News & Media

Hunger could kill millions more than Covid-19, warns Oxfam

July 10, 2020

12,000 people per day could die from Covid-19 linked hunger by end of year, potentially more than the disease, warns Oxfam.

Eight of the biggest food and beverage companies pay out $18 billion to shareholders as new epicentres of hunger emerge across the globe

As many as 12,000 people could die per day by the end of the year as a result of hunger linked to COVID-19, potentially more than could die from the disease, warned Oxfam in a new briefing published today. The global observed daily mortality rate for COVID-19 reached its highest recorded point in April 2020 at just over 10,000 deaths per day.

‘The Hunger Virus,’ reveals how 121 million more people could be pushed to the brink of starvation this year as a result of the social and economic fallout from the pandemic including through mass unemployment, disruption to food production and supplies, and declining aid.

Oxfam’s Interim Executive Director Chema Vera said:

“COVID-19 is the last straw for millions of people already struggling with the impacts of conflict, climate change, inequality and a broken food system that has impoverished millions of food producers and workers. Meanwhile, those at the top are continuing to make a profit: eight of the biggest food and drink companies paid out over $18 billion to shareholders since January even as the pandemic was spreading across the globe – ten times more than the UN says is needed to stop people going hungry.”

The briefing reveals the world’s ten worst hunger hotspots, places such as Venezuela and South Sudan where the food crisis is most severe and getting worse as a result of the pandemic. It also highlights emerging epicentres of hunger – middle income countries such as India, South Africa, and Brazil – where millions of people who were barely managing have been tipped over the edge by the pandemic. For example:

Brazil: Millions of poor workers, with little in the way of savings or benefits to fall back on, lost their incomes as a result of lockdown. Only 10 percent of the financial support promised by the federal government had been distributed by late June with big business favored over workers and smaller more vulnerable companies.
India: Travel restrictions left farmers without vital migrant labour at the peak of the harvest season, forcing many to leave their crops in the field to rot. Traders have also been unable to reach tribal communities during the peak harvest season for forest products, depriving up to 100 million people of their main source of income for the year.
Yemen: Remittances dropped by 80 percent – or $253 million – in the first four months of 2020 as a result of mass job losses across the Gulf. Borders and supply route closures have led to food shortages and food price spikes in the country which imports 90 percent of its food.
Sahel: Restrictions on movement have prevented herders from driving their livestock to greener pastures for feeding, threatening the livelihoods of millions of people. Just 26 percent of the $2.8bn needed to respond to COVID-19 in the region has been pledged.

Kadidia Diallo, a female milk producer in Burkina Faso, told Oxfam: “COVID-19 is causing us a lot of harm. Giving my children something to eat in the morning has become difficult. We are totally dependent on the sale of milk, and with the closure of the market we can’t sell the milk anymore. If we don’t sell milk, we don’t eat.”

Women, and women-headed households, are more likely to go hungry despite the crucial role they play as food producers and workers. Women are already vulnerable because of systemic discrimination that sees them earn less and own fewer assets than men. They make up a large proportion of groups, such as informal workers, that have been hit hard by the economic fallout of the pandemic, and have also borne the brunt of a dramatic increase in unpaid care work as a result of school closures and family illness.

““Governments must contain the spread of this deadly disease but it is equally vital they take action to stop the pandemic killing as many – if not more – people from hunger,” said Vera.

“Governments can save lives now by fully funding the UN’s COVID-19 appeal, making sure aid gets to those who need it most, and cancelling the debts of developing countries to free up funding for social protection and healthcare. To end this hunger crisis, governments must also build fairer, more robust, and more sustainable food systems, that put the interests of food producers and workers before the profits of big food and agribusiness,” added Vera.

Since the pandemic began, Oxfam has reached 4.5 million of the world’s most vulnerable people with food aid and clean water, working together with over 344 partners across 62 countries. We aim to reach a total of 14 million people by raising a further $113m to support our programmes.

Notes to editor

The Hunger Virus: How the coronavirus is fuelling hunger in a hungry world is available on request.

Stories, pictures, and video highlighting the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on hunger across the globe are available on request.

