“This new text threatens to drive discussions off the road and into a ditch,” said Antonio Hill, Oxfam’s senior adviser on climate change. “The Bush Administration proposes to strip the most important elements out of this agreement. Global emissions are still rising, and voluntary cuts by rich countries just won’t work. Poor people will suffer the terrible consequences of continued delay.”

Ministers of 189 countries are seeking to hammer out a final deal in the UN climate change conference. Oxfam calls for developing countries, the EU and others to reject the US proposal and hold fast to binding targets and financing for adaptation and technology, urgently needed by the world’s poorest people.

Since the start of the negotiations, Ministers from both rich and poor countries pushed for real action on climate change that would put poor people first. Meanwhile the US, backed by Canada and Japan, has continued to demand that developing countries take on targets, while withholding commitments to address financing and technology for adaptation for the countries that need it most. But it is the responsibility of rich countries to move first and fastest, since they created the vast majority of historical emissions.

“Developing countries, who are most vulnerable to climate impacts, have demonstrated tremendous commitment, flexibility and assertiveness in these talks, but at the eleventh hour, this goodwill has been subverted by the Bush Administration,” continued Hill. “The challenge of climate change is too huge to wait for laggard governments to fall in line. Progress here in Bali is crucial.”

While US negotiators feign cooperation on one of the key elements in Bali—a negotiation track that ends in 2009—the timing and content of last night’s proposal demonstrate this is simply a ploy to carry on with business as usual, according to Oxfam.

“This position ironically comes at a time of hope, with last week’s historic motion in the US Senate,” said Hill. “The will and public concern of Americans to take the strong action needed on climate change is clear. But American delegates here in Bali are undermining prospects for similar progress internationally.”

The FRESH or Farm, Ranch, Energy, Stewardship and Health Amendment, introduced by Senate Agriculture Committee Member Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and co-sponsored by Ben Cardin (D-MD), Susan Collins (R-ME), Pete Domenici (R-NM), John McCain (R-AZ), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Jack Reed (D-RI), John Sununu (R-NH), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) would have brought about much-needed reform to US farm policy in a way that would serve more farmers more fairly, according to Oxfam.

“Not only would the FRESH Amendment have been a better deal for American farmers and taxpayers, but it would also have aligned our agricultural policy and our international trade obligations,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America. ”Instead, by rejecting the FRESH amendment senators chose to turn their backs on American family farmers and their brethren in poor countries elsewhere who struggle to make a living from the land. By voting to maintain the status quo, the Senate has elected to continue farm programs that fuel overproduction, raise land prices, and lower commodity prices abroad.”

“Instead of helping the truly needy, the Senate has decided to continue to subsidize the truly greedy in rejecting the comprehensive farm bill reform advocated by Senators Lugar and Lautenberg,” said Offenheiser.

“Few options remain in this Farm Bill to provide some reform of a subsidy program that has long outlasted its purpose and utility. If senators aren’t willing to reform farm programs, at least they can reduce the giveaways by supporting limits on the farm subsidies paid. Supporting the Dorgan-Grassley payment limits amendment will be an important first step down that path.”

The US and EU have billed their proposal to eliminate tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers on a list of 43 climate-friendly goods as bold and new, but according to Oxfam, it is neither.

“The UN conference on climate change is being used as a pretext to dust off old proposals that haven’t gotten anywhere at the WTO,” said Oxfam spokesperson Barry Coates. “The EU and the US are passing around old wine in new bottles, but developing countries aren’t fooled.”

The list of goods proposed for liberalization includes products relating to wind, solar, and clean coal energy technologies, drawn from a list of in a recent World Bank study. The proposal also seeks to eliminate tariffs on an additional list of 150 environmental goods, as previously submitted by OECD countries in the context of current WTO negotiations, such as all laboratory equipment. The proposal goes further to include very ambitious objectives in services liberalization, calling for a binding of existing levels of market access and national treatment as well as new liberalization on a large number of services.

