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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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!

Rice distributed and sold in Liberia. Photo: Ruby Wright/Oxfam International

With Farm Bill negotiations simmering on the back burner and an all-consuming Congressional focus on dealing with the fiscal cliff, the Alliance for Global Food Security, a group of Private Voluntary Organizations who have opposed common sense reforms to food aid programs, took the opportunity to launch a new study on the use of food aid monetization—essentially the sale of agricultural commodities in developing countries—to generate revenues for use in development programs. The Value of Food Aid Monetization: benefits, Risks and Best Practices sets out to provide additional information and evidence on one of the thornier issues in food aid programs authorized through the Farm Bill.

The problem: As the report rightly notes, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has, on more than one occasion criticized the practice of monetization as a wasteful and inefficient use of US assistance. In their most recent accounting, the GAO found that over a recent three year period, monetization resulted in a loss of $219 million. The reason? It’s difficult to recoup the full cost of purchase, shipment, and delivery of food aid in competitive transactions in developing countries. Cost recovery for monetization activities for USAID administered programs averaged 76 percent. Activities managed by USDA fared slightly worse.

Then there is the question of market impact. Concerns have long been raised (including in the GAO report) that monetized food aid can compete with locally produced goods (or more relevantly, goods produced by smallholder farmers in the same market/country), disrupting lives and livelihoods.

How the Alliance responds: The study produced by the Alliance admits that on a pure cost recovery basis, monetization programs score poorly. But fixating on how much money is lost in monetization only tells part of the story and ignores all the good that can come from selling food aid. To elaborate this point, the study looks at five monetization activities in Gambia, Guatemala, Uganda, Liberia and Mozambique.

So, what exactly does the report tell us?

• In the cases under review, monetization did not disrupt domestic production or marketing. A positive finding, though I suspect there would have been resistance to publishing cases in which monetization did disrupt markets;

• Even if not explicit, it’s pretty clear that monetization serves as an export promotion program and an export subsidy to US producers. Take this language from the Liberia case study in which rice is the monetized commodity: “The six importers [which dominate rice imports] would not import as much [US] parboiled rice commercially because it would be cost-prohibitive, which is overcome by selling in smaller lots and allowing incremental payments.” Is this why we have food aid programs, to promote US agriculture products abroad?

• Program results achieved from the monetization process (as opposed to the ones achieved with the resulting funds generated through monetization) demonstrate benefits in terms of improving food markets, though not necessarily agriculture markets. For instance, one of the key benefits of wheat sales in Uganda has been the contribution to a stronger milling sector. But no data is presented to demonstrate that the improved capacity of millers has resulted in stronger linkages with farmers, particularly smallholder farmers who are the subject of much focus in Feed the Future and other development programs.

And what does the report not tell us?

West Point Market in Monrovia, Liberia.Photo: Aubrey Wade/Oxfam GB

Whether the positive outcomes associated with the monetization program could be achieved through other means. The crux of the issue is not whether monetization proceeds fund good programs that benefit producers or consumers. It is whether monetization is really the only or the optimal means of achieving positive results. For example, several of the case studies note instances of increased market participation by small vendors because of favorable credit or financing provisions accompanying monetization schemes. But these outcomes could also be achieved through strengthening commercial financial services and other assistance provided directly to traders.

And finally, even if one agrees that this study presents compelling evidence that the practice of monetization should continue to be part of US food aid programs, it does not mean having to accept the status quo. If organizations continue to insist on monetization—and if by law a minimum amount of food aid must continue to be sold on markets—we need smart policies and strong guidance and indicators regarding outcomes and acceptable levels of loss in the program.  Provisions in the Senate-passed Farm Bill take a step in this direction by directing agencies practicing monetization to achieve at least 70 percent cost recovery (though USAID and USDA would have discretion to authorize monetization even in instances where this could not be achieved). Of the cases reviewed in this study, this level is met or exceeded in all but one instance. The Senate provisions would not have precluded any of the positive outcomes these activities appear to have achieved.

