WASHINGTON, D.C., Sep. 01 /CSRwire/ - Two leading sustainable business organizations representing 5,000 small businesses today sent a letter calling on President Obama to reject the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and, instead, invest in clean energy technologies.  

The pipeline would deliver oil from the tar sands in Canada to the Gulf of Mexico across the United States.

In their letter, Green America’s Green Business Network and The Green Chamber of Commercesaid the pipeline would further United States addiction to oil and risk disastrous new oil spills in rivers and the Ogallala aquifer. Global warming and oil spills have been seen to have an extremely detrimental effect on the economy, which affects the well-being of their businesses.

In addition to these risks, production of the 700,000 barrels of heavy crude that would travel from the tar sands every day creates a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Both the potential for environmentally harmful oils spills and increase in GHG emissions would be harmful to the environment, in addition to the harm to business in the United States.

The text of the letter to President Obama follows:

“We write to you on behalf of thousands of small businesses in the United States that are deeply concerned about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. The well-being of our businesses and the economy in the United States are tied to the health of our environment. The Keystone XL pipeline will have an immensely negative impact on the environment. It would bring 700,000 barrels of heavy crude from Canadian tar sands to the US every day, furthering the US addiction to oil, and risking new oil spills in rivers and the Ogallala aquifer. The production of oil from tar sands would generate enormous greenhouse gas emissions, and create greater impacts from global warming.

The impacts of global warming -- from droughts, to floods, to extreme weather -- are bad for business in the United States. As we saw in the Gulf, oil spills also have a devastating impact on the economy. The failure to shift America away from its dependence on oil to cleaner fuels will further imperil our economy and reduce the number of green jobs we need for sustainable economic growth.

Your administration has taken bold and necessary steps to increase the green energy economy in the US. Now, we urge you to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, and further invest in clean energy technologies. It is the right decision for the US, and it is the right decision for business.”

Today’s shareholder vote at the Smucker’s annual meeting marked an important step towards getting the company to report on climate risks associated with their coffee business and supply chain. The proposal received roughly 30% support (based on preliminary numbers). While 30% might not sound notable, a recent report on the 2011 proxy season puts the vote in perspective: the report found that investor support for shareholder resolutions on environmental and social issues rose to a 20.5% average approval rate (the first time support has ever reached the 20% mark). 30% sure sounds like a lot when measuring against that baseline. Analysts at Trillium Asset Management and Calvert Investment Management also report that first year resolutions generally garner far less support as investors are initially introduced to the proposals.

This vote sends a clear signal to Smucker’s leadership that shareholders are raising legitimate concerns around disclosure of social and environmental risks in their coffee supply chain. Trillium and Calvert will engage with company representatives in the fall pressing them to respond meaningfully to investor concerns about coffee and climate change. While the two investment firms hope to make progress with the company over the course of the next year, they will reserve the right to re-file the resolution in 2012 if necessary.

Oxfam will help keep the pressure on Smucker’s to adequately respond and we’ll keep you updated on opportunities to engage.

When you think of Smucker’s, jelly and jams typically come to mind, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. The J.M. Smucker Company is actually a leading distributor of Folgers and Dunkin’ Donuts coffee brands (who knew?), with coffee accounting for 40% of the company’s net sales and nearly half of its profits. That’s a whole lot of coffee, considering that the company sells and manufactures many other widely-used household brands like Crisco, Jif, and Pillsbury.

Coffee crops are highly sensitive to weather and temperature fluctuations making it particularly vulnerable to climate change. This past year the cost of coffee skyrocketed following increased demand and poor harvests in high-producing countries like Colombia and Brazil. In 2010 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted new guidance for publicly traded companies, requiring companies to disclose climate change risks, such as physical risks to a company’s assets and supply chains.

Disclosing these risks will create much needed transparency to help investors understand how companies’ supply chains, and the communities that support them, could be impacted by increasingly extreme weather and other likely results of climate change.

