Search

In 2024, all countries will be updating and submitting their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). These national climate plans outline commitments towards tackling climate change. These plans impact all walks of life and must therefore be inclusive of the whole of society. By examining recent practices across 11 countries, Oxfam found that NDCs were not sufficiently inclusive, often failing to involve civil society and communities who bear the burden of climate change and the impact of climate transition plans. This paper explores who the main actors are in NDCs, which stakeholders have not been included, and why. In order to foster a sustainable, equitable, and inclusive social, economic, and political environment for climate action, the paper makes recommendations for the UN, governments, donors, international agencies and civil society.

In 2009, high-income countries committed in the Copenhagen Accords to mobilize US$100 billion a year by 2020 in climate finance for low- and middle-income countries. Oxfam reported on the progress of this commitment in 2016, 2018 and 2020. This year’s report finds that high-income countries have not only failed to deliver on their commitment, but also – as in previous years – generous accounting practices have allowed them to overstate the level of support they have actually provided. Moreover, much of the finance has been provided as loans, which means that it risks increasing the debt burden of the countries it is supposed to help., This paper calls on high-income countries to accelerate the mobilization and provision of climate finance, and to make up the shortfall from previous years, in a way that is equitable and just. High-income countries must provide finance that is transparent, with genuine accountability mechanisms, and that allows for far more local ownership and responsiveness to the needs of communities it is intended to reach. People on the frontlines of the climate crisis must have the funding they were promised for adaptation and mitigation, and to address the loss and damage they are already experiencing as a result of climate impacts., En 2009, les pays à revenu élevé se sont engagés par le biais de l’Accord de Copenhague à mobiliser 100 milliards de dollars par an avant 2020 dans le cadre du financement climat pour les pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire. Oxfam a rendu compte de la progression dans la réalisation de cet engagement en 2016, 2018 et 2020. Cette dernière édition du rapport révèle que les pays à revenu élevé ont non seulement manqué à leur engagement, mais ils ont, au cours des années précédentes, recouru à des pratiques comptables généreuses leur ayant permis de surestimer le niveau de soutien qu’ils apportent en réalité. De plus, une grande partie des financements ont été fournis sous forme de prêts, au risque d’augmenter le poids de la dette des pays qu’ils sont censés aider., Ce rapport appelle les pays à revenu élevé à accélérer la mobilisation et la fourniture des financements climat ainsi qu’à compenser les lacunes des années précédentes, de manière équitable et juste. Les pays à revenu élevé doivent fournir des financements transparents, s’articulant autour de véritables mécanismes de redevabilité, pour une plus grande appropriation locale et une bien meilleure réactivité aux besoins des communautés visées. Les populations se trouvant en première ligne de la crise climatique doivent impérativement recevoir le financement promis afin de faire face à l’adaptation et à l’atténuation et compenser les pertes et dommages découlant déjà des impacts climatiques.

Conflicts and shocks linked to climate change are more frequent and intense, leading to poverty and inequality, exacerbating these phenomena and people’s vulnerability., In this context, humanitarian relief, development programmes and peacebuilding are not serial processes; they are all needed at the same time to tackle the systemic inequalities that trap people in poverty and expose them to risk., The triple nexus, or programming across humanitarian-development-peace pillars, thus means creating synergies and common goals across short-term emergency response programmes and longer-term social change processes in development, as well as enhancing opportunities for peace so that individuals can enjoy the full spectrum of human rights., This briefing paper aims to identify the tensions and dilemmas that Oxfam faces when programming across the nexus and sets out new policy to address these dilemmas, building upon Oxfam’s 2019 discussion paper on the triple nexus., Les conflits et les crises liés au changement climatique sont de plus en plus fréquents et intenses, provoquant pauvreté, inégalités et exacerbant ces phénomènes ainsi que la vulnérabilité de certaines populations., Dans ce contexte, l’aide humanitaire, les programmes de développement et la consolidation de la paix (triple nexus) ne sauraient se résumer à une suite de processus ; ils doivent tous être mis en œuvre simultanément, pour s’attaquer aux inégalités systémiques qui piègent les gens dans la pauvreté et les exposent à des risques., Le triple nexus implique donc la recherche de synergies et d’objectifs communs entre les programmes d’intervention d’urgence à court terme et les processus de changement social à plus long terme dans le domaine du développement, ainsi que la recherche de la paix afin que les individus puissent jouir de l’ensemble des droits de l’homme., Ce document d’information vise à identifier les tensions ou les dilemmes auxquels Oxfam est confrontée lorsqu’elle assure une programmation sur la base du nexus. Il propose la définition d’une nouvelle politique pour répondre à ces dilemmes, en s’appuyant sur le document de discussion d’Oxfam de 2019 au sujet du triple nexus.