From the outside, losing 24 percent of aid resources on average in the process of monetization seems like a terrible waste of scarce resources. But what’s worse is that some aid groups that regularly practice monetization seem to be ok with this cost of doing business and are opposed to the Senate reforms. Shame on them. We should strive to do better.

Sarah Kalloch’s blog is cross-posted from Women Thrive Worldwide. Oxfam America is working with women’s groups that are actively working on ending violence against women and making links between violence against women and food security. 

World Food Day—October 16—falls right in the middle of Domestic Violence Awareness month. At first the connection between the two might seem tenuous. But as Oxfam’s GROW Campaign eloquently argues, “Hunger isn’t about too many people and too little food. Hunger is about inequality. And women and girls face the greatest inequalities of all”. When women are hungry, they are forced to make impossible choices and take untenable chances that make them vulnerable to violence.

Women grow the majority of the world’s food—and are also the majority of the world’s hungry because of vast inequalities in resources and power. Women farmers in the US still face a “grass ceiling”—denied access to billions in loans from the USDA.  And the situation is worse in developing countries, where women face discrimination in land ownership, lack of education, and little access to the capital, technology, and markets needed to make a living on the land. Women could feed up to 150 million more people if they had the same agricultural resources as men, according to a United Nations report.

But before women feed the world, they must feed themselves and their families—a simple act which exposes them up to violence, rape and abuse.

• In Bangladesh, women in households with lower food security are more at risk for physical and emotional abuse.
• Women in Bostwana who did not have enough to eat were twice as likely to have sold sex and were more likely to report a lack of control in sexual relationships.
• Women displaced by conflict in Darfur face further violence when they go to gather firewood and water.
• When food rations were cut at refugee camps in Tanzania in 2005, the World Food Program warned of an increased violence against women as women ventured further afield to feed their families and tensions rose in hungry households.
• Women from Canada to the Congo who have left abusive relationship or been victims of violence are often left economically vulnerable and food insecure.

This month, join Oxfam’s GROW Campaign and hold a WFD dinner with friends and family. Take time to talk about the amazing culture, community and power of food. Food security is human security. Women feed the world—they deserve the chance to feed their families free of violence.

Credit: Oxfam America Action Corps and  Grazioso Pictures Inc.

Last week, I managed an (almost) zero mile meal. My backyard chickens provided eggs for a crustless quiche, flavored by garden-grown cherry tomatoes and basil, with freshly dug roasted potatoes on the side. The food was all local—almost. You need olive oil, salt and pepper to flavor, well, everything. And for dessert there was coffee and chocolate, wonderful foods that don’t grow so well in Massachusetts—but that do come in fair trade varieties that ensure small-scale farmers and farm workers around the world get a fair deal.

The meal was a reminder that “Eating Local” is just one part of the food justice equation. Buying fair trade is another. And there are many more. As Oxfam prepares to mark World Food Day on October 16, we’re thinking a lot about all the components of food justice. We hope you’ll do the same by holding a World Food Day meal and talking about how you can fight world hunger from your kitchen table.

Oxfam’s GROW Campaign recently released a report, Food Transformations, which detailed the power of consumers to contribute to global food security. For instance, meat production alone takes up eight percent of the world’s water supply. If a family of four substituted lentil burgers for beef burgers for just one night, they would save the equivalent of 17 bathtubs full of water. That is a small change with a powerful impact. To help consumers harness this power, Oxfam has launched the GROW Method, five easy ways to feed your family healthy and delicious meals while ensuring everyone on the planet has enough to eat, always.

The steps seem simple and straightforward: waste less food, eat local and seasonal, support small farmers worldwide, eat less meat, and cook smart. But nothing is simple when it comes to the politics of  the plate. When the USDA raised the idea of employees participating in Meatless Monday this summer, it sparked a political firestorm. Meanwhile, a stalled Farm Bill threatens to harm food security from Michigan to Mali, and ethanol mandates are requiring much needed food to be used as fuel. As food prices rise and Oxfam and other organizations warn of a potential global food crisis, the price of political and personal inaction also rises. Order our free World Food Day 2012 resources, and consider holding a World Food Day Meal to celebrate the culture and community, power and politics of food.

