SEC Must Reject Oil Industry Assault on Transparency

Secrecy breeds corruption and mismanagement

Source: Revenue Watch Institute, November 5, 2012: http://www.revenuewatch.org/news/press_releases/sec-must-reject-oil-industry-assault-transparency

NEW YORK—The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must reject oil companies’ demand for a delay in enforcing new disclosure rules, to carry out the law of the land and protect the public interest, the Revenue Watch Institute said today.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have asked the SEC to delay, or “stay,” new securities rules requiring oil, natural gas and mining companies to make public their payments to governments, until federal courts issue a verdict in a lawsuit recently filed by API and the Chamber. Representing major oil companies, API and its allies are demanding the courts overturn the rules as well as the underlying transparency law they carry out.

“API is making an extraordinary assault on corporate and government transparency,” said Daniel Kaufmann, president of Revenue Watch. “Based on its own clear criteria, the SEC has firm grounds for rejecting the oil industry’s stay request.”

“Suspending the rules would harm investors as well as citizens of developing countries, who stand to greatly benefit from greater transparency and accountability,” Kaufmann said. “There is no reason for the SEC to be intimidated by API into changing its well thought-out timeline, which calls for this greater company disclosure to begin in 2014.”

The rules carry out Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, passed by Congress in 2010, which requires companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to report publicly their payments to governments, for each country and each natural resource project. In drafting the rules, the SEC solicited and considered extensive public comments for two years, including from the oil industry.

The law and SEC’s rules are also the template for transparency legislation being finalized by the European Union, and have been strongly endorsed by British Prime Minister David Cameron and other leaders.

Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), strong supporters of the disclosure law, have urged the commission to “deny the stay request, and actively resist any other attempt to delay the implementation of the rule.” They also cite the precedent that U.S. rules have set for the EU, warning that delaying their implementation will “cause harm to investors and citizens in the United States and abroad.”

Publish What You Pay, the leading civil society coalition involved in the SEC’s two-year rulemaking process, has also urged the commission to strongly defend its rules.

Timeline: Dodd-Frank Section 1504

SEC Rules to Bring Transparency to Oil and Mining Industries

Oil Companies' Lawsuit Seeks to Undermine Global Transparency

Aid to developing countries: restructuring needed!

Whose interest: donor or recipient countries?
Picture source: capitalismmagazine.com

Aid contributes to the fight against poverty and hunger in developing countries. It is also increasingly argued that aid is hurting developing countries especially those in Africa. In recent decades, Africa has witnessed more aid than any other continent. According to the 2011 ONE Data Report, total development assistance for sub-Saharan Africa reached $39.7 billion in 2010, representing an increase of $13.5 billion over 2004 levels.

It is hard to understand the paradox of aid. It is incredibly disappointing that the region that receives the most aid is today the poorest continent in the world, particularly considering the valuable natural resources at its disposal. Even with increased foreign aid, it is overwhelmingly evident that about 51 per cent of people in sub-Saharan Africa live on less than 1.25 dollars per day.

The disparity between aid and effective development has therefore generated unprecedented debate regarding whether or not Africa really needs aid to combat the ever-increasing poverty, hunger and economic backwardness. The Rome Declaration (2003), Paris Declaration (2005) and Accra Agenda for Action (2008), meant to rethink the architecture of aid, have been necessary but have barely made an impact. The declarations and commitments constitute talks without action. Of the thirteen measurable targets set by the Paris Declaration, only one had been realized as revealed by the 2011 Monitoring Survey of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It is sobering and worrying indeed.

This is a stark reminder that aid is not effective. Aid makes the poor poorer and the rich richer. It is widening the gap between rural and urban settings. Development and progress is at a standstill if not dwindling.

