I don’t know what Nora Schenkel was talking about in the New York Times on Wednesday in her personal essay, “I Came to Haiti to Do Good…,”. The former aid worker argues that Haitians are stuck in a cycle of dependency, fueled by inequalities perpetuated by the aid industry.

I don’t know what she’s talking about because I just came back from Haiti myself last week, and that’s not at all what I experienced. While I was riding around in a white vehicle, I was talking with Haitian farmers who are clearly in control of their futures and who are actively pushing back on the aid system.

In February, 118 farmers in Saint-Marc, Haiti gathered in a community hall to share their views of how well the US government’s Feed the Future program is working in their community. Over the prior six months, the Haitian NGO, Plateforme Haïtienne de Plaidoyer pour un Développement Alternatif (PAPDA), had been working with farmers groups in three communities in the Artibonite region to develop a report card based on The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness to assess the WINNER Project in their area.

Frank Saint Jean of PAPDA (on right), speaking with members of the Fédération des Agriculteurs pour le Développement de Goyavier (Federation of Farmers for the Development of Goyavier) earlier this month. Photo: Jennifer Lentfer / Oxfam

Community scorecard processes have been used by many development agencies and aid organizations over the years to rate local services like clinics and schools. I was there to learn what happens when that process was utilized to report on the progress of a large, bilateral aid program. Franck Saint Jean, a PAPDA representative, explained why they got involved in the process, “It is important for us to speak up so that [aid] money doesn’t just go in circles.”

Reports from the farmers about improvements made since the February meeting where they gave their feedback, was underwhelming. Farmers in all three communities reported that they had seen increased communication with WINNER project representatives (employees of Chemonics). Especially from the perspective of farmers in Deluge, a communal section of Saint-Marc, they had not seen sufficient actions taken to address the problems raised in the February meeting.

Specifics of the project aside, what excited me during my time in Haiti was the fact that PAPDA’s efforts had obviously strengthened the ability and the resolve of the farmers to continue engaging WINNER and with other projects in the future, either from aid donors or the Haitian government. Farmers in all three communities encouraged PAPDA and Oxfam to continue this work throughout the country. One farmer in Bois Neuf explained:

“We have a glimpse of what to do next, when another NGO comes…People coming here have to come with a written document of what the project will look like to see if it’s what we need. We can offer alternatives and contribute our own resources. And we can ask for translation into kreyòl!”

Members of the Association of Irrigators in the Côte des Arcadins in Bois Neuf, Haiti. Photo: Jennifer Lentfer / Oxfam

I will say that such frank reflections about the difficulty of “doing good” like Ms. Schenkel’s are still too much of a rarity among practitioners in the aid industry and in the popular media. But if I had written a personal essay for the New York Times, I wouldn’t have wasted the opportunity reiterating tired, old criticisms of the aid industry. Rather, I’d talk about the Haitians in the driver’s seat and Oxfam’s latest report, A Quiet Renaissance, which demonstrates that changes to the US aid system are upon us. We can do better to support the Haitians who are bringing about development in their country.

How? Aid providers can invest in direct engagement with civil society organizations like PAPDA who are supporting local groups to make their voices heard. And they can strengthen tools to integrate priorities and feedback from people like those with whom I spoke in Haiti, who had clearly realized they no longer “have to be spectators to all this aid.”

Pa gen anyen pou nou, san nou. Nothing for us, without us.

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.

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

Barry Shelley is Oxfam America’s global agriculture and climate change advisor. 

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.

A few weeks ago, a few House Republicans introduced H.R. 1613, the innocuous sounding “Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement Act”. A little over four pages long, H.R. 1613 is primarily designed to provide Congressional approval to a US-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement (TBA) signed by both governments over a year ago.

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.

By Keith Slack, Global Program Manager, Extractive Industries. This post originally appeared on the blog of the US Institute of Peace’s International Network for Economics and Conflict.

“Si a la vida, no a la mina” (Yes to life, no to the mine) is a rallying cry heard across many parts of rural Latin America these days. Mining, as well as oil and gas extraction, has exploded across the region in the last decade, driven by high prices for gold and industrial metals like copper that are needed primarily to feed the Chinese economy. This boom has also been experienced in Africa and Asia, where governments have sought to exploit their resource endowments to drive development. Fragile states like Sudan, Burma and Afghanistan have also begun to develop their mining sectors. The expanding mining sector has contributed to strong economic growth in some countries but has also generated social conflicts in rural areas that must be urgently addressed.

