?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."
]]>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.”
]]>“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.”
]]>"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.
]]>"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."
]]>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.”
]]>"Seeking Common Grounds" builds on policy proposals first made in May, 2006 by Oxfam and 12 coffee-producing and civil society organizations from around the globe. The overarching themes of those reforms include enhancing participation by small-scale coffee farmers in the international debate; promoting economic, social, and environmental sustainability; and providing tools for small-scale farmers to compete in challenging and changing markets.
The new Oxfam report notes that while "the price of coffee has improved since its 2001 crash, many small-scale farmers and farmworkers lack the resources to take advantage of the improved market conditions and remain vulnerable to the boom and bust cycles of the coffee market. Far from an occasion for complacency, the current debate on the future of the ICA should be an opportunity to affect urgently needed changes."
The working group is scheduled to meet again in March, and will present its final recommendations in May, 2007.
]]>Oxfam said that the US is still paying billions of dollars in trade-distorting subsidies to its cotton farmers, despite having lost a WTO case against Brazil in 2005. The US Congress must now make more meaningful reforms to agricultural subsidies in order to comply with international trade rules and to stop harming developing country farmers.
"Trade-distorting subsidies are not just unfair, they are illegal," said Gawain Kripke, senior policy advisor for Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign. "With the Farm Bill expiring next year, Congress has the opportunity to reform agriculture policies to ensure that supporting US farmers does not undermine the livelihood of millions of poor farmers in Africa and other developing countries."
In 2005, the WTO ruled that US cotton subsidies harmed Brazilian cotton farmers and violated WTO rules. It gave the US until September 2005 to reduce its trade distorting subsidies. Today, Brazil has asked for a WTO "compliance panel" to determine whether the US has done enough to comply with the ruling. The panel has 90 days to make its decision.
"It should be little surprise that a new global trade agreement – the Doha Round - has stalled considering that the US has failed to abide by rules of the last agreement," said Kripke. "Brazil is certainly within its rights to pursue sanctions, especially since the US refused to negotiate serious reforms to US cotton subsidies."
In June 30, 2005, the US Department of Agriculture partly reformed US export credit programs to comply with the ruling, while the US Congress eliminated Step 2 payments at the beginning of this year, which took effect last month. But these programs represent only 10% of the cotton subsidy program and some of the most trade distorting programs, like the counter cyclical payments were left untouched. The US continues to pay billions of dollars in trade distorting subsidies to the largest of it 25,000 cotton producers. In 2005, US cotton subsidies reached almost $5 billion for a crop that was worth less than $4 billion. These subsidies help to depress world cotton prices, hurting developing country cotton farmers including more than 20 million African farmers who rely on cotton for their livelihood.
"The case against trade distorting US subsidies has been proven again and again but US taxpayers are still doling them out, increasing the wealth of the biggest producers, encouraging overproduction and undermining production in developing countries," said Kripke. "But even as Brazil is pushing forward on retaliation, some vested interests and their ready and willing friends in Congress, are calling for a Farm Bill extension to protect the gargantuan amount of taxpayer subsides that go overwhelmingly to a small group of large farming operations."
The suspension of Doha Round negotiations cannot be used as an excuse to delay reforms of the Farm Bill. Oxfam warns that the Brazil cotton case demonstrates how trade distorting US farm programs are vulnerable to challenge. New litigation at the WTO on other commodities, such as rice or corn, may be brought if reforms are not made.
For example, the US has paid over $25 billion to corn farmers over the past five years for a crop that would otherwise have lost $20 billion over the same period. Those subsidies have depressed world prices and caused losses of up to $4 billion for countries like Argentina, Paraguay, and South Africa. Rice farmers in the US receive over a billion dollars a year in subsidies, which equals the total value of the US crop. Major rice exporters such as Guyana, India, Suriname, Thailand, and Uruguay could all have strong claims against the US.
"The WTO mechanism for settling trade disputes is an expensive, complicated option of last resort," said Kripke. "Poor countries shouldn't have to seek development through litigation, but with the collapse of the Doha round and the unwillingness of the US to take its international obligations seriously, litigation is one of the few options available."
]]>The report, "Investing for Life," looks at the world’s top 12 pharmaceutical companies, including their drug pricing policies, their record in developing medicines relevant to poorer countries and their stance on protecting intellectual property rights.
