The work of Oxfam’s partners in Japan now includes:
Oxfam America is accepting funds to support these and other efforts.
]]>We are providing funds to organizations in Japan that can assist people who might otherwise have difficulty accessing government aid. Migrant workers and immigrants, for example, who don’t speak Japanese. We’re also funding a partner focused on assisting nursing mothers and their babies. As the disaster response evolves, we'll continue to identify Japanese partners who can address unmet needs on the ground.
The Japanese government is a world leader in humanitarian preparedness and response, and it is carrying out a huge aid effort involving its armed forces, police, firefighters, and local authorities. We’d like to complement that work in whatever ways we can. But our particular expertise involves delivering clean water and sanitation facilities, and in Japan—where there are good water and sewage systems and enough water engineers to repair those that are damaged—it is unlikely that our help will be needed. There are clearly serious obstacles to getting supplies to people in need, but the government is in a better position to handle those difficulties than most outside agencies would be.
Oxfam doesn’t have a role in a nuclear catastrophe. The corporate and government authorities who are responsible for the power plants need to take full responsibility for preventing and responding to radiation releases.
When the earthquake struck, there were systems in place to warn people and protect them from what was coming, but the power of the events that followed went beyond everyone’s imagination.
What really amazes me is that a 9.0-magnitude earthquake has struck a densely populated island country, and people are not even talking about it. Clearly it triggered a tsunami and a nuclear crisis that have had far-reaching effects, but there’s very little mention of direct damage from the earthquake itself. I think that when all is said and done, Japan’s earthquake preparedness—such as its strict building codes—will turn out to have had a very positive effect.
There is no time when poverty, vulnerability, and exclusion become so apparent as at the moment of an emergency. So often, the people who suffer the deepest losses in an event like an earthquake or cyclone are the ones who couldn’t afford to live in a safe house in a safe location. When Oxfam sets out to help a community recover from a disaster, we look for opportunities to help its most vulnerable members make long-term improvements in their social and economic conditions.
When the world is hurting, you want to do something. In this case, Oxfam won’t mount a major humanitarian response, but I’m glad we’re able to offer our solidarity and support to the people of Japan.
]]>All over the world, Oxfam is responding to disasters, rushing clean water and other resources to survivors. But we are carrying out no such effort in Japan. Why?
Unlike many countries around the world, Japan has had both the means and the will to invest seriously in disaster preparedness and response. The government can deliver large amounts of aid as quickly as the conditions on the ground permit, calling for specific outside resources (such as more search-and-rescue teams) as needed. So far, Oxfam’s particular expertise in emergencies—including delivering water and sanitation facilities—has not been required.
But in every humanitarian emergency, there are those who struggle to get access to the help they need. Oxfam Japan is channeling funds to local organizations that aim to fill some of the gaps in aid—providing a hotline for non-Japanese speakers like migrant workers, for example, and assisting nursing mothers. Oxfam America is accepting funds to support their efforts.
“Oxfam is an agency focused on poverty and rights, and we prioritize the needs of women in emergencies,” says Michael Delaney, Oxfam America’s director of humanitarian response. “Thanks to the strong foundations laid by the Japanese people, our role in this emergency will be small, but our hearts go out to everyone affected by the disaster.”
]]>Sorn says she spends less time weeding her fields than she used to since she started using a mechanical weeding device she helped create with assistance from Oxfam’s partner in Cambodia, RACHANA, an organization based in the southern Takeo province. When farmers use this new tool, they can accomplish in a few hours what used to take them many days.
Oxfam supported RACHANA in designing and testing the mechanical weeders that help farmers grow more rice. Switching to innovative rice-growing systems and using a mechanical weeder can create more than 100 percent gains in production—a huge improvement for small-scale rice growers like Sorn and her sister.
Sorn is among 100 families in the area growing rice using an array of special methods called the System of Rice Intensification, or SRI. SRI represents an accessible form of innovation for small-scale farmers like Sorn: it boosts yields through different ways of plowing fields and improving soil fertility, and of planting and transplanting rice. SRI helps the plants grow stronger and more resistant to pests and diseases. It doesn't require special seed varieties. And because the plants are healthier, the farmers need less fertilizer and pesticides, which saves them money and preserves the environment.
