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

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

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.

Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) are promoting legislation that would force the US to be a scofflaw. Last week, two members introduced legislation that would prohibit the US from making an annual payment of $147 million to Brazil.  They’re outraged that the US makes this payment – a sort of hush-money – to induce Brazil from punishing the US with more painful penalties under a WTO ruling against US cotton subsidies.

A cotton field in North Carolina. Photo: Liliana Rodriguez / Oxfam America

Kind and Blumenauer think it’s absurd to be paying off Brazil when we have a budget crisis, and want to bring pressure on Congress to reform the cotton subsidies rather than make this annual payment.  This would happen through the Farm Bill, which Congress was unable—or unwilling—to pass last year.  The House Agriculture Committee will restart the process on May 15 with a “markup” in the committee.

Even if Congress does pass a new Farm Bill, it’s not clear that it will reform cotton subsidies.  Last year’s draft versions of the Farm Bill didn’t come close, and Brazil could still retaliate.

Strangely, Brazil has been very gentle with the US and has refrained from harsher penalties for years.  When Congress failed to pass a Farm Bill and reform cotton subsidies last year, Brazil meekly agreed to keep the current payment.  They might not get their full payment this year, actually, as US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack may think the budget sequester, which shaves spending all over the government, will apply to the Brazil payment.

Perhaps, Brazil’s patience with the US over cotton subsidies can be explained by the fact that the Brazilian Ambassador to the WTO, Roberto Azevedo, is vying for a new job as head of the WTO. It certainly wouldn’t help his campaign to alienate one of the biggest member states. I’ve met Minister Azevedo and respect and like him a lot, so I don’t mean to impugn him or imply anything unethical.

At some point, the WTO job will be filled and then, perhaps, the US will have run out of leverage and exhausted Brazil’s patience.

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.

Tariq Sayed Ahmad is a Researcher with the Aid Effectiveness Team at Oxfam America.

On Wednesday Raj Shah will release USAID’s internal progress report on its “USAID Forward” reform agenda. The report will provide a wealth of aggregate numbers that fill out the broad picture of the changes that have been brewing at USAID over the last half decade.

Here’s one such story of why this matters.

Photo: Alexis Huaccho Magro / Oxfam America

Manuel Dominguez, mayor of Alao in the San Martín region of northern Peru, had been trying for years to access funds from the Peruvian government to deal with the increasing piles of trash in his growing city. While Dominguez was fully committed to using his limited city budget as best as he could to tackle the problem, it was not until USAID began investing in the Ministry of Environment, that Dominguez and his staff succeeded in obtaining significant funds from the national government, working with the Ministry of Economy and Finance. (You can learn more about Dominguez’ story here.)

In Peru, Oxfam America’s own forthcoming research shows that US reforms are enabling USAID staff to find ways to work with those leaders who are doing the right thing, and to enable regional governments like the government of San Martín to respond to local needs.  In 2011 USAID got the chance to use its new risk assessment tool, the Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework (PFMRAF) with regional government officials.  As a result, USAID was able to understand and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of San Martin’s systems, and they “did not identify any insurmountable risks that prevent USAID/Peru from moving ahead in utilizing the financial and procurement systems of the regional government.”^[1] The regional government then took the initiative to manage USAID programs directly, enabling the US to provide more funds through Peruvian country systems to help leaders like Mayor Dominguez respond to the needs of his people.

Of course working through country systems can be tricky. Partner governments are not monolithic entities. Rather, they are a mish-mash of institutions, bureaucracies, with a varied array of talent, accountability, and professionalism.  As more capacity assessments have been undertaken under IPR however, USAID is seeing that many local institutions are very effective, and provide great investment opportunities for the US.

“What the USAID partnership allowed us to do was to bring together all these different needs, actors, and resources at national, regional and local levels, which already existed in Peru, to solve a shared problem,” says Rosa Salas, director of the project at the Peruvian Ministry of Environment, who joined forces with Magda Ushiñahua, a counterpart at the Peruvian Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Municipalities like San Martín Alao had been neglected before the decentralization process began and deepened in Peru, giving local civic leaders a greater opportunity to unlock domestic resources to protect the health and well-being of their citizens and the surrounding Amazon. The relationship between USAID and the Ministries is helping mobilize domestic resources in addition to US funds. Peruvian taxpayer money has now been allocated for 127 municipalities to participate, benefitting an expected 5.65 million people.

