Posts tagged with: oxfam

Scarlett-Johansson-sodastream-super-bowlEnough time has passed for this Denver Broncos fan to address a kerfuffle surrounding this year’s Super Bowl. I’m writing, of course, about Hollywood siren and liberal activist Scarlett Johansson, who appeared in a Super Bowl SodaStream commercial to the chagrin of international charity Oxfam for which the otherworldly beauty served nine years as official spokesperson.

Oxfam, listed in the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility’s 2014 Proxy Resolutions and Voting Guide “Guide to Sponsors,” told Johansson she had to choose between her gig with the charity or serving as pitchwoman for the company that markets a home-beverage carbonating product. Oxfam’s rationale was that SodaStream operated one of its 22 facilities worldwide in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, and Oxfam favors a two-state solution to the perpetual conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. I don’t know about readers of this site, but I know that when it comes to matters of major geopolitical importance this guy’s a sucker for international beverage boycotts.

In this regard, Oxfam employs much the same tactics as ICCR when it pushes its shareholder resolutions at companies regardless the consequences to the very same people they’re attempting to assist. (more…)

Samuel Kampa recently reviewed Victor Claar’s monograph, Fair Trade? Its Prospects as a Poverty Solution. Kampa begins by commenting on how quickly the “fair trade” moment has gained popularity, especially among the college and post-college aged, but also in the church community. He says that young people “are doing one thing right: expressing sincere concern about world poverty.  If this concern can be channeled into effective action, great things can happen.  Of course, effective is the key word.”

First, he offers a short list of reasons, given by fair trade advocates, why the fair trade movement is necessary:

1) Many farmers and workers in the international community receive very low prices for foods and commodities and are forced to live on less than $2 a day.
2) Many of the foods that Western consumers eat have been harvested by grossly underpaid farmers and workers.
3) The fact that Western consumers benefit at the expense of impoverished farmers and workers is both unfair and morally undesirable.
4) Agencies like Fair Trade USA guarantee fairer prices for crops and commodities, vastly improving the quality of life of farmers and workers.
5) Fair trade products are more expensive than non-fair trade products, but fair trade farmers and workers are receiving fairer prices.
6) Fair trade materially benefits the lives of impoverished farmers and workers at little cost to the consumer.
7)  Therefore, consuming fair trade products is morally preferable to consuming non-fair trade products.

Kampa explains Claar’s conclusions about fair trade: “Far from improving the lot of the poor, fair trade actually hurts non-fair trade farmers, keeps fair trade farmers in relative poverty, and diverts money from more efficacious charitable endeavors.” Kampa offers the two main critiques against the movement from the monograph as: “(1) Fair trade economically damages non-fair trade farmers. (2) In the long term, fair trade does more harm than good to fair trade farmers.” He then points out that “if true, [these two critiques] damage premises 4-7 in the pro-fair trade argument outlined above.” (more…)

Blog author: jmeszaros
posted by on Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Acton’s Rev. Robert A. Sirico published an article in Religion and Liberty in the fall of 2010 on Haiti and how we could help it recover.  It has been several months since then, and eighteen months since a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti near Port-au-Prince, killing around 230,000 people.  Eighteen months is a long time and many, including myself, have pushed Haiti into the background of their minds.  However, Haiti is still desperately struggling to recover from this terrible disaster.

Excerpts from a letter written to the International Organization of Migration by a Haitian citizen show just how dire the situation is: “Since January 12th, things have only gotten worse and worse. We do not have work and we do not have money. There is no supervision. We are shown hope, but nothing has come to us except the hurricane season.”

Another letter written to the IOM by a Haitian citizen states: “What will be done for those of us living in tents? We are eating dust. We want to go home. How can you help? There are talks of a rebuilding process since IOM carried out a registration in the camp but nothing has happened. Must we wait for ever? We want to find work, because it is very painful to wait and be dependent on others for help. When we work, we suffer less. We believe that if IOM could give us work, things would be better for us and our families.”

The Haitian people are still struggling mightily to merely survive.  How did this happen?

