1504 : Section in Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act requiring companies to disclose taxes, royalties, and other payments made to the US and foreign governments

1.5 billion: People living on less than $2 a day in “resource-rich” countries

$30 million: Value of Malibu mansion owned by Teodoro Nguema Obiang, son of oil-rich Equatorial Guinea’s dictator

1: Number of white crystal-covered “Bad Tour” gloves in Teodoro’s Michael Jackson memorabilia collection valued at $3 million (See “US vs. One Crystal-Covered ‘Bad Tour’ Glove” court filing.)

270: Days after enactment that Congress required the SEC to issue a final rule (regulation) to implement the law

559: Days since Dodd-Frank enacted into law by President Obama

289: Days that the SEC has been in violation of the law

13: Months after Dodd-Frank that the European Commission issued a legislative proposal that would place a similar requirement on oil and mining companies

0: Host country laws oil companies have been able to cite that would prohibit disclosure of payment information as required by Dodd-Frank

3: Commissioners eligible to vote on the final rule (Chairwoman Schapiro and Commissioner Paredes are recused because of conflicts of interest.)

$50 million: Estimated amount Exxon says that it would cost to comply with law, even though it provides no backing data for the estimate and presumably already collects and tracks payment information

$41 billion: Exxon’s 2011 profits — a 35 percent increase over 2010

$100,000: Cost Barrick Gold, world’s largest gold producer, says it would cost them to comply

$1.2 trillion: Approximate combined assets under management of investors who have told SEC to issue a strong final rule

3: Companies and industry associations (Shell, Exxon and API) who say that payment disclosure “could allow terrorists” to target a project

2: Nigerian oil workers unions who say it would actually make them safer

5: Companies who met SEC Commissioner Gallagher on December 2, 2011, to lobby for a weak final rule—Shell, Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Occidental

15: Oil and mining companies who “support” the voluntary Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) program who are also members of American Petroleum Institute (API). API has threatened to sue the SEC to keep payment info secret.

5: Companies on the EITI board who are also API members

11: Luxury sports cars worth at least $5 million belonging to Teodoro seized by French police in Paris as part of an investigation into possible corruption

20: Days after auto seizure that President Obiang scored his son a UNESCO envoy post in Paris

$5,000: Teodoro’s reported monthly government salary as Equatorial Guinea’s minister of agriculture

2010: Year Equatorial Guinea was expelled from EITI for failing to meet its minimum transparency requirements

5: Companies producing oil and gas in Equatorial Guinea who will be covered by Dodd-Frank (Exxon, Marathon, Hess, Noble, and Mitsui produce the vast majority of oil and gas in Equatorial Guinea. The first four are members of the American Petroleum Institute. API sent a letter to the SEC on January 19 saying it would be unlawful to issue a final rule to implement the Dodd-Frank provision.)

No data: Percent of Equatorial Guinea’s population living below the poverty line. An estimated 60 percent lived on less than $1 a day according to a 2006 UN report.

700,000: Population in Equatorial Guinea still in the dark about the country’s finances and waiting for full implementation of Dodd-Frank Section 1504

Ian Gary is the Senior Policy Manager for Extractive Industries at Oxfam America and the author of Oxfam America report Ghana’s Big Test: Oil’s Challenge to Democratic Development. He has been quoted in major media outlets, has testified twice before the US Congress, and has given presentations at the World Bank, the UN, and other venues.

Most people probably weren’t paying attention to the Washington Post business page on Dec 25. (Myself, I was trying to corral two toddlers and navigate a sea of Legos and torn paper). But for people in poor countries who are trying to lead their societies out of poverty, Christmas day brought good news: USAID is changing the way it works to get closer to the people it’s trying to help.

Dy Yong keeps the books for the rice Bank Committee so that everybody can see how it run and maintained at the Rice cooperative in Takom village, Battambang. The rice store committee has many members and they introduce villagers to the principles of trading rice to give them security at a much reduced rate than the market offers. Photo by Jim Holmes/Oxfam.