Oxfam says the industry is failing to ensure universal access to medicines because it refuses to put the issue at the heart of its business model. As a result, it is failing to capture the full potential of emerging markets touted as the "new frontier" for its business success.
According to a major consultancy firm, a loss of faith in the industry on the part of its investors has so far cost pharmaceutical's shareholders $1 trillion dollars.
“The industry is burying its head in the sand. More than 85% of world consumers are underserved or have no access to its medicines. The industry must recognise that charging high prices, quashing generic competition, developing medicines only for those rich enough to pay and fighting for harsher patent laws is an ineffective business strategy for new markets, as much as it is a moral outrage,” said Jeremy Hobbs, Oxfam International executive director.
“Investors are worried about the industry’s performance. They know that emerging markets are key for the industry’s future growth but companies have been responding to the challenge of breaking into emerging markets in an ad-hoc and inconsistent way. This is bad for the industry and bad for poor people who are still facing devastating diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, asthma, cancer, and HIV/AIDS without affordable medicines,” Hobbs said.
The report reveals shortcomings where the industry:
Oxfam notes that some companies are offering differentiated prices but this is extremely limited and mainly for high-profile diseases such as HIV and AIDS.
However, these offers are not systematic worldwide and are often still priced well above the means of people living in developing countries. Oxfam says that drug companies often adapt pricing in developing countries solely as a reflection of the publicity that surrounds the disease or the country.
For instance, Abbott Laboratories was selling Kaletra—a second line anti-retroviral medicine—at $2,200 per patient per year in low middle-income countries like Guatemala, where a person’s average wage is $2,400 a year. Only until Thailand, in response to the needs of poor HIV patients, issued a compulsory license to reduce the price of Kaletra to $1,000, did Abbott reduce the price of Kaletra worldwide to $1,000 per patient per year. Also in Thailand, French giant Sanofi-Aventis offered its cardiovascular disease medicine Plavix at a price that was 60 times more expensive than Emcure, the Indian generic version. In March 2007, it responded to Thailand’s use of compulsory licensing by offering a 70% cut.
Oxfam’s report says that companies are still not investing enough into researching and developing medicines for diseases that predominantly affect poor people in developing countries. Between 1999 and 2004, there were only three new innovative drugs targeted at diseases affecting the developing world out of 163 medicines brought to the market.
“Even people suffering from tuberculosis—which kills nearly two million people a year—need six months of treatment and the most recent medicine is 30 years old,” said Helena Vines-Fiestas, author of the report.
On the industry’s approach to intellectual property rights, Vines-Fiestas continued: “High levels of intellectual property protection have not resulted in new cures for diseases that affect poor people.”
Despite this, the report notes that the industry continues to insist that the global intellectual property regime does not prevent poor people from accessing affordable medicines. Oxfam says not only is the industry’s view narrow-minded and wrong, but that the evidence is overwhelming that generic competition is the most effective and proven method to reduce drug prices.
In recent years companies have mounted legal challenges or exerted direct pressure to protect their patents against the legitimate use of safeguards in Thailand, Brazil and India. “These challenges are made at the direct expense of poor people,” Oxfam said.
Pfizer even challenged the Philippines government over their use of public health safeguards in relation to the drug Norvasc.
“The industry is failing to make the systematic changes needed to serve developing country markets and meet its responsibility to make medicines universally available. Public pressure will intensify if companies continue to offer only patchy concessions, for example around high profile diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria,” said Vines-Fiestas.
The report concludes by arguing that companies will need to revamp their approaches on pricing structures, R&D investment and patent policies in order to serve these markets and make its medicines more accessible to poor people. Companies should adapt to the realities of developing country markets because up to 80 per cent of people in developing countries are vulnerable to falling or staying below the poverty line if they have to bear the cost of expensive medicines, particularly where treatment is long-term.
“The industry is operating in a short-sighted way because it could gain enormous benefits from emerging markets, including lower research and development costs and cheaper manufacturing. Yet instead it continues to blindly use its same strategies in poor countries. Even today, the richest 15% of the world consumes over 90% of its pharmaceuticals. At this rate, both the industry and millions of sick patients are losing out,” concluded Jeremy Hobbs.