This disclosure is essential because community risks are business risks. As climate change increasingly threatens coffee harvests, the impacts are being felt first and worst in the communities where coffee farming is a way of life. But those threats echo all the way up the supply chain. Understanding these risks, and ensuring that companies like Smucker’s are adequately managing the anticipated hazards, is critical to investors and farmers alike.

Reporting in response to the SEC guidance has generally been weak, and Smucker’s is no exception. Very few companies have increased their reporting on material climate risk save for a few sentences added to their annual sustainability reports. This is a bad sign for shareholders who are already feeling the impacts of climate-related risks on their investments.

For example, record high food and commodity prices this year, owing at least in part to increased temperatures and lower crop yields, have led to social unrest in some countries where companies do business and to financial instability in companies unable to pass higher costs onto consumers. Consumers too have felt the pressure, since May 2010, Smucker’s has jacked up prices 34% just to try to stay a step ahead of the commodities market. Smucker’s competitors are responding by making public commitments to sustainability that will help their bottom line.

Already jittery investors are starting to perk up. Two socially responsible investment firms, Trillium Asset Management and Calvert Investment Management, Inc., have filed a shareholder resolution requesting that the Board of Directors provide a report to stockholders describing how the company will manage the social and environmental risks and opportunities connected to the company’s coffee business and supply chain. Shareholders will have a chance to vote for this proposal at tomorrow’s annual meeting at Smucker’s headquarters in Ohio.

Smucker’s has tried to block the resolution and are nervous that disclosing the risks could rattle investors. But if the resolution passes, Smucker’s will be on-the-hook to conduct a detailed risk assessment of climate change on their coffee supply chain and publicly disclose the findings.

Public disclosure of risks is the first step towards ensuring communities in Smucker’s supply chain are adequately protected from impending climate risks such as floods, droughts and extreme weather events. It is critical that small-scale farmers gain access to adequate resources to prepare for and respond to these threats. Not only will such resources will protect communities, they will surely benefit global companies who rely on a stable supply of high-quality coffee beans.

Government policies in support of small farmers are critical to their long term productivity, but this must go hand-in-hand with sound, sustainable corporate practice. This resolution will help multi-national corporations such as Smucker’s to wake up and smell the coffee. As they say, “with a name like Smucker’s, it’s got to be good”. We agree.

Read the original article here.

Majority of Kenyans have been forced to change what they eat due to increasing prices of food, a new survey shows. The survey by Oxfam says 76 per cent of Kenyans, the highest percentage recorded worldwide, have been forced to change their diet on account of skyrocketing prices.

Another 57 per cent of Kenyans do not always have enough to eat, the survey released yesterday says. "People across the world are changing what they eat because of the rising cost of food," Oxfam says.

The public opinion poll surveyed over 16,000 people in Kenya, Tanzania, and 15 other countries including Australia, Brazil, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Spain, UK and the USA. In Kenya it surveyed over 2,000 people in eight urban and rural regions of the country.

The figures for Kenya follow the same trends as other countries - but the numbers are staggeringly high and well above the global average. Globally 54 per cent of people said they are not eating the same food as they did two years ago - the period before the current food price crisis began - and 39 per cent of those blamed rising food prices.

In Western Kenya, 95 per cent of people surveyed said that rising costs are their biggest food concern. Oxfam says many people in developing countries are either eating less food, eating cheaper items or enjoying less diversity in their diets as a result of rising food prices.

"Women tend to be disproportionately affected by rising food prices because they are responsible for feeding their families," Oxfam says.

The survey asked people what they think influences the availability and cost of food. In Kenya the majority identified fuel prices and government policies, while 23 per cent said changes in climate and weather patterns.

Yesterday, the Central Bank of Kenya expressed hope that food inflation would be easing soon "We have a duty to fight inflation and to stabilize domestic prices. With fuel prices responding, we are sure food prices will follow and the volatility in the foreign exchange market will cease and we will be back to pre-crises price levels," CBK governor Njuguna Ndung'u was quoted by Reuters.

March 22, 2011

by Robert Kropp

On the occasion of the President's visit to the country, Oxfam calls on him to support the government in a trade dispute with a gold mining company.