“Similar proposals have been floated in Doha negotiations by the US and the EU before, but discussion at the technical level in the WTO negotiations has been unable to resolve the difficulties inherent in such a list based on approach,” said Coates. “Liberalization of goods and services in developing countries, including in the environmental sector, has been the modus operandi for the US and the EU in the Doha round, while steadfastly refusing to undertake the reform of their unfair trade practices.”

Many of the products and services on the list are from developed countries and have uses far beyond that of environmental benefit and certainly beyond greenhouse gas reductions. Green technologies developed in rich countries are usually too expensive and not the most appropriate for developing countries. Furthermore, the opening of sectors such as sanitation, as included in this proposal, has often resulted in poor quality of services and little if any improvement in affordable access for poor communities.

“This proposal attempts to perpetuate the perception that the climate change challenge at the WTO can be easily addressed through promoting trade in a select few goods and services,” said Coates. “Any liberalization of environmental goods and services has to be debated within the context of development, be pro-poor, and meet defined objectives for addressing climate change without undermining the policy space of developing countries.”

For these negotiations to deliver an appropriate pro-poor outcome, a broader, more sustainable development dimension must be undertaken, one that is not based solely on trade liberalization, according to Oxfam. This includes ensuring the reflection of the principle of special and differential treatment and less than full reciprocity.

“Ensuring that clean technologies are effectively and sustainably transferred to developing countries—with appropriate policy measures to support adoption, adaptation, research and development, and product innovation—is the way to go,” continued Coates. “But so far, we’ve only had broken promises on finance, broken promises on technology transfers, and overly restrictive intellectual property rights.”

The new aid comes after Oxfam distributed 350,000 litres of potable water in urban-affected areas last week, along with 2,500 blankets among rural families, helping to ease the suffering during the unusually cold winter.

On Tuesday, Oxfam began installing 20 water tanks, which will provide clean and safe water for the first 1,500 people in the countryside, all who live in the rural districts of Humay and Independencia. Oxfam is providing a cistern truck to fill the tanks for a total of 19,000 litres of water every day.

“Our main concern right now is clean water and sanitation because these are absolutely crucial to prevent outbreaks of waterborne diseases. Now, the people of Humay and Independencia, who actually helped us install the tanks with their own hands, are accessing water that is even cleaner than what they had before the earthquake. In the coming weeks we will provide them with training so they can keep the water clean for weeks and months to come,” said Jacobo Ocharán, Oxfam’s emergency response manager.

In the rural districts of Humay and Independencia, located 30 and 12 km outside of Pisco respectively, Oxfam is meeting basic shelter needs while striving to minimize disruptions to the communities. Many of the destroyed homes in these districts are situated on pieces of land with enough space to safely erect a family’s tent. The remaining families are setting up shelters in small camps of 10 to 40 tents in open areas close to their original houses. By providing temporary shelter for individual families, Oxfam’s work will allow inhabitants to remain on their land.

“We are trying to place these tents in familiar settings close to people’s homes to help residents feel less vulnerable. Also, it makes the reconstruction of their homes easier, which is important because we don’t want the temporary shelters to become permanent homes,” said Ocharán.

There have been great improvements in the distribution of aid in the two weeks that have passed since the earthquake struck; however, much work remains to be done. Oxfam is working closely with the international aid community and the government, including local authorities and state institutions, to ensure that aid is being distributed to those who need it most.

“Oxfam field staff are helping local authorities and leaders to assess the damage and the needs of the families affected by the earthquake. This is the only way of ensuring that aid is distributed to the people who really need it, and that it is distributed in an equal and fair way,” said Ocharán. “We’re also trying to continue strengthening residents’ participation in helping provide relief and rehabilitation in their own communities. We know from past experience that when communities are well organized and involved, relief efforts and reconstruction are more likely to succeed.”

“Congress did the right thing today in extending trade preferences for Andean countries, but a permanent extension of these programs is needed,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America. “In a region where half of the population lives in poverty, trade preferences have created millions of jobs and made it possible for Andean countries to export products like clothing and jewelry, cut flowers and asparagus to the United States duty-free for more than 15 years.”