The WFP estimates that the number of people in crisis level hunger − defined as IPC level 3 or above – will increase by approximately 121 million this year as a result of the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic. The estimated daily mortality rate for IPC level 3 and above is 0.5−0.99 per 10,000 people, equating to 6,000−12,000 deaths per day due to hunger as a result of the pandemic before the end of 2020. The global observed daily mortality rate for COVID-19 reached its highest recorded point in April 2020 at just over 10,000 deaths per day and has ranged from approximately 5,000 to 7,000 deaths per day in the months since then according to data from John Hopkins University. While there can be no certainty about future projections, if there is no significant departure from these observed trends during the rest of the year, and if the WFP estimates for increasing numbers of people experiencing crisis level hunger hold, then it is likely that daily deaths from hunger as a result of the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic will be higher than those from the disease before the end of 2020. It is important to note that there is some overlap between these numbers given that some deaths due to COVID-19 could be linked to malnutrition.

Oxfam gathered information on dividend payments of eight of the world’s biggest food and beverage companies up to the beginning of July 2020, using a mixture of company, NASDAQ, and Bloomberg websites. Numbers are rounded to the nearest million: Coca-Cola ($3,522m), Danone ($1,348m), General Mills ($594m), Kellogg ($391m), Mondelez ($408m), Nestlé ($8,248m for entire year), PepsiCo ($2,749m) and Unilever (estimated $1,180m). Many of these companies are pursuing efforts to address COVID-19 and/or global hunger.

The ten extreme hunger hotspots are: Yemen, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Afghanistan, Venezuela, the West African Sahel, Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Haiti.

Gabriela Bucher appointed new Oxfam International Executive Director

July 8, 2020

Oxfam International is pleased to announce Gabriela Bucher as its new Executive Director. Ms Bucher is a leader in the field of gender equality and human rights. She joins Oxfam from Plan International where she had a global leadership role as its Chief Operating Officer.

Ms Bucher said she was excited for the new challenge in leading Oxfam, steering through its internal transformation and nurturing the energy and talent of its staff and partners to effect positive change around the world.

Ms Bucher was selected after a global search led by Oxfam International’s interim Chair Ricardo Acuña. “In an outstanding field of candidates, we were highly impressed by Gabriela’s strong feminist leadership and by the values she brings to inspire and convene our Oxfam confederation with our partners in our fight against inequality to end poverty and injustice. We value her deep and senior leadership experience within our sector which establishes her strength to lead Oxfam’s drive to be a leaner, more diverse and globally-balanced organization.”

Ms Bucher said: “I have long held the greatest respect for Oxfam as part of our global movement for a just and sustainable world. Oxfam is a global network that fights inequality in order to make the systemic change that is necessary for people to reach a fairer and better life not only for themselves today, but for their children tomorrow.

“I believe there is bravery in genuinely listening to all, in order to really understand and drive change in the fight against inequality. Dialogue that is open and respectful can be truly transformative, no matter how profound the differences are between us.”

“I am deeply aware of the huge challenges facing civil society actors like Oxfam, including from the economic, political and social upheavals that are all worsened now by the coronavirus pandemic ―as I have seen first-hand in leading Plan International’s coronavirus response. The work of organizations like Oxfam is needed now more than ever. In these times we find strength from the values we hold, from the partnerships we treasure and from the strength of our facts, our convictions and our solidarity with people who are facing oppression and poverty,” she said.

Ms Bucher played a leading role in Plan International’s work reaching forty million girls and boys through its 8,000-strong staff. She previously led the growth of Fundacion Plan from a country office to a full Plan affiliate member, playing a role in Colombia’s peace process as a partner of the government on all issues concerning children’s rights.

Ms Bucher will replace Oxfam International’s interim Executive Director Chema Vera and start her new role in November 2020.

Rights in Crisis: Israel’s illegal annexation of parts of the West Bank

July 2, 2020

On the announcement of Israel’s illegal annexation of parts of the West Bank Oxfam’s Country Director in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel Shane Stevenson said:

“Today millions of Palestinians worldwide have been betrayed by the international community. This serious—and likely irreversible— plan to acquire occupied territory by force is a violation of the most basic principles of international law.