Since Administrator Rajiv Shah came on board, USAID has been trying to rebuild itself so it can build stronger partnerships with poor countries and their people. It’s based in the reality of good development, which is that development isn’t something done by USAID—development is done by poor people and poor countries themselves. In order to be a better partner, USAID needs to get closer to poor people to know better what they actually need and want. That means having more USAID people talking and working directly with people in poor countries.

This isn’t a new idea; it’s called “partnership,” and the hard-working people at USAID have been trying to do it since the agency was created 50 years ago—with varying degrees of success. The problem is that budget cuts in the 90’s gutted the agency’s ability to do this well. Budget cutters defined “efficiency” as more dollars managed by fewer people, rather than judging the depth and effectiveness of USAID’s partnerships. As a result, things deteriorated to the point where USAID contracting officers were each managing five times the amount of money that federal guidelines said they should. By necessity, USAID’s business model was reduced to “shoveling money out the door” rather than getting to know countries, communities, leaders, and their needs.

Increasingly, to manage this, USAID starting relying on “intermediaries”; often well-meaning partners like big NGOs and contractors that could manage the money for them. US-based NGOs and contractors each have distinct roles and contributions to make to development. But in this case, the way they were used was both a substitute for USAID expanding its own knowledge and expertise, as well as an impediment to change leaders in poor countries being able to tell the US government what they really needed.

Administrator Shah is trying to change that. The Dec. 25 Washington Post article unveiled his effort to get USAID back to a better business model, by cutting out the middlemen and putting more emphasis on building relationships directly with the people who are making development happen in their own countries. These are exactly the kind of people that the United States wants on our side: not because of charity or because they necessarily like us, but because they want the same things we do: a world that can fight back against problems like poverty, injustice, and disease.

These reforms have a rather bureaucratic sounding name: “Implementation and Procurement Reform.” But what they mean in practice is that USAID is making an effort to get back on the ground to work more closely with the people it’s trying to help. That means better value for American taxpayers, more power for change leaders in poor countries, and ultimately better progress in the fight against poverty.

So, how do you pull together a full-length album featuring a team of 11 producers and 50 local performers that highlights the diversity of the Democratic Republic of Congo’s music scene while relating to listeners around the world?

Well, if you’re Damon Albarn, the former front man of hit British band Blur and the mastermind behind digital group Gorillaz, that certainly helps. Teaming up with Oxfam this July, the innovative musician traveled to the DRC to collaborate with local talent and drum up renewed hope for an area often otherwise seen in a negative light.

The product of what sounds like an unforgettable week’s work in the country’s capital, the album, “Kinshasa One Two,” is a creative blend of voices and genres featuring an extensive range of international artists, including T-E-E-D, Richard Russell, Kwes and volunteer talent who jumped at the chance to showcase their work on a global scale. Described as “African pop futurism” by SPIN Magazine and having already received a great review from the Telegraph, the record seems set to be a success for both Oxfam and Albarn, who has kept a live account of its progress on the ground and since his return.

As he told BBC Radio One in a recent interview, the project’s focus aimed to center around capturing moments of Congolese life and mixing traditional sounds with modern technology to create something entirely new. Simply from the homemade instruments displayed alongside Macbooks and turntables throughout the project’s trailer, it is clear that “Kinshasa One Two” marks a turning point in charity-sponsored productions used to promote awareness and aid for numerous causes for the past several decades.

The experience has without a doubt made a significant impact on Albarn himself, who is already planning another similar collaboration in South Africa’s Soweto. Noting that the continent is our future in finding solutions to many of our own current problems, you can’t help but notice the star’s enthusiasm for his new cause. After listening to a few songs, it is near impossible not to join him.

Haven’t had a chance to download “Kinshasa One Two yet?” Preview the album’s debut single, “Hallo,” on the project’s website and take a look at the full download on iTunes or Fairsharemusic. You can also catch up on behind the scenes action on Tumblr, and show your appreciation for Albarn and his team on Twitter at @DRCMusic.

The movement for reform to our flawed food system is growing stronger every day. Cooks, consumers, and campaigners alike are waking up in increasing numbers to the dangerous and unsustainable impacts of the way much of our food is grown, sold, and consumed.

This progress could not come at a more important moment. Our global food system works only for the few–for most of us it is broken. It leaves consumers lacking sufficient power and knowledge about what we buy and eat, and almost a billion people hungry worldwide, millions of whom live here in the U.S.

