New Zealand

Oxfam Aotearoa, Amnesty International and ActionStation: More support needed urgently for Afghanistan

September 6, 2021

ActionStation, Amnesty International Aotearoa New Zealand and Oxfam Aotearoa support the Council of International Development (CID) statement released asking the Government to step up support for Afghanistan communities. The three charities said in a joint statement:

“We whole heartedly support the statement released today by CID. As we understand, Cabinet is meeting imminently to discuss the next steps of the lives of those left behind in Afghanistan and we encourage the Government to make sure they engage with and listen to the Afghan community in New Zealand as they make decisions. We also join CID in their ask to the government.”

CID’s statement asks the New Zealand government to play its part, which includes:

At least double aid to Afghanistan to support local organisations
Increase humanitarian aid for surrounding countries taking in refugees now
Welcome at least 1500 Afghan refugees in this year’s current refugee intake, over and above the current Refugee Resettlement Quota, for those at most immediate risk
Expedite visa processing of both Refugee Family Support Category Visa and Critical Purpose Visas for those with a connection to New Zealand
Support the reunification of families

Last month, Canada committed to taking 20,000 refugees from Afghanistan, the UK committed to 20,000, and Australia 3,000 refugees; however, New Zealand has made no such commitments. More than 18 million people in Afghanistan are now dependent on aid. 600,000 people have fled their homes in the last few weeks.

Recently, Amnesty International, Oxfam Aotearoa and ActionStation handed over a petition to the Minister of Immigration Phil Twyford asking for the safe passage of people in Afghanistan to Aotearoa. The petition gained the support of over 21,000 Kiwis.

Oxfam Aotearoa and Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade announce partnership

August 11, 2021

A historic moment for Oxfam Aotearoa and New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) as both sign a partnership for a new programme called Kōtui that will support our Pacific neighbours.

The total $12.4 million investment will help those people who have the least power to get the resources and opportunities they need to keep themselves and their families safe, well and cared for through climate breakdown and extreme weather.

Anna Mosley, International Portfolio Manager at Oxfam Aotearoa said that the joint initiative will change so many lives for the better, and expressed how proud Oxfam is to be working with civil society organisations across the Pacific and Timor-Leste that have a wealth of experience and deep connections to communities:

“Our partner organisations in the Pacific will bridge the gap between communities and policy makers, making sure that governments are responsive to those hit hardest by climate change,” said Mosley. “Across the Pacific, women are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change because they are more likely to depend on gardening and selling produce rather than formal employment, and because they have less say in decision making and fewer resources.

“There is international funding available for climate change adaptation, but it’s not always reaching those women who need it most, or meeting their needs. Kōtui will help women to negotiate better access to the resources they need.”

MFAT’s Partnerships Manager Salli Davidson said about the partnership and the Kōtui programme:

“We’re excited to be embarking on a new phase of our partnership with Oxfam Aotearoa. With MFAT’s $9.7m co-investment, together we will make a difference in the lives of women and girls in Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste and Tuvalu.

“Within the next five years, we expect they will be more actively involved in local governance so that communities, including the vulnerable and marginalised, are more resilient to climate change. Oxfam Aotearoa’s resources and relationships will help to achieve this.”

Kōtui will improve women’s access to key adaptation resources – climate finance, land, water, services, information – building sustainable resilience for 238,000 people across Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste and Tuvalu.

Oxfam’s partners in the Pacific and Timor-Leste also expressed their excitement for the programme and partnership:

Raijeli Nicole, Regional Director at Oxfam in the Pacific said:

“Our excitement for the Kōtui programme stems from our own experience in partnering with others in building more inclusive, accountable and transformative governance mechanisms that deliver to marginalised groups, particularly women and girls in all their diversity, the promise of full agency and autonomy.

“We are incredibly excited to be a partner with Oxfam Aotearoa as well as with local NGOs WARA and SICAN in Solomon Islands, and Touching the Untouchables in PNG to implement this programme.”

Dr Alice Aruheeta Pollard, co-founder of the West ’Are’Are Rokotanikeni Association (WARA), said:

“We are looking forward to this new partnership with Oxfam. It is a positive step forward that will enable WARA to expand its important work of reaching out to rural communities to empower women and shift norms and expectations around the role of women. Making decisions together will mean that rural families and communities in Solomon Islands are better able to prepare for and cope with king tide/serious high tide and other climate change impacts.”

