In a new report released today, ?Turning Carbon into Gold,? Oxfam said there are ways already available to raise tens of billions of dollars that are linked to emissions reduction schemes. These would ensure that those countries most responsible for emissions, and that can afford to pay, would shoulder the bulk of the obligations. At least $50 billion per year is needed to fund adaptation in developing countries, with more necessary if a new climate change deal is inadequate to keep global warming to below 2ï¾°C.
?With a global financial crisis unfolding, these mechanisms could raise enough money from polluters without governments having to dip into national treasuries,? said Heather Coleman, Oxfam?s Senior Climate Change Policy Advisor and author of the report. "Many negotiators agree this is one of the more practical approaches. Billions of dollars can be raised and invested to prevent future climate change and to help poor people adapt to the negative impacts of global warming.?
The most effective and fair approach for generating adaptation financing is to link into the emissions-reduction system that would form a core part of a post-2012 agreement, where ?international emissions units? are allocated to rich countries. Oxfam says that a portion of these units must be auctioned rather than given away free to countries.
Oxfam estimates that more than $50 billion could be raised each year by 2015 by auctioning just 7.5 per cent of rich countries? international emissions units. This money should be handed to a new multilateral adaptation-finance mechanism under the UNFCCC. Other new finance mechanisms within the aviation and shipping sectors could generate another $28 billion—$12 billion from aviation and $16.6 billion from shipping annually—just from rich countries.
?Helping vulnerable people cope with the effects of climate change is desperately needed today because they are already face increasingly severe and ever-worsening climate change impacts,? said Coleman.
Poor countries need help to build up their resilience by, for example, upgrading national flood early-warning systems, planting mangrove ?bio-shields? along coasts to diffuse storm waves and growing drought-tolerant crops. If countries fail to adapt to the new reality of climate change, they will suffer far greater damage from floods, droughts and hurricanes, and at much higher cost, both in human and financial terms.
?It is extremely important for negotiators in Poznan to reach a broad understanding about how best to raise adaptation money because they have paid lip-service to the issue for too long. It is a vital part of the overall deal—a litmus test of how serious rich countries are in tackling the problem,? Coleman said.
?Poor people around the world bear the brunt of climate change and yet they are least responsible for global warming,? said Coleman. ?Even during tempestuous financial times, rich countries can and should help poor people cope. We cannot afford to exchange a short-term saving for a long-term disaster.?
]]>At a recent event at the US Global Leadership Campaign, Defense Secretary Gates led the call for greater balance when he remarked, ?It has become clear that America?s civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and under-funded for far too long?relative to what we spend on the military, and more important, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world.?
?Defense Secretary Gates is advocating for a smart power approach to US foreign policy, and we cannot have smart power unless we have smart development,? said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. ?Smart development means the US must prioritize long-term poverty alleviation alongside defense and diplomacy concerns.?
According to Oxfam, America?s glaring lack of investment in development is evident when one considers that in the 1990s, 37 percent of the US Agency for International Development?s (USAID) workforce left without being replaced. USAID, which has traditionally led US foreign assistance efforts, also saw direct hires working in the field drop by 29 percent from 2002 to 2005. Oxfam states that while some strides have been made to increase and restructure overseas aid, much greater reform of US foreign aid is needed to ensure that the long-term needs of the poor?not politics?come first.
?The next president and his administration have a chance to put smart development in practice to create a better foreign aid system?a better international face for the US?that will help lift millions from poverty and re-establish US global standing,? said Offenheiser.
Oxfam recently released Smart Development: Why US Foreign Aid Demands Major Reform. In it, the agency outlines its approach to smart development including implementing development in the context of the other forces at work in various societies, helping states govern effectively, creating markets that function fairly and working with poor people to achieve the basic tools to generate their own wealth over time.
]]>The report, Double Edged Prices, calls on all governments, donors, and agencies to learn lessons from the crisis, including the importance of investing in agriculture, reforming trade policy to help ensure greater food security, and designing social protection systems that protect the poorest.
?Declining investments in agriculture combined with a rush to liberalize agricultural markets in developing countries and continuation of trade-distorting agricultural policies in developed countries, have all contributed to today?s crisis,? said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. ?Alleviating the impact of current high prices involves addressing the chronic vulnerabilities that arise from decades of poorly designed trade, agriculture and social safety net policies. These are what lie at the root of the problem.?