The causes of aid ineffectiveness are not hard to guess. The world does not need a miracle to make sure that aid alleviates poverty. It is about getting priorities right, cooperation and real commitment to global development. Aid commitments are falling short apart from aid being used as a tool to threaten developing economies. The potential global recession has seen aid threatened with cuts too. Britain has made moves to cut its aid. The donors choose when and what to give out. Obiageli Ezekwesili, World Bank Vice President for Africa - at the first-ever African Investment Summit organized by the London Stock Exchange (LSE) on Tuesday October 11 in London - warned that the temptation to cut aid to Africa would be a great mistake. The warning may already have been ignored. David Cameron has threatened to cut aid intended for Ghana and Uganda this year in response to their treatment of homosexuals. Britain has already done it to Malawi. The UK government has cut aid by $30 million to Malawi after two homosexuals were sentenced to 14 months hard labor for having an engagement ceremony.

Is aid obligatory or merely a country’s wish? Britain can decide the amount and the timing of its hand-outs to needy economies. The ‘beggars can’t be choosers’ syndrome should no longer play a role here. However, developing economies should own what they receive! Uncertain aid unsettles the priorities of developing economies. Shouldn’t aid commitments be made certain to inform development agendas of less developed economies? Threats to cut down or withdraw aid only vindicate aid ineffectiveness and unfulfilled commitments. Accra Agenda for Action’s (AAA’s) ownership of programmes of aid is just a mirage. Donors still decide. Aid with strings attached dictates what to do or otherwise.

Commitments should be made to go beyond the rhetoric. Commitment not backed by actions has the tendency to put development at risk. Over 13 million people are in danger from life-threatening hunger in the horn of Africa, increased child and maternal mortality is gradually putting developing countries especially those in Africa on the brink of extinction and hopelessness, and civil war is apportioning enough time for tensions and killings.

Africa dare not depend on aid. Commitments are the sole wishes of donors. They decide what and when to give. If aid follows this pathway, then aid will be needless for ‘needy’ economies.

It is not surprising when aid does not meet its aspirations. It is because donors clamour for secrecy. They support opaque deals. According to Publish What You Fund, a number of donors seem to be ”attempting to dilute or undermine” commitments to aid transparency “by removing all references to the International Aid Transparency Initiative” and implementation deadlines during the “Working Party on Aid Effectiveness” meeting in Paris this week. When Africa loses nearly $150 billion a year through pervasive corruption, it stands to reason that transparency is a precondition for real aid. How much is invested in poverty and hunger reduction programmes? Only donors and governments of developing countries are aware of what goes out and what comes in. Citizens have been turned spectators -- watching just for the fun of it while they are bear the brunt of poor utilization of those funds.

If aid is for democracy, then citizens reserve the right to know. The right to information is what democracy demands. The ‘Arab Spring’ revolution was the result of frustration with increasing secrecy and a demand for openness. Light should be shed on what governments are doing with the few stipends at their disposal to improve the lots of the poor. 

The ostensibly divergent interest of donor countries and especially Africa on aid brings another question to mind. Is the aid regime teaching Africa to fish? Or is aid driving Africa to fish in water without fish or dead fish? This trend puts the progress of developing economies at risk. 

In all, achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 should set the motion for a new transparent architecture of aid that makes poverty and inequality a priority. Aid that puts ownership of project while dissipating  inherent 'lethal' political and economic interests of donors is what's needed to engender development in ailing developing economies. Again, and critically important, aid in freedom should be delivered. Not aid with unnecessary conditionalities that limit the range of choices of recipient countries.  

With the clock inching closer to the 2015 deadline of the Millennium Development Goals, it is crucial both donors and recipients of aid go beyond the vocal commitments to make aid contribute to equitable pro-poor development. Less of that, Africa should think inwardly for a development miracle. Ensuring effective development in backward economies especially those in Africa is urgent. Explaining the glaring disconnect between aid  and poverty reduction is also crucial for today's policy discourse. Tomorrow may be too late.

By: Stephen Yeboah, Masters candidate in Development Studies, The Graduate Institute, Geneva. The author is also a freelance journalist.

Article was published prior to the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea in 2011. Follow the link here: Aid at donor's command

Local-level development in Ghana -- In search of radical rethinking

Decentralization: opportunity or charade?