One of SRI’s techniques involves transplanting single seedlings farther apart, instead of transplanting them in bunches. The distance helps seedlings grow stronger roots. SRI farmers plant their seedlings in rows, so they can weed around the plants more easily. A mechanical weeder helps them speed up the process.
In Sorn’s village of Prey Pa’e, RACHANA found a metalworker named Ben Pen who was willing to work with the local farmers to develop the weeders. With RACHANA’s help, in 2009 he began to adapt designs from India and other countries; he optimized them based on feedback from women farmers. Sorn and about 20 others tested five prototypes. With Pen, they developed one- and two-wheel weeders, which farmers use for different soil and weed conditions. The weeders weigh between 4 and 12 pounds. Each of them has a long handle with which the farmers push narrow wheels with steel spikes, churning the earth and tearing up the weeds.
Most of the farmers responsible for testing the weeders were women. Though men help prepare the soil and assist with the harvest, women do most of the work in the fields. Pen and RACHANA wanted to make sure that the weeder designs are suitable for them. “These weeders are helping women avoid back pain, and neck pain,” Pen says. “They can stand up, and it’s a lot faster.”
Sorn moves down the rows between the rice plants pushing the weeder in front of her like a lawn mower. The tool splashes through a thin layer of water, cutting up clumps of grass and mud.
“There’s quite a difference when you use the weeding tools,” Sorn says. “If you weed by hand you only get the top of the weed, you don’t get the root, and it grows again. When you use the weeding tool, it destroys the root and churns the weed into the soil—it’s better for the soil.”
Sorn farms a little less than two acres. Having the weeder helps Sorn and her sister get their weeding done faster. She says saving this time and labor is particularly important for her now: her husband passed away and her six children are all grown and have left the village to work and study. She’s 55, alone, and needs the help.
RACHANA’s research showed that by combining weeders with SRI, farmers could increase their production to average 5.6 tons per hectare, up from an average of 2.2 tons using traditional techniques. (A hectare is about 2.45 acres.) The organization ordered 900 of the three most popular weeders from Pen; it is selling them to farmers across the country. The tools cost about $20—a significant investment, prompting groups of two or three neighbors to buy the tools together and share them.
The investment is worth the time saved: the women in Prey Pa’e say it takes three people two weeks to weed a hectare, and by the time they finish, the weeds are already growing again. “With the weeder, three people can finish in one morning,” says Pen Rat, who was part of the prototype testing team.
Sorn says she helped test the one-wheel weeder, and suggested that Pen lower the angle of the handle, so women would be pushing at waist level. “I thought women would have more strength to push and pull,” she says.
Simple forms of innovation, like these mechanical weeders, encourage farmers to come together, share their ideas, and play a role in developing technological improvements for their farming. This type of endeavor is just a small part of Oxfam’s work to transform agriculture for the poorest farmers in Cambodia.
Farmers like Sorn Ken confirm this: “Having this weeder is like having another person,” she says.
]]>Oxfam staff in Tokyo say that, though they have experienced many earthquakes, they have never seen buildings shake the way they did on Friday. Aftershocks and rolling blackouts are keeping the population weary, while the threat of a nuclear meltdown is looming.
Oxfam has been ready to assist but is not launching a major humanitarian response at this time. We usually focus our resources on communities where governments have been unable—or, in some cases, unwilling—to provide for their people. But the Japanese government has a tremendous capacity for responding in crises, and a clear commitment to using its resources to the fullest.
And—particularly in the midst of a nuclear crisis—we do not want the demands of coordinating the work of outside aid providers to draw on the resources of the government.
Nevertheless, in emergencies there are always communities that fall below the radar and cannot easily access humanitarian relief. Barriers of language or residency status, for example, can have tragic consequences at times like these.
“The Japanese state has the means to reach 99% of the population,” says Oxfam Japan Executive Director Akiko Mera, “but there will always be some who need more specific assistance.”
During the coming weeks, Oxfam Japan will channel resources to local organizations that can connect vulnerable groups with the assistance they need. Oxfam America is accepting funds for those and other efforts.
]]>Tragedies such as this compelled Thach to serve as president of the commune agricultural cooperative. When he was elected to this post in 2001, he says he made a commitment: “I told myself to find new technology to help farmers get a better life.”