Area near Tintaya Copper Mine (Espinar), Cusco, Peru. Photo: Chris Hufstader / Oxfam America

The heart of the issue is that mining activity has come into direct competition with another predominant means of economic development in rural areas: small-scale agriculture. Tensions over control of land and, most importantly, water have led to community protests and violent conflict. Reconciling these two important development drivers has become a critical governance issue, particularly in the most fragile states where the conflicts between the two can often be seen most starkly.

In theory, both mining and agriculture can provide pathways out of poverty. The World Bank and development-focused academic researchers have emphasized the critical role of agriculture in promoting rural development. (Three-quarters of the world’s poor live in rural areas.) Agriculture provides direct benefits to those who engage in it. Farmers receive payments for crops they produce, which they can then use to invest in future production and to pay for their families’ basic needs. Mining can also play a role in promoting development, although more indirectly, by generating revenues for governments. Governments can use taxes and royalties paid by mining companies for infrastructure investments and other productive purposes. Mining companies also pay for community development programs, build schools and roads, and make other investments.

Unfortunately, the compatibility of these two development paths, which tend to take place in the same rural areas, is at best questionable. Mining generates significant “externalities,” e.g. water pollution, that can have a direct impact on agricultural production. These negative impacts can be permanent and render previously fertile agricultural land unusable. Mining also requires large amounts of land that could otherwise be used for agricultural production. This sets up a direct competition with small-scale agriculture for control and use of land. In some countries such as Ghana, farmers displaced by mining projects turn to small-scale mining as a replacement livelihood. This can perpetuate a cycle of poverty and conflict in which these farmers-turned-miners are forcibly evicted and beaten by police for coming onto land claimed by large-scale mining projects.

Mining companies argue that mining and agriculture are not necessarily incompatible. But there are few examples of where this has been the case, particularly in developing countries, where oversight of the mining industry is often very weak. Finding ways to reconcile these two economic activities is urgently needed to reduce conflicts and ensure that mining’s benefits contribute to long-term sustainable development in rural economies.

Communities relocated to make way for gold mines in Ghana struggle with loss of agricultural land, unemployment, and environmental damage. Photo: Neil Brander / Oxfam America

Governments and companies should take specific steps now to address this situation. First, the environmental impact assessment process for mining projects needs to be significantly strengthened and made more independent. At present, governments rely on information provided by companies, which is most often not reviewed by an independent third-party. Companies thus have an incentive to downplay potential impacts of their operations on land and water in agricultural areas. In countries such as Peru, local agricultural communities’ lack of confidence in these environmental reviews contributes to anxieties about the impacts of mining, which in turn contributes to conflict. Additionally, mining is increasingly done in “clusters,” meaning several mines operate in the same geographic area in order to take advantage of shared infrastructure and processing facilities. The cumulative impacts on land and water of several mines operating in the same area have not been thoroughly examined. The use of what are known as “strategic” environmental impact assessments, which take into account these cumulative impacts, would be an important step to increasing communities’ confidence.

Improved planning on how land will be used is another crucial step that governments should take. Mining concessions are often awarded without consideration for impacts on agricultural production. Later this year Oxfam America will publish research that shows graphically how mining and oil concessions have expanded dramatically in recent years in agriculturally productive areas of Peru and Ghana. Zoning land for particular uses, e.g. mining or agriculture, would help reduce conflict by establishing clear rules for how land will be used. Greater dialogue between the mining and agricultural sectors would be helpful. In Peru recently, the mining and agriculture ministries have signed a cooperation agreement. This is potentially a positive, although overdue, step.

Reconciling mining with agriculture in developing countries, particularly in the most fragile states, won’t be easy. It may ultimately require the admission that the two simply are incompatible over the long-term in particular areas. What is clear is that these discussions are urgently needed now so that conflict and violence produced by the juxtaposition of these two sectors diminishes and that countries can benefit from both their above-and below-the-ground resources.

“We do not see the people living in camps. We are blind to them, as their existence is now normal.” ~Suzie Castor, Executive Director of Cresfed Haiti

I have not been able to shake these words after something I saw last week. It was an exhibition of photos taken by displaced Haitian people. The photographers themselves live in camps under the constant threat of eviction. The images of three girls squatting around a fire, cooking pots stacked next to a tarpaulin wall, a girl looking almost resigned to the hardships she must face—all demonstrated to me people’s incredible ability to preserve their dignity under very harsh conditions and circumstances.

Titled “Déplacés” (The Displaced), the exhibition was commissioned by Oxfam and designed to spotlight what Haitians themselves observe in their day-to-day lives. The exhibition was launched in Port Au Prince on December 10^th to commemorate International Human Rights Day. The photos demonstrated to me the limits of the international community, the lack of capacity of the Government of Haiti, and the seeming irony of International Human Rights Day.