Whether annexation takes place today or tomorrow, incrementally or in swathes, it will throw Palestinian families into indefinite limbo. It will see Palestinians in areas under threat face an increase in discriminatory legal regimes, raids on their homes, separated families, limited access to basic services, more checkpoints, walls and fences, further limiting Palestinians’ already restricted freedom of movement and ultimately fall further into poverty. Shame on those world leaders who did so little to give Palestinians any hope of a life of freedom, prosperity and peace. It is nothing less than a reversal of decades and billions of dollars of development and humanitarian work.

Palestinian communities are at risk of becoming isolated enclaves. The annexation of the fertile land of the Jordan Valley in particular, the food basket of the West Bank, would render a functioning Palestinian State impossible; depriving it of the land and natural resources necessary to sustain itself. Oxfam strongly condemns any annexation of West Bank territory and urges the international community to reject any further steps in this plan. Its
repercussions must be made crystal clear if Israel moves forward with this harmful, illegal act.”

Notes to Editors:

Supporting photography and quotes from impacted Palestinians are available upon request
Oxfam has been working in the region since the 1950s and established a country office in the 1980s. We work in the most vulnerable communities in Gaza, East Jerusalem, and Area C with more than 60 Palestinian and Israeli partner organizations to respond to humanitarian crises, to help communities to earn a living and access resources like food, water and education, and to build a strong civil society.
Spokespeople are available upon request.
Contact: Adeline Guerra in Jerusalem | [email protected] | +972 (0)54 6395 002 | Skype: aguerra.oxfam

Gas is a very unstable foundation on which to rebuild from coronavirus crisis – Oxfam

June 24, 2020

As the recovery from COVID-19 begins, investing in gas will entrench the same problems as coal, including high energy costs, climate damage and pollution, violations of land rights, and a concentration of wealth, a new briefing from Oxfam Australia shows.

Oxfam Australia Chief Executive Lyn Morgain said the briefing paper, “Australia’s energy future & the recovery from COVID-19”, showed gas was a very unstable foundation on which to rebuild an economy and build a better future.

“This year, we have seen that no-one is immune to the climate crisis, including here in Australia,” Ms Morgain said. “But it is people living in poverty who are paying the greatest cost, despite having contributed the least to global climate pollution.

“Relying on a gas-fired recovery from COVID-19 risks failing not only to meet immediate needs but also imposing a crippling burden on future generations – in the form of climate damage, stranded assets, fewer jobs and big debts.

“Australia has been a regressive force on global climate action – doubling down on fossil fuels at home and for export, and holding back international negotiations. But in the face of the twin challenges of economic recovery and the climate crisis, there is a now a once in a generation opportunity to stabilise and strengthen the Australian economy while also tackling climate change.

“The COVID-19 crisis has shown we’re capable of listening to the science, working together, and taking bold action across all levels of government, business and the community. We must now apply that same resolve and foresight to the even greater challenges that lie ahead, and tackle the climate crisis.”

Ms Morgain said it was claimed that gas was less emissions intensive than coal, but the mining, processing and transportation of gas released large quantities of methane – a highly potent greenhouse gas with many times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

“The proposed expansion of Australia’s gas industry is of grave concern to many,” Ms Morgain said. “When it comes to our immediate region – the Pacific – this stubborn resistance to cutting emissions has become more than cause for embarrassment, and may increasingly affect Australia materially and strategically.

“Staunch global allies, including the United Kingdom, have been left bewildered by our reluctance to turn away from coal and gas, even after seeing vast tracts of our country engulfed in flames. However, Australia is uniquely placed to help drive the global transition to a clean energy future and to reap the economic benefits. This clean energy future also offers a far better prospect for communities, in our region and beyond, to overcome poverty and inequality.

Amelia Telford, Bundjalung woman and National Director of the Seed Indigenous Youth Climate Network said the proposed expansion of Australia’s gas industry would disproportionately impact Aboriginal communities, particularly in the Northern Territory, where gas companies were itching to start fracking.

“Many Aboriginal communities are concerned about the long-term damage that fracking could cause to water, to country, to songlines, and the long-term effects of climate change. These communities are already feeling the impacts of a warming climate, fracking would only make this worse and could force many people to move off country,” Ms Telford said.