Andean and other developing countries have held preferential duty-free market access to the US as a means of stimulating economic growth and poverty reduction. These preference programs have contributed to the development of manufacturing and agricultural sectors in many developing countries. They have also helped create jobs, in many cases for women, who have relatively few economic alternatives. Businesses in the US have also benefited from preferences, relying on goods imported duty-free to be used as inputs into products that are manufactured here. Furthermore, requirements for participation preference programs have been used to bring about greater respect for workers’ rights.

“Continuation of the preference programs will support additional growth and further stimulate export diversification in these growing economies, harnessing the opportunity of trade as a way of achieving sustained economic growth and poverty reduction,” said Offenheiser.

The United States is the Andean countries’ most important trading partner. Over half of Andean country exports to the United States now enter under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA). An estimated 2.3 million jobs in the Andean countries depend on these exports under ATPA. For example, two-thirds of Bolivia’s exports under ATPA are manufactured products such as jewelry, apparel, and wooden furniture, and the vast majority of companies involved in their manufacture are small and micro-enterprises that provide decent, formal-sector jobs. Non-traditional exports like cut flowers and asparagus have grown particularly rapidly in Andean countries under ATPA, even though petroleum-based products still make up about two-thirds of the value of exports that benefit from this preference program.

Poverty and inequality continue to be pervasive in Andean countries, with the richest 10 percent of the population taking home over 40 percent of national income, while the poorest 10 percent survive on less than 1.4 percent. Poverty in rural areas has been the driver of continued illicit crop cultivation in the Andean region, where more than 98 percent of the world’s coca leaf is cultivated. As long as poverty persists in these countries, farmers will continue to turn to illicit coca cultivation to help pay for basic essentials.

“Poverty and inequality continue to be pervasive in Andean countries, a situation that can generate social unrest, spur migration, and encourage illicit crop cultivation,” continued Offenheiser. “These problems need to be addressed through US foreign policy and counter-narcotics strategy, but alternative development efforts and preferential access to the US market will continue to play a pivotal role.”

As the House of Representatives did last month, the Senate passed the trade deal after significant modifications negotiated by the Democratic leadership on labor, the environment, and intellectual property rules affecting access to medicines. These revisions took an important step toward making trade work for people living in poverty but remain insufficient to overcome the agreement's adverse effects on development and poverty reduction in Peru, according to Oxfam.

"The Peru FTA fails to address development needs as one of its core objectives and locks in an uneven playing field between the US and Peru,"
>said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "Although the Democratic leadership worked hard to make this agreement better, its provisions on agriculture and investment will do more harm than good for farmers, workers and consumers in Peru."<p>

The agreement fails to take into account US agriculture subsidies, according to Oxfam, meaning that Peru's small farmers will face massive dumping of subsidized farm products on their market.

"By fully opening Peru's markets to subsidized US agricultural products, this trade agreement will destroy our domestic agriculture, threaten our food security and increase social problems," said Luis Zúñiga, president of the National Convention of Peruvian Agriculture (Conveagro). "Farmers'
>demands for greater public investment in and modernization of the agricultural sector have gone unmet over many years, but now our needs will be far greater and the threat to our livelihoods far worse."<p>

"The agreement provides special rights for foreign investors who want to operate in Peru at the expense of weakened ability on the part of the government to establish laws that promote social welfare and a better distribution of wealth," according to Pedro Francke, a Peruvian expert on social policy to combat poverty and former director of the health organization FOROSALUD.  "In spite of the modifications made to the intellectual property rules of the agreement, provisions remain that will make it more difficult for Peru to promote access to affordable medicines."

Civil society organizations in Peru are urging strong vigilance and monitoring of measures required for Peru to implement its obligations in the new trade deal, particularly those included by the Democratic leadership.  "We need broad public debate on all legislative and regulatory changes in Peru to allow diverse voices to be heard, particularly those who stand to be adversely affected," said Alejandra Alayza, director of the Peruvian Network for Globalization with Equity.  "It is fundamental to ensure that reforms in the areas of labor rights, environmental protection, and intellectual property rules fully incorporate all rights and obligations in accordance with the modifications to the agreement."

