Food Justice press releases

Oxfam urges Congress to support global anti-poverty programs and key reforms

ebhatti — 2013-04-24T19:44:16Z

International relief and development organization Oxfam America urged members of Congress today to support key lifesaving programs and push forward important reforms contained in the Obama Administration’s 2014 budget requests for international affairs. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee will hold appropriations hearings today.

Oxfam is calling for level funding for key anti-poverty programs, such as Feed the Future and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and support of reforms to America’s food aid programs that would help reach millions more people with life-saving aid at no additional costs to the American taxpayer.

“In his proposed budget, President Obama has not only supported global anti-poverty programs that literally save lives, he has also proposed long overdue reforms to bring our food aid system into the 21^st century,” said Paul O’Brien, vice president of policy and campaigns at Oxfam America. “The proposed reforms have already received positive reviews from Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Congress must fund these life-saving programs and move forward on common sense reforms to the food aid program.”

The United States is the world’s most generous donor of food aid, but numerous studies by the Government Accountability Office among others have shown that the system for delivering that aid is plagued by inefficiencies and waste. President Obama’s proposal would cut red tape, strip away needless regulations and allow humanitarian responders greater flexibly in emergencies, such as purchasing food from local or regional sources. Although a number of aid agencies, including Oxfam, are supporting this reform, special interests in Washington who profit from the current system are already trying to block President Obama’s proposal.

“Members of Congress who want to pursue fiscal responsibility should be the first to back the President’s efforts to modernize our aid programs, especially food aid,” said O’Brien. “The President’s proposal will get food to more hungry people faster, cheaper and more efficiently.”

The reform of US-funded food assistance programs is part of a wider effort on the part of President Obama’s Administration to modernize development assistance so that it’s more efficient and truly delivers in the fight against poverty. Other reforms, such as Implementation and Procurement Reform, are rooted in the recognition that there’s tremendous value in the power of local people to decide how aid is spent, and how to execute and lead their own development efforts in partnership with the US.

Despite coming under fire from vested interests in Washington, reforms already put in place by the Obama Administration are making waves on the ground in developing countries. Findings from a survey conducted by Oxfam America with citizens, civil society representatives, businesspeople and public officials in seven US aid recipient countries reveal that such reforms are making a difference and are getting noticed. Over 83% of respondents surveyed by Oxfam call US a better development partner than five years ago.

“New policies that are pushing the US government to invest more in locally defined development priorities have already demonstrated to achieve more sustainable results in the fight against poverty,” said O’Brien. "Congress must now deepen and accelerate reforms, while continuing to support the small but critically important parts of our country’s budget to save lives, help people lift themselves out of poverty, spur economic growth, and make the world a better and safer place.”

/ENDS

Oxfam America is an international relief and development organization that creates lasting solutions to poverty, hunger, and injustice. Together with individuals and local groups in over 90 countries, Oxfam saves lives, helps people overcome poverty, and fights for social justice. Oxfam America is an affiliate of Oxfam. To join our efforts or learn more, go to www.oxfamamerica.org

Mondelēz International agrees to address women’s inequality in chocolate production

bgrossmancohen — 2013-04-23T10:44:32Z

The biggest chocolate maker in the world, Mondelēz International, has agreed to take steps to address inequality facing women in their cocoa supply chains following pressure from consumers as part of the international relief and development organization Oxfam America’s Behind the Brands campaign.

Today’s announcement by Mondelēz International comes on top of commitments last month by Mars and Nestle to address these issues. Together, Mars, Mondelēz International and Nestlé control 40 percent of the global chocolate market.

More than 100,000 people signed petitions and took action to urge Mondelēz International and its competitors to tackle the hunger, poverty and unequal pay women cocoa farmers experience. The companies also faced a growing stream of comments on Facebook and Twitter urging them to act. As a Mondelēz International stockholder, Oxfam had also filed a shareholder’s resolution pushing for greater attention to gender issues in the supply chain that will be withdrawn because of these commitments.

“The impact of Mondelēz International, Mars and Nestlé’s promises, if kept, will reverberate across cocoa supply chains,” said Judy Beals, campaign manager for Oxfam’s Behind the Brands Campaign. “Empowering women cocoa farmers has the potential to improve the lives of millions of people, some of whom are earning less than $2 a day.”

“We applaud Mondelēz International’s decision to make these commitments. The company’s existing program, Cocoa Life, has built a good platform for gender-sensitive sustainability initiatives and these new commitments will expand that effort and ensure that that women benefit in the same way as men.

“Mondelēz International must follow through and show leadership to ensure all cocoa growers have the sustainable livelihood they deserve. Oxfam will continue to monitor all three companies as they turn their pledges into specific and measurable actions.”

Oxfam welcomes Mondelēz International’s commitment to:

Conduct and publish impact assessments by third party organizations on women in their cocoa supply chains in order to understand and show how women are faring. The company will begin by publishing impact assessments in Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire in 2014.
Put in place a specific action plan by April 1, 2014 that will address issues raised by the assessments and lead to the improvement of poor conditions in Ghana and Cote D’Ivoire. By 2018 Mondelēz International will publish action plans for the Cocoa Life program’s top four origin countries. Oxfam expects that these action plans will deliver better capacity towards a sustainable livelihood to women farmers and workers.
Sign onto the UN Women's Empowerment Principles by April 26, 2013. These principles demonstrate the company’s commitment at the CEO level to the empowerment of women across their entire operations by among other things being willing to measure and publicly report on gender equity. Mondelēz International is the first of the three major chocolate companies to sign onto the principles.
Engage with other powerful actors in the cocoa industry to develop sector-wide programs to address gender inequality. Mondelēz International will work with industry sector organizations like the World Cocoa Foundation and certification schemes like Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade to advocate for greater focus on women’s equality.

“This latest commitment shows that no company is too big to listen to its customers. Three of the biggest food giants in the world are changing how they operate because consumers have demanded it,” Beals said

“We hope that the steps taken by Mars, Mondelēz International and Nestle offer an example to the rest of the food and beverage industry that consumers are paying attention to how companies impact the communities they work in. All the large food and beverage companies can and should take basic steps, like signing the UN Women’s Empowerment Principles or they will face increasing questions from their customers.

“Leaders at each and every food company should look at how they are operating and ask themselves whether they are truly contributing to building a world where everyone has enough nutritious food to eat. It is time for companies to get off the starting blocks and compete in a race to the top.”

The Behind the Brands campaign will continue to highlight areas where companies are not living up to their responsibilities to communities. New actions launch later in 2013.

Specifics on the commitments from all three companies can be seen at:
Mondelēz International: http://www.mondelezinternational.com/MediaCenter/index.aspx
Mars: http://cocoasustainability.com/2013/03/mars-chocolate-and-oxfam-america-agree-to-intentional-approach-to-empower-women/
Nestle: http://www.nestle.com/csv/responsible-sourcing/women

/ENDS

Notes to editors:
1. Oxfam’s investigation into inequality for women in cocoa supply chains is available at: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/mars-mondelez-and-nestle-and-the-fight-for-women2019s-rights
2. Oxfam’s Behind the Brands ranking of food and beverage companies is available at www.behindthebrands.org

President’s budget proposal supports key programs and pushes important reforms

lrusu — 2013-04-10T18:18:55Z

International relief and development organization Oxfam America praised President Obama for putting his support behind key lifesaving programs and for pushing forward some much-needed reforms through his proposed budget released today.

The President’s budget proposed level funding for key anti-poverty programs, such as Feed the Future, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, while pushing forward reforms of America’s food aid programs that would help feed possibly millions more people with no additional costs to the American taxpayer. The budget release comes as Oxfam America prepares to unveil findings from a field survey that shows marked improvements in US development efforts on the ground.

