http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE65N02220100624?sp=true

Originally printed at http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/opinion/columnists/97150584.html

On April 20, at the Ninth Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice announced that the United States will conduct a “formal review” of its position in opposition to the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Declaration was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 13, 2007 when 144 countries voted in favor, 11 abstained, and four countries voted against it – the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Since then, all of the four countries that voted “no” have either reversed their positions or have initiated a process towards doing so.

The Declaration was developed over a 30-year process at the United Nations with the participation of thousands of indigenous peoples, nations, tribal governments and organizations from the United States and around the world, as well as a number of independent experts.

It recognizes and affirms a wide range of rights, including self-determination, land and natural resources, cultural rights and sacred sites protection, subsistence, treaty rights, health and social services, non-discrimination, environmental protection, education, language, and many others which indigenous peoples identified as essential to their dignity, survival and well-being.

During its review, the U.S. State Department will consult with various branches of the U.S. government. It will also consult and seek input from indigenous nations, tribes and organizations, as well as other interested parties including non-governmental organizations and human rights organizations.

The State Department’s face-to-face consultations with tribal nations and NGO’s began in June 2010, and it requested written submissions by July 15. Here are some points that may be helpful for those planning to have input into this process:

• In her April 20 statement, Rice recognized the call by tribal leaders for the U.S. to re-examine its position on the declaration as “an important recommendation that directly complements our commitment to work together with the international community on the many challenges that indigenous peoples face.” 
• The rights in the UNDRIP are consistent with a range of international human rights instruments that the United States has already ratified. These include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and more than 400 nation-to-nation treaties with indigenous nations.
• Many of the rights in the UNDRIP are already being implemented in a number of U.S. federal laws, policies and executive orders.
• Human rights and dignity are inherent and inalienable according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, established in 1948. The UNDRIP defines and elaborates the inherent rights of indigenous peoples.
• The UNDRIP affirms a wide range of rights which are directly relevant to the issues of greatest concern to Indian tribes, nations and communities in the United States today, and we encourage you to give examples from your nation and region.
• The rights recognized in the UNDRIP “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world,” according to Article 43 of the Declaration.
• The preamble of the Declaration says “Recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples in this Declaration will enhance cooperative and harmonious relations between the State (nations) and Indigenous Peoples.” The UNDRIP also provides a framework for problem-solving and conflict resolution.
• The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended in 2008 that the United States use the declaration “as a guide to interpret the state party’s obligations under the convention relating to indigenous peoples.”
• Full recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples is an essential component of a just and honorable U.S. human rights policy both at home and in the international arena.
• It will be very important for the U.S. government, at the end of its review process, to state its unqualified endorsement and support for the UNDRIP, and present specific plans for its implementation.

In summary, the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was developed over many years with the participation of thousands of indigenous peoples to be an integrated and inter-related human rights doctrine. It reflects the concerns and input of both indigenous peoples and countries. It is consistent with human rights principles as contained in international laws and norms, as well as the U.S. Constitution.

We call upon the U.S. government to endorse the U.N. Declaration in its entirety, without qualifications or exceptions, and to work in full partnership with indigenous peoples, tribal governments and nations to ensure its implementation.

Americans have faced the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Millions have lost their jobs, businesses have failed, housing prices have dropped, and savings were wiped out.

The failures that led to this crisis require bold action. We must restore responsibility and accountability in our financial system to give Americans confidence that there is a system in place that works for and protects them. We must create a sound foundation to grow the economy and create jobs.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE LEGISLATION 

Consumer Protections with Authority and Independence: Creates a new independent watchdog, housed at the Federal Reserve, with the authority to ensure American consumers get the clear, accurate information they need to shop for mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products, and protect them from hidden fees, abusive terms, and deceptive practices.

Ends Too Big to Fail Bailouts: Ends the possibility that taxpayers will be asked to write a check to bail out financial firms that threaten the economy by: creating a safe way to liquidate failed financial firms; imposing tough new capital and leverage requirements that make it undesirable to get too big; updating the Fed’s authority to allow system-wide support but no longer prop up individual firms; and establishing rigorous standards and supervision to protect the economy and American consumers, investors and businesses.

Advance Warning System: Creates a council to identify and address systemic risks posed by large, complex companies, products, and activities before they threaten the stability of the economy.