"This deal could be a serious blow to Peru's 14 million inhabitants who live in poverty, most of them in rural areas where agriculture is the main source of income," continued Offenheiser. "The bottom line is that this trade agreement's adverse effects on Peruvians will outweigh its limited benefits, which will primarily accrue to a limited group of exporters, whose current duty-free access to the US under the Andean Trade Preferences Act will be made permanent."

"Bali has for the first time drawn up a roadmap for all countries to tackle climate change. But a handful of powerful countries have relegated the overwhelming scientific evidence to a footnote. The Bush Administration—dragging Canada, Japan and Russia in tow—has thrown away the compass and is trying to force us all to take the journey in a gas-guzzling 4x4, not the solar-powered speedster that the world urgently needs."

"The Bali result sets the stage for addressing fairness—all countries will have to limit emissions. But rich countries will have to kick the carbon habit first and poor countries need to see them do it. A door has been held opened for the US to join. The danger is that developing countries will be forced through the same door."

"Without a clear range for the global emissions cuts needed, this deal fails to keep us from the brink of exceeding 2°C of warming. Far from the negotiating halls of Bali, poor people waist-high in floods and children malnourished by failed harvests will demand to know, why did world leaders not see what we face and act urgently to stop it?"

"This outcome is a clear call to the citizens of the United States, Canada, Japan and Russia. Demand more. Only you can push your governments to deliver justice for poor people facing the next drought, flood or cyclone."

"Developing countries came to Bali ready to talk, willing to listen, but also demanding to be heard. A handful of the richest nations—led by the Bush Administration—have rebuffed their will and sapped the strength of what Bali had to offer. It's a deep insult to the world's poorest people."

"All the countries of the world are now united around delivering the Bali Roadmap by 2009, despite repeated US moves to hollow out these talks. But the level of ambition in the agreement still does not match the urgent need. The cost of not going far enough will be felt a long way from the air-conditioned halls of this luxury hotel. It will be paid in poor countries, by women and men forced to reap the failed harvests of our collective inaction."

On Adaptation

"At long last the UN climate talks have started to grapple with the devastating impacts climate change is already having on the world's poorest people. Coping with these impacts comes at a price that rich polluters must pay. Under pressure from developing countries, Bali has delivered clear progress: a fund for adaptation is now in place and all countries agree that more money must be raised. But with estimated costs exceeding $50 billion annually, we now need to see rich countries put some serious money forward."

"It's good to see Starbucks finally coming to the table, which they initially refused to do," said Seth Petchers, coffee lead for Oxfam International's Make Trade Fair campaign. "Starbucks now says it won't block the initiative, but what it hasn't said is how it will actively support Ethiopia's stated efforts to obtain trademarks for its coffees which will bring added benefits to poor farmers."

After initially dismissing Ethiopia's plan to trademark its specialty coffees, Starbucks, which came under international pressure from campaigners, has now said it is ready to recognize Ethiopia's right to pursue this path.

Ethiopian officials have said Ethiopia will continue to pursue the trademarking and licensing initiative and hopes to enter in to partnership with Starbucks and other companies through negotiated licensing agreements. These would recognize Ethiopia's ownership of the coffee names and allow them to get a fairer share of the profits for their producers. Ethiopia has obtained a trademark in the US for its Yirgacheffe coffee.

Oxfam and other partners have supported the trademarking initiative as a way to pass down more of the value of coffee sales to poor producers who typically receive a tiny percentage of final sale price, and struggle to make a living.

On February 15 Starbucks announced initiatives to benefit coffee farmers in Ethiopia including funding for a quality improvement project and increased coffee purchases in East Africa. While the additional purchases and support are beneficial, these initiatives fail to address the fundamental rights issue at hand. What the Ethiopians have asked coffee roasters to do is recognize Ethiopia's right to control and share in the value of the country's specialty coffee names through trademarks.

