News & Media

Monopolies causing “artificial rationing” in COVID-19 crisis as 3 biggest global vaccine giants sit on sidelines

February 5, 2021

The supply of safe and effective vaccines for all is being artificially rationed because of the protection of exclusive rights and monopolies of pharmaceutical corporations, the People’s Vaccine Alliance said today.

The alliance warned that the three biggest vaccine companies in the world are largely sitting on the sidelines – they currently plan to produce enough COVID-19 vaccines for only 1.5 per cent of the global population in 2021. A number of other large manufacturers are not yet producing any of the successful, proven COVID-19 vaccines.

At the same time, the producers of approved vaccines, Pfizer/ BioNTech, Moderna and AstraZeneca, aim to produce enough doses to vaccinate around a third the global population. But because rich countries have bought multiple doses of these vaccines the actual figure of humanity covered is a lot less. While Astra Zeneca has sold the majority of its doses to developing countries, Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna have sold almost all of their doses to rich nations, while failing to share their successful technology openly, despite huge public subsidies. Their vaccines are prohibitively expensive for many poor nations.

In the face of worldwide vaccine shortages and dramatic moves by the EU to restrict vaccine exports, the alliance, which includes the health NGO EMERGENCY, Frontline AIDS and Oxfam urged governments and the pharmaceutical industry to scale up production. It said they should remove the artificial barriers to tackling the global supply crisis, including by suspending intellectual property rules, sharing technology and ending monopoly control, so that everyone, everywhere has access to the vaccine as quickly as possible.

This week the Director General of the World Health Organisation, Dr Tedros Adhanom has said that sharing of technology and waiving of intellectual property will make vaccinating the world and controlling this disease possible.

Anna Marriott, Oxfam’s Health Policy Manager said: “The world is in a race to reach herd immunity to get this disease under control, save millions of lives and get our economy going again. This is a race we have to win before new mutations render our existing vaccines obsolete. Yet the pursuit of profits and monopolies means we are losing that race.

“People out there would be forgiven for thinking that every major vaccine company is working flat out to vaccinate the world, but this is simply not the case. We need every company on earth who can make safe and effective vaccines for COVID-19 to be making them right now. We urgently need to lift the veil of corporate secrecy and instead have open-source vaccines, mass produced by as many vaccine players as possible, including crucially those in developing countries.

“By refusing to share their technology and waive their intellectual property, companies like Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, are artificially rationing the supply of successful vaccines with the hopes of reaping huge financial rewards. This is despite both benefiting from huge public subsidy. This will cost lives and prolong the economic pain which is hitting the poorest hardest.”

The three biggest global vaccine producing pharmaceutical corporations by market value are GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck and Sanofi and between them they have only pledged to produce 225 million vaccines this year. Earlier this week GSK announced that it will be working with CureVac to develop a vaccine to tackle emerging variants of COVID-19 next year and will help manufacture up to 100 million doses of CureVac’s vaccine which is still in clinical trials.

Last week Sanofi announced a deal to help produce 125 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, but this is a drop in the ocean in comparison to the scale of need and will likely only benefit EU countries. Before setbacks in the clinical trials of their own potential joint vaccine, Sanofi and GSK had supply deals to produce almost five times as many doses than they are offering to produce of Pfizer and CureVac’s COVID-19 vaccines respectively.

Merck, the second biggest vaccine company in the world had been building up capacity to produce hundreds of millions of doses of one or both of its COVID-19 vaccine candidates, but the company recently announced it would be discontinuing development of these vaccines due to poor trial results.

GSK, Sanofi and Merck have received over $2billion from the US government as part of its Operation Warp Speed to support production of vaccines.

Meanwhile the Danish pharmaceutical company Bavarian Nordic this week offered up the capacity to produce 240 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines in its factory, but none of the successful vaccine companies have taken up the offer so far.