Transparency & Accountability for Exotic Instruments: Eliminates loopholes that allow risky and abusive practices to go on unnoticed and unregulated — including loopholes for over-the-counter derivatives, asset-backed securities, hedge funds, mortgage brokers and payday lenders.

Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance: Provides shareholders with a say on pay and corporate affairs with a non-binding vote on executive compensation and golden parachutes.

Protects Investors: Provides tough new rules for transparency and accountability for credit rating agencies to protect investors and businesses.

Enforces Regulations on the Books: Strengthens oversight and empowers regulators to aggressively pursue financial fraud, conflicts of interest and manipulation of the system that benefits special interests at the expense of American families and businesse

By CLYDE HABERMAN, New York Times

Published: June 3, 2010

As instances of business malefaction pile up — Enron, Madoff, Goldman Sachs, A.I.G., Toyota, BP, and we’re just clearing our throats with that lineup — the concept of corporate responsibility has acquired the sour air of an oxymoron for many people. Laura Berry is not one of them.

Ms. Berry is the executive director of an organization that bears that very idea in its name: the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. It doesn’t accept that doing good and doing well have to be mutually exclusive at American companies, recent experience notwithstanding. If ever the corporate world could use a healthy infusion of responsibility, this would seem to be the time.

“We come at this issue from a moral perspective, but we also come at it as investors,” Ms. Berry said. “I actually believe that God, whatever God is, set up the system so that it works better when we don’t cheat.”

Her center started out nearly 40 years ago as a bunch of Protestant groups concerned about companies’ profiting from the unpopular Vietnam War and the repugnant system of South African apartheid. Over the years, it has expanded to encompass Roman Catholic and Jewish organizations. Its interests have expanded as well, to include issues like access to capital, environmental protection, global warming, health care and sweatshop labor.

The organization’s members are 275 institutional investors, an amalgam of faith-based operations and secular groups focused on social justice issues. They see it as their duty to attend annual shareholders’ meetings and use proxy resolutions that call on corporations to pollute less, to pay more, to rein in greed and to dispel the opacity that makes much of today’s financial gimmickry incomprehensible to most people.

Their goal is not to be just a pain in someone else’s neck.

“We’re not this sort of scrappy little group of folks who want to cause trouble or point fingers at people and say, ‘Shame on you,’ ” Ms. Berry said. “We’re investors. We want corporations to do well. The money that we are stewards of goes to pay for retirement plans. It goes to pay for mission work all over the world. It goes to keep congregations and communities up and running. We’re certainly not rooting for disaster in the capital markets.”

Ms. Berry sat the other day in her office at the Interchurch Center, a collection of religious and ecumenical groups on Riverside Drive, popularly known to New Yorkers as “the God box.” Given the corporate horrors of recent vintage, she had cause to say that “we’re getting some notice for having been right” about the wrongness of certain behavior.

“We look at commercial markets through a slightly different lens,” she said. “We saw stuff early.” For example, “we filed the first resolutions about subprime lending with six financial institutions in 1993.”

Members of the interfaith center have introduced hundreds of shareholder resolutions on matters like executive pay, environmental risks, credit default swaps, toxic chemicals, child labor, slavery and other practices that range from unsavory to downright evil.

EVENTS like the financial meltdown of 2008 and now the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico suggest to Ms. Berry that groups like hers saw around corners, making them worthy of being listened to before disaster strikes.

“There are so many areas where we as investors see the places where systems con themselves into thinking that a major catastrophe can’t happen,” she said. “We’re concerned investors who try to identify risks that could be bad for humanity and bad for our portfolios. We feel strongly that these two things are deeply interconnected.”

Do corporations listen? Sometimes. Wal-Mart has changed some labor policies, Ms. Berry said, and some pharmaceutical companies have responded to “justice actions.” But in the corporate universe, turning a deaf ear remains a default position.

“Do they just pat us on the head, and send us away, and say, ‘Oh, it’s be-nice-to-nuns week,’ or whatever?” she said. Sure. “But they know we don’t go away,” she said. “We may be annoying. We may be trivialized. But we do our homework, and we don’t go away.”

And it could be argued, Ms. Berry said, that her group’s faith-based members are “the ultimate long-term investors.” She laughed, to seem not to be taking herself too seriously. Nonetheless, she said, “Our investment horizon is eternity.”

E-mail: haberman@nytimes.com

A version of this article appeared in print on June 4, 2010, on page A19 of the New York edition.