"As a market leader, Starbucks should take concrete steps that the Ethiopian government has called for, including reaching an agreement that recognizes Ethiopia's legal ownership of its coffee names," continued Petchers.

How could the payment limits reform amendment lose despite a vote of 56-43 in favor of the amendment? Under rules agreed to by the Senate leadership, key amendments that would have reformed a broken farm safety net system required a 60 vote margin for passage.

Offenheiser criticized the Senate's decision to change the rules for this and other key reform measures. "Despite the fact that a majority of Senators voted for reforming a bloated and unfair federal farm subsidy system, no reform was adopted."

"Opponents of farm policy reform are out of step with Americans and even with the majority of their colleagues. So, they rigged the rules for this key vote to ensure that despite majority support, it would not be adopted. This decision to change the rules speaks volumes about the real commitment to change by the Senate Democratic leadership. It is all talk but little action."

"The consequences of this vote and the Senate's decision yesterday to reject the larger reform measure offered by Senators Lugar and Lautenberg, mean that US farm policy will continue to benefit the rich over the poor, both in the United States and abroad."

"Relatively few US farmers participate in farm programs. Yet, for those who do, the benefits flow largely to a small minority of producers in states whose elected officials fiercely protect their handouts from their seats on the agriculture committees in the House and the Senate. While few would have expected reform to come from these committees, it was reasonable to believe that the new Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate would have advocated reforms consistent with their message of change. Sadly, we have seen that this is not the case in either body of the Congress."

"Just as the US has rigged its trading rules to benefit large corporate farms at the expense of developing countries and farmers who struggle to survive on a dollar a day, the Senate elected to rig the rules for voting on essential farm policy reforms so that no reform was possible. Family farmers in the US, impoverished families abroad who are dependent upon agriculture to survive, and American taxpayers who foot the bill for unnecessary US farm subsidies will ultimately pay the price".

"While Oxfam welcomes critical new investments in nutrition, conservation and renewable energy, the Farm Bill approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee today failed to reform our unfair and broken system of commodity subsidies that undercut farmers and rural economies at home and abroad. Unless the rest of the Senate intervenes, our taxpayer dollars will continue to encourage excess production, reduce world market prices and undermine the livelihoods of millions of small farmers around the world.

"Cotton subsidies maintained by the Agriculture Committee are especially troubling, with just 12,000 farms receiving up to three billion dollars in subsidies annually. These subsidies have a devastating effect on poor cotton farmers around the world. Failure to reform these trade-distorting subsidies will mean that those who don’t need subsidies in the United States continue to benefit at the taxpayers’ expense while those who need the most help—the 10 million people in West Africa for whom cotton is their only source of income—suffer more. Cotton is often the only source of cash income for these families, most of them living on less than $1 a day.

"Not only is this unfair, it is in violation of existing trade rules. Just last week, the WTO confirmed that the US hasn't done enough to reform its cotton subsidies in a longstanding dispute with Brazil. Most shockingly, the Committee bill reinstates a new version of the contentious Step 2 export subsidy that was done away with by the last Congress. Failure to reform our cotton program leaves our agriculture and other sectors vulnerable to significant retaliation from our trade partners and undermines American farmers' access critical to overseas markets.

"While doing little to nothing to address the needs of the global poor, Chairman Harkin and the members of the Agriculture Committee did make incremental improvements to address inequities faced by farmers of color here at home. This bill would provide a host of critical provisions beneficial to socially-disadvantaged producers—though more work needs to be done to ensure that the funding for these provisions is mandatory.

"Oxfam commends Senator Lugar for standing bravely against the status quo during the Committee mark-up by offering an amendment to require corrective action for any commodity program found in violation of WTO rules. Senator Lugar withdrew his amendment when Chairman Harkin offered to address the issue in his manager’s amendment. Though a good first step, the Senate must be prepared to address the issue on the Senate floor. Failure to do so will continue this gross inequity while endangering the future of other US trade agreements. We hope that the full Senate is prepared to lead where others have failed thus far."