The failure of the system flows from failures of government–failures to regulate, to correct, to protect, to resist, to invest–which mean that companies, interest groups, and elites are able to plunder our resources and to redirect flows of finance, knowledge, and food to suit themselves.

And now we have entered an age of growing crisis, of shock piled upon shock: Vertiginous food price spikes and oil price hikes and devastating weather events that catch us somehow unaware and unprepared. Behind each of these slow-burn crises continue to smolder creeping and insidious climate change; growing inequality, chronic hunger, and vulnerability; and the erosion of our natural resources. The broken food system is both a driver of this fragility and highly vulnerable to it.

But all of this can change, and in fact it already is. Today Oxfam is launching our new campaign GROW. GROW is a campaign for the billions of us who eat food and the one and a half billion men and women who produce it. GROW is a campaign for a better future where we expose and overcome the threats we face and help build movements for a new era of prosperity.

This better future is one where we grow what we need, so everyone has enough to eat, always. Getting there will take all the energy, ingenuity, and political will that humankind can muster. We must mount powerful campaigns to win significant transformations in how our society faces common threats and manages scarce resources.

GROW may be ambitious, but we will seek practical changes on the substantive issues that keep poor people hungry. We will campaign for investments in small-scale food producers to increase their productivity, self-reliance, climate resilience, and economic opportunity. We will campaign for an end to excessive speculation in agricultural commodities that drives food price spikes. We will campaign to modernize food aid so that 50 cents of every dollar is no longer wasted serving industry lobbyists ahead of hungry people and the American taxpayer. We will campaign to stop giveaways to the corn-ethanol industry that drive up food prices. We will campaign to regulate land and water grabs to instill much needed transparency and sanity into global land deals.

The powerful elites in poor countries that seize land and block reform; the special interest lobbies of rich countries that tip the playing field against small farmers on the backs of taxpayers; the multinational traders who profit as food markets unravel; the financial institutions that bet on them doing so, these will be our targets. We will name them, and we will shame those who try to protect the status quo at the expense of the hungry.

Governments must renew their purpose as custodians of the public good rather than allowing these vested interests to set the agenda. And we must be hold elected officials accountable if they don’t, demanding change at the ballot box. We must build power and ensure politicians quiver in fear that we might use it.

Responsible businesses can help enable this future of prosperity and many already are. They are breaking ranks with protectors of the status quo, strengthening the will of politicians and governments to act. They are embracing effective regulation rather than undermining it. They are directing their business models and practices towards addressing the challenges we face.

But they must do better and citizens and customers must demand this of them. The incentives under which businesses operate must shift so that they can no longer impose their social and environmental costs on others and instead flourish in their responsible behavior.

Inspired by such ideas, and motivated by a desire a for better future, organizations, businesses, movements, and networks for a new prosperity are appearing, growing, and connecting up all over the world. Poor farmers are demanding fair shares from national budgets and market chains; leaders and scientists are working on sustainable agriculture; environmentalists are calling for a healthier and safer future; women are claiming their rights to opportunity; communities are leading healthier lifestyles; movements are forming—such as Fair Trade, which links ethical consumers and the private sector; and grassroots campaigns are clamoring for the right to food to be respected. The list is long and growing.

We are proud to stand alongside them. We will join their efforts to make practical positive changes in how we produce, consume, share, and manage food and other resources to move beyond this age of crisis to a new age of prosperity. Soon there will be nine billion of us on the planet and for better or worse we are all in this together. For those of you looking to be leaders in the fight for a better future, we hope you will join us and GROW.

One percent. That’s the amount that the ONE campaign is looking to go to foreign aid programs throughout the world – one percent from the US budget.

But let me throw out some other percentages about aid.

Forty two percent – the percent of Americans who believe that cutting aid programs would result in a very large reduction to the US deficit.

Seventy two percent – the number of Americans who favor significant cuts in assistance to other countries.

Twenty five percent – the amount that most Americans believe goes to foreign aid right now.