The success of the USAID’s work in Peru is not that USAID delivered benefits, but that the agency helped Peruvians utilize their own resources.  In 2010, USAID initiated USAID Forward, a series of seven policy reforms intended to change the way USAID does business, including Implementation and Procurement Reform (IPR) and Country Development and Cooperation Strategies (CDCS). USAID Forward changes internal rules and regulations to better utilize country systems to enable local ownership of aid, something for which Oxfam America has long advocated.  These reforms built on previous efforts to rebuild USAID’s staff numbers, to make sure the agency has the professional staff they need to make local investment work.

We’re keen to see what USAID’s report has found. Our research is finding that USAID Forward is identifying local partners where US foreign assistance can be used effectively and allowing the US to look in places they haven’t looked before.

Manuel Dominguez, for one, couldn’t be happier. He says,

“My people and I can stop pollution in our district. We just needed a partner. We know how to get it done.”

Photo: Alexis Huaccho Magro / Oxfam America

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

Promised Land is now in theaters and I couldn’t wait to see it given my day job at Oxfam. Matt Damon and John Krasinski star. The movie depicts a small rural town in Pennsylvania as an international gas company comes in, promising to make millionaires of the struggling local farmers off of the shale deposits under their lands. Some eagerly jump to sign leases with the company while others worry about potential environmental impacts on their lands and waters.

The film really struck a chord with me because it highlights some of the seemingly insurmountable challenges that rural communities, in the US or elsewhere, face when deciding whether to make a deal with big oil. In Promised Land, the local high school teacher has a PhD from MIT, past experience as a Boeing engineer, and the time to do some internet sleuthing on the potential benefits and impacts of fracking. Many communities faced with the prospect of becoming oil boom towns, however, are not so lucky.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHQt1NAkhIo[/youtube]Citizens in developing countries face even more daunting information asymmetry challenges when oil and mining companies come to town. Often governments sign oil deals with companies directly and choose to keep the terms of these agreements and the amount of revenues generated by projects secret from their citizens. Logistical challenges like high illiteracy levels and limited internet access compound the situation, making it very difficult for communities to engage in negotiations with project sponsors on an equal footing.

In Peru, for example, the multi-billion dollar Peru LNG pipeline project crosses through two of Peru’s poorest regions, Ayacucho and Huancavelica. Communities in these two regions faced serious challenges when engaging in consultation processes with the company, given that approximately one-third of women in the regions are illiterate and only around 10% of the population uses internet services.

Also, almost all governments in the world have legal regimes that provide for government ownership of oil, gas, and mineral deposits. This means that oil companies can bypass making deals with landowners and negotiate directly with government. Communities that oppose development projects on their lands risk being displaced. The beleaguered town in Promised Land faces a number of disadvantages as they attempt to negotiate with a multinational company willing to bribe and cajole its way to community approval. The town must contend with a local leader with dubious ethics and competes with the high school basketball team for meeting space. However, ultimately they at least have the right to decide whether or not to sign a lease with the company.

Weighing potential costs and benefits around high-risk extractive industry projects is a challenging endeavor for any community. However, a few key measures to promote transparency and community engagement can go a long way:

― Governments should disclose the oil and mining contracts that they sign with companies. This will increase government accountability to their citizens by creating positive incentives for good deals and closing off possible avenues of corruption. Over the long term, contract disclosure will also contribute to a more stable investment climate since better deals are less likely to be overturned by future governments.

― Governments should disclose the revenues they receive from oil and mining companies, and companies should disclose the revenues that they pay to governments. Landmark section 1504 (“Cardin-Lugar”) of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act goes a long way towards promoting good governance of the extractive industries by requiring companies registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission to disclose their payments to governments. Beyond this, the more companies and governments that adopt revenue disclosure policies the better, both for citizens and for responsible companies which would benefit from a level playing field.