Scarlett has met with children in the slums and at schools in Delhi and learned about the need for basic education, healthcare and about the issues of violence against women.
 
Scarlett has travelled with Oxfam to learn more about its campaigning work with poor people, how local communities in India are campaigning for change and how Western governments must be more responsive to the needs of developing countries.

Currently 100 million children are out of school worldwide; the majority of those are girls, and thousands die each day from preventable diseases. In India, 40 percent of girls and 25 percent of boys will never complete a basic education.

Oxfam's South Asia Regional Director, Ashvin Dayal, said it was very important that Scarlett was part of the call to end poverty.

"We are delighted that Scarlett is supporting Oxfam and our work to help end global poverty," Dayal said. "High-profile support helps us to raise awareness of these issues and urge governments and leaders worldwide to act."

"Getting children into school and making sure everyone has access to basic healthcare are crucial tools in the fight against poverty."

"In Utter Pradesh alone, 70% girls have never enrolled in a school. Despite the huge strides that have been made by the Government of India on education in recent years, India is still home to the largest out of school population in the world today."
 
For further information contact Lyndsay Cruz: +1 (562) 331-0698

Oxfam America is a member of the international confederation Oxfam, a confederation of 14 organizations working together with over 3,000 partners in more than 90 countries to find lasting solutions to poverty, suffering and injustice.

“This figure represents quite an insult, to be frank, given that the least developed countries will need at least $1-2 billion to meet just their most urgent adaptation needs,” said report author Charlotte Sterrett. Oxfam calls on rich countries gathering in Bali for the 13th UN conference on climate change to honour their promises and increase their commitments to pay adaptation costs.

“Bali needs to tackle both cause and effect equally. Even if the world stopped polluting today, the worsening impacts of climate change will be with us for 30 years or more. That’s why it is so vital that rich countries help developing countries to cope now. This would also signal their genuine intent to tackle the problem,” she said.

“Oxfam wants to see negotiators in Bali set a plan for identifying new finance-raising mechanisms, so that vulnerable communities in developing countries will have the resources and support they need to plan for and protect themselves from the worst impacts of climate change. This is not about aid, it is about the world’s biggest and richest polluters covering the costs forced upon those who are most vulnerable,” she said.

Oxfam estimates that adapting to climate change in developing countries is likely to cost at least $50 billion each year, and far more if global greenhouse-gas emissions are not cut fast enough. Further, Oxfam estimates that it will cost at least $1-2 billion to meet the most urgent and immediate adaptation needs of the least developed countries. Yet current pledges to the Least Developed Countries Fund, set up specifically for this purpose, have reached a mere $163 million—less than half of what the UK is investing in cooling the London Underground—and worse, only $67m has actually been delivered.

In addition to identifying new funding sources for the Adaptation Fund—the largest potential source of funds for climate adaptation in poor countries—Oxfam is calling for a decision on management of the Fund that puts poor countries first as well as a post-2012 negotiation that puts adaptation on an equal footing with the urgent mitigation agenda.

The report highlights the injustice that poor countries are already paying the price of industrial growth in rich countries, which has brought about global warming. Vulnerable communities are already suffering food and water shortages and worsening poverty because of unpredictable weather patterns and increasing weather-related crises, brought about by climate change.

In Niger, changed rainfall patterns are contributing to worsening desertification which for indigenous people like the Tuareg and the Wodaabe means massive losses in livestock and food insecurity. In Tuvalu, a small island nation in the Pacific, strong winds and high tides regularly crash against damaged sea walls, bringing waves and debris onto the land, inundating homes and ruining fresh water supplies. In Bolivia, rising temperatures are causing more and bigger forest fires which is damaging agriculture.

“Most people in poor countries rely on natural resources from the land and sea for their survival. Therefore people from an agrarian society like Cambodia for example, who are least responsible for causing global warming, are being hardest hit by it,” said Sterrett.