In his research about ways to help farmers in Dai Nghia, Thach learned about a new and innovative way to grow rice, Vietnam’s most important food crop and the main source of nutrition for many small-scale farmers. It’s called the system of rice intensification, SRI, and involves techniques that help farmers save money on seed, fertilizer and other chemicals, and cuts down on labor needed for transplanting.
Oxfam and the Plant Protection Department, which is part of Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, have been running farmer field schools to help rice farmers learn the new techniques, and in turn teach other farmers about SRI. Oxfam began this work in Cambodia, and then expanded it to Vietnam in order to help small-scale farmers learn new farming methods, develop their skills to analyze and solve agricultural problems, and teach each other to improve their farming.
Thach was excited about bringing SRI to his village. “I saw with my own eyes the obvious benefits of SRI in all the places I visited,” he says. “So when I introduced the method to my farmers, I knew exactly that victory was on my side.”
Despite his confidence, Thach knew there would be doubts among the farmers. For example, SRI recommends transplanting single rice seedlings, instead of bunches of them. Many farmers did not believe this would increase their yield. “How can one rice seedling produce more than four or five seedlings together?” Tran Minh Tien, member of the Dai Nghia Agricultural Cooperative, said as he recalled farmers’ reaction when Thach first introduced SRI in the commune.
But Thach was willing to take the risk. In 2006, he made a bold promise to the farmers, “If you apply SRI and the yield is lower than the yield from your ordinary practice, I will take my own money to compensate for your losses.”
With this assurance, he convinced 50 families to try SRI on a 10-acre plot. Initial successes attracted more farmers to try SRI. Farmers learned from each other as they helped their neighbors work in the field, and they all witnessed more and better rice in the SRI field. The number of SRI farmers in the commune tripled in less than a year, and in the spring crop of 2008, all the 2,000 members of the cooperative applied SRI on the entire commune’s 420 acres of paddy land. “I’m very happy to win this confidence from all the farmers in my cooperative,” Thach said. “It is my most precious achievement.”
Farmers in Dai Nghia work closely with Thach to grow two rice crops and one non-rice crop including soybean and vegetables per year. Those who used to spend one month to transplant their rice now spend from 10 to 15 days. This allows them to have more time to do other work such as raising livestock or growing vegetables.
“Now I have more time to become a seller at the market, and my husband has more time to work in construction,” said Nguyen Thi Dua, one of the first women who started using SRI in the commune. “We earn a little more income for our family.”
All farmers in Dai Nghia are now embracing this growing method with results that are boosting household incomes, helping them to send their children to school, and fund other essentials.
The Plant Protection Department reported that on an average field just smaller than an acre, farmers can save $53 per year of two rice crops on seeds, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and on hiring labor for transplanting. The combination of input savings and yield increase contributes to extra income of about $70 on the same size of paddy land. That’s enough to pay for one year of school or two year’s worth of seed for the next growing seasons.
Thach takes pride with this achievement for the commune. “I’m proud to see farmers in my community increase their income and improve their living conditions,” Thach said. “SRI has brought about a better life for Dai Nghia.”
Thach and other farmers have been concerned about the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in Dai Nghia. The fertilizers were actually decreasing soil fertility and making the rice plants even more dependent on artificial fertilizers. A lot of pesticides were released into the environment to kill pests such as stem borers, but the chemicals also killed beneficial soil bacteria and other valuable species including fish. Some of the chemicals travelled into the air, soil, and water sources, causing environmental concern for the people who depend on the resources. But the rising prices of these chemicals forced them to find alternatives.
Growing SRI rice reduces farmers’ reliance on pesticides; the plants are farther apart, which makes them healthier and more resistant to pests. Thach says he can see the effects of less spraying of pesticides: “I think SRI creates a better biodiversity condition for the rice field. There are more fish and other creatures living in the field.”
Nguyen Thi Dua, an SRI farmer in Dai Nghia, said due to the wider spacing of seedlings, her rice plants get better exposure to sunlight and have stronger roots, which reduces vulnerability to pests. “I don’t need to spend too much money on buying pesticide anymore,” she said. “The fields are looking good, and I’m pleased with the clean and sound environment.”
Thach remains committed to exploring new and better ways to grow rice and to sustain the environment. Farmers who used to grow barely enough rice for family consumption now have a surplus.