Although prices may continue to fluctuate and fall somewhat, they will nevertheless remain high compared to recent trends, according to the report. The sharp rise in global food prices has pushed an estimated 119 million more people into hunger, bringing the global total of malnourished people close to a billion. Higher food prices mean people are eating less food or food of lower nutritional value. Children are being taken out of school and farmers, no longer able to afford to farm are being forced to migrate to cities to live in slums. Women are especially vulnerable because they rarely own land and have limited access to credit and other services, but bear much of the responsibility for feeding and caring for families.
?While many of us are directing our attention to the financial crisis, far less attention is being paid to the food price crisis, yet the two are inextricably linked,? said Offenheiser. ?More than $12 billion was pledged for the food crisis at an emergency meeting in Rome earlier this year, but little more than one billion dollars has been disbursed so far. As billions are being committed by governments around the world to deal with the financial crisis, commitments to address the food crisis must not be forgotten. We must not leave the poorest on the sidelines.?
Government policies, especially on agricultural investment, trade, the development of domestic markets and social safety nets for the poorest have affected the degree of vulnerability and associated impacts experienced in different countries. In Brazil, for example, well-targeted government agricultural policies have shielded small farmers and consumers from the harshest impacts. In Malawi, government subsidies have successfully boosted production levels in many areas, resulting in surpluses and a reversal of previous shortages.
?Countries that have invested in smallholder agriculture and social protection policies have proved to be more resilient to the crisis,? said Offenheiser. ?Conversely, countries that opened their markets too widely or too rapidly to food imports and failed to invest in their agricultural sectors have fared far worse.?
Trade agreements, such as the Central American- Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) have forced developing countries to liberalize rapidly and extensively without providing adequate safeguard mechanisms to defend vulnerable sectors, leaving these countries extremely vulnerable to food price spikes. While US agricultural exports to these countries reached record levels, growth in the Central American agricultural sectors decelerated spelling increased poverty where agriculture accounts for as much as a quarter of GDP.
?The international community has failed to organize to respond effectively to this food crisis,? said Offenheiser. ?Developing countries are being bombarded with different initiatives and asked to produce multiple plans for different donors. We need to see one coordinated international response, led by the UN, which channels funds urgently to those in need and also sets the stage for longer-term reforms.?
]]>?The ?Measure of America? reveals huge gaps among some groups in our country to access opportunity and reach their potential,? said Sarah Burd-Sharps, co-author of the book. ?Some Americans are living anywhere from 30 to 50 years behind others when it comes to issues we all care about: health, education and standard of living. For example, the state human development index shows that people in last-ranked Mississippi are living 30 years behind those in first-ranked Connecticut.?
Using U.S. government statistics on longevity, educational attainment and enrollment, and earnings, the report reveals where America is today and sets a benchmark against which we will be able to assess where we are tomorrow. Unlike single measurements of health, education or income, the American Human Development Index combines these factors into one measurement that more accurately reflects Americans? well-being. The report identifies which parts of the country are moving forward and which are stalled or even falling behind.
?This is not a report about one group of Americans or another; it is about all of us,? said Kristen Lewis, co-author of the report. ?By ranking the fifty states, the 436 congressional districts, and the major racial and ethnic groups, the American Human Development Index allows everyone to see where his or her community fits in terms of access to opportunity and standard of living.?
The American Human Development Report 2008-2009 shows that although America is one of the richest nations in the world, it is woefully behind when it comes to providing opportunity and choices to all Americans to build a better life. Following are just a few of the many findings of the report:
?The information found in this report will prove invaluable to the philanthropic community when looking for ways to improve the lives of people living with reduced opportunities,? said Ed Cain, vice president for programs of The Conrad N. Hilton Foundation. ?American philanthropies can use this report to identify where the needs exist and to guide their investments in programs that address those needs by providing better access to healthcare, education and jobs.?
Eighteen years after the first United Nations Human Development Report was published, more than 140 countries around the world have replicated the human development index for their country to better understand what is inhibiting human development and to use the data to develop policies that will improve their citizen?s standard of living. ?The human development index is such an accepted standard that in Brazil, for example, the human development index of each team?s country was flashed on the screen during televised World Cup soccer matches,? said Eduardo Martins, co-author of the report.