“Time and time again, governments and mining companies have ignored concerns from Traditional Owners and Aboriginal communities who are worried about fracking and the impacts of exploration licences that have been granted without proper free, prior and informed consent.”

Ms Morgain said these communities feared they would have to deal with the long-term impacts of onshore gas development, while the benefits would be short-term and flow mostly to people outside the community.

“We are a developed country with very high emissions per person, and a hefty historical responsibility for climate pollution, but, on the positive side, almost unparalleled resources in solar and wind energy,” Ms Morgain said.

“Solar and wind provide the most cost-effective form of new energy generation in most markets across the world, even before pricing in the many negative impacts associated with fossil fuels; and, the potential for job creation in renewables is far greater than in the fossil fuel industry.

Oxfam is urging the Government to invest in economic stimulus measures that accelerate the transformation of our energy system to being powered by renewable energy.

“Oxfam is also calling for the Government to commit to a national goal of zero emissions well before mid-century, no further expansion of Australia’s coal and gas industries, and to the phase-out of fossil fuels in both our domestic energy system and exports by 2030,” Ms Morgain said.

“Finally, the organisation is calling on the Government to prioritise Indigenous-led climate solutions and the right of Australia’s First Peoples to protect Country, as well as prioritising opportunities for new jobs and industries in regional areas through climate action.”

-ends-

Click here to read the full report.

Oxfam’s Response to Coronavirus

June 16, 2020

As the outbreak of the novel coronavirus continues, Oxfam is gearing up its entire humanitarian aid delivery system to help the poorest and most marginalised people as they face the rising tide of infections ahead. Despite access restrictions, we are working around the clock with our local partners in more than 60 countries to deliver much needed assistance to curb to spread of the virus and help protect communities from its economic impact.

We have forged new and existing partnerships with 344 local civil society organisations across 62 countries. This network that includes all the work that Oxfam teams are implementing directly, is part of the fabric of how local communities themselves are responding in their own contexts and helping each other to adapt and survive. Together, we have reached over 4.5m people to date, with an aim to reach 14m people. The report below summarises the impact of our ongoing response.

Click here to read the executive summary.

Click here to read the full report.

The Top Five Questions You Asked About Oxfam’s Call For A People’s Vaccine

June 11, 2020

Oxfam, along with UNAIDS and over 150 world leaders recently called for the forthcoming Coronavirus vaccine to be made available free of charge, to everyone on the planet. As researchers race to find a vaccine, you asked us some great questions about our call to action. Here are our answers:

1. why is it important for the covid-19 vaccine to be free, and fairly distributed to everyone?

The Coronavirus pandemic has already cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and while it is slowing down in some countries, in others — and particularly across some of the most unequal regions — we’re seeing it continue to spread. Just last week the WHO marked Latin America as the next epicenter for the virus.

We have seen this virus cripple some of the most advanced health systems in the world, so imagine what it can do to already struggling health systems in the poorest countries. A vaccine is our best hope of ending the pandemic and the chaos it is causing.

Your ability to stay safe and healthy should never be dictated by the amount of money in your pocket.

Good health is a right not a privilege and health care should be free at the point of use. Unfortunately, billions of people each year are denied health care, because they are too poor to pay the fees charged.

This pandemic has left billions of people at risk of being pushed into hunger and poverty.

Which means that most people in the world will find it even harder to pay for health care, including a vaccine, out of their own pockets. This is especially true for women and girls who are usually last in line for care, even though they shoulder the majority of care work themselves, putting them at higher risk for infection.

But a free of charge vaccine is not only about fairness. It is also imperative to protect everyone one of us.

A vaccine will only work to protect all of our health if everyone who needs it has access to it.

It is self-defeating if only rich people and rich countries get access to a vaccine because they can afford to pay. As long as some people in the world have no access to the vaccine, we all remain at risk from this virus.

While some people think the virus will simply disappear one day, and others are banking on herd immunity, it is important to know that herd immunity is often achieved through vaccinations. Just waiting until enough people have been infected with the virus could cost millions of lives and continue to deepen inequalities between us. A price that we cannot be prepared to pay.

2. what does 'fairly distributed' mean?