“President Obama is walking the talk by supporting key global anti-poverty programs, while also taking an important step towards long overdue reforms to bring food aid into the 21^st century,” said Paul O’Brien, vice president of policy and campaigns at Oxfam America. “Now it’s up to Congress to fund these life-saving programs and take up common sense reforms of the food aid program; first to assist hungry people, second to honor taxpayers.”

The United States is the world’s most generous donor of food aid, but numerous studies by the Government Accountability Office among others have shown that the system for delivering that aid is plagued by inefficiencies and waste. President Obama’s proposal would allow humanitarian responders more flexibly, such as purchasing food from local or regional sources. This shift, if passed by Congress, would allow US aid to reach millions more people with life-saving aid at no additional cost to American taxpayers. Although number of aid agencies, including Oxfam, are supporting this reform, special interests in Washington who profit from the current system are already trying to block President Obama’s proposal.

“Those in Washington who are interested in fiscally responsibility should throw their full support behind the President’s leadership to modernize our aid programs, especially food aid,” said O’Brien. “The President’s proposal will get food to more hungry people faster, cheaper and more efficiently. Congress should quickly turn the proposal into law.”

“The Obama Administration is recognizing that there’s tremendous value in the power of local people to decide how aid is spent, and how to execute and lead their own development efforts in partnership with the US,” continued O’Brien. "Congress must now deepen and accelerate reforms, while continuing to support the small but critically important parts of our country’s budget to save lives, help people lift themselves out of poverty, spur economic growth, and make the world a better and safer place.”

Easter chocolate profits should push Mondelēz to do better by women farmers

bgrossmancohen — 2013-03-28T14:14:13Z

In a week that will see seventy-one million pounds of chocolate sold for Easter, international relief and development organization Oxfam America is accelerating its campaign targeting the world’s biggest buyer of cocoa, Mondelēz International, to address unequal pay, poverty and hunger that women farmers who supply cocoa for their products experience. On Tuesday, Mars and Nestle announced they will take steps to begin to address these issues in their own supply chains, but Mondelēz has yet to make similar commitments.

Oxfam is now focusing its campaign on Mondelēz. Advocates from Oxfam will deliver Easter eggs filled with signatures from more than 67,000 petitions to Mondelēz International headquarters in Deerfield, Illinois. Oxfam has also placed a full-page advertisement in USA TODAY and will run online ads on Twitter, Facebook and via Google highlighting the company’s failure to address inequality for women in their supply chain.

“Easter is the second biggest holiday for candy sales and Mondelēz stands to profit immensely, yet many women cocoa farmers are earning just $2 a day,” said Alison Woodhead, campaign manager for Oxfam’s Behind the Brands Campaign. “Mondelēz needs to step up and show that it takes equality for women seriously. Tens of thousands of people have already joined together to call on the company to do their part. Their competitors have already pledged to meet this challenge, but Mondelēz remains on the sidelines.”

Chocolate companies produce ninety million chocolate Easter bunnies every year. Mondelēz is the biggest global buyer of cocoa and wields immense influence over the chocolate industry and the lives of people who grow cocoa.

A recent investigation by Oxfam showed that some women in cocoa supply chains are paid less than half as much as their male counterparts, earning just 2-3 dollars a day for their labor. In one cocoa processing plant in Indonesia a worker told investigators that all of the women employees were fired after they demanded basic rights.

“The longer it takes for Mondelēz to address the inequality women face in their supply chain, the more consumers will question how serious they are about their commitments to sustainability,” said Woodhead. “The company has made investments in sustainable cocoa that deserve credit. But given the level of poverty, hunger and inequality in their supply chains surely more must be done.”

/Ends

NOTES TO EDITORS:

Contact:
1. Oxfam’s petition targeting Mondelēz, signed by more than 67,000 people is available at: www.behindthebrands.org/actnow
2. Oxfam’s investigation into inequality for women in cocoa supply chains is available at: http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/equality-for-women-starts-with-chocolate-mb-260213.pdf
3. Oxfam’s Behind the Brands ranking of food and beverage companies is available at www.behindthebrands.org
4. View Oxfam's ads targeting Mondelēz: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/campaigns/food-justice/behind-the-brands/tell-mondelez-that-the-women-who-pick-and-grow-cocoa-deserve-better

Oxfam food company campaign delivers win for women cocoa farmers

bgrossmancohen — 2013-03-26T12:09:39Z

After more than 60,000 people signed petitions and took action to urge chocolate companies to do the right thing for women cocoa farmers, Mars and Nestle have today made commitments to begin to tackle the inequality, hunger and poverty faced by women in their cocoa supply chains. Mondelez International, which controls 15% of the global chocolate market, has yet to follow suit in spite of consumer pressure.

“Women cocoa farmers and consumers around the globe have made their voices heard,” said Alison Woodhead, campaign manager for Oxfam’s Behind the Brands Campaign. “Mars and Nestle have taken important steps to show the farmers they rely on, their customers and the rest of the food industry that they care about the conditions women face in their supply chains including low pay, discrimination and unequal opportunity.

“For too long women have come last in food and beverage company supply chains. Gender discrimination is a major cause of global hunger, poverty and inequality. Consumers are speaking up to say they care about how companies impact the most vulnerable and today Mars and Nestle have shown they are listening.”

Oxfam welcomes Mars and Nestle’s commitment to:

Conduct impact assessments on women in their cocoa supply chains in order to understand and show how women are faring. Both companies will begin by conducting impact assessment in Cote d’Ivoire, the highest cocoa producing country within the next year but have committed to conducting assessments in the rest of their supply chain in the years following. Impact assessments will be conducted by third party organizations.
Put in place a specific action plan within a year’s time that will address issues raised by the assessments and lead to the improvement of poor conditions. Oxfam expects that these action plans will deliver better capacity towards a sustainable livelihood to women farmers and workers, along with stronger corporate policies and practices that encourage women’s empowerment throughout their cocoa supply chain.
Work to sign onto the UN Women's Empowerment Principles. The principles demonstrate the companies’ commitment at the CEO level to the empowerment of women across their entire operations by among other things being willing to measure and publicly report on gender equity.
Engage with other powerful actors in the cocoa industry to develop sector-wide programs to address gender inequality. Both Mars and Nestle will work with industry sector organizations like the World Cocoa Foundation.

Specifics on the two companies’ commitments can be seen here:

Mars: http://cocoasustainability.com/2013/03/mars-chocolate-and-oxfam-america-agree-to-intentional-approach-to-empower-women

Nestlé: http://www.nestle.com/csv/ruraldevelopment/women

“We applaud Mars and Nestle’s leadership in making these commitments,” said Woodhead. “But only actions can create real and lasting change. We will continue to hold both companies to account and expect them to keep their promises.

“We now call on Mondelez to address their impacts on hunger and poverty. Women in Mondelez’s supply chain continue to be paid less than men, face discrimination and unfair conditions. Executives at the company should ask themselves if they are truly doing enough. Are they willing to continue with business as usual as these conditions persist? Consumers and investors will apply greater pressure if Mondelez continues to stand back and let their competitors lead the way.”

/ENDS

Notes to editors:
1. Oxfam’s petition targeting Mars, Mondelez and Nestle is available at: www.behindthebrands.org/actnow
2. Oxfam’s investigation into inequality for women in cocoa supply chains is available at: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/mars-mondelez-and-nestle-and-the-fight-for-women2019s-rights
3. Oxfam’s Behind the Brands ranking of food and beverage companies is available at www.behindthebrands.org

Mars, Mondelez, Nestle are leaving women farmers behind

bgrossmancohen — 2013-03-07T22:14:08Z

An investigation into four countries where Mars, Mondelez and Nestle purchase cocoa has shown that many women farmers face discrimination, unequal pay and hunger, leaving the companies’ social policies exposed as weak and needing work, says international relief and development organization Oxfam America.