That Ghana’s decentralization programme is fraught with inefficiencies is never a far cry from reality. The decentralization programme which began in 1988 had an objective of promoting effective and accountable local government in the country with the ultimate goal of clamping down on poverty. Rather the significance of decentralization has been stultifying. Lives in rural areas and even urban communities have increasingly been subjected to a quagmire of crushing poverty while the few so-called elites – stuck in their intellectual conservatism – amass fleeting wealth to themselves.

Of all the obstacles that seemingly hinder the country’s development efforts, “dirty” decentralization is perhaps the most daunting. Though they are known to be society elites they are as well “functional illiterates” – who do not understand the meaning of development. The reasons  for increased rural poverty, primitive agriculture practices, inaccessible potable water and health facilities are not far-fetched. The local governance systems meant to cater for grassroots concerns are all broken and have simply been rendered dysfunctional. 

Sekyere South District happens to be one of the twenty seven (27) districts in Ashanti Region. The district, upon personal experience, has sadly been the epitome of a broken and dysfunctional decentralization. A district with all the available good conditions to support viable economic activities and varieties of crops including cocoa and coffee simply lives outside its vision and mission. With its inspirationally engraved vision of “creating the necessary conditions for private sector development through job creation and access to basic services by actively involving the masses in the decision making process”, one is pricked to assume if even there is poverty in the region. This vision, however, smacks of a complete 'cartoon' paradox.

Poverty continues to exact its ravaging effects on the majority. The fate of smallholder farmers is as unpredictable as the rains they depend on to farm. Delving into the issue of local governance in the metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies, one is tempted to believe if Ghana is really committed in the fight against poverty, hunger and backwardness. Setting priorities to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 mean nothing to national and local political leaders and civil and public servants. It is disheartening to witness how the concept of decentralization is being outrightly disregarded. How structures of decentralization have being manipulated by the few to satisfy their illegitimate selfish interests. 

In most metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies (MMDAs), laws governing local government structures are simply taken for granted. Hypocritically infused with the ethos of participatory governance, the few stand for themselves and how to fill their ‘stomach’ is their agenda all day. They are rather representative of themselves thinking of nothing good but how to line their pockets to the detriment of the ordinary poor. In their frenzy attempt to amass cheap wealth, viable projects are at best delayed. Again, a project that would seemingly not bring money to the pocket of one person or a “clandestine group” would not be undertaken simply because signatories may not be ready to validate the withdrawal of funds for projects that benefit the poor. Even worrying is that amidst the display of these shameful attitudes, several kilometers of roads in the district are poor and dusty, affecting the ease with which people move and agriculture produce are transported to the market. Children still sit under trees or dilapidated structures to access basic education. People travel kilometers to access potable water and health.

Indeed, we should not expect as a nation to see development [not interventions from the World Bank, IMF] if these shameful and outrageous attitudes persist. For reasons unknown, the government, development experts, aid agencies and multilateral institutions assume that such lawlessness and banditry at the local government level have no effect whatsoever on local economic development. The destruction being caused by the country’s local governance system is first eroding public confidence and trust and also denying the people the right to development. This is a break in social compact that has the propensity to engender social unrest and public discontent.

The reason for the struggle of Ghana to extend the benefits of development to the poor could be attributed to the pageantry of selfishness and insensitivity of people at full display in MMDAs. What’s happening in Sekyere South District is a sign of a national canker. Sekyere South District is a sad scenario where local government and national constitutional laws are easily flouted with impunity.

This article is not meant basically to disclose the blatant anomalies in Sekyere South District Assembly and all MMDAs but to shed light on activities holding back the progress of the nation. Definitely, intrinsic and regular monitoring is needed at the local government level if development can be realized. These attitudes being exhibited are rather worsening and 'glorifying' rural poverty and underdevelopment. It's obviously unacceptable. It is about time poverty was eradicated in rural areas. The district structure of governance in its deep state of vulnerability demands urgent rethinking and restructure.