In 2009, high-income countries promised to provide $100bn a year in climate finance to low- and middle-income countries by 2020. They have failed to keep this promise. Their official reports claim that the climate finance they provided and mobilized reached $83.3bn in 2020, but Oxfam estimates the real value was only around a third of that reported., Immediate action is needed to restore trust in the $100bn goal and ensure that the provision of climate finance is fair and robust. For too long, most high-income countries have persisted in counting the wrong things in the wrong way. There are too many loans, too much debt, too few grants, too little for adaptation, and too much dishonest and misleading accounting., This paper sets out recommendations for action at COP27 and beyond to rectify these issues, restore trust in climate finance and stop the world’s poorest climate-vulnerable countries and communities being short-changed of the climate finance they urgently need, and to which they are entitled., En 2009, les pays à revenu élevé se sont engagés à verser 100 milliards de dollars par an de financement climat aux pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire d’ici 2020. Ils n’ont pas atteint cet objectif. Leurs rapports officiels affirment que le financement climat fourni et mobilisé a atteint 83,3 milliards de dollars en 2020, mais Oxfam estime que la valeur du financement climat effectivement fourni n’a représenté qu’un tiers environ du montant déclaré., Une action immédiate est nécessaire pour restaurer la confiance dans l’objectif des 100 milliards de dollars et pour veiller à ce que le financement climat soit équitable et solide. La plupart des pays à revenu élevé ont trop longtemps continué de comptabiliser des éléments inappropriés de façon incorrecte. Il y a trop de prêts, trop de dettes, trop peu de subventions, trop peu pour l’adaptation, et trop de comptabilité malhonnête et trompeuse., Ce rapport formule des recommandations d’action pour la COP27 et au-delà en vue de corriger ces problèmes, de restaurer la confiance dans le financement climat et d’éviter que les pays et les communautés les plus pauvres du monde, vulnérables sur le plan climatique, soient privés du financement climat dont ils ont besoin de toute urgence et auquel ils ont droit.

The world has entered a new and dangerous era of climate change impacts, causing huge loss and damage and driving up inequality in the world’s poorest countries and communities that have contributed least to the climate crisis. New research by Oxfam estimates that funding requirements for UN humanitarian appeals linked to extreme weather are eight times higher than they were 20 years ago, and over the past five years nearly half of appeal requirements have gone unmet. Funding for emergency humanitarian response is piecemeal and painfully inadequate, as is broader support to address loss and damage such as rebuilding homes and vital infrastructure., Scaled-up financial support from governments, corporations and individuals most responsible for causing the climate crisis, and most able to pay, is an immediate necessity. A new finance facility must be created to help ensure that finance to address loss and damage is accessible and sustained, is additional to adaptation, mitigation and ODA commitments, and is delivered in accordance with the principles of climate justice.