For the sorcerers who practice the dark arts of politics, the hot summer months are generally known for their focus on triviality, hyperbole and petty posturing. This “silly season” is marked mostly by frivolous debates over manufactured controversies as voters tune out and cook out in parks and backyards across the country.

So it comes as no surprise that the latest bit of feigned outrage to embroil the United States Department of Agriculture involves an interoffice newsletter recommending that employees consider taking a modest stab at common sense.

Joining the ranks of thousands of companies, restaurants, schools, average Americans and Oprah, a recent newsletter from the USDA made a humble suggestion for its employees to reduce their environmental footprints: Consider eating a meat-free lunch once per week. The agency was referring to “Meatless Monday,” a project of Johns Hopkins, Columbia and Syracuse universities and supported by many other health-related organizations.

Read the full blog at CNN here. 

As I see it, the banker was saying that one system was more resilient, even though in terms of the economies of scale, the consolidated model might have had some advantages. But in the interest of social and economic stability, having more people and farms provided a better hedge against collapse.

With an expanding global population, communities and nations must face the question of which model suits their needs as erratic weather, volatile markets, finite arable land and fresh water tightens the vice on the global food system.  Now that extreme heat and drought are sweeping across my own farm and across more than 1,000 counties in 26 states, I’ve considered some of the things that my neighbors do to buffer the impacts of both environmental and economic shocks.

First, two miles to the south, Roman and Ruth Miller used to only grow wheat, row crops, and cattle. About 15 years ago, they took about a quarter of an acre out of conventional crop production, and started a modest market garden. Since that time, the vegetable production has expanded; they built several hoop houses to extend the growing season; and with the assistance of their children, the Millers became more and more adept at marketing. Roman still has wheat and cattle, but he has created a side enterprise that has allowed him to become more profitable and economically secure without having to buy more land or invest in more expensive machinery. (The role of entrepreneurship and farm diversification is covered well in work by Cornelia and Jan Flora , and Karl Stauber)

Roman Miller (left) with customer at farmers’ market. Credit: Jim French

Next, I think about my friend, Gene Albers, who farms about 30 miles from my operation. Gene incorporates cover crops into his diversified crop and livestock operation.  He believes that conserving soil is not enough. A farmer should improve the soil through building up organic matter and biological activity. By planting mixes that might contain seeds of turnips, Japanese radishes, black oats, barley, pearl millet, and Austrian peas, Gene can create ground covers that shade the soil, penetrate compacted soil, and capture nitrogen. By grazing livestock on crop residues and cover crops, Gene has been able to capture more value while effectively recycling nutrients.

Grain sorghum growing in cover crop residue on author’s farm. Credit: Jim French

Finally, I think about my brother-in-law, Jamie Funke. Jamie married the daughter of a farmer who taught vocational agriculture at the local high school. Jamie also has a career in education working at the area community college. He farms 320 acres of wheat, soybeans, and grain sorghum in his spare time. Like the majority of his neighbors and the  majority of American farmers, having an off-farm job allows Jamie to remain a productive farmer with access to affordable insurance, and a steady source of cash flow.

Three farms. Three strategies for stability, resilience, and success. The Millers have concentrated on agricultural enterprise diversification and entrepreneurship;  Albers focuses on building the health and productivity of the soil; Funke has found that off-farm employment can better ensure his continued engaging in farming.

Right now, we are all in our second year of severe drought – a situation similar to the one plaguing rural people in the Sahel, and regions in the  Horn of Africa. The ramifications of the drought are different – people in Africa face food emergencies and possible famine.  However,  my neighborhood examples provide some element of what investing in resilience might look like regardless of location.

Facing the challenges of increased flooding, longer lasting droughts, and volatile markets may mean that the monoculture, mega-farm will not be the best target for emerging agriculture in the developing world.  What may be the more stable, and resilient models could depend more upon investing  in smaller operations that enable entrepreneurship, off-farm income generation, and agro-ecological strategies, which build soil and conserve water.

Judy Beals is the Campaigns Director at Oxfam America.