]]>The modifications negotiated by the Democratic leadership after the agreement was signed and now included in the text take important steps 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. In its current form, this agreement still fails to address development needs as one of its core objectives.
“While trade could be an engine to pull millions out of poverty, this agreement will institutionalize an uneven playing field between the US and Peru,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "Although we appreciate the House leadership’s determination to make this agreement better, provisions on agriculture, investment and intellectual property still do not add up to a good deal for farmers, workers and consumers in Peru."
According to Oxfam and other civil society leaders, the agreement fails to take into account US agriculture subsidies, 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.”
The agreement makes it easier for foreign investors to operate in Peru, but it also leaves the government with a weakened ability to enact or enforce its own laws on public health, safety, and the environment. In addition, modifications made on intellectual property remain insufficient to enable Peru to promote access to affordable medicines for all.
“Oxfam welcomes the significant achievement by Congressional leaders to reduce the onerous requirements for intellectual property protections for pharmaceuticals in the agreement, as it will make a real difference in preserving access to affordable medicines, a critical need for the poor,” said Offenheiser. “But more is needed on the intellectual property front and others, to really turn this into a pro-development deal.”
Nearly half of Peru’s 28 million inhabitants live in poverty, the majority of them in rural areas. Agriculture is the main source of income in rural areas and generates nearly a third of all employment nationally. About 90 percent of land under cultivation is dedicated to basic crops that supply the domestic market, like rice, wheat, corn, barley, and cotton.
“The 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, continued Offenheiser.
]]>Oxfam said that the U.S. is still paying billions of dollars of such subsidies to its cotton farmers, despite having lost a WTO case against Brazil in 2005, with no encouraging signs of reform coming from the U.S. Congress. There is little time for the U.S. Congress to make more meaningful reforms to agricultural subsidies in order to comply with international trade rules before facing possible retaliation from Brazil.
"This ruling reinforces the need for reductions in U.S. cotton subsidies in both the context of the Doha Round and the 2007 Farm Bill," said Isabel Mazzei, head of the Geneva office of Oxfam International. "The U.S. cannot continue to ignore the WTO and the effects of cotton subsidies on global markets and, ultimately, the livelihoods of poor farmers in the developing world."
In 2005, the WTO ruled that U.S. cotton subsidies violate WTO rules and gave the U.S. until September 2005 to reduce them. In response, the USDA agreed to reform export credit programs to comply with the ruling, and Congress eliminated the Step 2 cotton export subsidy program in 2006. But these programs represent only 10% of the overall cotton subsidy programs and some of the most trade distorting programs, like the counter cyclical payments were left untouched. In September 2006, Brazil asked for a WTO “compliance panel” to determine whether the US has done enough to comply with the ruling. Today, the WTO has confirmed that the U.S. has failed to reform its agricultural subsidies enough to comply.
“Not only did the House of Representatives completely ignore the WTO ruling in passing its version of the 2007 Farm Bill, but it elected to take the brazen step of reinstating subsidies for cotton that were eliminated by the previous Congress, parsing the language to try to slide the subsidy under the WTO screen," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "Indeed, the cotton lobby, representing about 20,000 mostly large producers, has continued to fare well at the expense of the American taxpayer and family farmers both here and in Africa.”
According to a recent study conducted by Dan Sumner and others at the University of California Davis for Oxfam, reforming U.S. cotton subsidies would increase world cotton prices by 6-14%, resulting in additional income that could feed an additional million children for a year or pay school fees for at least two million children living in extremely poor West African cotton growing households. 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.
"The House-passed Farm Bill will not pass muster with the WTO," said Offenheiser. "If the U.S. is unwilling to live up to its international trade commitments, how can it expect other nations to comply with the same rules? It is now up to the Senate to rally the political will to finally align our agricultural programs with these international rules."
]]>In the ongoing lawsuit, Novartis is challenging India’s patent law in an attempt to protect its own profits. Although the case revolves around a patent application for leukemia drug Glivec, it has potential ramifications for millions of poor people worldwide, according to Oxfam. If Novartis is successful, the entire Indian generic drug industry, which is by far the biggest provider of affordable medicines for poor people, will be threatened.