― Finally, governments and companies should commit to obtaining the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of local communities before implementing oil and mining projects on their lands. Consultations with local communities should be inclusive and adequately informed, and if communities decide against a development project, their decision should be respected.

These measures will not solve all of the challenges associated with oil development for communities around the world, nor the ones portrayed by Hollywood. However, they will create a framework that helps to ensure that local communities affected by oil projects are more informed about these projects, and have control over decisions that govern their lands, their health, and their livelihoods.

A guest post by Keith Slack, Global Program Manager, Extractive Industries

Mining industry big-wigs will gather in South Africa next week for Mining Indaba, billed as the “world’s largest mining investment conference.”  As has become de rigeur in recent years at this kind of event, there will be some discussion of social and environmental “sustainability” issues.  The final day of the event is in fact devoted to this and boasts an impressive-sounding set of panels featuring mining company CEOs, World Bank executives, government officials, and a smattering of NGOs.  This is consistent with a recent spate of mining sector sustainability initiatives including, among several others, the International Council on Mining and Metals’ Resource Endowment series, which looked at how mining can contribute more to economic development.

While this attention to sustainability is in general positive, it hasn’t driven the fundamental change in industry practice that is urgently needed.  US-based Newmont Mining’s history in Peru is one example.  Following a series of problems in Peru and elsewhere in the mid-2000s, the company commissioned a report that produced recommendations on improving its relationships with local communities.  The company’s implementation of these recommendations has been spotty at best.  Last year it was forced to postpone its massive Mina Conga project in the face of community opposition.  In December the company released another damning external review that described a “state of fear” among communities living near the mine.  Clearly the learning from past reviews hasn’t sunk in with company management.

To address this situation and the critical sustainability challenges facing the mining sector, we offer a few recommendations for the mining execs gathered in in Cape Town to consider as they schmooze, golf, and down some of those delicious South African red wines.  (Goats do Roam is my personal favorite.)

Dominic Nyame, a member of the Concerned Citizens Association of Prestea, an organization in southwest Ghana negotiating with a mining company around issues related to air and water pollution, and the proposed expansion of mining operations. Photo: Jeff Deutsch / Oxfam America

First, mining companies need to start fully respecting community consent.  While industry rhetoric on this point has improved significantly in recent years (which Oxfam has highlighted in a recent report), good examples of implementation are still lacking. Industry types often make the practice out to be more difficult than it really is and worries about communities vetoing a project are overblown.  Newmont’s problems at Mina Conga in Peru exist not because communities there are inherently anti-mining.  Rather they stem from the company’s bungled handling of community relations (by its own admission) during the early days of its presence in the community.  Getting these relationships right from the beginning and actively addressing to community concerns are critical to avoiding these problems.

Ensuring respect for the rights of women in the communities where companies operate is also critical for ensuring sustainability.  Women are often the guardians of communities’ long-term interests.  They suffer most directly from the negative impacts of mining, via the domestic violence and alcoholism to which mining often contributes.  Mining companies must carry out more rigorous and independent gender impact assessments.

Transparency has become somewhat of a cliché in discussions of sustainability in the extractive industries, but it’s an area, like women’s rights, where much work still remains to be done.  Mining companies should fully disclose all payments they make to governments – down to the project level where their impacts are felt.  To its credit, the mining industry hasn’t joined the American Petroleum Institute’s odious lawsuit seeking to block a new US law requiring these disclosures.  This is positive and should be coupled with all companies publicly embracing the law and disclosing this information beginning this year.

The thirsty folks gathered in South Africa will know that there is no sustainability issue more critical to the mining industry than protecting water resources.  South Africa itself is awash in acid mine drainage, or sulfuric acid that leaches out of mine sites and destroys ground and surface water.  This problem is a ticking time bomb in developing countries and it is incredibly expensive to fix once it starts.  Once it does, the acid needs to be treated forever.  Mining companies have the technology now to know when mining in particular ore bodies is likely to cause this problem.  They also know they shouldn’t mine there.