As outlined by the Chairman and CEO Rex W. Tillerson, the company will continue to address the challenge of sustainability by:

- Maintaining its focus on safety and environmental protection in all its operations;
- advocating for an integrated set of solutions to today’s major energy challenges emphasizing the power of technology to increase energy efficiency, help address climate change risks, and develop all economical energy sources to meet the needs of today and future generations;
- remaining committed to transparent and ethical practices to respect human rights and to being a positive force for economic development in the communities where we operate;
- expanding the bounds of innovation in ways that allow society to meet the challenge of rising energy demand while mitigating the impact of rising greenhouse gas emissions; and,
- engaging with those who take an interest in our business and participate in constructive, progress-oriented partnerships that address global challenges and help societies gain sustainable benefits from our presence.

For the second time, an independent External Assessment Panel provided feedback on the report’s strengths and future improvement opportunities. A summary of the Panel’s comments has been posted at http://www.exxonmobil.com/panelfeedback

The company’s achievements in 2009 include:

- Best-ever combined employee and contractor workforce lost-time incident rates
- A 13% reduction in the volume of hydrocarbons spilled from nonmarine sources since 2008
- Zero spills from ExxonMobil owned and operated marine vessels
- A 23% reduction in upstream hydrocarbon flaring since 2008
- Investment in algae-based biofuels research
- $860 million spent with U.S.-based minority- and women-owned businesses
- Combined corporate, employee, and retiree giving community investments of $235 million
- Provided dedicated human rights awareness training to eight priority affiliates

ExxonMobil welcomes your comments and requests for a hard copy at citizenship@exxonmobil.com.

I was at a meeting recently where someone said, “Agriculture is a culprit, a victim, and a solution,” which poignantly encapsulated the challenges and promise of agriculture in the future. Agriculture is responsible for problematic
emissions—particularly methane and nitrous oxide, which are generated by manures, livestock, and soil management, including nitrogen additions, and are considerably more potent than carbon dioxide. Agriculture stands to be greatly affected by climate change, from crop ranges to yields and water allocation. Yet farmers can do more than minimize their impact.

So, what does this climate bill ultimately mean for farmers, for the role of agriculture in the climate debate, and ultimately for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?

First and foremost, the K-L bill follows in the footsteps of the Waxman-Markey legislation, passed last summer, by establishing an agricultural and forestry offsets program. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency predicted that such a program could provide annual net benefits to farmers as high as $18 billion—an amount that could fundamentally change the way America farms. Yet, while these benefits are attractive, achieving true GHG reductions must mean that legislation is incentivizing effective and real practices.

Under the K-L bill, the offsets program is run under the USDA with significant input from an advisory committee that could be made up of academics, business representatives, NGOs, and government officials.  Though the projects that will be eligible for the offsets program are not officially set in stone, the bill does outline a “minimum number of practices” which must be considered for inclusion by the advisory committee. The list of practices is largely similar to
the one revealed in the Waxman-Markey bill last year after House Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin Peterson added a 50-plus page markup to the bill. The full list of “potential practices” is a diverse array, including altered tillage, cover cropping, nitrogen fertilization efficiency, farming methods used on certified organic farms, pasture-based livestock systems, reductions in animal management emissions, rotational grazing, crop rotations, and methods for increasing carbon sequestration in soils.

One notable difference, absent from the Waxman-Markey bill and other earlier versions of the Senate bill, is the inclusion of certified organic agriculture practices. A variety of research has found organic agricultural practices can increase carbon storage and decrease fossil fuel energy requirements and GHG emissions.

The K-L bill also goes one step further than just a carbon offset program. It establishes a “Carbon Conservation Program” designed to encourage GHG reductions and sequestration activities for landowners and others with grazing contracts not eligible for the offset program. The CCP does what a lot of farmers wanted: it provides a way to reward the early adopters of beneficial practices. It will provide incentives for farmers already practicing organic practices—or cover cropping or reduced tillage—to continue to do so. This is vital, but also has the potential to backfire if the practices being rewarded are not actually providing climate change benefits.

The bill’s list includes several practices that have questionable benefits to the climate and that could create additional environmental problems.  Featured prominently is no-till agriculture, which is widely associated with Roundup-Ready genetically modified crops and often accompanied by increased herbicide use to control weeds in lieu of tilling. Biofuels are also weighted heavily in the
bill, even though certain kinds have been shown not to reduce greenhouse gases. The inclusion of composting in the bill ought to be positive, but “compost” can sometimes be a cover word for chemical-laden sewage sludge.