More than 108 million people have been vaccinated so far, but only 4 per cent of total vaccinations have been in developing countries, the vast majority of which have been in India. Of the poorest countries in the world only Guinea has been able to vaccinate 55 people [1]. Rich countries have bought up enough doses to vaccinate their populations three times over, leaving developing countries to compete for the leftovers. Analysis by the Peoples Vaccine Alliance has shown that the limited supply of the approved vaccines means that unless action is taken only one in ten people will be vaccinated by the end of the year in many developing countries.

It is also likely that potential capacity in developing countries is being overlooked. The Serum Institute of India is already producing hundreds of millions of vaccines for COVID-19 on behalf of AstraZeneca and Novovax as well as developing their own, but there are at least 20 more vaccine manufacturers in India. Many other vaccine producers in developing and rich countries may already have or could quickly increase capacity to manufacture proven safe and effective vaccines if they had the know-how and intellectual property licenses. Globally, UNICEF data suggests just 43 per cent of reported COVID-19 vaccine production capacity is currently being used for the approved vaccines [2].

The People’s Vaccine Alliance is calling on US President Joe Biden and the governments of the UK and EU to use their emergency powers and to leverage their massive public funding to put pressure on Pfizer/ BioNTech, Astra Zeneca, Moderna and other subsequently successful vaccine producers, to openly share their vaccine science and technology, to waive their patents and insist that all other major vaccine producers get involved in production. President Biden could use the Defense Production Act to help maximise the production of vaccines in the coming months.

Lois Chingandu, Director of Frontline AIDS, said: “Over $100 billion of taxpayers money has funded these vaccines, while the companies behind the three successful vaccine candidates are set to make over $30 billion in revenue this year alone.

“Public investments mean these are public goods, which should be used to benefit all humanity, not private property there to benefit shareholders. Leaders must act now to override this broken system of patents, monopolies and secrecy to deliver a People’s Vaccine for all.”

Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech use mRNA technology, which potentially allows production to be rapidly scaled-up. Yet both companies are not committed to openly sharing their technology, leaving many potential producers on the sidelines.

The alliance is also calling on the US and other governments like Germany to invest in new production facilities especially in developing countries, in order to massively scale up the production of safe and effective vaccines and to build infrastructure that can respond better to future pandemics.

Heidi Chow, Senior Campaigns and Policy Manager at Global Justice Now, said: “Business as usual is not enough in a global pandemic. In times of war, manufacturers have often put aside normal competition to work together for a common cause. Surely governments should be insisting that the same spirit applies today, when so many people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake?”

/Ends

For more information, or to arrange an interview please contact:

Oxfam: Kelsey-Rae Taylor on kelsey-rae.taylor@oxfam.org.nz or 021 298 5894

Notes to editors:

The Peoples’ Vaccine Alliance is a coalition of global and national organizations and activists united under a common aim of campaigning for a ‘People’s Vaccine’. The call for a People’s Vaccine is backed by past and present world leaders, health experts, faith leaders and economists. For more information visit: https://peoplesvaccine.org

Global deaths from COVID-19 according to : https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-deaths-region?time=2020-01-23..latest

Due to corporate secrecy it is unclear how much spare capacity exists, but the world’s COVID vaccine production capacity could be significantly expanded if all companies that were able to join the manufacturing effort, including critically developing country producers. Evidence shows this need not take time. Sanofi’s announcement that it will be making Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines by July 2021 demonstrates that transferring the vaccine technology and scaling up production can happen in a matter of months. It took the German Pharma firm BioNTech just four and a half months to repurpose a new plant to scale up production of COVID-19 vaccines. The example also shows that previous vaccine experience is not a necessity in making mRNA vaccines, meaning that the net can be cast much wider in the search for additional expert capacity if the intellectual property and technology is shared.

The figure of 1.5% is based on pledges from GSK & Sanofi to produce 100m & 125m doses respectively, which adds up to 225m doses. Both vaccines require 2 doses, so the reach would be 112m people, or 1.5% of the global population.