Finally, if mining companies want to contribute more to sustainable development, they should accept the fact that that may mean reduced profits for themselves.  Mining companies are masters at negotiating deals that enable them to avoid paying significant amounts of taxes.  In contract negotiations, industry lawyers routinely take under-trained and under-resourced government officials to the cleaners.  Yes, companies should be able to make profits, but they shouldn’t do so by exploiting unfair advantages.

Ultimately, making progress on these issues will depend on the degree to which mining companies incorporate community consent, the rights of women, transparency, and protection of water resources into their business models.  Creating incentives for performance on these issues will be critical.  Investors can play a role by only buying shares of companies with independently-verified performance metrics on sustainability, including demonstrable progress on the issues listed above.  Companies themselves can link compensation and career advancement to performance on sustainability.

It’s time for sustainability to become a central part of mining industry standards in Africa and elsewhere, rather than a sideshow.

Malawian health advocate Martha Kwataine is working to make sure her national government responds to the needs of Malawians in rural areas, not just those living in the capital.

As Mayor of San Martin Alao, Peru, Manuel Dominguez is working to better manage his own municipal funds to clean up waste blighting his town.

Village Chief Kojo Kondua IV of Abuesi, Ghana, is making sure national officials enforce fishing regulations fairly, ensuring his village’s source of jobs and food for the future.

Tanzanian farmer Emiliana Aligaesha and fellow farmers formed a successful private company; she now trains other farmers to improve their yields and market access.

Monday is Inauguration Day. As President Obama takes the oath of office for the second time, his foreign policy team is getting a makeover. Obama’s nominations of John Kerry for State, Chuck Hagel for Defense, and Jack Lew for Treasury will put new faces in the three US government cabinet roles with the most impact on America’s global development efforts.

Congress will soon be grilling Kerry, Lew, and Hagel in their confirmation hearings. Senators will likely ask questions about the nominees’ plans to protect key US alliances. No doubt many of these questions will focus on America’s military, diplomatic and trade relationships.

But some of the most powerful alliances America has aren’t with governments—they are with ordinary people who are doing extraordinary things. This week Oxfam America’s Aid Effectiveness team launched an ad campaign featuring four of these American allies. (Click on the images to learn more about each of them.)

The basis of these alliances is the tiny amount of US assistance that the United States invests in fighting poverty around the world. It’s less than one percent of the federal budget—but it’s the tool that helps local leaders like Kwataine, Dominguez, Aligaesha, and Kondua deliver powerful results.

America partly does this because we’re generous. But more important are the selfish reasons; when local leaders like these four are successful in improving their countries and communities, it delivers a world that is fairer, more peaceful, and more prosperous—which, after all, is the stated goal of much of America’s foreign policy.

Local leaders like these four need a few things from the United States to be successful. First, they need America to be honest and transparent about our goals and policies, so they know how to work with us. Second, they need us to be willing to work directly with them, and invest our time, money, and effort in their success. Finally, they need us to be willing to trust them to know what works best for their own communities and countries, rather than impose our own politics and processes on them.

So now is the time to make sure Senators ask the right questions in these confirmation hearings. How do the nominees plan to protect and deepen our development alliances with people like Kwataine, Dominguez, Aligaesha, and Kondua? Will they support strong development policies that put more trust in local leaders like these? Will they faithfully pursue policies that give local leaders in developing countries the information, capacity and control they need to solve their own problems?

The answers could determine whether President Obama is able to build a lasting legacy on fighting global poverty.

***

Related Pages

Slideshow: Don’t cut aid. It’s working.

Ray Offeneheiser, President of Oxfam, in the Huffington Post: Don’t cut aid. It’s working.

Coming to a billboard near you: A very different portrayal of aid, by Jennifer Lentfer on Oxfam’s First Person blog

Press release: Novel ad campaign urges no cuts to poverty-fighting foreign aid

Storify compilations of tweets about the ad campaign: A very different portrayal of aid and Is Oxfam America just like all the others?

***

Note: Oxfam America does not take U.S. federal funds, but we do support effective development programs.

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.