Oxfam campaigned today at company headquarters and retail locations on International Women’s Day to urge them to address gender inequality in their supply chains. The three companies control 40 percent of the chocolate market and purchase one third of all cocoa, which is mostly grown by small farmers in developing countries. Oxfam’s research shows that Mars, Mondelez and Nestle are doing very little to address poor conditions faced by the women who grow cocoa.

“The women who help produce the chocolate we all love to eat are getting left behind,” said Alison Woodhead, campaign manager for Oxfam’s Behind the Brands campaign. “Mars, Mondelez and Nestle have the power and responsibility to make a difference for these women. All three companies have said they will do more to make their products more sustainable, now is their chance to keep that promise.”

Oxfam’s investigation into cocoa supply chains in Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria and Ivory Coast revealed that:

Women cocoa growers are often paid less than men even though they are critical to the quality and productivity of cocoa.
Most people who work along the cocoa supply chain continue to live in poverty, and malnutrition in cocoa producing areas of the world is rampant.
Women working in cocoa fields and processing plants suffer substantial discrimination and inequality. For example, one worker in Indonesia told Oxfam she is made to work without a contract and is called “an animal” by her supervisor but has no way to complain. A worker at a cocoa processing factory in Indonesia told Oxfam that all female workers were fired after a few demanded equal treatment and pay.
While women increasingly occupy positions of power in food and beverage company headquarters, women working in company supply chains in developing countries continue to be denied similar advances in wealth, status or opportunity.
Women cocoa farmers have less access than men to land, credit, trainings and tools like fertilizers or irrigation systems.
Company sustainability programs have not adequately focused on addressing issues faced by women.

“All three companies have launched major projects to improve cocoa sustainability and have committed to increasing the amount of certified cocoa that they purchase,” said Woodhead. “Companies deserve credit for this work. But these efforts are piecemeal at best and women are often an afterthought. For decades companies have put women first in their advertisements, it is time for them to do the same for the women who grow their ingredients.”

Although the companies do not control or employ them directly, Oxfam is calling on Mars, Mondelez and Nestle to lead an aggressive effort to support and protect the rights of the millions of women worldwide who grow the cocoa essential for their products. Specifically Oxfam has called on the companies to:

1. “Know and show” how women are treated in their value chains by launching third party assessments and publishing the data.
2. Commit to adopt a “plan of action” to address the findings of these assessments that will increase opportunities for women growers and address inequality in pay and working conditions.
3. Engage with and influence other powerful public and private actors including governments and cocoa certifiers to address gender inequality.

Oxfam has given companies a long list of specific steps that can meet these goals including increasing trainings for women, promoting female recruitment and leadership of farming cooperatives and requiring suppliers provide a living wage to workers.

Senator Tom Harkin and Congressman Eliot Engel, authors of the Harkin-Engel protocol to address child labor in cocoa production, expressed support for Oxfam’s campaign.

“I have long believed that in order for the global economy to prosper, it is critical to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the most vulnerable populations both in our country and abroad. That work has largely centered on eradicating exploitative child labor in cocoa production, but it includes protecting human rights along the entire supply chain,” said Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). “I applaud Oxfam for shining light on these inequalities in global cocoa production – inequalities that impact families abroad and markets around the globe.”

“I have worked to address significant labor issues in the production of cocoa and its derivative products in West Africa for many years,” said Congressman Eliot Engel. “I know from first-hand experience that all parties – governments, industry, or private organizations – have to be fully engaged to bring an end to abusive labor practices. I have worked with the cocoa industry to address the issue of child labor, but more must be done on all fronts. We have a long road ahead that will require even greater commitment to human and labor rights issues. Oxfam has done a great service bringing much needed attention to this significant issue.”

“Rooting out gender inequality is among the most important things companies can do to improve the quality and sustainability of their products,” said Woodhead. “Companies see farmers choosing other careers or crops and know how difficult it will be to meet the growing demand for cocoa if the situation does not improve. We are showing companies that consumers will reward them for doing the right thing, and will hold them accountable if they don’t.”

NOTES TO EDITORS:
‘BEHIND THE BRANDS’ PRODUCTS FOR MEDIA
The full behind the brands scorecard is available at www.oxfamamerica.org/behindthebrands
Media briefing on gender and cocoa: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/mars-mondelez-and-nestle-and-the-fight-for-women2019s-rights
Video: The truth about women and chocolate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqZO4fUSzg
Pictures from the Ivory Coast: http://resources.oxfamamerica.org/pages/search.php?search=!collection1974&k=6969f243a8
Pictures from Nigeria: http://resources.oxfamamerica.org/?c=1971&k=23d6307910

Ten biggest food and beverage companies failing millions of people who grow their ingredients

bgrossmancohen — 2013-02-26T15:06:12Z

The social and environmental policies of the world’s ten biggest food and beverage giants need a major shake-up, said international relief and development organization Oxfam America as it launched its new global campaign called ‘Behind the Brands’. The campaign was launched with new research that for the first time scores and ranks the agricultural policies, public commitments and supply chain oversight of Associated British Foods, Coca Cola, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, Mondelez, Nestlé, Pepsico and Unilever.

The research reveals that the “Big 10” food and beverage companies – that together make $1 billion-a-day – are failing millions of people in developing countries who supply land, labor, water and commodities needed to make their products.

ABF (19%), Kellogg’s (23%) and General Mills (23%) scored most poorly. They have weaker policies than Coca-Cola (41%), Unilever (49%) and Nestle (54%) for example.

“While some companies are doing better than others, no company has passed the test,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America.

“Some companies have made important commitments that deserve praise. But none are moving fast enough to help tackle hunger, inequality and poverty in their supply chains. No company emerges with passing grades. Across the board all ten companies are failing.”

The ‘Behind the Brands’ campaign reveals:

While some of the “Big 10” have publicly committed to women’s’ rights, none have committed to eliminating discrimination against women throughout their supply chains.
None of the companies have adequate policies to protect local communities from land and water grabs, despite all of them sourcing commodities plagued by land rights violations, such as palm oil, soy and sugar. Not one company has declared ‘zero tolerance’ against land grabs in their supply chains
All ten companies are overly secretive about their agricultural supply chains, making their claims of ‘sustainability’ and ‘social responsibility’ difficult to verify. Nestle and Unilever are most open about the countries they source from, but no company is providing enough information about their suppliers.
Companies are generally increasing their overall water efficiency but most have failed to put policies in place to limit their impact on local water sources. Only Pepsi has publicly recognized water as a human right and committed to consult local communities. Nestle has developed guidelines for its suppliers to manage water and was ranked top for policies on water.
All of the companies have taken steps to reduce direct emissions, but only five – Mondelez, Danone, Unilever, Coca-Cola and Mars – publicly report on agricultural emissions associated with their products. Unilever alone has committed to halve its greenhouse gas footprint by 2020. None have yet developed policies to help farmers in their supply chains to build resilience to climate change.
None have publicly committed to pay a fair price to farmers or fair business arrangements with them across all agricultural operations. Only Unilever – which is top-ranked for its dealings with small-scale farmers – has specific supplier guidelines to address some key issues faced by farmers.

“It’s time these companies take more responsibility for their immense influence on poor people’s lives,” said Offenheiser. “Eighty percent of the world’s hungry people work in food production and these companies employ millions of people in developing countries to grow their ingredients. They control hundreds of the world’s most popular brands and have the economic, social and political clout to make a real and lasting difference to the world’s poor and hungry.”