[1] As of 4^th February, Bloomberg’s global vaccine tracker reported a total of 108 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered across 67 countries. Only 4.4 percent of vaccinations have been in developing countries, with 3.8 million of these vaccines being given in India. Of the poorest ‘low income’ countries, only 55 vaccines have been given in one country– Guinea. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/

[2] Numbers taken from UNICEF vaccine dashboard https://www.unicef.org/supply/covid-19-vaccine-market-dashboard on 4th February

We compare projected production capacity for all Covid-19 vaccine candidates with the capacity for those vaccines that are already approved.

According to several articles, Danish firm Bavarian Nordic has offered the use of a newly-operational factory, which It says could produce 240 million doses of Covid-19 vaccine per year: https://www.thelocal.dk/20210202/danish-company-offers-to-help-with-covid-19-vaccine-production

NGOs win historic victory against French State for failing to tackle climate change

February 4, 2021

Court battle backed by 2.34 million people – largest petition in French history
Landmark case will pile pressure on other governments to act faster

A landmark ruling today has found the French State at fault for failing to take enough action to tackle the climate crisis. The decision by the French court will serve as a warning to other governments to do more to reduce carbon emissions in line with their public commitments, said Oxfam France, a plaintiff in the case.

In December 2018, Oxfam France, Notre Affaire à Tous, the Nicolas Hulot Foundation and Greenpeace France launched a legal action against the French State for failing to reduce the country’s emissions fast enough to meet its commitments. More than 2.3 million people signed a petition supporting the action – the largest in French history.

It is the first time the French State has been taken to court over its responsibility on climate change. Today’s decision leaves the government open to compensation claims from French citizens who have suffered climate-related damage, and could force it to take further steps to reduce its emissions.

Cécile Duflot, Executive Director of Oxfam France, said: “Today’s decision is a historic victory for climate justice. For the first time, a French court has ruled that the State can be held responsible for its climate commitments. This sets an important legal precedent and can be used by people affected by the climate crisis to defend their rights. This is a source of hope for the millions of French people who demanded legal action, and for all of those who continue to fight for climate justice around the world. It is also a timely reminder to all governments that actions speak louder than words.”

The ruling comes as many countries are preparing more ambitious targets to reduce emissions, as required by the Paris Agreement. Governments are due to meet in Scotland later this year for the COP26 climate summit. Scientists and NGOs say the targets already announced – known as Nationally Determined Contributions – fall short of the cuts needed to avoid catastrophic global warming.

The French government’s proposed climate law is, by its own admission, not enough to achieve its target of cutting emissions 40% by 2030. Even this target is not enough to put the country on track to tackle the climate crisis, Oxfam France said.

This decision also serves as a timely reminder to all European governments and the European Commission to take their international commitments seriously and to lead in the fight against the climate crisis. The current EU climate target of a 55% cut to emissions is ambitious, but still falls short of what is needed to keep global temperature rise below 1.5C.

The French State has two months to appeal the court’s decision. While the four NGOs have asked the court to order the State to take additional measures to fulfill its climate commitments, the court decided to reserve its decision on this point for later in the Spring, to allow for further discussions between the French State and the NGOs.

Duflot said: “Following today’s breakthrough, we now hope the courts will compel the Government to take further steps to reduce emissions and ensure that France is living up to its commitments.”

Oxfam launched the legal action because the climate crisis is fueling poverty, hunger and inequality around the world. Often it is the poorest countries that have contributed least to the crisis that pay the highest price. In September 2020, Oxfam revealed that the richest one percent of people produce more than double the emissions of the poorest half of the world population combined.

Ends

Notes to editors:

Spokespeople are available in France and Brussels to comment.

In December 2020, EU leaders agreed on a new EU emissions reduction target of ‘at least 55%’ below 1990 levels by 2030. Oxfam estimates that cuts of more than 65% are needed for Europe to contribute its fair share of global emissions cuts needed to limit global heating to 1.5C.

This case in France follows a similar ruling in the Netherlands in 2019, in which the Supreme Court ordered the government to ramp up its emissions reduction target. There is also a similar case coming up in a Belgian court to enforce more ambitious climate policies. The number of climate litigation cases has doubled since 2017, according to a recent report by the UN Environment Program. As of July 2020, at least 1,550 climate change cases had been filed in 38 countries.