?The American Human Development Index is unique because it reveals the interlocking factors that create or deny opportunity and determine life chances,? said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. ?The analysis is particularly revealing in places like the Gulf Coast region, where we work with 34 regional organizations. The report clearly illustrates the conditions residents were struggling with even prior to the hurricanes of 2005?limited access to education, lower incomes, and shorter lives ? and argues for a comprehensive solution for recovery.?
The report also includes key social, economic, political, environmental, housing, transportation and military data distilled from a vast array of primary sources not found together anywhere else. Finally, the report describes successful policies in America and other wealthy nations, allowing policy makers to draw practical lessons for policy action locally or nationally.
?The American Human Development Index offers a clear and balanced measure of how well our public and private policies are meeting the needs of Americans,? said Darren Walker, vice president, Foundation Initiatives, The Rockefeller Foundation. ?The data in this report can be used to build on past policy successes and to create opportunities that serve a new generation of Americans.?
]]>Speaking ahead of next week?s G8 Summit in Japan, Oxfam International?s executive director Jeremy Hobbs said: ?Faced with a financial crisis, global leaders spent one trillion dollars in six months to rescue their banks. That shows they can act quickly and decisively to find cash when the political will is there.?
?Today we are faced with a global food crisis that has condemned tens of millions of people to hunger. A fraction of the money that rich country leaders poured into their financial sector would make a real difference in the fight against poverty. It would help keep people alive. The G8 must now show that same kind of urgency and commitment to tackle poverty.?
The G8 meets in Japan from 7-9 July for their annual summit, with the food crisis high on the agenda along with climate change, oil prices, inflation and the economy, and African development.
Oxfam is concerned by reports that G8 leaders are looking to water down previous financial commitments to tackle poverty, or even to renege on them altogether.
?Faced with growing economic, food, and climate crises, it would be scandalous if the G8 was to backtrack on the promises it made to those who are suffering most,? Hobbs said. ?We are calling on leaders to recommit to their pledges on aid, and to take decisive action to help poor people cope with spiralling food prices and the growing impact of climate change, and to tackle the root causes of these problems.?
Oxfam was today joined by a cast of high-profile supporters, including actors Scarlett Johansson, Gael Garcia Bernal and Kristin Davis, who called for the summit to respond urgently to global challenges, starting with a boost in funds for climate change, the food crisis and development aid.
Along with singers Emmanuel Jal from Sudan and Annie Lennox from the UK, they said: ?Many of us have witnessed at first hand that aid works but also that there is a great deal more that needs to be done. It is the world?s poor who are most vulnerable to increased food prices and it is these same people who are affected worst by the impacts of climate change. We look to the G8 to address the global economic uncertainty, but they must also look beyond their own borders and not turn their backs on the world?s poorest people. We expect nothing less of them.?
]]>In a letter to Congressional leaders, Oxfam America president Raymond C. Offenheiser joined the leaders of humanitarian organizations Mercy Corps and the International Medical Corps to call for urgent action by the Congress to meet the historic challenge posed by skyrocketing food prices.
?Congress and the White House are negotiating a new Farm Bill that will spend as much as $300 billion over the next five years. The bill maintains significant farm subsidies which go overwhelmingly to the largest and wealthiest producers despite the fact that US farm income is at record levels,? said the letter signed by Offenheiser, Nancy Lindborg, president of Mercy Corps and Nancy Aossey, president of the International Medical Corps. ?Even a small redistribution of subsidies for wealthy US farmers could make a huge difference in reducing starvation in many parts of the world.?
Faced with a global hunger crisis, Congress has an important opportunity to provide desperately needed funding to help those facing starvation due to high food and energy prices and help head off a global humanitarian disaster, according to the organizations.
?We understand that this represents a major political challenge, but we believe that the dire circumstances warrant dramatic steps and demand leadership,? continued the letter. ?We also know that a humanitarian and development crisis may be averted if these urgent actions are taken.?
Late last week, President Bush called on Congress to provide an additional $770 million in assistance to help address the needs of millions of people in developing countries who face acute hunger and to help improve agriculture so they can feed themselves. But, at the same time, Congress was preparing to slash funding for the McGovern-Dole Program, which feeds school children in developing countries. Restoring funding for the McGovern-Dole Program and responding to the President?s request for added funding are essential. In addition, a simple change in our food aid policy to allow cash for local purchase of commodities also requested by the President would immediately increase the speed and efficiency of food aid programs, providing more food and assistance to people around the world.