In 2011, Somalia experienced a devastating famine that killed over a quarter of a million people. Afterwards, leaders in the region made a commitment to end drought emergencies by 2022. The international community sought to ensure that there would be no repeat of the failures that led to famine. Next time, the world would heed the warnings and act early to avoid the crisis. But despite various warnings and alarms over the past two years, the commitment to anticipatory action has proven half-hearted. We are once again responding too late and with too little to avert the crisis., In this follow-up to their 2012 briefing A Dangerous Delay, Oxfam and Save the Children, supported by the Jameel Observatory, examine what has changed and what has not in the humanitarian system since 2011. They explain how it must evolve in order to enable and fully fund anticipatory action. With the climate crisis set to deepen, the current system must change quickly in order to meet the challenges we face in the years ahead., En 2011, la Somalie a connu une famine particulièrement dévastatrice, qui a coûté la vie à plus de 250 000 personnes. À son terme, les dirigeant·es de la région se sont engagé·es à mettre un terme aux situations d’urgence liées à la sécheresse avant 2022. La communauté internationale voulait s’assurer que les erreurs qui ont conduit à la famine ne se répéteraient pas. La prochaine fois, le monde tiendrait compte des mises en garde et agirait avant l’heure pour éviter ce genre de crise. Pourtant, même si la sonnette d’alarme a été tirée à plusieurs reprises ces deux dernières années, les initiatives visant à tenir cette promesse restent timorées. Une fois de plus, nous réagissons trop tard et avec trop peu de moyens pour éviter la crise., Dans cette suite apportée au document d’information Un retard dangereux publié en 2012, Oxfam et Save the Children se sont associées à l’Observatoire Jameel pour passer en revue ce qui a changé ou non dans le système humanitaire depuis 2011. Elles expliquent les évolutions nécessaires pour financer entièrement l’action anticipée et la favoriser. La crise climatique étant amenée à s’aggraver, le système doit évoluer rapidement si nous voulons faire face aux défis qui se profilent au cours des prochaines années.

Climate change is already the biggest threat to winning the fight against hunger. Coal is the biggest single cause of climate change, yet the G7 countries are still burning huge amounts, despite efficient, affordable, renewable alternatives being available. G7 coal power stations emit twice as much fossil fuel CO2 as the whole of Africa, and their contribution to global warming will cost Africa alone more than $43bn per year by the 2080s and $84bn by 2100, and lead to several million tonnes of staple crops lost worldwide., This year will see crucial new UN climate talks in Paris. To set the tone for a successful climate agreement at the UN talks in December, the G7 must lead the world in setting out clear plans for a just transition away from coal. This Oxfam briefing paper shows how with the right mix of regulatory and policy measures, some countries can move to coal-free electricity grids within the next decade. Oxfam commissioned the think-tank E3G to review the current coal situation in all G7 countries. This paper summarizes their findings; full detailed reports for each G7 country can be found on the E3G website.

Climate finance efforts by developed countries are at a critical juncture. There are only two years before the deadline by which developed countries have committed to jointly mobilize $100bn per year to support climate action in developing countries. This $100bn commitment has a pivotal role to play in supporting developing countries to reduce their emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. This year will also see governments at the 24th Conference of Parties (COP24) in Katowice agree new rules to govern how climate finance is accounted under the Paris Agreement – rules that will shape the quality and transparency of climate finance provision for many years to come., This briefing paper offers an assessment of progress towards the $100bn goal. The second in a series, it looks at the latest donor figures for 2015–16, with a strong focus on public finance. It considers how close we are to the $100bn goal; where the money is coming from; where it is going; what it is being spent on; and how donors are counting the money they report.

Climate change is already forcing people from their land and homes, and putting many more at risk of displacement in the future. Supercharged storms, more intense droughts, rising seas and other impacts of climate change all magnify existing vulnerabilities and the likelihood of displacement – disproportionately affecting low-income countries, women, children and Indigenous peoples. This paper describes the effects on communities and how responding to these growing realities demands far stronger action towards ending global climate pollution, supporting resilient communities, ensuring rights for people on the move and developing long-term strategies to ensure that those who are forced to move in the future are able to do so safely and with dignity.