But perhaps most importantly, farmers in Dai Nghia are open to new ideas. “SRI is a success in Dai Nghia commune,” says Tran Minh Tien. “We’re now working with the [Hanoi] University on organic rice, and the research over the last year shows some success. This can lead us to adding more value to our rice, and a safer product for consumers.”
]]>
Some 400 people representing a cross sector of society in Cambodia gathered under the hot, sunny sky at a tcktcktck campaign event in Phnom Penh this week. They were calling on world leaders to reach a fair, ambitious, and binding global climate deal at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen later this week.
“Time to Act is Running Out! It’s Time for Climate Action!,” chanted the crowd.
Many people could hear the loud chants from the Royal Palace and the Independence Monument, which stand a few hundred meters away. Some stopped by and watched while the campaigners formed an hourglass and the earth that’s trapped in the hourglass. It got more exciting when the campaigners ran down from the top to the bottom of the hourglass to demonstrate that the earth is dissolving like sand.
“World leaders are going halfway through the UN climate negotiations, but they are doing nowhere near enough to tackle the climate crisis,” said Brian Lund, East Asia regional director of Oxfam America. “So, we are calling on world leaders, especially leaders of rich countries who have more resources and technology, to increase their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to provide more financing for poor countries like Cambodia to adapt to climate change.”
While the UN climate conference in Copenhagen has largely centered on emissions reductions, poor countries like Cambodia are focusing more on financing that could help their communities adapt.
“We are demanding that climate negotiators in Copenhagen press countries with major greenhouse gas emissions to take their fair shares and put money on the table to tackle the crisis,” said Boonny Tep, Executive Director of Save Cambodia Wildlife, and a participant of the event. “It is a crucial moment to join this global force to demand for a climate justice, and I hope today’s event as well as events like this around the world will encourage world leaders to reach a fair and safe climate deal at the UN conference.”
At the tcktcktck campaign event, Lund said that rich countries including America, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and some European countries must meet their global climate responsibilities and provide financing for developing countries like Cambodia, so that poor communities, especially small-scale farmers can protect themselves from the unavoidable consequences of climate change.
Cambodia is striving to rebuild itself after three decades of civil wars, which left almost two million Cambodians dead. Its development efforts are often hampered by natural disasters. Cambodia has been identified as one of the most vulnerable countries in Asia to climate change due to its (currently) low adaptive capacity and limited resources to address the issue. One in three Cambodians lives on less than a dollar a day and 80 percent of the population make their living in the agricultural sector.
]]>Achieving farm resilience requires building up the resilience of vulnerable farmers by developing their skills, expertise and voice while supporting their use of agro-ecological farming practices. Building resilience depends not just on how farmers manage resources, but on how well local, national, and global institutions support farmers. Agro-ecological practices can empower vulnerable small-scale farmers, offering them both greater control over their lives and an accessible means of improving their food security, while decreasing their risk of crop failure or livestock death due to climate shocks. Vulnerable farmers can use agro-ecological practices to build resilient farms and improve their livelihoods, achieving multiple benefits: 1. improved food security; 2. adaptation to a changing climate; and 3. mitigation of climate change.
People-centred resilience consists of five principles which should guide how investments in vulnerable farming communities are designed and implemented. They are:
Following these principles ensures that investments support farmers in their efforts to become food-secure and adapt to climate change. Four institutions central to delivering people-centered resilience are: secure land rights; dynamic farmer associations; responsive agricultural advisory services; and public support for environmental services.
]]>When disaster-affected people have to move into crowded, makeshift camps, conditions can jeopardize public health. Outbreaks of deadly waterborne diseases like cholera can compound the original emergency with a health crisis. Oxfam specializes in providing clean water and sanitation facilities in emergencies, and we are moving quickly to meet these and other needs in the Ketsana-affected areas: along with clean water, we will distribute blankets, water containers, soap, cleaning equipment, clothes, and shelter materials.
Donate now to Oxfam America's Asia Pacific Emergency Relief Fund.