Here is one more percentage. Forty percent of the world’s population – that’s more than 2.5 billion people – live in poverty, struggling to survive on less than $2 per day. That’s 40 percent of the entire world’s population who can barely feed their families – who can’t educate their children – and who have no access to lifesaving medicines when they are sick.

Yet, right now in Congress, proposals to make absolutely draconian cuts – cuts that would cost lives – to foreign aid are very real possibilities.

And here is the thing – our math is really, really off.

Here are the real statistics.

On February 19th, the House of Representatives voted to cut programs that fight AIDS, malaria and hunger by 40 percent. Programs that promote long-term economic growth were slashed up to 30 percent. International disaster assistance was cut by 67 percent. Refugee assistance – cut by 45 percent. Critical humanitarian aid programs – cut by 42 percent.

But possibly most important – right now, less than 1 percent of the US budget is spent on lifesaving, poverty-fighting assistance. Less than 1 percent.

But we can turn these numbers around. Proposed cuts affect real programs and real lives.

With less than 1 percent of the budget going to foreign aid, we could support powerful lifesaving programs – programs like Feed the Future, which prioritize agriculture and food security for millions of small farmers around the world.

With less than 1 percent, we could give lifesaving assistance like food, water and shelter to millions of people suffering from devastating natural disasters like the Haiti earthquake or conflicts like in Darfur.

With less than 1 percent, we could support the Global Health Initiative, a program that will help to strengthen overall health systems, so countries can care for their own people.

So here is one last percent – 100 percent.

One hundred percent – that’s the number of you that we need to speak up, today.

We only have until March 18th to get the message across. Tell Congress that these cuts cost lives – and that 100 percent of you support 1 percent of the budget going to help the 40 percent of the world’s population who so deeply need this help.

That’s a percentage we can get behind. Otherwise, its just plain bad math.

-Sarah Peck, Oxfam America

Women farmers work in Malawi, a country affected by the MCC, Feed the Future and the Global Health Initiative. Credit: Abbie Trayler-Smith, Oxfam GB/International.

This week, President Obama sent his budget blueprint to Congress for Fiscal Year 2012. There are two ways to measure this budget: how brawny is it, and how brainy is it?

On brawn, the budget clearly falls short. Obama proposes spending about $27 billion on development and humanitarian assistance — less than the amount Americans spent on candy in 2009. Right now, more than forty percent of the world’s population – 2.7 billion people – live in poverty, struggling to survive on less than $2 per day. That $27 billion essentially adds up to $10 for every poor person around the world; this clearly falls short of a “game-changing” investment.

But of course the question isn’t just about how much we’re spending. The most important question is about how and where we’re investing that money. And here—on the test of brains—Obama’s budget holds much more promise.

For the first time, US government decisions about how to spend anti-poverty dollars are being driven by an official Presidential Policy on Global Development —in effect, a clear strategy about how the United States intends to fight global poverty. This is important because it means we finally have a definition of what success looks like, and we can hold our aid accountable for what results it actually delivers. And that’s important because poverty is not only a moral outrage, but a clear challenge to the United States. Poverty has a corrosive effect on countries’ stability and prosperity. This, in turn, permits threats to the United States to fester. For example, if health systems in African countries can’t protect their own people’s health, it makes it easier for West Nile virus to get on a plane and infect people in the US.

In keeping with the President’s new policy, the US government is pursuing a series of reforms to the US aid system, meant to support citizens and governments around the world who are taking the lead to end poverty in their own countries. Some of these reforms actually began in under President George W. Bush. Obama has continued some of these reforms and added new ones, so that the new budget supports a number of worthy reforms:

As Congress considers the budget, its worth keeping an eye on these reforms. Will they stick? Or will politics overwhelm this smarter approach? Reforms that transfer information, capacity and control to recipient countries and citizens are key to making all our global poverty fighting investments most effective. The biggest question is whether this budget has enough brawn to make these brainy reforms work in practice.

-Gregory Adams, director of aid effectiveness, Oxfam America

This post originally appeared on Politics of Poverty: Ideas and analysis from Oxfam America’s policy experts.

What do doctors, Republicans and nonprofits that fight poverty and global disease all have in common?