The Cambodian government was one of the first to submit a National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) and awaits final approval from the Least Developed Country fund, set up by the UNFCCC in 2002. Author of Cambodia’s NAPA and project manager of the Climate Change Office in Phnom Phen, Tin Ponlok, says: “Unfortunately, UN negotiations in the past have focused more on mitigation, with adaptation receiving much less attention. This trend must be reversed. We need tangible support—not just talk, not just negotiations.”

The study, one of the first of its kind after the US reformed a controversial export subsidy program called “Step 2,” estimates by how much farmer incomes in West Africa could actually increase after further subsidy reform, and what these gains would mean in practical terms for a typical West African cotton farmer’s household.

“Previous studies my colleagues and I have done clearly show the trade distorting effects of US cotton subsidies by lowering the world price of cotton, with results at the aggregate level,” said Daniel Sumner, Director of the University of California Agricultural Issues Center, Professor with the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at University of California, Davis, and one of the authors of the Oxfam report. “But these new numbers show that even a modest increase in the world price of cotton that only partly reaches the farmer could greatly improve the daily lives of some of the world’s poorest people, and could literally mean that millions of poor people could be fed.”

A typical cotton producing household in West Africa has about 10 family members, an average life expectancy of about 48 years and an adult literacy rate of less than 25 percent. Cotton is often the only source of cash income for these families who live on less than $1 a day per person. Added income from increased cotton prices could make a world of difference, according to Oxfam. The study found that with a complete removal of US cotton subsidies, the world price of cotton would increase by 6-14%, prices that West African farmers would receive for their cotton would increase by 5-12%, and household income would increase by 2.3 to 5.7%. This increase would result in additional income that could cover all health care costs of four to ten individuals for an entire year, or schooling costs for one to ten children, or a one year supply of food for one or two children.

“This data clearly exposes the hypocrisy of our policies, giving international aid with one hand and taking with the other through unfair trade rules,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. “With Congress looking at the Farm Bill right now, and renewed interest in the Doha round, this study shows how reform could help millions of poor people who are ready to lift themselves out of poverty through farming and fair trade.”

Because American producers get more federal subsidies with each additional bushel they produce, current farm programs encourage overproduction with the surplus dumped on the international market, lowering prices and undercutting the livelihoods of millions of poor farmers around the world. This situation is not only unfair, but it is also illegal under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. In a case brought on by Brazil, a WTO dispute panel found in 2004 that $3.2 billion in annual cotton subsidies and $1.6 billion in export credits paid by the US in cotton and other commodities went against international trade rules. While the US acted to remove export subsidies as a result of the case, not much movement has taken place to reduce other trade-distorting cotton subsidies, leaving the US vulnerable to possible retaliation by Brazil.

“Any delay in reforming the US subsidy program would signal to our trading partners that the US is not serious about a new global trade agreement and, most importantly, would mean continued suffering for millions of poor African farmers who are undermined by US subsidies and dumping." continued Offenheiser. “Reforming the Farm Bill provides us with the opportunity to help more American farmers, reduce the harm of trade distorting subsidies for poor farmers overseas, and put the US in a stronger position in future international trade negotiations.

Oxfam applauds Chairmen Charles Rangel and Sander Levin for spearheading the effort to scale back the “TRIPS-plus” rules currently included in FTAs with Colombia, Peru and Panama, which go far beyond existing intellectual property rules at the World Trade Organization. Media reports however, indicate that the pharmaceutical industry has been actively lobbying against any such changes in intellectual property rules, arguing it would undermine the goal of getting medicines to developing countries. Yet new Oxfam research refutes such claims.

In a recently-released study entitled “All Costs, No Benefits: How the US-Jordan FTA Affects Access to Medicines,” Oxfam highlights new data from the five years in which the US FTA with Jordan has been in effect to show that TRIPS-plus rules have contributed to a significant increase in medicine prices in Jordan.