Oxfam’s report in September 2020, Confronting Carbon Inequality, found that the richest one percent of the world’s population are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the poorest 3.1 billion people during a critical 25-year period of emissions growth.

For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:
Kelsey-Rae Taylor on Kelsey-Rae.Taylor@oxfam.org.nz or +6421 298 5894.

What’s Happening With Cheque Donations?

February 3, 2021

You may be aware that New Zealand banks are moving towards eliminating cheques from their services over the next year. Your support matters. We’re here to help you navigate these changes so you can continue to donate and help end poverty.

We know that you may have preferred to donate by cheque in the past. Our minds and our goal is to make this transition as smooth and as easy as possible. We want to work together to help you find a way continue giving to Oxfam that works best for you.

There are several easy and secure ways to donate:

Website: Credit and debit cards are accepted and are completely secure so your details will be protected. This is the easiest, safest and most secure way to donate. Click here to visit our general donation page

Online Banking: Log into your internet banking and make a direct donation to our bank account.

Account Number	01-0202-0117805-04
Account Name	Oxfam NZ
Particulars	‘Your Name’
Code	Your supporter number (if known), otherwise first part of your mailing address or email.
Reference	‘Your Name’

Via Mail: Donate via cash, debit or credit card by following the instructions on any Oxfam donation form you have received.

In Person: If you would prefer to chat to our friendly supporter services call 0800 600 700 (toll free), they will guide you through a donation over the phone.

Ngā mihi nui ki a koe.

Thank you for your generosity and support and working with us to build a world free from poverty.

Oxfam response to Climate Commission draft report

February 3, 2021

Oxfam welcomes the release of the Climate Change Commission’s draft report on cutting New Zealand’s pollution, but says that doing our fair share for 1.5 degrees means much more ambitious action is needed now than the Commission currently recommends.

Oxfam New Zealand Campaigns Lead, Alex Johnston, said: “We can use this report as a launching pad to step up our efforts to tackle global heating, but doing our fair share is going to mean a lot more than tinkering around the edges. We must move faster to get policies implemented.”

Johnston said: “The Commission’s plan will not meet even our existing Paris Agreement target for 2030, which the Commission themselves found to be inconsistent with global efforts for limiting heating to 1.5 degrees.

“The draft emissions budgets leave the bulk of pollution cuts for later in the 2030s. That means we’re also relying on New Zealand purchasing offshore carbon credits to meet our 2030 Paris target, leaving other nations to make up the shortfall.

“This is a blow to those in the Pacific and other countries on the frontlines of climate change, as New Zealand is burning through much more than our fair share of the remaining carbon budget this decade,” said Johnston.

“We can bring forward a whole lot of the policies the Commission recommends, like no new coal and gas installation anywhere, phasing out gas-guzzling cars, and properly pricing agricultural emissions. What’s more, we can invest the billions we’d have to pay in offshore carbon credits to surge ahead in our domestic transformation with a just transition to a thriving, low-emissions society,” Johnston said.

He added: “This domestic action must go alongside standing with the people who are right now experiencing the impacts of climate breakdown: that means at least doubling our climate finance for those in the Pacific and developing countries worldwide.”

Johnston said it was encouraging to see the Commission’s consideration of global equity in its recommendations to increase New Zealand’s Paris Agreement targets, but that the analysis did not filter through into the domestic emissions budgets that the Commission drafted.

He said: “When we consider New Zealand’s fair share of global efforts to limit heating to 1.5 degrees, our action at home needs to be scaled up. The Commission has rightly placed importance on global equity in the need to boost our international action, but hasn’t yet reflected this in their domestic emissions budgets, which are too low to even meet our current international target.

“If New Zealand is to do our fair share to protect our planet and build a safe climate future, we need a cohesive and ambitious plan with global equity at its heart.”