It is increasingly clear that such antics and obsession with individualism to the neglect of the peoples welfare not only contradict contemporary development agenda but also infringe upon the inalienable rights of the people to development.

From the foregoing, it is the truth that decentralization needs a deliberate didactic re-structuring geared toward changing attitudes of civil and public servants and instilling a sense of responsibility. The voices of the local people are powerful to demand better governance and accountability. Massive education and empowerment at the local level will offer a potential counter-effect to this mess being witnessed. The nation needs to battle against increasing illiteracy. This as such calls for an increased investment in both formal and informal education. Education and empowerment that is needed to generate awareness of the people to hold officials in check. Again, the local should be made to have a say in the day-to-day implementation of projects and programmes.

By: Stephen Yeboah, Geneva

World Food Day: worth celebrating?

Picture source: FAO

It is yet another solemn year to move in line with the formalities of celebrating World Food Day in the midst of escalating famines, hunger and hard-hitting malnutrition levels in developing economies. The question that begs: Is World Food Day worth celebrating?

World Food Day was proclaimed in 1979 by the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). It marks the date of the founding of FAO in 1945. The aim of the Day is to heighten public awareness of the world food problem and strengthen solidarity in the struggle against hunger, malnutrition and poverty.

In 1980, the General Assembly endorsed observance of the Day in consideration of the fact that "food is a requisite for human survival and well-being and a fundamental human necessity" (resolution 35/70 of 5 December 1980).

Today marks another moment to take a hard look at global policies toward ensuring food security and consequently eradicating hunger. The theme for this year "Agriculture cooperatives: key to feeding the world" acknowledges the significance of farmers' cooperatives in agriculture production. Cooperatives remain a key strategy toward ameliorating existing state of small-holder farming in developing countries.

With the challenges and inherent constraints that have characterized agriculture, World Food Day should aim at consciously addressing the escalating issues of famine, high food prices and worsening living of small-holder farmers.

World Food Day should be celebrated with the deepest sense of hope of reducing famine, hunger and increasing levels of malnutrition in developing countries.

By: Stephen Yeboah, Development Journalist and Practitioner, Geneva.

870 million people chronically undernourished - new hunger report

Undernourishment is linked to food insecurity. Picture source: Maplecroft

.....But there are hopeful signs that with extra effort the MDG target can be reached

Nearly 870 million people, or one in eight, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012, according to the new UN hunger report released October 9.

The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012 (SOFI), jointly published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP), presents better estimates of chronic undernourishment based on an improved methodology and data for the last two decades.

The vast majority of the hungry, 852 million, live in developing countries -- around 15 percent of their population -- while 16 million people are undernourished in developed countries.
The global number of hungry people declined by 132 million between 1990-92 and 2010-12, or from 18.6 percent to 12.5 percent of the world's population, and from 23.2 percent to 14.9 percent in developing countries - putting the MDG target within reach if adequate, appropriate actions are taken.

The number of hungry declined more sharply between 1990 and 2007 than previously believed. Since 2007-2008, however, global progress in reducing hunger has slowed and leveled off.
"In today's world of unprecedented technical and economic opportunities, we find it entirely unacceptable that more than 100 million children under five are underweight, and therefore unable to realize their full human and socio-economic potential, and that childhood malnutrition is a cause of death for more than 2.5 million children every year," say José Graziano da Silva, Kanayo F. Nwanze and Ertharin Cousin, respectively the Heads of FAO, IFAD and WFP, in a foreword to the report.

"We note with particular concern that the recovery of the world economy from the recent global financial crisis remains fragile. We nonetheless appeal to the international community to make extra efforts to assist the poorest in realizing their basic human right to adequate food. The world has the knowledge and the means to eliminate all forms of food insecurity and malnutrition," they add.
A "twin-track" approach is needed, based on support for broad-based economic growth (including in agriculture) and safety nets for the most vulnerable.

