engage with project-affected communities in preventing human rights abuses and conflict, not only local communities and host governments will benefit. The global community will also benefit from the subsequent increase in stability around the extraction of the oil and mineral resources on which we all rely.

History was made on April 2^nd as the Arms Trade Treaty—the first agreement to control global arms sales—received an resounding majority ‘yes’ vote at the United Nations in New York (154 votes YES, 3 votes NO, 23 Abstentions).

Photo: Rankin

This momentous Treaty is the culmination of more than ten years of diplomatic negotiations and campaigning to rein in the irresponsible trade in arms that causes so much human suffering. It could not have happened without the work of Oxfam supporters, and immense efforts from Control Arms partners and governments around the world.

The United States, which was a late supporter of the Arms Trade Treaty effort and blocked consensus in the July 2012 negotiations, voted yes on the agreement and supported strong treaty provisions. The Agreement requires countries to put human rights and humanitarian law at the center of arms trade decisions. Among other things, the treaty:

• Requires states to assess the risk of arms being used to “commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law,” and, if significant, not to authorize the transfer;
• Bans exports of both arms and ammunition when the export knows the arms would be used for “genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians, or other war crimes”;
• Requires that countries adopt a comprehensive regime of controlling the import, export, transit, and brokering of arms; and
• Includes transparency measures requiring countries to report on their arms transfers.

Though we took a moment to revel at the Oxfam America offices, there’s still more work to be done. The resounding applause and loud cheers that rang out from the UN General Assembly Hall last week is only the beginning. Work is needed to ensure that the Treaty enters into force as soon as possible. President Obama should be one of the first signatures on the treaty when it opens for signature on June 3.

Over the past decade, tens of thousands of Oxfam supporters have met with their government officials, campaigned relentlessly in all weathers to build public support, and refused to give in to doubters.

We simply wouldn’t be here if we listened to those skeptics who scoffed that “getting such a Treaty is absurd. It’s never going to happen.” But Oxfam staff and supporters all persevered and we celebrate the first global Arms Trade Treaty that will mean so much to families and communities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria, Mali, and other countries wracked with armed conflict.

A version of this post originally appeared on the Oxfam International website.

***

More on the Arms Trade Treaty from Oxfam America:

Hear Oxfam America’s president, Ray Offenheiser, talk about the the meaning and impact of the first global Arms Trade Treaty on PRI’s The World.

Send a message thanking the President and his administration for the US’ leadership role.

David Waskow is Oxfam America’s climate change program director.

When I read headlines like this one last week, “Vietnam Coffee Harvest May Drop 30% on Drought,” I’m left with the feeling that the tablecloth is being pulled out from under the dishes on the table.

Dry, cracked earth seen at Dire Dime, Ethiopia. Photo: Eva-Lotta Jansson/Oxfam America

And it’s climate change that is doing the pulling.

Food production is already being pummeled globally by increasingly-severe climate events and other climate impacts, with more on the way. Small-scale farmers in developing countries are bearing the brunt of the damage – all too often, the crops they depend on for their lives and livelihoods are directly in harm’s way.

So when Oxfam began work on our new Behind the Brands initiative and a Scorecard assessing the policies of the ten largest food and beverage companies on a range of issues that are vital for small-scale farmers, climate change was right in the mix.

We examined company policies on climate change in two ways, looking at how they’re dealing with both the causes and the consequences of global warming.  First, we wanted to know whether these major companies are working to address climate change risks in their supply chains and if they are working to support the resilience of small-scale farmers in the face of impacts such as water scarcity and storms.  Second, we wanted to know whether the companies are working to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, especially from agricultural sources.   (Much of our scoring is based on company reporting based on the CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project) reporting format.)

What we discovered surprised us.  Just because a company did well in one area – building climate resilience or reducing emissions –didn’t mean it did well in the other.  Unilever, which scored 74% on the scorecard elements about emissions, scored only 30% in terms of its policies about climate risks and building the resilience of small-scale farmers.  The company needs to bring its focus on resilience up to its focus on emissions, which itself can still improve.  Unilever’s failure to address  resilience represents the overall dismal state of affairs when it comes to the ten companies’ engagement on climate risks and the impacts that small-scale farmers face. The average company score on this was 25%.