-ends-

Notes to editors:

The Commission’s first three emissions budgets use the interquartile range of IPCC 1.5-degree pathways. This assumes that New Zealand would decarbonise at average rate, not taking into account our status as a highly developed country. By contrast, the NDC analysis, finds that Aotearoa should make significantly deeper reductions by 2030 than the average country, due to the country’s economic capacity.
The Commission suggested NZ’s Paris Agreement target should be increased to much more than 35% reductions below 2005 levels by 2030. Oxfam’s estimates of New Zealand’s fair share are of at least an 80% reduction below 1990 levels by 2030, or 99% when historical responsibility is taken into account.

For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:
Kelsey-Rae Taylor on Kelsey-Rae.Taylor@oxfam.org.nz or +6421 298 5894.

42 organisations and noted experts call on NZ Govt to support a People’s Vaccine

January 29, 2021

An open that was delivered to Prime Minister Ardern and Ministers Mahuta and O’Connor, a letter signed by 42 organisations and noted experts requesting that Aotearoa New Zealand support a People’s Vaccine by backing the waiver proposed by India and South Africa at the WTO to relax certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the prevention, containment and treatment of COVID-19.

Click here to download The People’s Vaccine open letter

10 questions about our inequality report

January 26, 2021

Oxfam’s new report, ‘The Inequality Virus’, reveals that the wealth of the ten richest men has increased by half a trillion dollars since the pandemic began – more than enough to pay for a vaccine for all and prevent anyone on Earth from falling into poverty because of the virus. We have received lots of great questions about the report − here’s our answer to the 10 most frequently asked questions.

How can you be sure that Covid-19 will lead to a huge surge in inequality across the globe?

The IMF, the World Bank, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development have all said raised concerns that we will see a COVID-fuelled spike in inequality in all countries across the globe.

These fears were echoed by a global survey of 295 economists from 79 countries, commissioned by Oxfam, where 87 percent of respondents said they expected an ‘increase’ or a ‘major increase’ in income inequality in their country as a result of the pandemic.

It is also echoed by what is happening on the ground in rich and poor countries alike. The richest in society have seen their savings increase during lockdown, but the poorest in our society have seen their incomes fall and often had to borrow to survive.

While it will be some time before we have the data that is needed to produce a concrete measure of inequality, everything points to an increase in inequality in every country for the first time since records began unless governments act now.

What is the link between wealth, inequality, and poverty?

Our deeply unfair economies are enriching an already wealthy minority at the expense of millions of poor people. Over the last 40 years the richest 1% of the global population have captured more of the proceeds of economic growth than the poorest half of humanity combined. This inequality fuels poverty.

If the proceeds of economic activity had been shared more evenly, if governments invested in healthcare and education rather than slashing the tax bills of wealthy individuals and corporations, if companies prioritised a living wage for workers over bumper pay outs for shareholders, if access to medicines and vaccines was prioritised over the intellectual property rights and profits of big Pharma, then poverty could have been eliminated many years ago.

Why did billionaire’s wealth rebound so quickly?

Stock markets suffered the worst shock in their history when the pandemic was announced, destroying billions of dollars’ worth of financial assets. Central banks such as the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank injected billions of dollars to prevent a crash, the markets quickly rallied, and with them the fortunes of the world’s richest people who hold much of their wealth in stocks and shares. As a result, billionaires recouped their COVID-19 losses in just nine months, yet it could take the world’s poorest people more than a decade to recover.

Why is Oxfam criticising billionaires and corporations for being successful and making a profit?

Making money is not the problem but excessive profits and extreme wealth are. These are the symptoms of a broken economic system which is benefiting a minority of people at the expense of everyone else.

Take the pharmaceutical industry. The US government invested $1 billion of US taxpayers’ money in Moderna to support the development of a COVID-19 vaccine. Despite the fact the company only has the capacity to supply vaccines for less than 7% of the global population by the end of the year it is refusing to share technology and knowhow that would enable other manufacturers to produce it. Moderna has also pre-sold all the vaccines they will produce this year to rich nations for a high price, leaving nothing for developing countries. This has made the owners of Moderna very rich indeed. This is exactly the kind of economic failure that drives extreme inequality.