?Almost half of all US food aid cost due to bureaucratic restrictions and high transportation costs?, says Offenheiser. ?In calling on the Congress to provide more assistance, the Bush administration has also asked the Congress to allow more flexibility in providing food resources to those in need when addressing food crises.?
If aid agencies were allowed to purchase food aid closer to where it is needed?rather than shipping it thousands of miles from the USA?food could get to more people faster according to Oxfam. This would also encourage local food production that can help avert future disasters.
?As we have witnessed in the past few weeks, high food prices are pushing many more people deeper into poverty. Hunger, poverty, and lack of economic opportunity in developing countries are a human tragedy, but they also have implications for America?s long-term security and prosperity,? said Offenheiser. ?Americans want to help people in need. Pandering to wealthy farmers and special interests at the expense of women and children who face malnutrition is not what Americans expect of their elected officials. There's still time for the Congress to demonstrate leadership in helping avert starvation and social unrest resulting from high food prices."
]]>?Faced with a mounting food crisis at home and abroad, Congress had the opportunity through the Farm Bill to shift funds from wasteful agricultural subsidies for large scale farms to food aid to meet the needs of the poor,? said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. ?But instead, Congressional leaders settled on a bill that will continue to be costly to taxpayers, undermine our rural economy, damage our trade relationships, and hurt the world?s poorest farmers.?
Even with record breaking prices for corn, soybean, and wheat, as well as record-setting agricultural exports, congressional Republicans and Democrats fought to the bone to prevent any meaningful reforms subsidies that are fiscally irresponsible and harm farmers in developing countries. Across the country, from the left and the right, from San Francisco to Des Moines, Americans have spoken out in favor of changing a system that rewards those who need help the least. Unfortunately, their voices were blatantly ignored by the leadership.
?With the future of the world trading system at a critical juncture, an improved American Farm Bill would have helped facilitate a WTO agreement to reduce trade-distorting agricultural subsidies and end dumping,? said Offenheiser. ?But the pigs at the trough continued to promote generous handouts from taxpayers instead, even as agriculture markets are so strong and our economy so weak.?
Despite mustering the necessary increases for domestic nutrition programs, Congress failed to meaningfully address the crisis of rising food prices overseas and the need to increase the efficiencies of our food aid programs. Current law requires that food aid be purchased in the US and transported on US-flagged ships, meaning that food aid takes months to deliver and costs twice as much. Shifting a quarter of the food aid budget to cash for purchase from regional sources as proposed by President Bush would mean that even more people would be fed.
?Congress should modernize the US food aid program to permit at least one-quarter of US food aid contributions in the form of cash rather than commodities, as requested by the Administration and endorsed by international aid and humanitarian organizations. This reform will help aid agencies respond to emergencies,? said Offenheiser. ?While the Bush Administration proposal would have made approximately $300 million available for local purchase each year, the farm bill only includes $60 million for a small pilot project to be administered over several years.?
While accomplishing little reform, the final bill does make incremental improvements by increasing nutrition and conservation funding and providing a host of critical provisions beneficial to socially-disadvantaged producers here at home. Oxfam also welcomed the extension of US trade preference programs for developing countries, like Caribbean Basin Initiative, also included in the Farm Bill package.
?Some steps were taken to hold back the legacy of discrimination that has lingered on farm programs for decades and to extend duty-free programs for some of the poorest countries in our hemisphere,? said Offenheiser. ?But on the verge of a massive food crisis, Congressional action on the Farm Bill to allow special interests and bureaucracy to deprive poor and vulnerable people food is simply unconscionable.?
]]>"Given the context of rising food and fuel prices, a fair trade deal as promised could make a massive difference to people living in poverty around the world," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "But what's currently on the table falls far short of what is needed and continues to prioritize the interests of rich countries, as locking in big tariff cuts without adequate safeguards in place will only expose poor farmers to more shocks."
As trade ministers from 35 countries gather at the World Trade Organization in another attempt to forge a trade deal, Oxfam is calling for a clear and transparent process that involves all members and gives formal opportunities to respond to proposals.
If current offers are accepted, the US may not have to cut a penny from current spending on agriculture, and the EU will only have to cut around $2.6bn, from a total of $30bn, according to Oxfam. The proposals on non-agricultural trade will lock poor countries into low-value economies by preventing them from building up infant industries through strategic trade policy.