Fausto Belo Ximenes, Country Director of Oxfam in Timor-Leste said:

“We are honoured to be working with MFAT and Oxfam Aotearoa on this very critical and timely programme initiative – Kōtui – that will undoubtedly bring positive changes to the lives of women, girls and other vulnerable groups in Timor-Leste and the Pacific Region as a whole. We believe Kōtui is critical to building our vision of a truly just, inclusive and sustainable Timor-Leste.”

/ENDS

Notes:

What is Kōtui? The te reo Māori word kōtui means the binding together, or interlacing, during weaving. The woven mat represents dialogue and joint problem-solving in Pacific countries and in Timor-Leste. It is an appropriate symbol for a programme focused on inclusive and equitable governance. The term “haere kōtui” describes people walking together arm in arm. This programme seeks to walk together with people across the wider Pacific, binding us together to weave a more resilient future. The purpose of the Kōtui

MFAT will fund $9.7 million of the programme, whereas Oxfam will fundraise the remaining $2.7 million through public donations
Read more about Kōtui here.
Oxfam Aotearoa is a part of the wider Oxfam confederation and works specifically within Aotearoa New Zealand and the Pacific. Much of the work Oxfam Aotearoa does includes working towards ending gender inequality, tackling climate change in the fight against poverty and inequality, and more recently, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Oxfam helps people build better futures for themselves, hold the powerful accountable, save lives in disasters, and create lasting solutions.

Oxfam reaction to IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report

August 10, 2021

Responding to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), Oxfam Aotearoa Executive Director Rachael Le Mesurier said:

“Amid a world in parts burning, in parts drowning and in parts starving, the IPCC today tables the most compelling wake-up call yet for global industry to switch from oil, gas, coal and intensive agriculture to renewables and sustainable food production. Governments must use law to compel this urgent change. Citizens must use their own political power and behaviors to push big polluting corporations and governments in the right direction. There is no Plan B.

“The world’s highest-level of political and scientific consensus, the IPCC, describes humanity’s slimmest chance to keep global warming to 1.5°C and avert planetary ruin. It sets the agenda for a make-or-break climate summit in Glasgow later this year. This report is yet more unimpeachable proof that climate change is happening now, and that global warming is already one of the most harmful drivers of worsening hunger and starvation, migration, poverty and inequality all over the world. 

“In recent years, with 1°C of global heating, there have been deadly cyclones in the Pacific and Central America, floods here in Aotearoa and Europe, huge locust swarms across Africa, and unprecedented heatwaves and wildfires across Australia and the US―all turbo-charged by climate change. Over the past 10 years, more people have been forced from their homes by extreme weather-related disasters than for any other single reason―20 million a year, or one person every two seconds. The number of climate-related disasters has tripled in 30 years. Since 2000, the UN estimates that 1.23 million people have died and 4.2 billion have been affected by droughts, floods and wildfires. Kiwis are no exception.

“The richest one percent of people in the world, approximately 63 million people, are responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity. The people with money and power will be able to buy some protection against the effects of global warming for longer than people without those privileges and resources ―but not forever. No one is safe. This report is clear that we are at the stage now when self-preservation is either a collective process or a failed one. 

“Global warming is a base factor behind all of today’s huge regressions in human development. The main perpetrators of global warming ―that is, rich countries like New Zealand that have reaped massive wealth by burning fossil fuels and intensifying agriculture― must be the ones to cut their emissions first, fastest and furthest. They must also pay their climate debt to developing countries by scaling up finance to help them adapt to the effects of climate change and transition to clean energy. Other major polluters don’t get a free pass and must also drastically cut emissions. The world has as much to gain in terms of human safety, development, opportunity and jobs by running a global economy on renewables and sustainable food production, as it has to lose in continuing dirty business-as-usual.