In the past six weeks, world leaders met not once, not twice, but three times to discuss and deliver global solutions to global challenges. The G8, the G20 and Rio+20 received scant media attention during this election year dominated by domestic issues. And while global summits generally deliver more snooze than sizzle, they continue to matter, bringing together heads of state to discuss and, at least potentially, to bring global attention, resources and commitment to the world’s poorest.

With nearly a billion people hungry (including 18 million people in West Africa facing a massive unfolding food crisis), increasingly erratic weather, and a weak global economy, the need for shared solutions to shared problems could not be greater. But world leaders failed to rise to the challenge.

Oxfam stunt before the G8

◄ Back

Next ►

Picture 1 of 10

G8 Leaders look lost looking for food security—signs for shortcuts and silver bullets distract them from the path. Photo: Oxfam America.

As host to the G8—or Group of 8—the US was perhaps best positioned to deliver substantial commitments, especially since President Obama had put global food security squarely on the agenda. But meeting in the secluded Camp David, Maryland, the world’s largest industrialized economies passed the buck. Instead, the G8 tried to fill the gap of their broken promises with a private sector initiative that simply cannot tackle the complex challenges of food insecurity. Only the US recommitted itself to an important initiative started three years ago at the G8 Summit in L’Aquila. On the bright side, some commitments were made to replenish the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), a multi-donor plan that invests in developing country agriculture.

The G20—the group of the world’s 20 major economies—arguably delivered even less. Still relatively new, the G20 has been meeting at the head of state level since 2008 to discuss key issues in the global economy and to promote “strong, sustainable and balanced growth.” Despite opportunities this year to address drivers of food crises—including commodity price volatility and increased demand for biofuels—G20 leaders assembled in Los Cabos, Mexico were unable to move beyond internal disagreement over how to fix the Eurozone. The one bright spot was movement plugging the leak on hundreds of millions of dollars that drain out of poor countries into tax havens every year.

Coming 20 years after the first Earth Summit, Rio+20s ambitions were high to tackle ending poverty and achieving prosperity for all while living within the earth’s limits of fresh water, clean air, and fertile land. While the verdict on action by heads of state at Rio is rightly dismal—there too, at least if you looked hard enough, were glimmers of hope. UN General Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s Zero Hunger Challenge was a welcome ray of hope. Even business leaders produced at least a few positive initiatives at the Corporate Sustainability Forum and the Business Action for Sustainable Development.

Overall, shockingly inadequate outcomes, given the scale and urgency of the challenges? Yes. But I bring a different view. We know that solutions DO exist—to bring about a small-scale agricultural revolution that can feed the 9 billion people who will inhabit this earth by 2050 without destroying the planet; to bring about a green energy revolution; to bring about a more just and sustainable global economy that benefits all of us.

What we face is something we CAN change: political will. And while there wasn’t anywhere near enough of it at Camp David, Los Cabos, or Rio, the growing insistence of civil society, north and south, especially young people, was undeniable.

Our supporters were there. People signed the G8 petition we delivered to President Obama, urging him to launch an ambitious food security partnership with small-scale farmers. Nearly half a million supporters tuned in for our G8 Twitter Town Hall, #G8chat . Before the G20 summit Oxfam supporters helped spread the word about what was at stake.Throughout the summits, our Twitter followers tweeted and retweeted via #DearG8, #TweetG20, and #Rioplus20 about progress (or lack thereof) that leaders were making on our key issues.

Our supporters became part of something that is gaining steam—a new awakening to citizen power—standing up, speaking loudly and clearly for our future. Social media is part of it, but members of our Oxfamily went further—holding events, signing petitions, making phone calls, speaking directly with elected officials, and insisting that their voices be heard.

And that’s exactly what we need to keep doing—building political will—holding leaders accountable and making sure the glitz of summits is matched by real commitments for poor people. GROWing a movement in the present, for now and for the future, like no other the world has ever seen. You can help us do that—by asking your friends, families and social networks to join our GROW campaign—by continuing to stand up, take action, and make your voices heard.

So here’s to summits attempted and at least partially scaled. We have mountains still to climb. Looking forward to our journey together.