Two key moments stand out for me last week. On Monday I saw former Senator Lugar (R-IN) receive Transparency International USA’s “Integrity Award” for his work to combat corruption, whether through his oversight hearings of World Bank projects or his leadership on the Dodd-Frank Act, specifically the Cardin-Lugar oil, gas and mining payment disclosure provision. . During a dinner co-sponsored by Exxon, Senator Lugar recounted his lobby visits from oil company representatives during the consideration of this legislation that now requires oil, gas and mining companies to disclose their payments to host governments. After hearing them out, Lugar and his staff simply weren’t persuaded by industry arguments about competitive harm or compliance costs. Looking forward, Lugar referenced the litigation that the American Petroleum Institute has launched against the provision bearing his name and said that no matter the outcome, “The trend is in our direction.”

The case will now go back down to the district court, where Oxfam believes the weaknesses of oil industry arguments will be demonstrated.

Indeed it is. On Friday morning I learned that the US Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the jurisdictional arguments of the oil industry’s lawyers, (Eugene Scalia and company from Gibson Dunn). The Appeals Court dismissed the case agreeing with Oxfam’s lawyers that the case should be heard in the district court first as Congress had instructed. Oxfam, as an intervener, was the only party to argue that this case does not belong in the Appeals Court and the court adopted Oxfam’s reasoning throughout the entire opinion.

This is a victory for transparency campaigners in the Publish What You Pay coalition. With the dismissal, the case will now go back down to the district court where there will be more opportunity for a comprehensive review of the administrative record. Such a review, we believe, will demonstrate the hollowness of industry arguments.

While the legal process continues, global momentum for increased transparency in the oil, gas and mining industry gains steam. In April, the European Union agreed on tough new rules that mirror Cardin-Lugar, with no exemptions for companies for alleged host government prohibitions. Once again, politicians and regulators were not persuaded by industry arguments and fear mongering. In Canada, Publish What You Pay is working with the Mining Association of Canada to develop mandatory disclosure proposals for the government. Later in May, Newmont Mining, the US and UK governments, and investors will highlight the importance of mandatory disclosure rules on the sidelines of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative global conference in Sydney, Australia. Finally, the UK government is championing transparency as part of its hosting of the G8 in June.

As the transparency tide reaches many corners of the globe, the war on transparency being waged by companies such as Shell, BP, Exxon and Chevron will seem increasingly doomed and misguided.

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!

Every Sunday, my wife and I make a pot of coffee and settle in to watch our favorite political shows—“Sunday Morning” on CBS and “Meet the Press” on NBC. Every week, we cringe when it goes to commercial and we hear the Zydeco music kick in: here comes BP, trumpeting the message that the Gulf of Mexico is not only doing A-OK, but better than ever two and a half years after the largest offshore oil spill in our nation’s history. In one, Mike Ulster, a BP executive handling cleanup and damages, cites BP’s commitment of billions of dollars to ecological and economic restoration and says, “People in the Gulf measure commitment by what’s getting done.” In terms of paying those who lost income in the spill, BP, has paid billions to date in economic damages and is on the verge reaching a settlement with many parties, despite vocal concerns from many in the fishing industry about not accounting for unknowns of long-term impacts.

But in addressing ecological restoration, the reality is that BP just isn’t measuring up to its commitments.

It looked good at first. BP committed a down payment of $1 billion to start the work of repairing the ecological damage wrought by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. However, over a year and a half later, BP has approved only $66 million in ecological restoration projects—less than seven percent of the promised money. At this rate, it would take about 25 years to “measure up” and fulfill their commitment.

And make no mistake: timing is critical. We still don’t know the extent of the damage, but we do know that we need to act fast to mitigate the long-lasting effects and restore the vital resources of the Gulf Coast. For example, Prince William Sound’s herring fishery took a big hit after the Exxon Valdez disaster; but it didn’t totally collapse until four years later. Had action been taken to repair herring habitat, who knows what could have been prevented? While BP is dragging its heels and “slow walking” the process, key ecosystems are languishing.

Shrimp and oyster harvests have been down since the spill, crushing the spirits and livelihoods of thousands of working families. But the effects may extend further; oysters take two to three years to mature, and the bays and bayous are still suffering from the 4.9 million barrels of oil that hit the area in 2010. After Hurricane Isaac, Louisiana closed 12 miles of coastline because of thousands of pounds of oiled debris washing up—the same oil that leaked during the spill.

Under BP’s agreement on early restoration, BP must approve with relevant state and federal agency heads what projects are considered and has the final say on what moves forward.

Project ideas are out there. State and federal trustees have drafted plans that would repair damage, reduce storm surge, protect livelihoods, and more. Louisiana and Mississippi have both proposed significant sets of projects, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, which would restore barrier islands, wetlands, and fisheries. Other states have also engaged with coastal communities in finding solution. But despite having good projects ready to go, the approvals to move forward on vital projects are not materializing.

So, with less than seven percent of this initial commitment to the Gulf Coast  met, it’s fair to say BP must do a better job of working fairly with the state and federal trustee to move projects forward.

On another front, a BP-backed trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, has sued the Securities and Exchange Commission to try to overturn a landmark anti-corruption and transparency regulation that requires all oil, gas and mining companies to disclose their payments to governments both overseas and here at home. In the US, this Oxfam-supported regulation will give Gulf communities a picture of how much BP pays the Federal government in royalties and taxes for each offshore license in the Gulf. Yet another situation where BP talks a good game—in this case with public commitments to transparency—but has refused to follow through in doing the right thing: publicly backing away from this lawsuit which is trying to overturn a landmark disclosure law.

The question to Mr. Ulster: Is your company really willing to do what it takes to measure up?