After the earthquake in 2010, there were approximately 1.5 million people living in camps. As we approach the three year anniversary this upcoming January, it is estimated that 357,000 people still live in camps, many under the threat of forced evictions. A recently released Oxfam briefing report, Salt in the Wound, suggests that the decrease was partly due to the implementation of several return and relocation programs, including the Haitian government’s 16/6 Project. This integrated project is aimed at rehabilitating 16 districts of Port-au-Prince with a view to offering the residents there, as well as the displaced people in six associated camps, sustainable housing solutions and improved living conditions. They do this by offering access to basic services and revenue generating activities.

While it is true that the 16/6 project has helped some of the displaced, Oxfam reports that the Government of Haiti’s plan is quite limited because it addresses relocation of IDPs on public land, but not those living on private land. Oxfam’s report highlights another reason for the declining camp populations—forced evictions by land owners.

Land owners’ rights are recognized in the Haitian constitution of 1987 and many landowners, acting as good citizens in the aftermath of the earthquake, allowed camp dwellings on their land. Now almost three years later and with no assurances from the government that they will be compensated, many landowners have begun to threaten, intimidate, and forcibly remove camp residents off their land.

So what happens to these people? Many internally displaced people now live in a constant state of fear of even leaving the camps for work or food, worried that their belongings will be destroyed in their absence. Once evicted from the camps, already vulnerable people face new and more complex problems, with no protection mechanisms from the state.

As we approach the third year commemoration of the Haiti earthquake, the need for a comprehensive durable housing policy designed to address the needs of camp residents and those already evicted remains. Piecemeal projects will not alleviate the long-standing problems of land ownership and housing in Haiti.

The government of Haiti must address the very real threats faced camp residents on private lands as they are completely unprotected. In addition, donors have to be willing to partner with the government and Haitian citizens who understand the complexity of the problems and can offer solutions.

We must all ensure that what the camp residents captured in their photographs does not become the new normal in Haiti.

A little over three months ago, I sat attentively listening to the give and take between Nigerian Female Food Hero, Susan Godwin, and Chicago Council on World Affairs Senior Fellow, Roger Thurow. Thurow was moderating a panel at the World Food Prize Symposium called A Billion Hungry: Can We Feed the World Sustainably? Also part of the discussion were Sir Gordon Conway, scholar and author; plant breeding and genetics pioneer, Gebisa Ejeta, and Jane Karuku, President of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.

Roger Thurow and Susan Godwin at the World Food Prize Dialogue. Photo: Jacob Silberman.

Now, an online dialogue, The Future of Agriculture, is considering much the same question about addressing hunger in the face of many challenges ahead. This discussion also includes my acquaintances, Susan Godwin and Roger Thurow. Mrs. Godwin writes eloquently on the challenge of passing the legacy of farming on to the next generation in  My Daughter Wants to Be a Farmer. Thurow again plays the role of summarizing and connecting the dots at the end of week one of the conversation.

In the first week, writers like Bill McKibben, writer and founder of 350.org, and Jose Graziano del Silva, Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), argued that moving away from an agriculture dependent on fossil fuels could not only benefit the planet but set the stage for a more resilient and productive agriculture.

Joining McKibben and del Silva were thought leaders with very diverse points of view and from different parts of the world. All considered what future farming might look like if we better considered the role of women, risk, farmer-based knowledge, and less reliance on fossil fuel.

The discussion continues through this week with a new set of essays posted each day. So far the discussion has been lively. But to help build our understanding we need broad participation and dialogue. So please take some minutes each day to visit http://blogs.oxfam.org/en/future-of-agriculture. The essays are short; the implications for our future tasks are great.

After reading both Roger Thurow’s and Susan Godwin’s online contributions, I thought back to that hall in Iowa with over 800 people attending. Mrs. Godwin told how her community and other had asked her what she might offer to all the highly educated and important people that she might address in the US. She said that most important she would tell them how her work had improved the lives of her family and the other women in her community. And after a pause, during which the audience grew even more quiet, she declared, “I will tell them that I am a farmer!”

That day, that large crowd filled with educators, scientists, political leaders, and activists rose to their feet. They acknowledged that the hope for a well-fed future depends on the efforts of all stakeholders, and ideas from all sectors.

The Future of Agriculture discussion is no different. Join the conversation today.

Rohit Malpani is a campaigns advisor at Oxfam and leads the organization’s access to medicines campaign. Oxfam’s response to Progressive Economy’s “Trade Fact of the Week” 11/28/12 is cross posted from the Progressive Economy blog.