“Oxfam believes that Novartis is misinforming the public as it defends its decision to pursue legal action against India,” said Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director of Oxfam International, in a letter to Novartis. “We are not – and have never been – opposed to Novartis’ donations program, but such program can never hope to supply free medicines to all patients, for all diseases, throughout their lives.”
Over a thousand e-mails from doctors, cancer patients and patients’ relatives in support of the corporation’s Glivec donation program were sent to Oxfam via the Max Foundation, in what Oxfam believes is an attempt to deflect attention away from the wider implications of a Novartis victory in this case.
“Novartis and its colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry should respect countries’ rights to take measures that balance the protection of innovation and the promotion of public health,” said US Representative Henry A. Waxman, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in a letter to the Novartis urging the company to reconsider its position on the case. “India’s robust generics market supplies affordable, essential drugs both to its citizens and to poor nations around the world. If India is pressured to make its patent laws more stringent than its obligations under international trade law, this crucial supply of medicines could be threatened.”
The Doha Declaration in 2001 recognized the right of all World Trade Organization members to use such legal flexibilities without fear of challenge. India denied Novartis a patent for Glivec on these grounds, but instead of appealing only that decision, the company has gone much further and challenged the very constitutionality of the Indian law. If successful, Novartis’ actions could lead to a collapse of India’s entire generic drugs industry. Today’s hearing goes to the heart of the debate around universal access to medicine: if Novartis wins its case, access to all of these vital affordable medicines for AIDS and other diseases will be jeopardized.
“If Novartis wins this case, countless medicines previously available cheaply to poor people will be patented and priced out of reach,” said Hobbs. “The medicine cabinet will be firmly locked, and only companies like Novartis will hold the keys.”
]]>The hard-hitting ads set up a direct contrast between the millionaire farmers that benefit most from the Farm Bill, versus small family farmers who are left out in the cold.
“The ball is clearly in the Senate’s court now and they need make the Farm Bill fair,” said Liam Brody, Farm Bill Campaign Director at Oxfam America, which paid for the campaign. “Our campaign asks Senators to stop handouts to millionaires who need it least, and instead help family farms that need it most.”
According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which also endorsed the ad campaign, 67% of all farmers and ranchers do not collect government subsidy payments in United States. Among subsidy recipients, 10% collected 73% of all subsidies, amounting to $120.5 billion over 11 years.
"The billions of dollars in payments to profitable big farm operations leave only table scraps for small family farmers. Partly financed by federal subsidies, these large operations now have the capitol to outbid smaller farmers for land,” said Ken Cook, President of EWG. “Large farms grow larger, and rural America dries up in the process. Is this government subsidized consolidation in the agriculture sector in the best interest of American taxpayers?"
The first wave of the ad campaign was launched with TV buys in New Hampshire and Minnesota today and print ads in several Washington, DC publications, including The Hill and Congress Daily last week. In both Minnesota and New Hampshire, the Farm Bill is becoming a hot-button political issue, with decisions made by voters having national implications in Senate and Presidential elections.
“The Senate now faces a real test of moral leadership in changing unjust policy that bolsters millionaires at the expense of struggling family farms and people living in poverty at home and abroad,” said Rev. Jim Wallis, Editor and Executive Director of Sojourners/Call to Renewal. “This ad campaign strives to let them know we’re watching.”
“Our members agree that the current commodities programs exacerbate land consolidation and the deterioration of our natural resources, encourage overproduction and create a structure of agriculture that has benefited few, while leaving most producers working harder for less,” said Land Stewardship Project Policy Organizer Adam Warthesen. “Taxpayer dollars would better be used for conservation programs that encourage farmers to be better stewards of the land.”
This farm bill stinks of rotten programs and taxpayer waste," said Ryan Alexander, President of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "We have joined in this effort to make sure Senators know that they need to clean up farm programs, making them market oriented, less costly and trade compliant."
The campaign was endorsed by Oxfam America, Church World Service, Citizens Against Government Waste, Environmental Working Group, Land Stewardship Project, Progressive National Baptist Convention, National Catholic Rural Life Conference, NETWORK, Sojourners/Call to Renewal, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Read more about Oxfam America's work to reform the 2007 Farm Bill.
]]>The decision will protect India's special role as the world's leading provider of affordable medicines to the poor. The agencies welcome Novartis's response today that it is unlikely to appeal the ruling.