If only limited supplies of the vaccine are available it makes sense to vaccinate those at most risk first, including frontline medical staff and other front-line workers, the elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions — wherever they are. Estimates show that there are about 1 billion people in this category.

We need a global binding agreement that governments will prioritize supply according to need and not ability to pay.

The best solution to achieving fairness is to have enough supply of a vaccine for everyone as soon as possible. Achieving this requires at least two things:

Firstly, a commitment by all governments, institutions and pharmaceutical companies involved in developing the vaccine to share the science and technologies they discover. Rather than locking it up in patents that will be afforded to the highest bidder, the science of the vaccine and all treatments should be shared openly. This means any country or company with the capacity to do so safely can make the vaccine, while other countries will be free to import low-cost vaccines to ensure everyone on the planet can benefit from it equally. Secondly, the world needs additional vaccine manufacturing capacity to meet the unprecedented global demand. We need to see governments investing in this additional capacity now, especially in countries that already have the technological know-how to produce the vaccine and are committed to free and fair global access.

3. who will end up paying for the vaccine? can we afford for it to be free for everyone?

The vaccine needs to be a global public good — it must be produced at the lowest price possible — ‘at true cost price’ with no one profiting from its production. This is especially important because it is largely public money that is paying for its development. Ideally the vaccine should be provided at a cost of no more than $2 per dose to governments and agencies who will deliver it, and free of charge for those who get it — in rich and poor countries alike.

Oxfam has estimated that the cost of delivering the vaccine to the poorest people on the planet could be the equivalent to just 4 months’ worth of the annual profits of the ten wealthiest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

This isn’t a matter of whether it’s affordable, it’s a matter of political will to make it happen.

4. Is Oxfam saying the vaccine should be mandatory for all people?

At this stage, the priority needs to be on making the right steps to secure that a safe and effective vaccine is found and made available for all those who need it. If action on this is delayed the world might witness the development of a successful vaccine but it’s scarcity will mean only those with the deepest pockets will be able to access it.

Vaccines have an extremely positive track record and continue to prevent millions of deaths across the globe. Smallpox and polio are only two examples of diseases that have been erased from most societies effectively, due to vaccines.

There is a large body of scientific evidence that shows that vaccines are effective and safe. A single vaccine not only works for the person who receives it, but every single person that is vaccinated helps to prevent the spread of a disease, as they then cannot pass it on due to immunity.

Hence, vaccines are so important for everybody — not just on the individual level.

Right now, with millions of people threatened by the Coronavirus pandemic, the greatest fear is not that people will have to get vaccinated who don’t want to be protected, the fear is that not everybody who needs protection will be able to get the vaccine.

Oxfam supports calls for public information campaigns based on clear, transparent, peer-reviewed and accountable scientific evidence regarding the vaccine and any other medical solutions adopted to protect peoples’ health so that people are well informed ahead of any vaccine and treatment roll outs.

5. what are the ethical issues at stake with the development and rollout of a new vaccine?

Vaccines have contributed vastly to our overall health — only second to access to clean drinking water — and hence play an important role in our collective public health. However, there are several ethical issues that come up when a new vaccine is being developed and introduced. Here are two important ones:

The testing phase:

New drugs, including vaccines, need to go through a rigorous testing phase, before they are approved for wide medical use. There are new types of vaccines against Covid19 currently being developed — for example, the so-called RNA vaccines. Just like all other vaccines, new types of vaccines must be tested rigorously to ensure it is safe and effective.

While clinical trials are an inherent part of developing safe drugs and vaccines, it is of utmost importance that ethical standards are adhered to in the strictest form.

There have been appalling examples of medical testing in vulnerable communities, for example in Zimbabwe, Nigeria in the 90s or when the first ever vaccine (against smallpox) was tested in children living in an orphanage in Austria, back in the18th century.

A new vaccine needs to be developed and tested under strict ethical protocol. That is imperative.

The rollout phase:

Some drugs that are developed end up not being made available for those in most need, but for those in the “right” country or with enough cash to pay for it. Especially when there is limited supply, the tough question is who gets the treatment first.

The answer should be straight forward — those who need it, irrespective of where they live, what their income, ethnicity or gender is.