Why is Oxfam criticizing wealthy people such as Carlos Slim, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, have made multimillion-dollar donations to fund vaccine research, support hospitals, and help those who are suffering during the COVID-19 crisis.

People who use their money to help others should be congratulated. However charitable giving is no substitute for wealthy people and wealthy companies paying their fair share of tax, and it does not justify them using their power and connections to lobby for unfair advantages over others.

For example, US corporate philanthropy amounts to less than $20 billion a year but corporate tax dodging cost the US an estimated $135 billion in 2017.

Why is the pandemic hurting poorer people more than wealthy people?

In every country in the world the poorest people in society have been hardest hit by the pandemic, and especially women and people from marginalised racial and ethnic groups.

These people are more likely to work in sectors −such as retail and tourism − that have suffered big job losses as a result of the pandemic, and these jobs are largely in the informal sector, so they are less likely to have redundancy, savings, or unemployment benefit to fall back on if they do get laid off.

These people are less likely to have access to decent healthcare when they are ill. They are more likely to live in crowded accommodation or work in jobs − as cleaners, shop assistants and care workers −that put them at greater risk of contracting the virus, and they are more likely to suffer underlying health conditions that put them at greater risk of dying from it.

These are people like Jean Baptiste, a 44-year-old father of three and migrant worker at a meat processing plant in the US. The failure of the industry to implement proper safety measures has led to a series of COVID-19 outbreaks. When Jean became ill, he was told to continue working and hide his fever. When he died the company failed to inform his family or his co-workers. After his widow shared her story with the media, she received a card and just $100 in cash. Today she is struggling to support her children alone.

Which governments are handling the pandemic well, and which are handling it badly?

Governments’ catastrophic failure to tackle inequality means most countries were woefully ill-equipped to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Millions of people have died or been pushed into hunger and poverty because of decades of failure to invest in public healthcare, protect workers’ rights, or provide adequate financial support for people who can’t work. And while COVID-19 has been a wake-up call for some governments, others are still failing to act with disastrous consequences.

For example, the Kenyan government has responded to the COVID-19 crisis with tax cuts for the wealthiest and big business but has provided little additional funding for public health or to help people who have lost their income as a result of the crisis. By comparison, Argentina has introduced a temporary solidarity wealth tax that could generate over $3 billion to pay for thier COVID-19 response including medical supplies and relief for people living in poverty and small and medium-sized businesses.

How can governments afford to implement all the measures Oxfam is calling for in the middle of an unprecedented global recession?

Governments will need to invest to get economies up and running so the question is where should these investments be made? Oxfam is calling for governments to prioritize investments in areas that will deliver dignified, sustainable jobs, and not waste billions bailing out wealthy companies unless conditions are attached such as a requirement for the company to pay its fair share of tax or cut carbon pollution.

Building back fairer, greener economies will bring huge benefits for people and the planet. A study by Climate Action Network International found that investing in renewables in the US generates almost 3 times as many jobs as investing in fossil fuels, yet G20 nations had pledged $251 billion of COVID-19 recovery funds to fossil fuel companies as of November 2020.

Why is Oxfam calling for tax hikes at a time when tax cuts are needed to stimulate economic growth and job creation?

The idea that low taxes for the richest are good for economic growth and job creation is outdated. Gita Gopinath, the Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund, recently came out in favour of one-off solidarity taxes on wealth and high incomes to help pay for the recovery, called on governments to introduce fairer tax systems, and warned against a return to austerity in the wake of the pandemic.

A strong economy depends on an educated and healthy workforce, good transport connections, a strong communications network, and the rule of law —all these things are paid for with our taxes. That is why it is essential that everyone in society pay their fair share.

Does Oxfam want to abolish billionaires?

Oxfam believes billionaires are a sign of broken economic system and that extreme wealth should be ended. We m believe the world would be a better place if there were a lot less billionaires and a lot more nurses.