Oxfam disagrees with the analysis set out in your November 28 article about patent protection for medicines. The article incorrectly explains the TRIPS Agreement, and we do not believe there was ever a global consensus in support of the intellectual property (IP) approach promoted by USTR, as implied in your article.

The TRIPS Agreement sets out minimum standards for IP protection, and explicitly includes a series of exceptions and limitations to IP rights that may be used by governments in order to achieve public policy objectives, including improvement of health outcomes. We have long been puzzled by efforts to portray compulsory licensing as a legal tool that may only be used during health “crises” or “emergencies”. Put simply, this interpretation is unsupported by the text of the Agreement itself. Similarly, the Doha Declaration confirms the right of countries to use all IP flexibilities in TRIPS “especially”—not “only”—in relation to health emergencies and pandemics.

We question the “policy calm” that you state has existed for 10 years in relation to patented medicines. In fact, that “policy calm” has never existed. Instead, there have been on-going tensions due to the endless efforts of the USTR, under pressure by the multinational pharmaceutical industry, to renegotiate the terms and conditions of the TRIPS Agreement through other means, and especially to strip away the public health limitations and exceptions that were included in the TRIPS Agreement in 1994. Developing countries are finding increasingly that they must endure against these tensions and challenge the pressure because many patients in their countries cannot obtain the medicines they need – especially newer treatments that are still under patent protection, which tend to be out of reach. Certainly governments in poor countries should allocate more money to health care, but the exorbitant prices of many patented medicines, an increasingly familiar problem in the United States, are an absolute barrier to health care coverage in resource-deficient countries.

Together with other humanitarian groups, we have documented a persistent, severe lack of access to new treatments and quality health care across developing countries, with the lowest income groups most affected. Upgrading health infrastructure is a crucial part of the solution, as is use by governments of all the policy options available to them, including IP flexibilities, to promote the availability of quality, low-cost versions of new treatments for their populations.

Medicines, including but not only “essential medicines” as identified by the WHO, are an important component of healthcare. Depending on their affliction, patients need access to quality, effective treatments regardless of whether these are on the WHO essential medicines list (EML). Moreover, medicines are selected for inclusion in the EML based on a range of factors, including affordability; because patent-protected treatments are more expensive, they are generally not included in the list. This is a critical flaw in the papers cited in your analysis, which found—unsurprisingly—that many medicines on the EML are off-patent.

Health care also does not only refer to AIDS, TB and malaria. To say that India has a “relatively small patient population” with cancer and other non-communicable diseases is wrong. Today, the World Health Organization notes that 80 percent of all non-communicable diseases (cancer, heart disease, diabetes) are in low-income countries, especially as life-styles and eating habits undergo a dramatic shift. By some projections, there are up to 2.5 million cases of cancer in India today. Likewise, by 2025, India will have over 75 million cases of diabetes. These are not problems which can be addressed through charity and insurance. They require serious, Marshall-Plan like investments by governments to both prevent development of these diseases and, inevitably, to provide treatment to ensure that their own citizens can lead healthy lives.

Improving health outcomes in the developing world will require substantial investments in health infrastructure, services, and medicines. At the same time, we urge governments to use policy tools available to them to promote availability of quality, effective treatments at the lowest possible cost.

A few months ago, I was talking to my colleague Kimberly, about how difficult it is to talk about the future of agriculture in public without things spinning out of control. Most people don’t much care. But those who do, REALLY CARE. It doesn’t take long in any conversation, for example, before someone in the conversation begins accusing someone else of being part of a corporate conspiracy, or someone accuses a whole community of being “peasant romanticists”. The energy and anger of the interchanges sometimes seems out of proportion and quite unconstructive.

Oxfam has been engaged in agriculture policy and programming since our early beginnings—so we brush against these partisans all the time. Indeed, there are many partisans among us. Often, our favored course is to keep our heads low and avoid the rough and tumble.

But, that’s not really possible in the current era. With the launch of our GROW Campaign, we have put the issues of food, hunger, and sustainable, inclusive agriculture at the center of Oxfam’s public engagement and the heart of our policy agenda. So, how do we broach these subjects without instigating mortal combat and without making Oxfam a target of every possible interest and ideology?

Well, the best idea we came up with was to host a conversation and hope that good ideas and some elements of a consensus emerge. So that’s what we’re doing.

Starting Monday, we’re hosting a ten-day Future of Agriculture online discussion and debate. We’ve invited experts and leaders in the field to contribute provocative essays, and we’ll invite everyone else to weigh in. That means you.

Set your browsers and ready your keyboards. And jump right in!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6twOVM40QY[/youtube]