One company, Nestle, did quite well with its policies on climate resilience.  Nestle scored 83% on the resilience elements of the scorecard, largely because the company’s CDP reports and other policies highlight the importance of addressing climate impacts such as water shortages and volatile weather patterns.  Sadly, however, the company didn’t do so well when it comes to emissions.  Nestle has only average policies on emissions, with a score of 44%, and a below-average score at 23% for its policies specifically on agricultural sources of emissions.

But, frankly, what surprised and disappointed us the most was that some companies had weak policies on climate change across the board.  Associated British Foods, General Mills, and Kellogg’s each scored 3%, 9%, and 12%, respectively, on climate resilience.  And the same three companies scored 15%, 0%, and 8%, respectively, when it comes to those companies’ policies on emissions from agricultural sources.  These companies are the real laggards on addressing the causes and consequences of climate change in their supply chains.

They need to realize that the table cloth is being swiftly pulled out from under them and that our food and drinks—and the lives of the poorest around the world—will surely come crashing down as a result.

***

This post by David Waskow is part of a Behind the Brands blog series on Politics of Poverty that examines the seven issues relating to poverty and big food companies’ supply chains. Read other posts on land, women, farmers, transparency, water, and workers!

Today marks the beginning of arguably the biggest trial of this young century. The U.S. Department of Justice goes to court with global oil giant, BP. After spilling 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, BP could be on the hook for a record-breaking $21 billion in fines.

Gulf Coast communities are watching closely thanks to the passage of the RESTORE Act, which Oxfam and allies worked hard to pass. Eighty percent of the fine money will head directly back to the five states along the coast. And they can use the help. Since the spill, the Gulf has suffered enormous environmental damage, such as decreased oyster harvests, oiled marshes, and dying fish habitats. The economy has also taken a hit, with a significant rise in the poverty rate, and rough times for those in the fishing and tourism industries.

People like Byron Enclade, a 3rd generation oyster fisherman from East Pointe A’La Hache, Louisiana, will be watching the BP trial proceedings closely. Enclade is the president of the Louisiana Oystermen Association and the South Plaquemines United Fisheries Cooperative. Photo: Audra Melton / Oxfam America

With the money most likely on the way then, and the needs so acute, the question is: how to invest it most effectively? Unfortunately, with so many interests at play, discussions have at times devolved, often to a stark debate between the economy and the environment.

Oxfam America and others have a simple response. We can address both environmental and economic interests at the same time. We recently joined with The Nature Conservancy and business allies as well as community leaders to raise our voices in support of just such an agenda.

On February 19, leaders from over 120 businesses and industry associations, operating in more than 800 locations along the Gulf and generating more than $20 billion in annual revenues, delivered a letter to the five Gulf Coast governors to say that a healthy ecosystem is a key to driving private sector job growth, future prosperity, and fostering economic mobility. They called for using RESTORE Act funds to make critical environmental investments in restoring wetlands, barrier islands and oyster reefs, together with funding for worker training, i.e. preparing dislocated, low income and disadvantaged workers for jobs in these projects.

“These restoration projects create a demand for work from a wide variety of companies in the engineering, construction, transportation and manufacturing sectors,” said Thomas Matthews, of the marine construction firm Matthews Brothers, Inc. in Pass Christian, Mississippi. “I have witnessed firsthand that investments in coastal restoration can mean jobs for coastal workers and economic growth for local businesses and communities.”

Auburn Wessman of Phylway Construction in Thibodaux, Louisiana wrote in an Houma Courier op-ed, “[M]any of us in the business community believe the best solution is clear: We can use Restore Act money to spur the economy while we restore the environment and protect our communities. And we can employ local workers while we do it — a win for everyone.”

In an op-ed published in Sunday’s New Orleans Times Picayune, Patrick Barnes, President of the consultancy firm, Barnes, Ferland & Associates, Inc., and founder of the New Orleans-based training organization Limitless Vistas, Inc., said, “Our restoration plans could benefit from including efforts to prepare local, low income and disadvantaged workers for these new restoration jobs…We have a chance to bring industry, communities, and training institutions together to identify the necessary skill sets and training programs to prepare our state’s workforce to conduct future restoration projects.”