“Medicine prices have increased 20% in Jordan since the free trade agreement was signed in 2001, and higher medicine prices are now threatening the sustainability of government public health programs,” said Stephanie Burgos, Trade Policy Advisor for Oxfam America. “At the same time, higher levels of intellectual property protection have done nothing to improve foreign direct investment, enhance local research and development, or increase accessibility of new medicines.”

In particular, Oxfam found that one TRIPS-plus measure, data exclusivity, delayed generic competition in Jordan for 79% of medicines newly launched by 21 multinational pharmaceutical companies between 2002 and mid-2006, medicines that would have otherwise been available in an affordable generic form. Best selling medicines to treat diabetes and heart disease in Jordan now cost anywhere from two to six times more than in Egypt, a neighboring country without TRIPS-plus rules preventing generic competition, according to the report.

Data exclusivity is a new system of monopoly power, separate from patents, that blocks the marketing approval of generic medicines for five or more years. Drug regulatory authorities are prevented from using the clinical trial data of the patented medicine to show the safety and efficacy of an equivalent generic drug, thereby delaying or preventing generic competition. Other TRIPS-plus intellectual property rules that should be removed from FTAs include patent extensions and linkage of the patent status with marketing approval, prohibiting the registration of generic medicines until the patent has expired. These rules delay the introduction of affordable, generic medicines and have a detrimental effect on access to medicines for the poorest.

“Congressional Democrats have done well to listen to concerns raised for years by public health and development advocates that stringent new intellectual property rules will limit access to affordable medicines,” said Burgos. “Now we have clear evidence that as a result of data exclusivity measures in Jordan, additional expenditures are required by both the public health system and individuals for many new medicines needed to treat numerous non-communicable diseases that are leading causes of death and disability in that country. This is an opportunity for the Administration to take heed and remove TRIPS-plus provisions from current and future trade deals.”

“Congratulations to our Ethiopian coffee farming partners and to Starbucks on an agreement that recognizes Ethiopians’ right to control the use of their specialty coffee brands,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. “This agreement represents a business approach in step with 21st-century standards in its concern for rights rather than charity and for greater equity in supply chains rather than short term profits.”

Eight months ago Oxfam began working to raise awareness of Ethiopians’ efforts to gain control over their fine coffee brands. Today, Starbucks has honored its commitments to Ethiopian coffee farmers by becoming one of the first in the industry to join the innovative Ethiopian trademarking initiative.

“Harnessing market forces and allowing poor countries to benefit from intellectual property rights are keys to creating fairer and more equitable trade,” continued Offenheiser. “In a modern economy, companies must bring their business models in line with the demands of good corporate citizenship, which goes beyond traditional philanthropic approaches to dealing with poverty.”

Nearly three years ago, Ethiopia’s coffee sector launched a plan to take better advantage of its intellectual property. The country applied for the trademark registrations of its specialty coffee brands in the United States, Canada, and other countries. At the same time, Ethiopia began negotiating with coffee roasters to sign agreements acknowledging the right of Ethiopians to control these brands.

“With this agreement, Ethiopians can build the value of their coffees and farmers can capture a greater share of the retail price,” Offenheiser concluded. “This should help improve the lives of millions of poor farmers, allowing them to send their children to school and access health care.”

According to a press release issued by Ethiopia and Starbucks today, the agreement allows Starbucks to use and promote these coffee brands in markets both where trademarks exist for the brands as well as where they may not, in accordance with agreed terms and conditions negotiated with Ethiopia. Currently Ethiopia has successfully registered trademarks in Canada, the European Union, the United States and Japan.

In October 2006, Oxfam kicked off an international campaign to encourage Starbucks and other roasters to engage with Ethiopia directly on the trademarking initiative. Since then, more than 96,000 supporters have called on Starbucks to sign a licensing agreement. Their emails, faxes, phone calls, postcards, and in-store visits helped bring global attention to the issue.

Oxfam encourages the development of innovative market-based strategies to gain more benefits from trade. The Ethiopians’ strategy on coffee is particularly noteworthy because they are seeking to use trademarks – a part of the modern intellectual property system – to benefit poor farmers.