‘Behind the Brands’ –part of Oxfam’s GROW Campaign - will launch in more than 12 countries including the US, Mexico, China, Brazil and across Europe.

Its first public action will target Nestle, Mondelez and Mars for their failure to address inequality faced by women who grow cocoa for their chocolate products. Today Oxfam is also releasing a brief with first-hand accounts of the inequality that women cocoa growers face. Oxfam is urging the three companies to do more to know and show how women are treated in their supply chains, create an action plan to address inequality for women in their supply chains and engage in advocacy to influence other powerful actors to do the same.

“No brand is too big to listen to its customers,” said Offenheiser. “If enough people urge the big food companies to do what is right, they have no choice but to listen. By contacting companies on Twitter and Facebook, or signing a petition to their CEO, consumers can do their part to help bring lasting change in our broken food system by showing companies their customers expect them to operate responsibly.”

NOTES TO EDITORS:

See the full scorecard at www.oxfamamerica.org/behindthebrands

Read Oxfam's Behind the Brands report: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/behind-the-brands

Oxfam has engaged with all 10 companies during the last year who have cooperated in providing data to inform this scorecard. The scorecard will be updated if companies change their policies.
Oxfam rated the companies on their policies on seven topics: how they ensure the rights of the workers and farmers who grow their ingredients, how they protect women’s rights, management of land and water use, climate change and the transparency of their supply chains, policies and operations. It did not review other important policies such as those dealing with nutrition, tax and waste, for example.

Read Oxfam's media brief Mars, Mondelez, Nestle and the Fight for Women's Rights: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/mars-mondelez-and-nestle-and-the-fight-for-women2019s-rights

Images of women cocoa farmers in the Ivory Coast: http://resources.oxfamamerica.org/pages/search.php?search=!collection1974&k=6969f243a8
Images of women cocoa farmers in Nigeria: http://resources.oxfamamerica.org/pages/search.php?search=!collection1971&k=23d6307910

Video: The Truth about Women and Chocolate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqZO4fUSzg

Oxfam to Congress: "Don't be lame! Save poverty fighting aid!"

lrusu — 2012-11-14T21:01:11Z

WASHINGTON, DC – With the 2012 election over and Congress diving back into the budget deficit debate during their lame duck session, international relief and development organization Oxfam America today urged members of the House and Senate to support Senate funding levels in the omnibus spending bill and avoid any further cuts to global poverty assistance.

In a stunt in front of the Capitol, Oxfam activists inflated a giant 15x18 foot yellow duck to make its point that cutting foreign aid would simply be lame. The activists also delivered a packet of yellow duck-shaped candies and information about life saving foreign aid directly to each House and Senate office to help drive the message home.

“Congress shouldn’t duck common sense as it wades through the upcoming budget negotiations,” said Linda Delgado, government affairs director for Oxfam America. “The fight against global poverty is one of America’s proudest traditions and smartest investments. Congress must protect these vital programs from cuts – they save millions of lives, help people thrive, and reduce the need for assistance in the long run.”

Effective aid has reduced the number of children who die before their fifth birthday by four million since 1990, put 33 million more children in the classroom, provided urgent humanitarian assistance to tens of millions of people affected by natural disasters and conflicts, and increased tenfold the number of people receiving HIV/AIDS medication. US aid also helps people and countries around the world invest in their own self-reliance, reducing the need for assistance over the long term.

“America’s investments in the fight against poverty have helped eradicate polio, fuel the Green Revolution, and rebuild shattered economies,” said Gregory Adams, director of aid effectiveness for Oxfam America. “Foreign aid has also helped build some of America’s strongest allies, like Turkey, South Korea, and Poland. When you look at that record, and then consider the cost—less than one percent of the federal budget—Congress would have to be quackers to vote to cut aid!”

In order to help address the need of those living in acute poverty, Oxfam urged Congress to fund poverty-focused accounts to at least FY 2013 Senate levels. Any further cuts would disrupt life-saving programs and dismantle much of the progress the US government has made in recent decades to improve the efficiency and impact of our assistance. Worse yet, if Congress is unable to reach agreement on sequestration before the end of the year, devastating automatic cuts will kick in that could make the difference between life and death for many of the world’s poor but would not even make a dent to help solve our federal budget deficit.

“Lifesaving foreign aid is often unfairly singled out for ugly duckling cuts in Washington’s budget fights,” said Delgado. “The leadership in the House and Senate must get their ducks in a row and support Senate funding levels for poverty-focused development assistance and prevent devastating mandatory cuts to these life-saving programs.”

Oxfam to EPA: Rein in runaway food prices

bgrossmancohen — 2012-10-12T14:07:25Z

With food prices near record highs, more than 17,500 Americans joined relief and development organization Oxfam America in sending letters to the Environmental Protection Agency urging the agency to institute a waiver of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).

Oxfam and thousands of supporters called on the EPA to wave the mandate because it has contributed to the recent food price spikes that have exacerbated hunger for millions of people living in poverty here in the US and around the world. Oxfam warned the EPA that increasing hunger resulting from the corn ethanol mandate is not only a moral failure but also a threat to the US economy and our national security.

“This sharp rise in food prices is a threat to the economic and human well-being of people not just in the United States, but also around the world,” warns Oxfam’s letter. “While concerns about high food prices are foremost about the spread of hunger and poverty, high food prices are also strongly correlated with political instability and have historically been a catalyst for mass protest in countries where legitimacy is already faltering.”

In 2010 and 2011, nearly 40 percent of the US corn supply was used in ethanol production, due to significantly expanded requirements of the RFS. Agricultural economists have estimated that the diversion of corn into ethanol production has resulted in an increase in corn prices of approximately 30 percent.

“Leadership is urgently needed to deal with runaway food prices that increase hunger around the world,” said Eric Munoz, policy advisor for Oxfam America. “We can all hear the alarm bells ringing; it’s time for leaders in Washington to finally do something about it.”

On August 20, 2012, the EPA issued a request for comment on letters from the Governors of Arkansas and North Carolina seeking a waiver of the volume requirements of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The comment period ended yesterday and now the EPA must decide on the waiver request within 90 days of receiving it, in consultation with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy.

/ENDS

NOTES TO EDITORS:
Link to letter signed by more than 17,500 Oxfam supporters: https://secure.oxfamamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1347

Full text of Oxfam America’s letter to the EPA

October 11, 2012

Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-QAR-2012-0632
Comment on Letters Seeking a Waiver of the Renewable Fuel Standard

Oxfam America appreciates the opportunity to comment on recent letters received by the Environmental Protection Agency requesting a waiver of the Renewable Fuel Standard, or RFS. As a humanitarian relief and development agency concerned with the impact U.S. policies have on people’s efforts to escape poverty, we are writing in support of the formal requests submitted by the Governors of Arkansas and North Carolina seeking a waiver of the biofuel mandates for corn based ethanol in the RFS. We are aware that additional requests have also been made by the governors of Texas, Georgia, New Mexico, Maryland and Delaware as well as 156 U.S. Representatives and 34 U.S. Senators, underscoring the severity of the situation at hand and the need for EPA Administrator Jackson’s consideration and action.

Under current conditions, the imposition of a mandatory minimum level of corn-based ethanol as an oxygenate fuel additive carries real, negative economic consequences, particularly for people living in poverty in developing countries and in the United States, including those in states petitioning for the waiver. We therefore request that Administrator Jackson exercise her authority under Section 211(o)(7) of the Federal Clean Air Act to immediately waive the biofuel mandate for corn-based ethanol.