"High prices certainly present the opportunity to reform, but with current proposals, this opportunity looks set to be squandered," said Offenheiser. "A trade deal that only accommodates vested interests could be destructive for development and efforts to reduce poverty."
The recently passed US Farm Bill has landed like an unwelcome guest at the negotiating table. In a new analysis released today, Oxfam outlines how the Farm Bill undermines progress in the Doha Round. Despite the fact that US farmers are enjoying very high prices and record farm income -- an average of $89,000 per farm -- the US Congress actually expanded government farm subsidies in the 2008 Farm Bill and reinstated cotton subsidies previously ruled illegal at the WTO.
"Not only do provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill go against previously agreed to obligations at the WTO, but they maintain -- and in some cases, increase -- precisely the subsidies and market protections that developing countries entered the Doha Round to stop," said Offenheiser.
Europe has also not done enough to ensure a pro-poor deal. The EU continues to insist on exemptions for its sugar, beef and dairy farmers, while simultaneously denying poor countries the space to safeguard their own farmers' livelihoods. In recent weeks they have proposed resurrecting the controversial 'peace clause' which would protect them from challenge at the WTO.
"A fair trade deal would mean significant reform of trade distorting subsidies in rich countries coupled with flexibilities for poor countries to promote food security, livelihoods and rural development," said Offenheiser. "But what we're looking at now would only entrench existing advantages for rich countries and vulnerabilities for poor countries."
]]>?Trade preference programs are contributing to the growth of manufacturing and agricultural sectors in many developing countries. This helps create jobs, especially for women, who often have relatively few economic alternatives,? said Raymond C. Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America. ?Congress did the right thing by extending these preferences before they expire, as they offer opportunities for developing countries as well as for US businesses and consumers.?
For more than three decades, the United States has extended preferential duty-free market access to imports from developing countries as a means of stimulating economic growth and poverty reduction. This legislation extends for one year the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which provides duty-free entry to more than 4,650 products from 131 designated beneficiary countries and territories. It also provides a one-year extension of the Andean Trade Preferences Act (ATPA), which waves duties on additional products from Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia, although the Senate forced a compromise that treats Bolivia and Ecuador differently by limiting their participation in the program to six months with Presidential discretion for another 6 month term. In addition, the bill amends the African Growth and Opportunity Act to ensure that African countries can use third country fabric in apparel qualifying for duty-free treatment.
?Trade preference programs benefit not only developing countries but also US businesses which have relied on goods imported duty-free to be used as inputs into products that are manufactured here,? said Offenheiser. ?Next year, Congress should take early action to improve and expand on these preference programs in order to enhance their ability to help the poor in developing countries.?
The US is the Andean countries? most important trading partner and over half of Andean country exports to the United States now enter under the ATPA. An estimated 2.3 million jobs in the Andean countries depend on the ATPA. Limiting the extension of benefits for Bolivia and Ecuador will adversely affect their efforts to enhance economic growth and reduce poverty and is unlikely to resolve US foreign policy differences with those countries. This problem is exacerbated by the US Trade Representative?s recent action to suspend Bolivia, South Americans poorest nation, from receiving benefits through ATPA at all, which could take effect as soon as next month.
?Bolivia and Ecuador have widespread poverty and denying them the ability to benefit from the US Andean preference program will only exacerbate poverty in two of South America?s poorest nations, ? Offenheiser stated. ?In the end, helping to reduce poverty will do more to further US foreign policy goals than punishing these nations because of differences with their current political leadership."
]]>"My trip with Oxfam to the Democratic Republic of Congo was a mind blowing odyssey into the heart of Africa, equal parts informative and inspiring. It is a country filled with iron-willed people, suffering through one of the worst humanitarian situations on the planet. Oxfam is doing a lot of good work, but there is still much more to be done," said Hirsch.
The DRC is the most deadly conflict since World War II, where over 5.4 million people have died, 1.3 million are displaced, and violence and rape are a daily threat.
He began his trip in the poverty-stricken Maniema Province where Oxfam is working with former child soldiers to disarm and re-integrate them back into their home communities. In some cases, the children were forcibly taken from their homes to become fighters during the height of the conflict. These men are now working with their communities to attain forgiveness for wrongs committed and to work towards a peaceful future.