They all support the global health reforms that are happening right now. As Congress heads into budget deliberations, these folks are urging Congress to support the budget for global health. Check out this letter running in Politico this week:

The US Global Health Initiative (GHI) continues President Bush’s legacy by:

To learn more, check out a recent article by Oxfam CEO Ray Offenheiser about the US helping people tackle their health challenges, instead of tackling those challenges for them.

To add your voice to these doctors, Republicans and nonprofits, just type the message “I support global health” in the comments section below.

-Porter McConnell, Aid Effectiveness Team, Oxfam America

Have you checked out foreignassistance.gov yet? It’s kind of a big deal. It may seem like just another government data website to jaded Washington types, but it’s actually a big deal for poor people in aid-dependent countries. The new website is commonly referred to as the “Aid Dashboard.”

It’s the follow-through on a promise made in July when the Obama Administration unveiled its plan to meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. The Aid Dashboard aims to give the public a window into how and where US development dollars are spent. And it’s not just a mash of numbers; the Dashboard uses dynamic graphics to allow stakeholders to picture US foreign assistance investments easily by geography, sector or time period.

So, what gives it the potential to make it a big deal? The point is what it can do. You remember those NBC public service announcements, “The More You Know”? The more people in poor countries who know what donors are up to in their own backyards, the more they can hold their governments responsible for how they use the aid money that comes in. Citizen watchdog groups, journalists and local businesses can use this comprehensive information to blow the whistle on aid dollars that have disappeared or weren’t used to meet their needs. The more citizens know, the more they can fight corruption themselves.

I’m really excited that the US is finally taking aid transparency seriously. It’s no small task trying to get all 26 US agencies that deliver foreign aid on the same page (note that’s the end goal — the beta version today only includes spending by USAID and State). But this is just a first step. I’m still left wondering about the people this matter to the most. How user-friendly is this data to aid recipients and does it answer what they’re asking for?

In a country like Cambodia, where aid accounts for half the national budget, will this online tool help their citizens? Consider that less than 2 percent of the population can access the Internet and read English. Outside of the government, there are probably only 10 people who can access the database and analyze it. To the average Cambodian, that’s not transparency yet. But they’ve taken the first step. And then it’s up to the US embassies and USAID mission staff to disseminate the information in a more accessible form. But do they have the mandate and capacity to translate the information into local languages? Will they do extensive outreach with local civil society organizations, budget monitoring groups, legislatures and supreme auditing bodies? Most importantly, what’s their incentive to report to the country and even give data to the country’s own aid information management system? The information is only as good as it is usable. Just a few more steps to take and we can magnify anti-corruption efforts by citizens around the world.

The Aid Dashboard is a good start, and I hope to see its longevity cemented by Congress. They have the power to make it stick, and in fact, various bipartisan bills with broad support have already called for more transparency of US aid dollars. Seems like a no-brainer. Over the next year, USAID and State are road-testing the Aid Dashboard in three highly aid-dependent countries to learn what information is the most valuable to those countries. In the meantime, the creators are eager to get feedback on this work-in-progress. Be sure to click on the site’s Contact Us tab and let them know how to improve the data they provide so it can help citizens control their own development.

To learn more about what the lack of transparency means on the ground, check out Oxfam’s report, Information: Let Countries Know What Donors Are Doing. And remember kids, the more you know, the more you can do.

-Archana Palaniappan, Aid Effectiveness Team, Oxfam America

Oxfam America’s Porter McConnell shares some news on USAID Forward.

Remember when I told you about the sexy procurement reforms to our foreign assistance that put poor people and their governments in charge of fighting poverty?

The procurement reform just got some company. Recently, USAID formally announced USAID Forward, a bundle of reforms to make USAID more effective.

The reforms are a direct result of demands from US development professionals, citizens of countries where we provide assistance, and governments trying to do right by their people. When we visited Afghanistan, Cambodia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Rwanda, and southern Sudan, here’s what people told us:

1. Building capacity of countries to lead in their own development (“Implementation and Procurement Reform”)

We heard in Kenya: A malaria control official explained to us that the Ministry of Health trains local teams to do indoor residual spraying of houses to prevent malaria. When the US lends a hand, they get US organizations to come in and spray then they leave. But since houses must be re-sprayed regularly to keep malaria at bay, and the US hasn’t trained the locals to take over, the Kenyan official worries that “Kenyans aren’t any better prepared to do it themselves next time.”