Current pressures on cereal and food prices

According to the most recent U.S. Drought Monitor assessments, the current drought affecting the U.S. has reached historic proportions and has persisted past the summer, leaving 65.5 percent of the contiguous U.S. in varying degrees of intense dryness. America’s most beleaguered regions – the Central Plains and Corn Belt – give ample indication that corn harvests for 2012 will fall below projections made earlier this year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s October crop estimates indicate that corn yields are expected to be 17 percent below 2011 levels which would result in the smallest corn crop since 2006.

As the growing season for corn has now come to an end and fall harvesting has begun, it is unrealistic to expect that any improvement in current weather conditions at this stage could reverse or undo crop losses for the year. Evidence gathered by all measures now points to a tightening U.S. corn supply, sending stress signals to agricultural commodity markets that have responded with fluctuating corn prices, ranging from around $5.00 per bushel at the beginning of the summer to record high futures contract prices, closing at $8.02 in August. Prices are projected at up to $8.50 per bushel this fall according to the most recent forecasts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

However the drought alone is not entirely to blame for recent high corn prices; in fact, the RFS is significantly exacerbating the effects of the drought. Current mandates in the RFS which require 13.2 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol to be blended into the U.S. fuel supply in 2012 and 13.8 billion in 2013 have been a driving factor in increased prices for agricultural commodities, corn in particular.

In 2010 and 2011, nearly 40 percent of the U.S. corn supply was used in ethanol production, due to significantly expanded RFS requirements outlined in the Energy Independence Security Act of 2007, which mandated an annually increasing production schedule of corn-based ethanol for blending into the US fuel supply. In the years following implementation of these new requirements – more commonly referred to as RFS2 - research suggests that the redirection of corn out of the food supply and into corn-based ethanol production represented a loss of 3.3 percent of global grain production. A spillover effect of this increased demand for corn has been an increase in food prices experienced most dramatically since 2008. Using the Food and Agriculture Organization Food Price Index as a benchmark indicator of global food prices, researchers have found that “corn ethanol is likely to be responsible for the underlying increase in the cost of food” during the 2008-2011 period. Agricultural economists have estimated that the diversion of corn into ethanol production has resulted in an increase in corn prices of approximately 30 percent.

The consequences of the increased demand for corn are being felt beyond the corn market; as demand for corn-based ethanol resulting from the RFS continues to influence the price of corn, the price of other food commodities such as soybeans and wheat are also affected. In July and August of this year, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported record global grain prices, shooting up 38 percentage points from June. The expected poor harvest for corn in 2012 will likely further exacerbate this trend.

Consequences of high food prices for those living in poverty in the United States and globally

At present, the two states seeking relief from current and future mandates for corn-based ethanol rank 34th (North Carolina) and 45th (Arkansas) out of the 50 states in terms of percentage of the population living in poverty. These high poverty rates and the sharply increased cost of food have exacerbated food insecurity in these states. Consistently since October 2008 food price inflation has outpaced the general rate of inflation in the United States. In September, the USDA announced that on average 14.7 percent of the US population reported being food insecure between 2009 and 2011. Arkansas was tied with Mississippi for the highest rate of food insecurity of any state over this period with 19.2 percent of the population reporting food insecurity; and in North Carolina 17.1 percent of the population reported being food insecure.

Hunger and food insecurity in the United States carry real economic costs and consequences in terms of increased healthcare costs, lost educational opportunities and increased costs to domestic charities to provide needed support. Recent analysis calculates these costs at $5.44 billion for North Carolina and $2.03 billion for Arkansas in 2010. These conservative estimates- which do not include the additional spending for government nutrition programs (such as SNAP and the free and reduced cost school lunch programs)-demonstrate the substantial economic costs of food insecurity deriving, in no small part, from increased food prices resulting substantially from the RFS mandate for corn-based ethanol.

This sharp rise in food prices is a threat to the economic and human well-being of people not just in the United States, but also around the world, particularly in countries reliant on U.S. imports to meet their food demands. In many developing countries today, cereals – including corn – are a dietary staple and represent over 50 percent of the daily caloric intake for millions of people. In low-income countries that are net food importers, where the poor consume mostly unprocessed foods, hunger is an ever-present threat when food commodities markets are hit by shocks. In fact, at the height of 2008, the World Bank estimates that the sudden, sharp increase in food prices drove 44 million people into poverty. Oxfam documented the struggles of people affected by high food prices and our organization is often challenged to address the impact of high food prices on vulnerable populations.

In the Sahel region of West Africa, for instance, more than 18 million people are emerging from a prolonged “hunger season” caused by a toxic mix of high and volatile food prices, poor harvests and chronic poverty and vulnerability. Several of the countries affected by the current crisis, Senegal and Mauritania in particular, could face a double-shock if prices increase and remain high. Senegal is one of the largest importers of corn in the West Africa region and corn contributes approximately 10 percent of the calories to the Senegalese diet. Furthermore, because about half of the grain consumed in Mauritania comes in the form of wheat, which is largely import dependent, high wheat process have raised alarm bells for the World Food Programme, which is worried about the impact higher prices will have on hunger and poverty in a country already experiencing severe food insecurity.

The problems affecting populations in the Sahel are representative of communities and countries around the world. Research released this month from Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute has calculated the additional cost to Net Corn-Importing Countries from growth of U.S. ethanol production. In particular, from 2005/06, at the start of the RFS program, to 2011, increase demand for corn-based ethanol has cost net-corn importing developing countries $6.64 billion USD in increased import bills. This added loss of domestic revenue further squeezes national budgets of the poorest developing countries and cuts into revenue that could have been used to pay for supplemental nutrition programs or emergency food reserves that protect vulnerable populations from food price shocks.

While concerns about high food prices are foremost about the spread of hunger and poverty, high food prices are also strongly correlated with political instability and have historically been a catalyst for mass protest in countries where legitimacy is already faltering. Research performed by the New England Institute for Science and Society has identified “a global food price threshold for unrest;” according to this analysis, food riots are more likely to occur when prices exceed “a FAO price index of 210.” Currently, the price index for September stands at 216, and has gradually risen above 210 since July of this year.

Since 2007, food riots have broken out in more than 60 countries and have occurred with heightened frequency during periods of record-breaking food prices such as in 2008, when food riots erupted from Europe to the South Pacific. The FAO food price index crossed the 210 threshold, for the first time, in February 2008.

The 2008 food riots are instructive as they reveal the contributing role new RFS2 requirements played in elevating corn prices and disrupting food markets at that time. RFS2 mandates for 2008 nearly doubled the total volume of U.S. biofuel production, from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007, to 9.00 billion gallons in 2008. As the new production requirements went into effect in 2008, all biofuel production that year was ethanol derived solely from corn. While global corn stocks were high for 2008, the significant uptick in the diversion of corn into ethanol production likely played a role in sending agricultural commodity prices and subsequently food prices soaring to then historic highs, prompting many of those affected to take to the streets. The world watched civil unrest erupt and spread across the globe.

Another wave of protests and riots in 2011, rippled across North Africa and the Middle East to become what is now referred to as the “Arab Spring,” revealing, among other things, how the failure to guarantee basic securities, such as an affordable supply of food, can topple governments. In 2011, the FAO food price index registered a record annual average of 228, the highest ever recorded since the index began measurements in 1990. Experiences from the last two major food price crises of 2008 and 2011 confirm that the prospect of political unrest is likely and such unrest can potentially threaten the security interests of the U.S.

Need for waiver of the RFS mandate

Land sold off in last decade could grow enough food to feed a billion people – Oxfam

bgrossmancohen — 2012-10-04T14:27:11Z

Land the size of the California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico combined was sold off globally in the last decade, enough to grow food for the one billion people who go hungry today, says a new report, from international relief and development organization Oxfam America.