It has not been from a lack of generosity.  According to the British charity Oxfam, “over $1 billion was quickly raised for the emergency response… [it was] ‘unprecedented generosity’ shown by the world for Haiti.”

In fact, the aid has helped in many ways:  “U.N. figures show around 4 million people received food assistance, emergency shelter materials were delivered to 1.5 million, safe water was distributed to more than a million, while a million more benefited from cash for work programs.  The U.N. World Food Program continues to help close to two million Haitians with school meals, nutrition and cash-and-food-for work programs.”

However, as the recovery has dragged on, Oxfam reports that “few damaged houses have been repaired and only 15 percent of the basic and temporary new housing required has yet been built.”  Also, much of the rubble from the earthquake has yet to be cleared, which has significantly slowed rebuilding and recovery efforts.

In terms of human health, the president of Doctors Without Borders International “blasted what he called the ‘failure of the humanitarian relief system’ to stem cholera epidemic deaths in Haiti.”

In addition, Oxfam reports “The World Bank says almost half of the $5.3 billion — about $2.6 billion — has been approved in donors’ budgets, while a separate Bank document said [only] $1.2 billion had been actually disbursed to date for program support.”  Only about 23 percent of the funds available for Haiti’s recovery have been dispersed, and this has certainly slowed rebuilding.

Oxfam has called the situation a “quagmire”.  The lack of progress is not surprising given the leadership vacuum in Haiti: “[the earthquake] has brought together a weakened and struggling Haitian government, an alphabet soup of U.N. agencies, other governments from around the world and an army of private charities that some estimate at more than 10,000.”

Although the relief effort started off well, the chaos of a situation with no clear leader has stifled a true recovery and left the Haitian people in despair unnecessarily.  If the Haitian government has been unwilling or unable to lead due to the magnitude of the disaster, then another organization or country needs to step up and help Haiti organize the charities and aid dispersal.  Waiting for “someone else” to take the lead has just caused more suffering.

Ted Constan, chief program officer of Boston-based Partners In Health, said, “We need to think about getting money down into the communities to produce jobs for people because that’s the only way people are going to get on their feet economically. We’d like to see more of a ‘pull’ policy being generated around getting people out of the camps – markets, jobs, healthcare, clean water, stable housing etc.” Helping Haitians get jobs and adequate housing is fundamental to the rebirth of the country.

In the words of Rev. Sirico: “Haiti needs practical help and generous charity right now — implemented intelligently, and with a keen eye for existing conditions. We need to support aid agencies that provide water and medicine.”  This is still as true today as it was in the fall of 2010.  As much as possible, we need to support organizations that can successfully accomplish this.

Finally, as Rev. Sirico has previously stated: “In the long run, we have to look at what Haiti needs to prevent such disasters and minimize their impact. What the country needs is economic development and a culture that can support such development.  What Haiti needs are the institutions that provide protection and cushioning in cases of emergency. Most of all, it needs to develop economically.”  Hopefully, this will happen soon, but, until then, we can keep Haiti in mind, pray for the people there, remember to support the charity efforts there, and have a desire to help the country progress and develop in the future.

Blog author: paola.fantini
posted by on Wednesday, April 30, 2008

The recent dramatic rise of food prices reflects the worst agricultural crisis of the last 30 years, especially for developing countries whose citizens inevitably spend a larger portion of their incomes for basic needs. The list of countries facing social unrest as a result is long and growing: Cameroon, Egypt, Niger, Somalia, Ethiopia, Mauritania, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Haiti, Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, and the Philippines.

Consequences of these price increases are also affecting the United States, where rice is beginning to be rationed, Europe, where the price of bread in the last six months has grown 17%, and Japan, where butter has disappeared from markets and inflation is appearing for the first time in 10 years.

Many people in the developed world know that the price of oil has risen from $88 to over $114 a barrel in the last six months. But the price of corn, wheat, rice, milk and soybeans have increased even more so; corn and wheat have shot up 70% and rice is up 141% compared to January 2007.

This global crisis is affecting approximately a billion people around the world and the World Bank estimates that it could lead 100 million people into poverty, not to mention starvation.