Last week, officials from the US Department of Commerce and the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council held public hearings along the Gulf on a comprehensive plan to use spill fines.  At one meeting, Rebecca Templeton, an Oxfam partner at Bayou Grace Community Services in Chauvin, Louisiana, reported that community groups agree with the business leaders that we need to invest in ecosystem restoration—at the same that we fund worker training and policies to help local people find work on these projects. “If we have the support of the business community, then hopefully the local people made most vulnerable by land loss will have a chance as well at the livelihood opportunities that will arise,” she said urging the Council to make ecosystem restoration job training a priority.

While the BP trial may result in many billions of dollars for the region, a recent settlement between the US Department of Justice and the owners of the rig that exploded, Transocean, will start to send $1 billion in fines to the region as early as April.

Hopefully this is just the beginning. All of us remain hopeful that we can tap into new opportunities to bring vulnerable communities, business leaders, and government together to tackle these economic and environment challenges effectively.

In the meantime, like everyone else, we’ll be watching to see what happens in court!

Politico yesterday reported a rumor that US food aid programs could see major changes in the next budget. The article frames this move as putting aid “on the chopping block,” but it is not at all clear what is really going on.  Enacting major cuts to food aid programs would be a terrible idea that would cost lives without making a dent in our debt.

But there is another, more hopeful possibility that the administration is about to push for long overdue reforms that would make US aid programs more effective and cost efficient. This could be a very, very good thing.

Let me explain. The US reaches millions of people each year with life-saving aid. From the Horn of Africa to the Sahel to the most recent humanitarian crisis in Syria, US assistance to address hunger and food insecurity is crucial. The US is the most generous donor of food assistance in the world and gets a lot of credit for this.  Cutting aid doesn’t make sense, but why might the Administration seek to fundamentally change this program?

A child in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia stands near a wall made of USAID food aid containers in the flood-destroyed area of Bahere Tsege in 2006. Photo: Liz Lucas/Oxfam America

The reason is that current US food aid programs are excruciatingly inefficient and in some instances counter-productive to helping people build sustainable agricultural livelihoods. Oxfam has been outspoken in its criticism of the way in which the US runs its food aid program. And we’ve offered common sense reforms to make the programs more efficient—reforms that would allow US assistance to reach millions of more people without costing a single extra penny. We applauded Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts of the Senate Agriculture Committee for their leadership and steps to reform the food aid program as they wrote a new Farm Bill last year.  The bill passed the Senate on a broad bipartisan basis, but floundered in the House.

If the Obama Administration puts forward a proposal to pursue these kinds of reforms, it would mark an effort to break the stranglehold of special interests in the US who profit from the current rules, regulations, and red-tape governing food aid programs. It would be a bold and important step.

Real reforms would give aid humanitarian agencies greater flexibility, including the ability to purchase food from the cheapest, most efficient source. This would in turn reduce costs and speed delivery. It would bring our programs into the 21^st century, in line with most other countries. This is precisely what a recent USDA study of local and regional procurement projects demonstrated. For almost every commodity examined, buying from local or regional sources was cheaper and uniformly faster than shipping it from the US. Many aid groups already do this with their own money and through other emergency aid accounts such as the Emergency Food Security Program out of the International Development Account.  But the primary food assistance program remains essentially outdated, lumbering, and wasteful.

Such a change would also clean up the jurisdictional mess created by current configuration of food aid programs, which are authorized in the Farm Bill, funded through the Agriculture Appropriations bill, but implemented by USAID. Not only would reform rationalize the system, but it would help create a more cohesive approach to the current patchwork of programs to deal with global hunger.

Oxfam America campaigned last year saying that Washington should “stop playing with food aid.” Thousands of people supported us in sending a message to their lawmakers to enact this reform.  If the rumor pans out and the Obama Administration is serious about food aid reform, it would seem the message got through.  Good on President Obama!