The Oxfam report, Our Land, Our Lives, shows that land deals tripled during the food price crisis in 2008 and 2009 because land was increasingly viewed as a profitable investment. With global food prices again hovering near record levels, urgent action is needed today to stop the threat of another wave of land grabs.

“An area of land the size of Chicago is being sold to foreign investors every two days in developing countries,” said Paul O’Brien, Vice President of policy and campaigns for Oxfam America. “Tens of thousands of poor people are being kicked off their land, often violently, without consultation or compensation. The World Bank can act today and prevent this from becoming one of the great scandals of the 21st century.”

The report was released a week before the World Bank’s first Annual Meeting since Jim Kim became its new President, and comes as Oxfam steps up its campaign to end land grabs. Oxfam calls on the World Bank to temporarily freeze its agricultural investments in land so it can review its advice to developing countries, help set standards for investors and introduce more robust policies to prevent land-grabs. Since 2008, 21 formal complaints have been brought by communities affected by World Bank projects that they say have violated their land rights.

“The World Bank needs to put its house in order,” said O’Brien. “But it is also in a unique position to help solve this crisis both as an investor in land and an adviser to developing countries.”

The Bank’s investments in agriculture have increased by 200 percent in the last 10 years, while its private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation, sets standards followed by many investors. The Bank’s own research reveals that countries with the most large scale land deals are those with the poorest protection of people’s land rights. Oxfam supports greater investment in agriculture and to small-scale farmers; however the unprecedented rush for land has not been adequately policed to prevent land grabs.

The report warns that more than 60 percent of investments in agricultural land by foreign investors between 2000 and 2010 were in developing countries with serious hunger problems. However, two thirds of those investors plan to export everything they produce on the land. About 60 percent of global land deals in the past decade have been to grow crops that can be used for biofuels.

“By implementing a temporary freeze and reviewing its approach, the Bank can set an example to all investors and governments and to help ensure that investors genuinely boost development in some of the poorest communities,” said O’Brien. “Investment should be good news for developing countries, but too often it consigns people to greater poverty, hunger and hardship.”

Oxfam urges Jim Kim to take leadership on this issue at the World Bank’s Annual Meetings in Tokyo on October 12-14 and send a strong signal to global investors to stop land-grabbing and to improve standards. Specifically, Oxfam is calling for:

Transparency – ensuring that information about land deals is publicly accessible for both affected communities and governments.
Consultation and consent – ensuring communities are informed in advance, and can agree or refuse projects.
Land rights and governance – strengthening poor people’s rights to land and natural resources, especially women, through better land tenure governance as set out by the Committee for Food Security.
Food security – ensuring that land investments do not undermine local and national food security.

“The World Bank’s mission is tackle global poverty so they have a responsibility to help stop this unbridled rush for land," said O’Brien. “As food prices spike and competition for food and natural resources intensify, land grabs are likely to accelerate. We must take urgent action to ensure that poor people’s rights are protected.”

/Ends

Notes to editors:
According to the International Land Coalition, 500 million acres of land was acquired in major deals globally between 2000 and 2010.
The same research shows that 260 million acres of land in developing countries was acquired by foreign investors between 2000 and 2010.

For more information see: www.oxfamamerica.org/landfreeze

For a video introduction to Land Grabs see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUXMPczM7D4&feature=player_embedded

Impact of climate change on food prices is underestimated

bgrossmancohen — 2012-09-13T18:07:18Z

Climate change will increasingly drive extreme weather shocks that will cause more dramatic spikes in future global food prices, according to international relief and development organization Oxfam America. Future extreme weather events, like the US drought, could spike prices drastically with devastating consequences for the poorest people in the world.

In a new report, Extreme Weather, Extreme Prices, Oxfam shows that the full impact of climate change on future food prices is being underestimated. Current research only tends to consider these gradual impacts of climate change on food prices, such as increasing temperatures and changing rainfall patterns.

“Rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns hold back crop production and cause steady but significant price rises,” said Heather Coleman, climate change policy advisor for Oxfam America. “But extreme weather events – like the current US drought – can wipe out entire harvests and trigger dramatic food price spikes in just a few months.”

Oxfam’s research looks at the impact of extreme weather scenarios on food prices in 2030 and it finds:

Even under a conservative scenario another US drought in 2030, the price of corn could rise by as much as 140 percent over and above the average price of food in 2030, which is already likely to be double today’s prices.
Drought and flooding in southern Africa could increase the consumer price of corn and other coarse grains by as much as 120 percent. Price spikes of this magnitude today would mean the cost of a 55lb bag of corn meal—a staple which feeds poor families across Africa for about two weeks—would rocket from around $18 to $40.
A nationwide drought in India and extensive flooding across South East Asia could see the world market price of rice increase by 22 percent. This could see domestic spikes of up to 43 percent on top of longer term price rises in rice importing countries of such as Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country.

The research warns that in 2030, the world could be even more vulnerable to the kind of drought happening today in the US, as dependence on US exports of wheat and corn is predicted to rise as climate change increases the likelihood of extreme droughts in North America.

“We will all feel the impact as prices spikes but the poorest people will be hit hardest because they often spend up to 75 percent of their income on food,” said Coleman. “The world needs to wake up to the drastic consequences we will all face because of climate inaction.”

The report also warns that climate shocks in sub-Saharan Africa are likely to have an increasingly dramatic impact in 2030, as 95 percent of grains such as corn, millet and sorghum that are consumed in sub-Saharan Africa could come from the region itself.

“As emissions continue to soar, this year’s extreme weather provides a glimpse of how food production could suffer in a warming world,” said Coleman. “Our planet is boiling and if we don’t act now, hunger will increase for millions of people on our planet.”

Oxfam’s report comes as the US Department of Agriculture releases its household food security report and as United Nations talks aimed at tackling climate change close in Bangkok. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization is also due to publish an update tomorrow on how the worst US drought in sixty years is impacting on global food prices.

“We have no more time to waste,” said Coleman. “The US and governments around the world must take immediate action to address volatile food prices and slash rising greenhouse gas emissions, reverse decades of under investment in small scale agriculture in poor countries, and help poor farmers build their resilience to a changing climate.”

Read the full report at: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/extreme-weather-extreme-prices

American moms can help fix our broken food system

bgrossmancohen — 2012-09-17T14:56:16Z

Mothers across America and the world hold the key to fixing our broken food system, which leaves one in seven people hungry every day according to a new report released today by international relief and development organization Oxfam. Results of a six country-poll commissioned by Oxfam show that American women want to do more to help ensure everyone has enough to eat and are willing to make changes that will help such as using a lid on their pot when cooking or going meat-less one meal per week.

However, American women report feeling disconnected from the people that produce their food and say they don’t have enough information about how their food choices affect people and the planet. To help answer these questions Oxfam’s GROW campaign is launching a new Facebook app and Pinterest cookbook to promote Oxfam’s GROW Method which offers 5 easy steps for moms -and everyone else- to feed their families in ways that help ensure everyone has enough to eat.

“In most homes in America and around the world it is women who put food on the table,” said Vicky Rateau Campaign Manager for Oxfam America’s GROW campaign. “This puts women in a uniquely powerful position to kick start the transformation of our broken food system with tiny changes in the way we enjoy our food.”