Novartis had challenged a law that allows India to refuse a patent for an existing medicine when it had been modified only slightly. The agencies said the case was a direct attack against India's right to protect public health.
Novartis and the pharmaceutical industry have been given a clear message to respect developing countries' legal right to use the World Trade Organization TRIPS (trade-related intellectual property) safeguards to strike the right balance between protecting public health and intellectual property, the agencies said.
India—known as the 'pharmacy of the developing world' due to its massive generic drug production industry—supplies most of the world's affordable generics to developing countries where patented medicines are priced out of most people's reach. More than two-thirds of generic medicines exported from India are sold in developing countries at a fraction of the cost of patented brand medicines.
Novartis's legal challenge posed an enormous threat in developing countries to millions of people suffering from cancer, HIV and AIDS, diabetes and other diseases who are too poor to pay for expensive patented medicines.
Sandhya Venkateswaran, Head of Advocacy for CARE International in India said: "This ruling is a lifeline for the millions of people who cannot afford brand-name drugs, and ensures that essential medicines from India will reach those who rely on them. CARE and other agencies can breathe easily now and continue to deliver treatment programs.
"More than 5 million people with HIV around the world still cannot afford anti-retroviral medicine, but this ruling reduces the number of people for whom HIV is a virtual death sentence. CARE has been able to buy more than twice the amount of anti-retrovirals to treat the HIV and AIDS patients we work with in Peru, thanks to the generic industry in India."
A global campaign by civil society has seen nearly half a million people around the world campaigning against Novartis to drop its case.
Celine Charveriat, head of Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign said: "This ruling is a vindication for India and a victory for campaigners. Developing countries should not be bullied by pharmaceutical companies and forced into having to defend themselves in court for correctly using the safeguards available to them to protect public health."
Linda Hartke, coordinator of the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance, which mobilized church leaders to campaign against Novartis’ case in India, said, “This is a victory for all those who believe people, not profits, must come first in public health.”
CARE, Oxfam, and the EAA call on Novartis to continue to take positive steps to promote access to medicines in developing countries, to promote research and development for neglected diseases and to strike an appropriate balance between protecting public health safeguards in developing countries and intellectual property rights.
]]>G8 countries are "running to stand still" said Max Lawson, Senior Policy Advisor at Oxfam, as last minute talks between officials ended inconclusively, with some countries reluctant even to reiterate past aid promises on the eve of the summit.
Lawson: "G8 officials have today been involved in feverish negotiation over the final texts but have failed to agree. Italy, Canada and Japan are leading the scramble for reverse gear, refusing even to reiterate promises to increase aid that they made in 2005 - mainly because they have been busy breaking those promises ever since."
"The extra aid that was promised at the G8 summit in Gleneagles two years ago could put millions of kids into school, employ nurses, doctors and teachers, buy medicines for people with AIDS—literally save lives. But collectively, the G8 looks set to fall short of their pledge by a massive $30bn. If they do not get back on track, 5 million extra people will die by 2010. This is about a lot more than numbers on a piece of paper."
Climate change is the other issue that remains controversial ahead of the official summit start on Wednesday, with Germany pushing for consensus on a global stabilization target and proposals for multilateral negotiations on a post-2012 framework. The first phase of the Kyoto protocol runs from 2008-2012.
Lawson: "Over the last few days we have seen a plethora of new initiatives on climate change, led by former leading naysayers, but we don't need a new process or approach. There is already a process in place at the UN that countries should follow, and the G8 should support, so that they can come up with a global solution to global problem.
"We are already seeing poor people in developing countries suffering the effects of climate change. They can't wait for the results of a beauty parade of different country initiatives. They need the G8 to provide money now to help them adapt to climate change, while at the same time agreeing on measures to cut emissions and limit global warming to as far below 2 degrees as possible."
Also over the weekend, violent protests attracted the attention of G8 watchers and the media. Peaceful campaigning was overshadowed by violence and injury.
Lawson: "This summit must not be remembered for broken promises and burning cars. There is huge potential here and a huge chance for the world richest and most powerful countries to live up to their responsibility to support development and poverty reduction in the developing world. Failure to act on this would be unforgivable."
]]>