“Very few nations ―and none of the world’s wealthy nations, New Zealand included― have submitted climate plans consistent with keeping warming below 2°C, let alone 1.5°C. If global emissions continue to increase, the 1.5°C threshold could be breached as early as the next decade. The IPCC report must spur governments to act together and build a fairer and greener global economy to ensure the world stays within 1.5°C of warming. They must cement this in Glasgow. Rich country governments must meet their $100 billion-a-year promise to help the poorest countries grapple with the climate crisis ―according to Oxfam, not only have they collectively failed to deliver on their promise, but New Zealand is one of the lowest contributors per capita, far below its fair share of the collective goal.”

/ENDS

Notes:

Extreme weather-related disasters were the number one driver of internal displacement over the last decade, forcing more than 20 million people a year ―one person every two seconds― to leave their homes. For more information, download Oxfam’s briefing Forced from Home.

According to the UN, a sharp rise in the number of droughts, floods and wildfires has claimed 1.23 million lives and affected 4.2 billion people since 2000.

The richest one percent were responsible for 15 percent of emissions added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2015 ―more than all the citizens of the EU and more than twice that of the poorest half of humanity (7 percent). The richest 10 percent accounted for over half (52 percent) of emissions during this time. For more information, download Oxfam’s report Confronting Carbon Inequality. New Zealanders’ carbon footprint is more than 13 times that of the global poorest 50% (9.3 vs 0.69 tCO2/year)

Oxfam’s Climate Finance Shadow Report 2020 offers an assessment of progress towards the USD100 billion goal. It considers how climate finance is being counted and spent, where it is going, how close we are to the USD100 billion goal, and what lessons need to be learned for climate finance post-2020. Oxfam Aotearoa’s Standing with the Frontlines 2020 report outlines New Zealand’s fair share of the USD 100 billion goal.

Oxfam recently reported that there has been a six-fold increase in people suffering famine-like conditions since pandemic began.

Oxfam supports a range of climate projects across the world, and works with local communities most impacted by the climate crisis. For example, we are helping rural farming communities in Timor-Leste earn a decent income, pioneering a cash transfer program in Vanuatu that uses blockchain to provide quick and targeted support to households worst hit by cyclones, and connecting civil society organisations in Solomon Islands to ensure that climate adaptation funds reach those who need it most.

Oxfam Advisory: One Year Since the Beirut Blast

August 6, 2021

One year ago, a blast ripped through Beirut, taking 200 lives, and causing widespread and long-lasting injury, destruction, and devastation to more than one third of the city. In the immediate aftermath and in the year since, we have seen the people of Beirut act as first responders and a support system for each other.

Communities are still fighting for accountability, justice, and the resources to rebuild. Persistent inequality, super charged by a combination of the economic crisis, the impact of the pandemic and the blast has thrust the residents of Beirut further into vulnerability. The Lebanese Lira has lost over 92% of its value to the US dollar in the parallel market, causing prices of essential items, including food necessities, to double and triple. Basic resources are scarce in country, with people queuing for hours at gas stations to fill up their tanks and medicine unavailable across pharmacies.

“The multiple crises that have hit the country before the blast, and which continued to worsen after it, are affecting all residents of Lebanon like never before,” said Bachir Ayoub, Acting Country Director. “We are headed towards a humanitarian crisis that is already starting to manifest its effects, with more than 75% of the population in need of some form of assistance.”

In response to the August 4 explosion, Oxfam has adapted its programs, and is partnering with 11 local organizations to provide emergency relief like cash assistance, food, sanitation, and shelter materials. We have also helped to provide longer-term resources for people to rebuild their homes and businesses, support for mental and physical health, legal assistance, and more, making sure that marginalized groups like women, girls, migrant workers, people with disabilities, and the LGBTQI+ community’s needs are identified and met.

“The needs after the blast were immense, and the LGBTQI community was affected enormously, especially when it comes to access to safe spaces, mental health services, and basic needs,” said Tarek Zeidan, Executive Director of Helem, one of Oxfam’s partners working on LGBTQI rights. “One year on, and nothing has gotten better; we are still seeking justice, fighting for our basic rights, and attempting to survive the crises that are suffocating our country.”

Oxfam is also advocating for more equitable policies, universal social protection schemes, necessary governmental reforms, and immediate relief to those affected by the crises.