Hirsch's visit concluded in the province of North Kivu, where conflict is still affecting the population. At two camps for Internally Displaced People, he spoke with families driven from their homes by armed groups and saw the cramped conditions of over 9,000 people waiting for safe conditions which will allow them to return to their villages. Oxfam is providing water and sanitation to over 40,000 people that live in the four camps in the Goma, North Kivu area. Oxfam's President, Raymond C. Offenheiser, stated that the actor's involvement can help keep the international community focused on this chronic emergency.
"By supporting Oxfam, Emile can help shed light on the issues facing Congo at this critical time. The people of Congo need our help to feel safe and protected and to keep the country on the path to peace. They have not lost hope for a better future, and we must keep that hope alive. Emile's visit emphasizes that the people of Congo are not alone," said Offenheiser.
Since Hirsch's return from the DRC, an additional quarter of a million people have been forced from their homes due to increased violence and the situation is rapidly deteriorating.
"The good people on this earth cannot turn a blind eye to Congo now, at a time when once again they are on the brink of absolute crisis. By keeping the world's attention on Congo, it puts pressure on the leaders of our planet to take immediate diplomatic action. This may be the only way change will ever come to Congo. After visiting Goma earlier this year, it saddens me to think that many of the people I talked to in the camp are now even worse off, as chaos threatens to envelope them once again. My thoughts are with them," said Hirsch.
]]>A quarter of a million people have been forced to flee their homes since late August 2008 as a result of intense fighting between the forces of rebel general Laurent Nkunda and Congolese army soldiers and their allied militia. People have dispersed over a vast, inhospitable area without access to shelter, water, food, and medicines. The fighting has severely hampered the ability of aid agencies to reach those in need. With renewed fighting in the last two days, many more have been forced to run again in search of safety.
?The world cannot look away again as thousands suffer in eastern Congo. The people of Congo deserve more,? said Juliette Prodhan, head of Oxfam in the Democratic Republic of Congo. ?We have had fine words and important meetings but these must now be put into action by providing additional troops to safeguard the people. We need more urgency, more action and more commitment.?
At least 100 civilians have been killed and more than 200 wounded since combat resumed in late August 2008 between the forces of the rebel commander Laurent Nkunda and Congolese army soldiers. Many of those killed were trapped in combat zones, unable to flee, while others were deliberately killed by combatants. Child protection agencies report that 37 children were recruited into military service last week by Mai Mai militia in the town of Rutshuru. An estimated 150 children have been forcibly recruited since heavy fighting resumed in August.
With UN troops stretched thin and occupied on multiple fronts, increased military capacity is urgently required to keep the people of eastern Congo safe. In addition to the latest fighting in North Kivu, MONUC?s capacity is further stretched by the need to respond to armed groups attacking civilians in Ituri and in the Dungu area of Province Orientale, where the Lord?s Resistance Army last month attacked and kidnapped civilians, forcing tens of thousands to flee.
EU ambassadors met on October 31 in Brussels to consider the United Nations? request for an EU force, but made no commitment to help. Diplomats said they preferred to see MONUC use its existing troops more efficiently before deciding whether an EU force was needed.
?UN peacekeepers need to do more to protect civilians, who desperately need their help,? said Anneke Van Woudenberg, senior researcher in the Africa division of Human Rights Watch. ?More troops and resources are urgently needed to shore up the blue helmets, and the EU is well placed to move quickly.?
Deployment of additional troops should be combined with sustained diplomatic pressure to help end the political and humanitarian crisis, ensure security for the local population, and hold to account those responsible for abusing civilians.
A fragile ceasefire between Nkunda?s forces and the Congolese army, signed in January, collapsed in late August. Nkunda?s rebel troops moved toward Goma on October 29, but stopped short of entering the town before declaring a unilateral ceasefire. The ceasefire was broken on November 4 when fighting resumed in Kiwanja, a neighboring town to Rutshuru, resulting in the deaths of more than 20 civilians. MONUC troops were again unable to protect the population of Kiwanja.
Thousands of civilians trying to flee fighting have been unsure where to turn for safety. After taking control of Rutshuru on October 28, Nkunda?s forces encouraged the town?s inhabitants to dismantle displacement camps where more than 26,000 people had sought refuge with assistance from humanitarian agencies.
Some civilians fled to Goma, North Kivu?s capital, swelling the population to over 700,000 people, but there too civilians were attacked. On the night of October 29, at least 20 civilians were killed, including 5 children, and more than 13 people were wounded when soldiers looted shops, attacked civilian homes, raped women and girls, and stole vehicles before fleeing from advancing rebels. Focused on defending Goma?s perimeter from the rebel advance, MONUC troops were unable to protect Goma?s civilian population.