Mothers are crucial to helping everyone get enough to eat because they make the majority of food buying decisions. Women control around $15 trillion or 65 percent of the world’s annual consumer spending. Twice as many women cook as men and globally, women spend four times as long preparing, cooking and cleaning up after meals. Oxfam’s GROW Method emphasizes the power women have to catalyze change and suggests five simple steps for feeding their families healthy, delicious meals that will put the global food system on the road to recovery:

Eat less meat: Access to water is essential to food security and more than 1.6 billion people live in areas facing water scarcity. Meat production soaks up 8 percent of the world’s water supply. If American moms were to feed their families lentils or other beans instead of beef once per week they would save 6,000 liters of water each meal. That’s the equivalent of seventeen bathtubs of fresh water filled to the brim and then some every week.
Reduce food waste: About a third of all food produced for people’s plates goes to waste. In the six countries surveyed one in six apples ends up in the garbage– that’s 5.3 billion apples every year. Lined up side by side those apples would stretch more than nine times around the Earth. The greenhouse gases produced in the growth, trade and decomposition of these apples is equivalent to the burning of 10 million barrels of oil every day, more than the US imports. Only buying the apples we need and storing them in the refrigerator would help cut down on this waste.
Support small-scale and sustainable food producers: If consumers in Brazil, UK, USA and Spain ensure two of the chocolate bars they buy each month are Fair Trade it would add up to over 12.5 billion chocolate bars a year - this action alone could help transform the lives of people who live and work on 90,000 small scale cocoa farms across the globe.
Cook smarter: Simple changes in how we prepare food such as putting a lid on a pan when cooking, using the right amount of water to cook vegetables and reducing the heat as soon as water starts to boil – can cut the amount of energy we use in cooking by up to 70 percent and to help prevent climate impacts from hurting poor farmers. If women in the 6 surveyed countries took simple steps like this it would be the equivalent of planting 540 million tree seedlings and letting them grow for a decade.
Buy Seasonal: A lot of energy is wasted growing food in the wrong place at the wrong time of year. We can save enormous amounts of energy and cut greenhouse emissions just by eating more of what’s in season near us.

“Change begins at the dinner table,” said Rateau. “Women across America and around the world are concerned about the way food is produced and the people who produce it and want to know what they can do to make a difference.”

The survey of over 5,100 moms living in cities and towns in Brazil, India, Philippines, UK, USA and Spain shows that women in the US and other countries are eager to learn how they can help make a difference through the food choices they make.

Mom’s say they don’t have enough information:

89 percent of women in the Philippines feel they know how the food choices they make affect the wider world compared to just 46 percent in the United States.
59 percent of women surveyed in India felt a connection to food producers compared to just 28 percent in the US.

But they care about their choices and want to know how to make a difference:

67 percent of US women are concerned with how their food is produced.
64 percent of US women would like to know how they can make a real difference through the food they choose to buy.

And they are open to the steps recommended by the GROW Method

82.4 percent of US women would feel comfortable feeding their family a meat-free meal once per week.
73.8 percent of US women are bothered when they have to throw away fresh fruit and vegetables.
76.4 percent of US women would like to know how to use less energy when cooking.

“If enough women make even the tiniest of changes, the reverberations will be felt throughout the food chain,” said Rateau. “Governments and the global companies that wield the strings to our broken food system will be forced to change the way they do business.”

\ENDS

Notes to editors
To read the full report: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/files/the-food-transformation/view

Link to Facebook app: https://www.facebook.com/oxfamamerica/app_364544693615521

Link to Pinterest cookbook: http://pinterest.com/oxfamgrowmethod/

Link to the GROW Method: http://www.oxfamamerica.org/growmethod

Companies release step-by-step guide to build resilience to climate change

bgrossmancohen — 2012-07-10T15:47:24Z

For the first time, leading companies from the food and beverage, insurance, investment, technology, and energy industries today released a step-by-step tool, Business ADAPT, for businesses to assess and prepare for the risks and opportunities posed by climate change. The tool is part of the Value Chain Climate Resilience guide, showing examples of how companies are already addressing the risks caused by increasingly severe and frequent weather events and other climate threats.

The companies called for businesses to take proactive steps to address risks to their operations and the communities they rely on. Community risks are business risks because communities provide key resources to companies, as well as a ‘social license to operate’. The guide cites several recent extreme weather events that are already causing grave economic and social harm and will likely result in even greater risks in the future as the climate changes:

•   Nine of out ten companies have suffered weather-related impacts in the past three years and most have seen an intensification of such impacts, but only thirty percent are actively responding to those threats.
•   The 2010 heat wave in Russia, which triggered severe wildfires, shaved off approximately 1% of the country’s GDP that year, representing a total loss of approximately $15 billion USD.
•   In 2011, Texas suffered a record drought, which cost the agricultural sector at least US$7.6 billion and led to rising cotton prices cutting earnings for a number of clothing manufacturers.

“Extreme weather puts the reliability of not only our distribution system at risk, but also our power generation and transmission systems,” said J. Wayne Leonard, chairman and CEO of Entergy Corporation. “Similarly, our customers and communities are ill prepared to respond to hazards of a magnitude and frequency that we have never seen before. We have to do a better job of working together to understand, prepare, manage and respond to these risks, and ultimately severe events.”

Many businesses say they do not feel “sufficiently informed” to take action on climate change. The Business ADAPT tool follows five simple steps to help companies understand the risks they face, identify emerging market opportunities, take into account community needs, and effectively manage threats to their bottom line. The steps are targeted towards company executives and senior managers, and provide detailed guidance in sectors that are considered highly vulnerable including water and energy utilities and companies in the food, beverage, agriculture and general manufacturing industries.

Step 1. Analyze the issues- Have you started thinking about the resilience of your business in the face of climate-related impacts?
Step 2. Develop an internal strategy- Have you mobilized the right team to address climate resilience?
Step 3. Assess risks and opportunities- Have you taken steps to assess the areas where opportunities to build climate resilience or invest in emerging market opportunities exist in your business value chain?
Step 4. Prioritize actions- Have you taken steps to identify and assess measures to build climate resilience in your value chain?
Step 5. Tackle actions, and evaluate progress- How will you successfully implement actions to build climate resilience in your value chain, and evaluate and monitor the effect of your actions over time?

“Worldwide, as severe weather events increase in frequency and intensity, businesses must incorporate weather-related contingency plans throughout their value chains for improved response to severe events while ensuring business continuity, asset protection, and in creating community and eco-system resiliency,” says Earth Networks President and CEO Bob Marshall.

“The Business ADAPT tool is the first of its kind to help companies across sectors as they begin to take action to address the impacts of climate change on their businesses,” said Amy Leonard, Senior Vice President of Product Development, Levi Strauss & Co. “This tool helps companies like ours consider solutions that build resilience in addition to reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.”

"The human and economic costs of severe weather are escalating and it is increasingly important that business and communities integrate climate risk into their operational and decision-making processes," said Mark Way, Swiss Re's Head Sustainability Americas Hub. "We hope this report will be of practical value for those just beginning this journey as well as for those who are further along the road toward increased climate resiliency."

Companies who fail to take preventative steps to address climate threats could find themselves facing extreme and unmanageable risks. As James E. Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy put it, “If we’re not ready, we’re in trouble.”

/ENDS

The Partnership for Resilience and Environmental Preparedness (PREP) is a one-year pilot partnership formed to address the risks and opportunities that climate change impacts pose to businesses and the communities on which they depend. Members include Calvert Investments, Earth Networks, Entergy, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Levi Strauss and Co., Starbucks and Swiss Re. BSR and Ceres are also partners. Oxfam America serves as PREP’s secretariat. The firm Acclimatise served as lead authors of the report. For more information, see oxfamamerica.org/prep

Oxfam reaction to Senate Farm Bill passage

bgrossmancohen — 2012-06-21T20:15:31Z

In response to the passage of the Farm Bill in the US Senate, Gawain Kripke, director of policy and research for Oxfam America, said:

“The Senate Farm Bill takes positive steps to reform international food aid programs. We commend Chairman Stabenow and Ranking Senator Roberts for their leadership to ensure that the tiny sliver of Farm Bill funds that go to international food aid has the greatest impact possible. These programs save millions of lives, and improving them will save many more. We urge leaders in the House of Representatives to take up these modest, bipartisan reforms to cut waste and help save lives.