Impact of economic crisis
The new estimates suggest that the increase in hunger during 2007-2010 was less severe than previously thought. The 2008-2009 economic crisis did not cause  an immediate sharp economic slowdown in many developing countries as was feared could happen; the transmission of international food prices to domestic markets was less pronounced than was assumed at the time while many governments succeeded in cushioning the shocks and protecting the most vulnerable from the effects of the price spike.
The numbers of hunger released today are part of a revised series that go back to 1990. It uses updated information on population, food supply, food losses, dietary energy requirements and other factors. They also better estimate the distribution of food (as measured in terms of  dietary energy supply) within countries.
SOFI 2012 notes that the methodology does not capture the short-term effects of food price surges and other economic shocks. FAO is also working to develop a wider set of indicators to better capture dietary quality and other dimensions of food security.

MDG target within reach
The report suggests that if appropriate actions are taken to reverse the slowdown in 2007-08 and to feed the hungry, achieving the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of reducing by half the share of hungry people in the developing world by 2015 is still within reach. "If the average annual hunger reduction of the past 20 years continues through to 2015, the percentage of undernourishment in the developing countries would reach 12.5 percent - still above the MDG target of 11.6 percent, but much closer to it than previously estimated," the report says.

Asia leads in number of hungry; hunger rises in Africa
Among the regions, undernourishment in the past two decades decreased nearly 30 percent in Asia and the Pacific, from 739 million to 563 million, largely due to socio-economic progress in many countries in the region. Despite population growth, the prevalence of undernourishment in the region decreased from 23.7 percent to 13.9 percent.

Latin America and the Caribbean also made progress,  falling from 65 million hungry in 1990-1992 to 49 million in 2010-2012, while the prevalence of undernourishment dipped from 14.6 percent to 8.3 percent. But the rate of progress has slowed recently.
Africa was the only region where the number of hungry grew over the period, from 175 million to 239 million, with nearly 20 million added in the past four years. The prevalence of hunger, although reduced over the entire period, has risen slightly over the past three years, from 22.6 percent to 22.9 percent - with nearly one in four hungry. And in sub-Saharan Africa, the modest progress achieved in recent years up to 2007 was reversed, with hunger rising 2 percent per year since then.

Developed regions also saw the number of hungry rise, from 13 million in 2004-2006 to 16 million in 2010-2012, reversing a steady decrease in previous years from 20 million in 1990-1992.

Agricultural growth to reduce hunger and malnutrition
The report underlines that overall growth is necessary but not sufficient for a sustained hunger reduction. Agricultural growth is particularly effective in reducing hunger and malnutrition in poor countries since most of the poor depend on agriculture and related activities for at least part of their livelihoods. Agricultural growth involving smallholders, especially women, will be most effective in reducing extreme poverty and hunger when it generates employment for the poor.

Growth must not only benefit the poor, but must also be "nutrition-sensitive" in order to reduce various forms of malnutrition. Reducing hunger is about more than just increasing the quantity of food it is also about increasing the quality of food in terms of diversity, nutrient content and safety.

For even while 870 million people remain hungry, the world is increasingly faced with a double burden of malnutrition, with chronic undernourishment and micronutrient malnutrition co-existing with obesity, overweight  and related non-communicable diseases (affecting more than 1.4 billion people worldwide).
To date, the linkage between economic growth and better nutrition has been weak, the report says, arguing for an integrated agriculture-nutrition-health framework.

Social protection systems
Growth is clearly important, but it is not always sufficient, or rapid enough. Hence, social protection systems are needed to ensure that the most vulnerable are not left behind and can also participate in, contribute to and benefit from growth.

Measures such as cash transfers, food vouchers or health insurance are needed for the most vulnerable who often cannot take immediate advantage of growth opportunities. Social protection can improve nutrition for young children - an investment that will pay off in the future with better educated, stronger and healthier adults. With effective social protection complementing inclusive economic growth, hunger and malnutrition can be eliminated.

Source: International Fund for Agriculture Development (www.ifad.org), Press release No.: IFAD/61/2012