During the past eight weeks, an estimated 250,000 civilians have been forced from their homes. The total number of people displaced in North and South Kivu is now over 1.2 million, many without access to critical humanitarian aid.
Ongoing combat and targeted attacks against humanitarian workers have made it especially difficult for aid agencies to reach those in need. Humanitarian workers in North Kivu have suffered 35 attacks since the end of August, including car-jackings, armed robberies, and physical assaults. A large number of these attacks were carried out by Congolese army soldiers.
?Action to protect civilians must be the top priority for international and regional leaders in Nairobi this weekend and for EU foreign ministers due to meet in Brussels on Monday,? said Kubuya Muhangi of CRONGD North Kivu. ?Not responding to the demands of the UN secretary-general, who has requested reinforcements for MONUC, is not an option.?
]]>The first report from the Congo Advocacy Coalition reveals that at least 150,000 people have been forced to flee from their homes since the Goma peace agreement was signed on 23 January, 2008, due to ongoing fighting. United Nations officials reported at least 200 ceasefire violations in under 180 days between January and July. Those newly displaced add to the 1 million people displaced from earlier waves of violence in North and South Kivu. The number of people displaced from their homes in the most affected territories of Rutshuru and Masisi in North Kivu is the highest ever registered.
?The peace agreement has failed to silence the guns, and the people of eastern Congo continue to suffer and to run for their lives,? said Juliette Prodhan, head of Oxfam Great Britain in DRC. ?The parties to the agreement must urgently redouble their efforts to act on the commitments they made to protect civilians.?
Women and girls have been particularly affected by the continued violence. More than 2,200 cases of rape were recorded in June 2008 in North Kivu province alone, representing only a small proportion of the total. At least 200 civilians have been killed in the violence.
The Congo Advocacy Coalition called on the parties to the peace agreement, as well as international facilitators from the United States, the European Union, the African Union and the UN who helped to broker the agreement, and international donors, to redouble their efforts to ensure the signatories adhere to their commitments. Specifically, the coalition called on these actors to:
In North Kivu, many displaced people found shelter with host families, receiving minimal food and assistance, while others sought safety in displacement camps. Acute malnutrition rates have reached an alarming 17 percent in some areas, well above emergency levels.
Humanitarian agencies have tried to expand their programs since the signing of the peace agreement, but have suffered increased attacks by armed groups and unidentified bandits. At least 36 attacks were recorded since January 2008, the majority ambushes at gunpoint as humanitarian staff attempted to reach vulnerable populations. In the past few weeks, attacks against humanitarian staff on the main road to Masisi town have severely hampered assistance to over 186,000 people.
UN peacekeepers have deployed some 10,000 troops between fighting parties in North and South Kivu, but they are thinly spread and have been unable to stop a number of attacks. Civilians seeking safety often set up camps around the edges of UN deployment sites seeking protection.
An elderly man forced to run for his life and now living in a displacement camp said to the Congo Advocacy Coalition: ?The leaders of the government and the armed groups met in Goma and said they would bring us peace, but instead they kept fighting. We are losing hope. We just want peace so we can go home.?
The Goma agreement, signed by 22 armed groups and the Congolese government, followed a November 2007 agreement between the governments of Congo and Rwanda, known as the Nairobi Communiqu�. This agreement sought to address the issue of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Rwandan armed group based in eastern Congo. Under Article III of the Goma agreement (?Acte d?Engagement?), all the signatories committed to strictly respecting international humanitarian and human rights law, including ending all acts of violence and abuse against the civilian population.
The two agreements, together with recommendations from the Conference on Peace, Security and Development organized by the government in early 2008, form the basis of the government?s peace program for eastern Congo, known as the Amani Program.
?The Amani Program hasn?t yet made life better for the citizens of eastern Congo,? said Anneke Van Woudenberg, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. ?The international community and the Congolese government should do what it takes to make the peace program a reality, not just a nice idea. They need to ensure it?s funded properly so it reaches those most in need.?
]]>The international agency blames rich countries for the inaction during the 12 days of negotiations. They arrived empty-handed and unwilling to engage in constructive discussions to move further towards a global deal in Copenhagen next December.