Some worrying facts and numbers one year on;

Lebanon is experiencing four concurrent crises (1) Economic crisis, (2) COVID-19 Outbreak, (3) Aftermath of the Beirut blast, (4) Political Deadlock on top of the on-going Syrian crisis.
The World Bank said that Lebanon’s economic and financial crisis could rank as one of the three most severe the world has seen since the mid-19th century.
Since October 2019, the Lira has lost more than 91% of its value to the US Dollar on the parallel market due to shortages in foreign currency in country.
Year-on-year inflation in Lebanon in the month of July 2021 on essential food products have reached 150% (Crisis Observatory and the Ministry of Economy)
77% of households do not have enough money to buy food, or enough food . The figure reaches 99% among Syrian Refugees (UNICEF).
The last week of June witnessed a 40% increase in fuel prices, amid a shortage that is felt across the country, with cars queuing for hours at gas stations to fill up their tanks.
Power cuts are still very frequent, with some areas, including Beirut, surviving on 2 hours per day of state power.
Medication shortages are felt across the country, with essential medications to treat issues such as mental health, chronic diseases not available at all.

Tightening the Net Report

August 3, 2021

Land-hungry ‘net zero’ schemes could force an 80 percent rise in global food prices and more hunger while allowing rich nations and corporates to continue “dirty business-as-usual”

Using land alone to remove the world’s carbon emissions to achieve ‘net zero’ by 2050 would require at least 1.6 billion hectares of new forests, equivalent to 60 times the size of New Zealand or more than all the farmland on the planet, reveals a new Oxfam report today.

Oxfam’s report “Tightening the Net” says that too many governments and corporations are hiding behind unreliable, unproven and unrealistic ’carbon removal’ schemes in order to claim their 2050 climate change plans will be ‘net zero’. At the same time, they are failing to cut emissions quickly or deeply enough to avert catastrophic climate breakdown. Their sudden rush of ‘net zero’ promises are over-relying on vast swathes of land to plant trees in order to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

To limit warming below 1.5°C and prevent irreversible damage from climate change, the world collectively should be on track to cut carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030 from 2010 levels, with the sharpest being made by the biggest emitters. Countries’ current plans to cut emissions will achieve only around 1 percent reduction in global emissions by 2030.

The climate crisis is already devastating agriculture globally. It is driving worsening humanitarian crises, hunger and migration. Poor and vulnerable people, particularly women farmers and Indigenous people, are being affected first and worst. It is undermining all efforts including Oxfam’s to tackle inequality and poverty around the world.

Nafkote Dabi, Climate Change Lead for Oxfam, said: “’Net zero’ should be based on ‘real zero’ targets that require drastic and genuine cuts in emissions, phasing out fossil fuels and investing in clean energy and supply chains. Instead, too many ‘net zero’ commitments provide a fig leaf for climate inaction. They are a dangerous gamble with our planet’s future.”

“Nature and land-based carbon removal schemes are an important part of the mix of efforts needed to stop global emissions, but they must be pursued in a much more cautious way. Under current plans, there is simply not enough land in the world to realise them all. They could instead spark even more hunger, land grabs and human rights abuses, while polluters use them as an alibi to keep polluting.”

Oxfam recently reported that global food prices have risen by 40 percent in the past year, which has contributed to 20 million more people falling into catastrophic conditions of hunger and a six-fold increase in famine-like conditions. If used at scale, land-based carbon removal methods such as mass tree planting could see global food prices surging by 80 percent by 2050.

In the run-up to the Glasgow COP this year, more than 120 countries, including the world’s top three emitters ―the US, China and the EU― have pledged to reach ‘net-zero’ by mid-century. Most of these pledges are vague and not backed by measurable plans.

Even a country as small as Switzerland could need land nearly equivalent to the entire island of Puerto Rico to plant enough trees to meet its ‘net zero’ target. Switzerland has recently struck carbon-offsetting deals with Peru and Ghana.
Colombia has a ‘net zero’ target that requires reforesting over one million hectares of land by 2030, even though rates of deforestation continue to climb.

One-fifth of the world’s 2,000 largest publicly listed corporations now also have ‘net-zero’ goals that are similarly dependent upon land-based carbon sinks.