“Overall, the Farm Bill continues to create serious problems by subsidizing big agribusiness at the expense of poor farmers and taxpayers. We are encouraged by the overwhelming passage of Senator Grassley’s amendment to limit payments on marketing loans; and the Senate bill’s elimination of countercyclical payments and higher loan rates offer bright spots in an otherwise uninspiring picture. Marketing loans and deficiency payments are the most market-distorting commodity subsidies. By limiting proceeds and loan rates, the Senate bill protects tax dollars and contributes to a fairer market for poor farmers in developing countries.

“A major outstanding issue that the Senate Farm Bill does not resolve is the violation of WTO agreements, as established by the cotton case brought by Brazil. Unless the final Farm Bill does more to reform cotton subsidies, the controversy will continue and could result in economic retaliation by Brazil, as authorized by the WTO.”

Grassley amendment #2167 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SP02167:

Food Aid reforms in the Senate bill include:

1. The pilot program created in the 2008 Farm Bill to study the effectiveness of purchasing food aid locally and regionally will be continued as a full program with modestly increased funding to $40 million per year.

2. Efforts are made to reduce the “monetization” of food aid whereby food aid is dumped on developing country markets, a wasteful way to raise funds for long term development projects. The bill cuts the level of funding for “monetization” which will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and make aid programs more effective.

/ENDS

Eurozone breakup would cost poorest countries $30 billion

bgrossmancohen — 2012-06-15T14:18:05Z

A Eurozone breakup could cost the world’s poorest countries $30 billion in lost trade and foreign investment, international relief and development organization Oxfam has warned ahead of the G20 leaders meeting in Mexico to discuss the state of the global economy.

Many poor countries would be pulled into a vicious spiral of falling export earnings, damaging their economies and putting pressure on already limited resources for essential health and education services. $30 billion is almost a quarter of the global aid budget, and represents an additional burden on poor countries at a time when 18 million people in West Africa are at risk of a looming food crisis. Donors have so far failed to come up with adequate funding to help those going hungry.

“G20 leaders need to remember that the consequences of economic crisis are felt most acutely by poor countries that are already facing major impacts from volatile food prices and aid cuts,” said Gawain Kripke, research and policy director for Oxfam America. “The Eurocrisis is a grave threat and the G20 has a responsibility to prevent poor people from being punished for problems they did nothing to create.”

Oxfam’s calculations are that if the Euro breaks up, the resulting drop in European countries’ GDP would mean a loss of income for Least Developed Countries – most of these in Sub-Saharan Africa - of up to $20 billion in revenue from exports to Europe in the year following the breakup. Poor countries could expect to lose a further $10 billion due to reduced investment from the continent. A collapse of the Eurozone would exacerbate the problems already facing low-income countries, including food shortages, failing aid and reduced capital flows as a result of the economic crisis.

Oxfam is calling on the G20 to show strong support for a financial transaction tax (FTT, know in many countries as a Robin Hood Tax) to help poor people hit by the economic crisis. The European Commission has proposed a Europe-wide FTT that would raise $71 billion a year. The G20 also needs to take urgent action on issues which help drive social vulnerability by curbing financial speculation on food commodities, reversing biofuels policies that transform food into fuel and improving land rights.

“The G20 must make a concerted effort to address the economic and food crises that have left one in seven people in the world hungry,” said Kripke. “The financial sector should work in the interests of society not the other way around: that means curbing food speculation and insisting the sector which bears responsibility for the economic crisis helps poor people who have been trapped by it.”

Three years ago, the G20 launched a framework for “strong, sustainable and balanced growth”. They will meet in Los Cabos having delivered little for people most at risk of losing their livelihoods and most likely to be pushed into poverty.

Gross capital flows to developing countries plunged to $170 billion last year compared with $309 billion in 2010 and aid to developing countries fell by $3.4 billion last year.

“The European crisis goes beyond just Europe,” said Kripke. “G20 leaders must use their power to deal with these issues in a way that addresses more than the needs of the wealthiest and most powerful.”

Oxfam is calling on the G20 to:

Take action to fix the broken food system. The G20 persists in failing to address the most important drivers of the food price crisis: increased demand for biofuels, financial speculation on commodities, and climate change. Most urgently, 18 million people in the Sahel now face a severe food shortage. This is on top of the nearly billion worldwide who already go hungry.
Clamp down on tax dodging and improving tax transparency. Developing countries are losing billions every year that would provide a vital boost to their economies and could be spent on reducing poverty. So far the G20’s promise to crack down on tax havens has largely failed to materialize.
Raise money for increased public spending and support to the poorest introducing a carbon price on international shipping, which would help to cut emissions and in the process raise $25 billionn a year.
Concentrate on ensuring that growth is fair and boosts equality, so that its benefits reach people living in poverty. As a first step G20 countries must publicly and annually report progress on reducing inequality and make inequality reduction a measure of progress alongside GDP growth. They should task the IMF with doing this.
Support increased investment in high-quality public health and education services. These are crucial safety nets for the poorest and those falling on hard times, as well as crucial investments in future productivity and a fairer society.

/Ends

Notes to editors

Oxfam’s calculation on the monetary cost of a euro zone total break up on LDCs used three data sources:

A scenario by ING on the economic impact (measured as GDP fall) in the euro zone. The total drop in output for 2 years is 12 percent. During the first year after the break up, the loss would be 8.9 percent (this economic contraction would be worse than what happened after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008). Source: EMU Break-up. Pay Now, Pay Later. ING Global Economics 1 December 2011
A time series of the trade matrix between the euro zone and Least Developed Countries (48 countries as defined by the United Nations). This information is available in the UNCTAD Stat website under International Trade. Also, the time series of foreign direct investment in LDCs. Source: http://unctadstat.unctad.org/
The time series of GDP (real and nominal) from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators. Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD

Trade data shows a sharp reversal of LDCs exports to the world and the euro zone in 2009. The total value of exports from LDC to the Euro zone fell by 30 percent in 2009. This represented a loss of 10 billion dollars in export income for LDCs from one year to the next. This occurred when GDP (in real terms) in the Euro zone fell by around 4 percent. The reversal was so large that LDC exports of goods in 2010 were still below the 2008 level.
ING has detailed a scenario where GDP in the Euro zone could fall by 8.9 percent in 2013 if the euro breaks up. A quick and rough calculation - using the 2009 crisis as reference – suggests that LDC countries could lose around 20 billion dollar in income from exports to the Euro zone alone.
A similar calculation on foreign direct investment suggests an additional loss in income of 10 billion dollars. Foreign Direct Investment to LDCs fell by 20 percent in 2009 - from 32.3 to 26.4 billion - in the aftermath of the Lehman collapse. A euro collapse could mean a decrease in FDI flows of 10-11 billion to LDCs.

Gross capital flows to developing countries plunged to $170 billion last year compared with $309 billion in 2010, according to the World Bank’s 2012 ‘Global Economic Prospects’ report.
The least developed countries (LDCs) are a group of countries that have been identified by the UN as "least developed" in terms of their low gross national income (GNI), their weak human assets and their high degree of economic vulnerability. There are 48 countries currently on the UN’s LDCs list. (Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Comoros, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, the Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen and Zambia.)
Latest OECD figures show aid from rich countries was $133bn in 2011 - a real terms fall of $3.4bn.
A group of G20 countries – Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and South Africa - backed an FTT for development and climate change at the Cannes summit in November. It followed a report from Bill Gates which backed the policy.