The causes of this phenomenon are multiple and inter-related. Most economic analysts and agricultural experts have highlighted six main root causes to this emergency:

  • In the United States subsidies given to farmers that grow corn used for the production of biofuel (ethanol). A quarter of the national crop production is now devoted to the bio-fuel industry.

  • In Europe, the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) which pays farmers to restrict their output and locks out agricultural products from outside the European Union.
  • In Australia, a terrible draught that has lasted 2 years and compromised 60% of the agricultural production.
  • Increasing demand for rice, wheat, meat in China and India
  • Decrease of cultivated land especially in China and India, where agricultural districts are transformed in industrial areas.
  • Increase in the price of fuel which has resulted in an increase in the price of fertilizers.

The market perversions caused by government subsidies for bio-fuel production and the export restrictions mandated by governments in the name of “food security” are particularly damaging and add to what we already know about the law of unintended consequences.

It is interesting and perhaps even surprising to note how the Catholic Church is reacting to this issue, given the Church’s significant role in many developing countries and its presence in many international and humanitarian activities.

Despite heavy lobbying from environmental activists, the Church has given priority to the needs of the human person and his integral development. In practice, this has meant Vatican criticism of bio-fuel subsidies and Vatican support for biotechnology that increases agricultural yields such as the use of genetically modified organisms.

For example, at a recent FAO conference in Brazil, the Holy See’s representative, Msgr. Renato Volante, said “bio-fuel is a serious threat to the natural right of every individual to proper nutrition, causing food riots and an increase in worldwide poverty.” The bishop of San Marino, Luigi Negri, hosted an April 22 event that highlighted the potential of GMOs and new seed specimens that are already being used by 12 million farmers worldwide.And Archbishop Silvano Tomasi the Holy See’s Permanent Observer to the United Nations in Geneva, has blamed poor distribution, rather than the lack of food, for the crisis.

Curiously enough, Catholic non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Caritas Internationalis, Sant’Egidio and FOCSIV seem to be behind the curve when compared to the Church hierarchy. The NGOs have generally clamored for more foreign aid but have not addressed core issues as bio-fuels and biotechnology.

Even secular NGOs such as Oxfam and CARE are beating them to the punch and have even called for the elimination of trade-distorting subsidies, export restrictions and price controls.

It is difficult to generalize about such as complex international problem and about a Church of 1 billion people. But it is a shame that Catholic NGOs need to catch up not only with their fellow Catholics as well as their fellow humanitarians.

Blog author: jballor
posted by on Thursday, June 21, 2007

In today’s NYT: “Oxfam Suggests Benefit in Africa if U.S. Cuts Cotton Subsidies.”

“Eliminating billions of dollars in federal subsidies to American cotton growers each year would reduce American cotton production and exports, raise world prices by about 10 percent and modestly improve the incomes of millions of poor cotton farmers in Africa, according to a new study by Oxfam, the aid group.”

About how many other industries could a similar thing be said? It’s also good to see that some of these multinational aid groups sometimes focus on liberalizing trade, rather than simply on direct government-to-government compensatory aid packages. Apparently Oxfam “has long campaigned for reductions in rich country agricultural subsides as a means to fight rural poverty in the developing world.”

One reason Oxfam is critical of bilateral free trade agreements is that they “do not address the adverse impacts of rich-country subsidies on poor countries through dumping, or the plethora of non-tariff barriers that continue to impede access to rich-country markets.” Their claim is that the bargaining power of individual developing nations is reduced under such agreements, so that the developing nation ends up giving up concessions to the wealthier nation, while the latter does no such thing. Reducing tariffs without addressing subsidies and other “non-tariff barriers” works to undermine the interests of developing nations.

The NYT piece ends on a bit of a pessimistic note, and no doubt the elimination of subsidies alone will not be enough to combat the grinding poverty that is so prevalent in the developing world. But it would do a lot to level the playing field and give resources and products from the developing world a fighting chance in the global market.

“Subsidy reform alone will not resolve all the challenges facing the cotton sector,” Oxfam said. “But it could significantly ease the burden on poor cotton farmers struggling to support their families.”