?The lack of progress in Poznan merits outrage ? most of all from the millions of poor people already experiencing the devastating impacts of climate change. They cannot afford delay,? said Senior Oxfam Executive Barry Coates. ?This inaction is at odds with the urgency of the crisis and the ambition voiced at Bali. Instead of motoring along the Bali Road Map, political leaders have been asleep at the wheel. They must wake up and take action immediately, as they have left themselves with a huge amount to do to secure a global deal at Copenhagen next year.?
Oxfam says that a deal in Copenhagen next December is not only possible but more urgent and necessary than ever. ?In the coming year, rich countries must stop floundering and demonstrate commitment and leadership at the highest levels,? said Coates. ?A lack of will from Canada and Japan, attempts by Russia to frustrate progress behind the scenes, and the EU?s lack of leadership must change. The US, a lame duck in the negotiations in Poznan, must step up a gear to make up for their eight-year absence.?
Developing countries put forward important proposals, including Mexico?s bold announcement of plans to halve its emissions by 2050. But rich countries did not respond. The issue of helping developing countries reduce their emissions has been identified for a decade, yet proposals on how this could be financed and supported by technology transfer are still lacking.
There was important progress on the Adaptation Fund, which was created to help vulnerable communities adapt to climate change. But this is only a small part of the overall solution that poor people require. ?Here in Poznan, the negotiators looked into the money box, but it is still almost empty, less than 1% of what is needed,? said Coates.
Negotiators in Poznan agreed on the crucial issues of accountability, effectiveness and control over the money available to poor countries for urgent adaptation needs. But big-picture financing questions were left unanswered. At least $50 billion a year is needed to help poor people face the impacts of a changing climate according to Oxfam?s estimates, and far more if emissions are not cut fast and far enough.
?It is irresponsible that rich countries should use the financial crisis as an excuse. The amounts of funding required are a tiny fraction of the finance bail-outs,? said Coates. ?And solutions to the financial crisis and the climate crisis are not mutually exclusive. In fact, urgently addressing the climate crisis could boost our global economy through clean technology and green jobs. These negotiations are not about politics ? they are about people?s lives. Delays will kill.?
]]>In his testimony before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Jim Lyons, Oxfam America?s vice president for policy and communications, called climate change one of the greatest challenges to efforts to promote development and reduce global poverty, and stressed "the costs of failing to act to address both the already realized effects of global warming and the need to dramatically reduce carbon emissions to limit the future effects of climate change are substantial and rapidly growing." Selections from his testimony follow:
"In our operations spanning Africa, Latin America, East Asia and the United States itself, our staff and partners are already responding to the serious impacts of climate change, from increasingly severe weather events to water scarcity. Moreover, as the science indicates, poor and vulnerable communities around the world will increasingly bear the brunt of the consequences of global warming, threatening the lives of millions of people and undermining global stability and security.
"People living in developing countries are 20 times more likely to be affected by climate-related disasters compared to those living in the industrialized world, and nearly two billion people in developing countries were affected by climate-related disasters in the 1990s alone.
"The threats that climate change poses to global poverty reduction and development are both broad and deep. Climate change will have ramifications throughout the entire economic, political, and social fabric of developing countries in ways that will hardly be limited to the arena we usually think of as environmental. The recent rapid increase in world food prices illustrates the human consequences of food scarcity that will be exacerbated by climate change?and may already be related to climate impacts in some cases.
"Global stability and security will be undermined by increasing migration and refugee crises, by conflicts over ever-scarcer natural resources, and by economic destabilization as poverty and food insecurity grow. Our national interest will not be well-served by a failure to tackle the powerful ripple effects that climate change will cause in some of the most politically sensitive parts of the world.
"The US must acknowledge the enormous costs that a failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will impose on us in the future, and we must therefore act to reduce our emissions substantially. Yet even with significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, we must also recognize the costs that would come from a failure to immediately address the climate change impacts being felt today. If we do not assist vulnerable communities to build resilience and adapt to climate impacts, the costs we face will be measured not only in dollars but also in lives lost.
"As the saying goes, the best way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. As leading experts and scientists have warned, we need to stop contributing to our own demise by substantially reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, we must invest in measures to help adapt to climate change and build greater resiliency for populations and communities most vulnerable to its consequences. This is not simply a matter of moral and ethical importance, but one with important social, economic and global security consequences."
]]>