The ‘net-zero’ climate promises of four of the world’s largest oil and gas corporations ―BP, Eni, Shell and TotalEnergies― could require them foresting an area of land equivalent to more than twice the size of the UK to achieve net zero by 2050.
Oxfam’s report shows that if the entire energy sector ―whose emissions continue to soar― were to set similar ‘net-zero’ targets, it would require an area of land nearly the size of the Amazon rainforest, equivalent to a third of all farmland worldwide.
Shell alone will need land the size of Honduras by 2030.

Dabi added: “‘Net-zero’ might sound like a good idea, but the oil majors’ climate plans reveal just how much land these distant ‘net-zero’ targets are banking on. Over-relying on planting trees and as-yet-unproven technology instead of genuinely shifting away from fossil fuel-dependent economies is a dangerous folly. We are already seeing the devastating consequences of climate delay. We will be hoodwinked by ‘net zero’ targets if all they amount to are smokescreens for dirty business-as-usual.”

With less than 100 days left until the UN climate talks in Glasgow, governments and corporations need a much stronger focus on swiftly and deeply cutting carbon emissions in the near-term, starting at home and with their own operations and supply chains. If ‘net-zero’ targets are used, they should be measurable, transparent and prioritise dramatically slashing emissions by 2030. Removing emissions is not a substitute for cutting emissions, and these should be counted separately.

“Land is a finite and precious resource. It is what millions of small-scale farmers and Indigenous people around the world depend upon for their livelihoods. We all depend upon the good stewardship of land and for our own food security. The whole world benefits from protecting forests and safeguarding the land rights of farmers and Indigenous peoples,” said Dabi.

Notes to editor:

Download Oxfam’s report: “Tightening the Net”

According to the IPCC, large-scale afforestation could increase food prices by about 80 percent by 2050. This would push millions more people into hunger.

The Amazon is the world’s largest tropical rainforest, spanning over 5.5 million square kilometres.

Vaccine monopolies make cost of vaccinating the world against COVID at least 5 times more expensive than it could be

July 29, 2021

The cost of vaccinating the world against COVID-19 could be at least five times cheaper if pharmaceutical companies weren’t profiteering from their monopolies on COVID-19 vaccines, campaigners from the People’s Vaccine Alliance said today.

New analysis by the Alliance shows that the firms Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are charging governments as much as USD$41 billion (NZD$58 billion) above the estimated cost of production. Colombia, for example, has potentially overpaid by as much as USD$375 million (NZD$539 million) for its doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, in comparison to the estimated cost price.

Despite a rapid rise in COVID cases and deaths across the developing world, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna have sold over 90 per cent of their vaccines so far to rich countries, charging up to 24 times the potential cost of production. Last week Pfizer/BioNTech announced it would licence a South African company to fill and package 100 million doses for use in Africa, but this is a drop in the ocean of need. Neither company have agreed to fully transfer vaccine technology and know-how with any capable producers in developing countries, a move that could increase global supply, drive down prices and save millions of lives.

Analysis of production techniques for the leading mRNA type vaccines produced by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna – which were only developed thanks to public funding to the tune of USD$8.3 billion (NZD$11.9 billion) – suggest these vaccines could be made for as little as USD$1.20 (NZD$1.73) a dose. Yet COVAX, the scheme set up to help countries get access to COVID vaccines, has been paying, on average, nearly five times more. COVAX has also struggled to get enough doses and at the speed required, because of the inadequate supply and the fact that rich nations have pushed their way to the front of the queue by willingly paying excessive prices.

Without pharmaceutical monopolies on vaccines restricting supply and driving up prices, the Alliance says the money spent by COVAX to date could have been enough to fully vaccinate every person in Low and Middle-income countries with cost-price vaccines, if there was enough supply. Instead at best COVAX will vaccinate 23 per cent by end of 2021.

The Alliance of nearly 70 organisations, including the African Alliance, Oxfam and UNAIDS, says the failure of some rich countries to back the removal of monopolies and to drive down these excessive prices has directly contributed to vaccine scarcity in poorer nations.

Anna Marriott, Oxfam’s Health Policy Manager, said: “Pharmaceutical companies are holding the world to ransom at a time of unprecedented global crisis. This is perhaps one of the most lethal cases of profiteering in history.

“Precious budgets that could be used for building more health facilities in poorer countries are instead being raided by CEOs and shareholders of these all-powerful corporations.”

Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of UNAIDS said: “Health workers are dying on the frontline all over the world every single day. Uganda alone lost more than fifty health workers in just two weeks. A reminder of the time when millions of people were dying of HIV in developing countries because the medicines that could save them were priced too high.

“I see lives being saved in vaccinated countries, even as the Delta variant spreads, and I want the same for developing countries. It is criminal that the majority of humanity is still facing this cruel disease unprotected because Pharma monopolies and super profits are being put first.”

While some rich countries have started to re-distribute a fraction of their excess doses and have made funding commitments, this charity is not enough to fix the global vaccine supply problems. The People’s Vaccine Alliance is calling on all governments to insist that the vaccine technology is transferred – to enable all qualified manufacturers worldwide, especially those in developing countries, to produce these vaccines. Governments should also urgently approve a waiver of intellectual property rules related to COVID-19 technologies as proposed by South Africa and India.

The waiver has been supported by over 100 nations including New Zealand. The US and France has now entered formal negotiations at the World Trade Organisation that met again this week. But the proposal has been repeatedly blocked by Germany, the UK and the European Union.

Maaza Seyoum, from the African Alliance and People’s Vaccine Alliance Africa, said: “Enabling developing country manufacturers to produce vaccines is the fastest and surest way to ramp up supply and dramatically drive down prices. When this was done for HIV treatment, we saw prices drop by up to 99 per cent.

“What possible reason then do the governments of the UK, Germany and EU have to ignore the repeated calls from developing countries to break the vaccine monopolies that could drive up production while driving down price?”

Less than one per cent of people in Low Income countries have received a vaccine, while the profits made by the companies has seen the CEOs of Moderna and BioNTech become billionaires.

Before the pandemic, developing countries paid a median price of USD$0.80 (NZD$1.15) a dose for all non-COVID vaccines, according to analysis by the World Health Organization (WHO). While all vaccines are different and the new vaccines may not be directly comparable, even one of the cheapest COVID 19 vaccines on the market, Oxford/AstraZeneca, is nearly four times this price; the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is 13 times; and the most expensive vaccines, such as Pfizer/ BioNTech, Moderna and the Chinese produced Sinopharm, are up to 50 times higher.

It is vital that vaccine manufacturers are forced to justify why their vaccines cost more, but open competition is also critical to bring down prices and increase supply. All vaccines, old and new, only come down in price once there are multiple competitors in the market.

Never in history have governments been buying more doses of vaccines for one disease and the large-scale production should drive down costs, enabling companies to charge lower prices. Yet the EU reportedly paid even higher prices for its second order from Pfizer/BioNTech. Dramatic price escalation is predicted to continue in the absence of government action and with the possibility of booster shots being required for years to come. The CEO of Pfizer has suggested potential future prices of as much as USD$175 (NZD$251) per dose – 148 times more than the potential cost of production. And because pharmaceutical companies anticipate charging such high prices for boosters, they will continue to sell doses to rich countries at the expense of protecting lives globally.

In a briefing note, published today, The People’s Vaccine Alliance highlighted examples of how much both developing and wealthier nations have been potentially overpaying:

Pfizer/ BioNTech are charging their lowest reported price of USD$6.75 (NZD$9.70) to the African Union but this is still nearly 6 times more than the estimated potential production cost of this vaccine. One dose of the vaccine costs the same as Uganda spends per citizen on health in a whole year.
The highest reported price paid for Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines was paid by Israel at USD$28 (NZD$40.26) a dose – nearly 24 times the potential production cost. Some reports suggest they paid even more.
The EU may have overpaid for their 1.96 billion Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines by as much as €31 billion (NZD$52.8 billion).
Moderna has charged countries between 4 and 13 times the potential cost price of the vaccine and reportedly offered South Africa a price between USD$30-42 (NZD$43-58) a dose – nearly 15 times higher than the potential production cost.
Colombia, which has been badly affected by COVID, has been paying double the price paid by the USA for Moderna vaccines. For Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech combined, the country has potentially overpaid by as much as USD$375 million (NZD$539.2 million).
Senegal, a lower-income nation, said it paid around USD$4 million (NZD$5.7 million) for 200,000 doses for Sinopharm vaccines, which equates to around USD$20 (NZD$28.8) a dose.
The UK alone has potentially paid £1.8 billion (NZD$3.6 billion) more than the cost of production for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines –enough money to pay every worker in its National Health Service a bonus of more than £1000 (NZD$2000).