Close board oversight and quality methodologies will be crucial to verifying that any practices promoted by an offset program actually have the science to back up their measurable net reductions in GHG emissions. If a practice such as no-till
agriculture reduces carbon dioxide emissions by limiting the number of tractor
passes on a field, but simultaneously increases emissions of nitrous oxide—a
greenhouse gas 300 times as strong as carbon dioxide—and use of herbicides, the
overall benefit to the climate could be nil or worse. Technical assistance and outreach for farmers and landowners will also be incredibly important, but thus far, little research exists to understand the types of farms and farmers willing and able to participate in offset initiatives.

A climate bill that establishes a carbon offset program in agriculture and forestry is only going to be effective if those offsets are legitimate and if they are accompanied by strong efforts in other sectors. Unfortunately, the offshore drilling, expansion of carbon sequestration and storage practices, and nuclear power touted in the K-L bill not only have questionable benefits for reducing GHG emissions, but carry serious environmental risks such as has been clearly demonstrated by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Agriculture can and should be part of the solution by reducing its own emissions and sequestering carbon with proven techniques, but it’s not the only solution, and it cannot stand alone in a climate bill that falls so short of true environmental progress.

Source: Grist – the Latest from Grist by Meredith Niles

Date: May 17, 2010 11:13:53 AM EDT

Blog post by Timi Gerson, Director of Advocacy

American Jewish World Service

Monsanto has donated $4 million in seeds to Haiti, sending 60 tons of conventional hybrid corn and vegetable seed, followed by 70 more tons of corn seed last week with an additional 345 tons of corn seed to come during the next year. Yet the number one recommendation of a recent report by Catholic Relief Services on post-earthquake Haiti is to focus on local seed fairs and not to introduce new or “improved” varieties at this time.

Some tough questions need to be asked and answered before we’ll know whether or not Monsanto’s donation will help or hurt long-term efforts to rebuild food sufficiency and sovereignty in Haiti. Here are five of them:

* What do Haitians think? Do rural organizations representing Haiti’s farmers actually want these seeds from Monsanto or not? We know at least one spokesperson for Haitian farmers isn’t interested. Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Peasant Movement of Papay and the National Peasant Movement of the Papay Congress said in a recent article published by Grassroots International that “if people start sending hybrid, NGO seeds, that’s the end of Haitian agriculture.”

* Will Haitian farmers be able to use existing farming methods with these seeds or do they require a completely different set of techniques – for example, is it possible for these seeds to be banked year to year for use in more than one planting cycle? Hybrid seeds don’t have a great track record for re-planting, which means that farmers typically must buy new seeds every year.

* Does cultivation of these seeds require expensive new inputs and/or chemicals that may negatively impact the environment and soil over the long-term? Hybrids typically require a lot of fertilizers, pesticides, etc. and according to the press release, these will be provided through the USAID’s 5-year WINNER program. When the WINNER program is done, will farmers find themselves reliant on external inputs they can’t afford or access? What will the inputs leave behind in terms of the soil’s condition?

* Will the rest of the Monsanto seeds sent to Haiti over the next year be conventional or genetically modified (GM)? GM seeds are as controversial in Haiti as they are here at home. It is critical that Haitians themselves are in charge of the decision to plant or not plant GM; they first need to know what is being offered to them in the first place.

* Will the Monsanto seeds (whether conventional or GM) affect indigenous seed diversity by mixing with them and contaminating existing seed strains? Large influxes of non-native seeds have touched off controversy and alarmed environmental activists and peasant farmers from Mexico to Malaysia to Mali.

Agricultural development is critical for Haiti and was even before the earthquake. Lambi Fund of Haiti, a partner organization of American Jewish World Service (AJWS), has been working with rural communities to create indigenous seed banks, building expertise in farming techniques and using environmentally-friendly methods to renew depleted Haitian soil.

Advocates for common sense food aid, including AJWS, are asking Congress to spend the $150 million dollars requested by the Obama Administration for Food Aid to Haiti on resources that will help Haiti feed itself for the long-term. You can make your voice heard by signing this petition.

Monsanto’s donation – just like the US government’s in-kind food aid donations – should empower rather than dis-empower the rural communities working to grow food for their country over the long term. More to the point, the communities most affected by these donations should decide whether they want this aid at all and if so, what they want and when they want it. It’s unclear in this case if Monsanto or anyone else has asked them.