]]>Legal services for the disadvantaged did not exist in Cambodia until a decade ago. With the change in government in 1998, the US began to support efforts to strengthen civil society. While other donors focused on improving the judiciary and other state institutions with little measurable impact, the US backed many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working on human rights, rule of law, and government accountability. Many believe that the continued involvement of the US in civil society is critical to avoiding potential setbacks in Cambodia's young democracy.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) knows that empowering citizens to secure their rights is fundamental in breaking free from poverty. In 1996, USAID helped to found one of the first legal resource centers in Cambodia, the Community Legal Education Center (CLEC). Now a nationally registered NGO, and still supported by USAID, CLEC educates communities and government officials on citizens' legal empowerment and advocates reforms to protect citizens' rights. In part because of USAID's long-term support for CLEC, the center has evolved into an effective NGO capable of taking on sensitive, high-profile "land grabbing" and illegal eviction cases. CLEC has a unique two-part strategy: it selects legal cases that have the potential to generate wide publicity and debate, and it also demands broader accountability and respect for legal norms in Cambodian society as a whole.
This approach was effective when one Phnom Penh community facing forced eviction sought CLEC's help. Group 78, a cluster of 146 families, sits on 11,700 square meters (approximately 3 acres) of prime real estate in the heart of Phnom Penh. Seeing commercial potential in the land, the municipality sought to evict the families who had been living there for over 20 years. In 2001, after proper documentation had been processed recognizing Group 78's right to remain on the land, the village chief falsified a white paper stating that the community members wished to vacate their land. In reality, the authority had duped them into signing an agreement to vacate. Intimidation tactics were used: residents were repeatedly threatened with house burnings if they did not clear out immediately. Undeterred, members of Group 78 went to the municipality and Land Management Ministry for an investigation. That investigation went nowhere for five years; then suddenly the community started receiving multiple eviction notices with different and flimsy justifications in each notice. One claimed the reason was for the city's beautification; another, that the land was classified as state land and that the people had no rights to it; and the last, that the land was owned by an unidentified individual. Fed up with the authority's actions, the community sought the aid of CLEC.
Man Vuthy, coordinator of CLEC, says of Group 78: "They know us because CLEC used to successfully help their neighboring community, Koh Pich (Diamond Island). They came to CLEC's office for help. And then CLEC accepted the case."
Group 78 resident and CLEC client Lam Sambo describes his community’s struggle to claim their legal rights:
"Since 2006, I have received five to six eviction notices. CLEC recognized the notices were inconsistent. We benefit from the NGO. With CLEC's help, we can stay here and are stronger than before because we trust our legal support. We know how strong the commune is. If we don’t have strong legal aid, we will be gone in a few hours."
CLEC pressed the case that the government had no grounds to expel Group 78. Since the community has strong possession rights as stipulated in the 2001 Land Law, the authorities had no right to evict the community. According to CLEC, publicity generated from this case has helped spread the notion within Cambodian society that citizens can use the law to defend themselves and uphold their rights, even in conflicts with the government.1
Not many NGOs will work on high-profile cases like Group 78's because they consider it too dangerous. In an environment where power is highly concentrated among elites and is not often questioned, it is risky to take on the government. Despite numerous threats and arrests, CLEC has been able to achieve tremendous success because of USAID's continued investment and belief in CLEC's public interest advocacy. Thanks to CLEC's work, many citizens realize they have legal rights and feel some confidence in demanding that their government respect those rights. By committing to a long-term and broad- reaching effort at improving the justice system and building consensus for reforms, USAID has fostered an environment where active citizens can finally have a voice in their government.
However, CLEC staff are unsure of how long they can expect this investment by USAID. Since CLEC must apply every year for funding from the US, they can't predict whether they will have the funds to continue their work defending citizen rights. According to Yeng Virak, executive director of CLEC, they may be victims of their own success: "USAID money supports this project. However, our funding is ending this year, and we will have to apply again next year. Our project has been too effective and is seen as troublesome to the government because we do impact high-profile litigation cases."2
1 Group 78's story has been followed by The Phnom Penh Post, Voice of America, Amnesty International, Center on Housing Rights and Evictions, UN Cambodia Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, numerous other organizations, blogs, and networking sites.
2 This article is based on interviews conducted in October 2008. Since then, CLEC has received funding from USAID to continue its high-impact advocacy work. To see Group 78 residents describe their situation as of May 2009, view a video by LICADHO (Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights), a Cambodian NGO that advocates human rights.
]]>