Maaza Seyoum said: “As long as the pharmaceutical corporations retain their monopolies on the life-saving technology, they will always prioritise contracts where they can make the most excessive profits, leaving developing countries out in the cold.

“With government budgets in crisis the world over, and COVID cases rising in many developing countries, it’s time to stop subsidising corporate fat cats. It’s time to put people before profits.”

/Ends

Notes:

A copy of the briefing note is available here: https://bit.ly/TheGreatVaccineRobbery

Due to lack of transparency of pharmaceutical companies, the exact cost of research and development and manufacturing of vaccines are unknown. Estimates used in this release are based on studies of mRNA production techniques, carried out by Public Citizen with engineers at Imperial College. Their analysis suggests that it could cost USD$9.4bn to produce 8bn doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine – USD$1.18 per vaccine and for Moderna it would cost USD$22.8bn to produce 8bn doses – USD$2.85 per vaccine: https://www.citizen.org/article/how-to-make-enough-vaccine-for-the-world-in-one-year/
The figure that companies have been charging up to 24 times the potential cost of production is based on the reported information that is available. The highest reported cost paid was by Israel. For many countries there is no available data on how much they have paid for these vaccines.
Pfizer forecasts sales of USD$26 billion in revenue for 1.6 billion vaccine doses, therefore at an average cost per dose of USD$16.25 (against a potential cost price of USD$1.18 per dose). Moderna forecasts sales of between 800 million and 1 billion doses, therefore at an average cost of between USD$19.20 and USD$24 per dose (against a potential cost price of USD$2.85 per dose). The total combined forecasted sales income equates to USD$41 billion above the potential cost of production.
Colombia is reported to have paid USD$12 per dose for 10 million doses of Pfizer/BioNTech and USD$29.50 per dose for 10 million doses of Moderna. A potential overspend of USD$375 million.
Vaccine Billionaires data available here: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/covid-vaccines-create-9-new-billionaires-combined-wealth-greater-cost-vaccinating
Pfizer/ BioNTech and Moderna have received USD$8.25 billion dollars in public support for their vaccines between them – USD$5.75 billion for Moderna and USD$2.5 billion for Pfizer/BioNTech. This includes public funding and guaranteed government pre-orders. https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/research-publications/shot-recovery/
COVAX has reported that for its first 1.3 billion doses it paid an average price of USD$5.20 a dose. Given available reported prices for the vaccines in COVAX’s portfolio it is reasonable to assume COVAX paid less than USD$5.20 for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine (reducing the average dose price), and likely paid more for the Pfizer/BioNTech (increasing the average dose price). The schemes’ lack of transparency prohibits proper scrutiny.
Gavi reports COVAX will achieve 23 per cent coverage in AMC populations by end of 2021: https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/files/covid/covax/COVAX%20Supply%20Forecast.pdf
Competition drove down first-line regimen HIV medication prices by 99 per cent over a 10 year period, from USD$10,000 to as low as USD$67 per patient per year: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078828/#B67
According to WHO, pre-pandemic, developing countries normally pay an average of $0.80 per dose for vaccines.
The Chinese Sinopharm vaccine is being sold for up to USD$40 a dose (making it 50 x more expensive than USD$0.80): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00306-8/fulltext#sec1
The EU’s 7-year Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) aid budget is €79.5 billion.
The UK is reported to have paid £15 a dose for the Pfizer vaccine and has ordered 100 million doses. For Moderna they are reported to have paid £25 per dose and have ordered 17 million doses. If these two vaccines were produced at the production price estimated by Public Citizen the UK would have saved £1.8 billion, enough to pay every NHS worker a bonus of £1,012 (based on the NHS having 5million members of staff in England, 140,000 in Scotland, 78,000 in Wales and 64,000 in Northern Ireland).
For other examples of how much developing and wealthier nations have been potentially overpaying on vaccines, calculations and references are available in the briefing note here: https://bit.ly/TheGreatVaccineRobbery