USAID is delivering: “USAID’s Procurement Reform Group was charged with exploring ways to make significant changes in how USAID’s assistance is designed and delivered in order to build local leadership and capacity…In FY 2013 USAID will obligate no less than 14% of its program funds through partner country systems in 18 countries. In FY 2015 USAID will obligate no less than 20% of its program funds through partner country systems in 25 countries.”

2. Getting the right people for the job, who know the country where they’re working (“Talent Management”)

We heard in Cambodia: A USAID staff member reported that “when we have a planning meeting with Defense, there are five of them sitting across the table for every one person from USAID. The agency is completely understaffed, especially if we are expected to lead on development issues.”

USAID is delivering: The agency will triple mid-level hiring by increasing the cap on mid-level Development Leadership Initiative hires from 30 to 95 per year to reverse the 38% decline in its workforce between 1990 and 2007. USAID will also now be able to officially classify the Foreign Service Nationals (FSNs) who do the lion’s share of USAID’s work as “experts”, which will lead to a more talented and nimble USAID.

3. Restore USAID’s capacity to get creative in tackling poverty (New USAID Bureau of Policy, Planning and Learning)

We heard in southern Sudan: A USAID staff member told us that “we no longer have our intellectual horses..to tackle philosophical but also organizational and operational issues in development, to be more innovative, to be more adaptive…By losing our most experienced staff [over the years], we’ve also lost a lot of our historical institutional learning. Any change should restore our capacity to lead with ideas, and should respond to the question of how it will strengthen us.”

USAID is delivering: “To make smart, informed decisions, USAID has created a new Bureau of Policy, Planning and Learning (PPL) that will serve as the intellectual nerve center for the Agency. PPL will promulgate cutting-edge creative and evidence-based development policies.”

These are just a few of the changes happening at USAID. To check out the new USAID Forward website, click here. To find out more about what Oxfam heard from people in the field, click here.

- Porter McConnell, Aid Effectiveness Team, Oxfam America

Photo caption: Vendors in Juba’s Konyokonyo market have benefitted from USAID’s microfinance program in southern Sudan. Photo: Omar Ortez/Oxfam America

What if I told you that a little-known bureaucratic process called “Implementation and Procurement Reform,” IPR for short, was one of the sexiest victories for poor people in years? Bear with me as I stick this through the wonk-speak translator:

Implementation /imp-le-men-ta-shun/ n., everything the US Agency for International Development (USAID) does to fight poverty.

Procurement /pro-kür-ment/ n., how USAID gets what it needs to fight poverty.

Reform /re-form/ n., changes to how aid is delivered so poor people get the help they need most.

Put it all together, and you’ve got big changes for how and where USAID does what it does to fight poverty and get people the help they need most. Pretty exciting, right?

You’re probably thinking, yeah yeah, you already told us big changes were coming two weeks ago when President Obama announced the new global development policy. How is IPR news?

It’s taking the concept of country ownership and making it real. In 2005, the U.S. promised — along with other countries — to deliver the kind of assistance citizens and their governments need, not just what we want to give them. Put simply, we don’t do development, people develop themselves. So, the job of donors like the U.S. is to transfer information, capacity and control to the true agents of change, poor people themselves. Implementation & Procurement Reform is a plan for how the U.S. will help citizens and their governments build their own capacity instead of setting up our own systems like we used to do.

So, we know it’s a good thing, but how do we know it will happen? This is where it gets really exciting: USAID has set itself concrete short and medium-term targets to get it done. The targets they set for themselves are laser-focused on results and fighting global poverty not just in the short-term, but for good.

To recap, we don’t do development, people develop themselves and this little-known bureaucratic process called IPR is going to change the way the U.S. helps people around the world develop themselves. And our job as U.S. citizens who care about global poverty is to make sure the U.S. government meets and exceeds their ambitious targets, no matter what special interests get in the way. Any questions?

– Porter McConnell, Aid Effectiveness Team, Oxfam America