SocialFunds.com -- President Obama arrives in El Salvador today as part of his Latin America tour, and Oxfam America has taken the occasion to highlight the environmental and human rights impacts of mining practices in that country.

In a press conference held yesterday, Keith Slack, Senior Policy Advisor for Oxfam America, referred to those impacts, saying, "Serious human rights problems have been going on for quite some time. In 2009, three people involved in the opposition to mining in El Salvador were killed."

One of those murdered, Gustavo Marcelo, was a community leader and environmental activist who led the resistance against the mining activities of Pacific Rim Mining, a Canadian corporation. In June, 2009, his body was found, showing signs of having been tortured.

Basing its right to mine in El Salvador on the United States-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), enacted under former President W. Bush, Pacific Rim has sued the government of El Salvador in international courts, demanding either $77 million in losses or the right to mine in the country.

Having received exploration permits from the government in power then, Pacific Rim began gold mining exploration in El Salvador in 2002, investing $80 million in the discovery of numerous gold mining sites in the northern region of the country. However, as environmental concerns mounted, a popular movement arose in El Salvador; according to Oxfam, 96% of El Salvador's surface water is contaminated, and only three percent of original forest cover still stands.

Responding to the popular movement, the government of El Salvador refused to issue permits for gold extraction, and in fact issued a moratorium on mining projects in the country. Pacific Rim then sued the Salvadoran government under a chapter of CAFTA which allows corporations to sue governments when their potential for profit is thwarted.

Because it is headquartered in Canada, which is not a signatory to CAFTA, Pacific Rim transferred a subsidiary to Nevada to take advantage of the agreement. However, the US is a signatory, and thus has the right to intervene in such disputes as the one in El Salvador.

Oxfam's Right to Know, Right to Decide campaign emphasizes the importance of free, prior, and informed consent by communities that would be affected by such mining activities as those pursued by Pacific Rim. According to Oxfam, the principle "means that communities have a meaningful voice in decision-making about whether oil, gas, and mining projects are built on their land." The principle "has been recognized by intergovernmental organizations and international bodies and increasingly in the laws of states," Oxfam continued.

In its 2009 report, Metals Mining and Sustainable Development in Central America: An Assessment of Benefits and Costs, Oxfam found that despite its long history, mining in El Salvador and other Central American has never played a significant role in their economies. As Raymond Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America, stated upon the publication of the report, "Metals mining is often associated with vast wealth. Unfortunately, this is not the reality in many developing countries where natural resources continuously fail to contribute to the long-term reduction of poverty and communities have little say in how the industry affects their lands and livelihoods."

Stack of Oxfam American added at the time, "Communities closest to the mines almost invariably suffer."

Urging President Obama to use such proposed strategies as his Partnerships for Growth to develop "a more coordinated US approach with countries that have shown a strong commitment to good governance and sustainable development," Offenheiser stated, "The Salvadoran government has recognized that not all foreign investment is good for the country. The Obama administration should help ensure that El Salvador's development strategy is in the best interest of the people and protects human rights and the environment."

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act passed by Congress last summer directed the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to address disclosures by extractive industries, a development which has been applauded by many sustainable investors. Speaking with SocialFunds.com about the proposed regulations, Paul Bugala, Sustainability Analyst for Extractive Industries at Calvert, said, "Companies get the investors that they ask for. The disclosures included in Dodd-Frank recognize an environment in which ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) risks are material for high-risk industries."

Last fall, demonstrators in Cambridge, Massachusetts demanded that TIFF Advisory Services, an investment manager for nonprofit organizations, divest its holdings in Pacific Rim. The demonstration was organized by Miguel Rivera, the brother of the slain Salvadoran activist.

In March of this year, a lawsuit filed against the government of El Salvador by Commerce Group and San Sebastian Gold Mines, alleging breaches of CAFTA similar to those involved in the Pacific Rim suit, was dismissed by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

Determining "that the dispute is not within its jurisdiction and competence pursuant to CAFTA," the ICSID Tribunal found entirely in favor of the government of El Salvador.

Read the original article here.