Many governments and companies are adopting net zero climate targets as they recognize the urgency of the climate crisis. Without clear definition, however, these targets risk being reliant on using vast swathes of land in low-income countries to capture carbon emissions, allowing the biggest emitters to avoid making significant cuts in their own emissions. ‘Net zero’ could end up being a dangerous distraction that could delay the rapid reductions in emissions that high-emitting countries and companies need to make if we are to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown. It could also lead to an explosion in demand for land which, if not subject to careful safeguards, might risk increasing hunger and fuelling land inequality. Net zero should be a pathway to real and transformative climate action and not greenwash. Carbon emissions need to be reduced now, and land-based climate solutions must centre ‘food-first’ approaches that help achieve both zero emissions and zero hunger., De nombreux gouvernements et entreprises adoptent des objectifs climatiques « zéro émission nette » face à l’urgence de la crise climatique. Mais sans définition claire, ces objectifs risquent de reposer sur l’utilisation de vastes étendues de terres dans les pays à faible revenu pour capturer les émissions de carbone et éviter ainsi aux plus grands émetteurs de réduire considérablement leurs propres émissions. L’objectif « zéro émission nette » pourrait devenir un moyen dangereux de faire diversion, susceptible de retarder la réduction des émissions que les entreprises et les pays fortement émetteurs doivent mettre en place d’urgence pour éviter un dérèglement climatique catastrophique. Il pourrait également entraîner une flambée de la demande en terres qui, si elle n’est pas assortie de garanties, risquerait d’exacerber la faim et d’alimenter les inégalités foncières. L’objectif « zéro émission nette » ne doit pas devenir un « vernis vert », mais s’accompagner de véritables actions climatiques synonymes de changement. Il est indispensable de réduire dès maintenant les émissions de carbone. Les solutions climatiques basées sur le foncier doivent suivre des approches qui privilégient la production alimentaire afin d’atteindre le double objectif « zéro faim, zéro émission ».

From 2013 to 2016, Oxfam's Behind the Brands campaign called on the world’s 10 biggest food and beverage companies to adopt stronger social and environmental sourcing policies and spurred significant commitments on women’s empowerment, land rights and climate change. Now, as the coronavirus pandemic worsens inequality and food insecurity around the world, we assess whether the companies have taken meaningful steps to implement the commitments they made in response to the campaign., In this report we find that while companies have taken action at the global level, progress stalls in translating those approaches to countries and through supply chains. There are positive examples and innovations happening in key sourcing countries. But key blockages must be addressed – including by providing the right incentives, disclosing suppliers and supporting suppliers to take up the agenda – to create change at scale.

International climate finance is vital to global cooperation on climate change. As many developing countries reel from the effects of coronavirus, the prospect of climate-induced extreme weather risks compounding crises and poverty. Climate change could undo decades of progress in development and dramatically increase global inequalities. There is an urgent need for climate finance to help countries cope and adapt., Over a decade ago, developed countries committed to mobilize $100bn per year by 2020 to support developing countries to adapt and reduce their emissions. The goal is a critical part of the Paris Agreement., As 2020 draws to a close, Oxfam’s Climate Finance Shadow Report 2020 offers an assessment of progress towards the $100bn goal. The third in a series, this report looks at the latest donor figures for 2017–18, with a strong focus on public finance. It considers how climate finance is being counted and spent; where it is going; how close we are to the $100bn goal; and what lessons need to be learned for climate finance post-2020.

Climate finance is fundamental to a fair and effective global climate agreement. Too few countries have delivered on their obligations. As a result, the world’s poorest people have not benefitted from the necessary investment, and climate finance has been a major obstacle to achieving a global climate change agreement., This paper suggests a new approach that recognizes the failings of the current climate finance regime and is better informed by needs and opportunities at the national level. It could break the current standoff and trigger a collaborative effort that delivers effective investment at scale in both mitigation and adaptation. Along with ambitious emissions reduction pledges by developed countries, this is key to success in the 2015 Paris climate negotiations., See also Stockholm Environment Institute discussion brief ‘Estimating International Mitigation Finance Needs: A top-down perspective’

Climate change is already making people hungry, and the use of fossil fuels is largely to blame, representing the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions globally. On current trends, the world will be 4–6ºC hotter by the end of the century, exceeding 2ºC within the lifetimes of most people reading this report. This could put up to 400 million people in some of the poorest countries at risk of severe food and water shortages by the middle of the century., This paper shows how, despite some steps in the right direction to tackle climate change, a ‘toxic triangle’ of political inertia, financial short-termism and vested fossil fuel interests is blocking the transition that is needed. To help break this, governments must commit to phase out fossil fuel emissions by early in the second half of this century, with rich countries leading the way.

The world’s richest people emit huge and unsustainable amounts of carbon and, unlike ordinary people, 50% to 70% of their emissions result from their investments. New analysis of the investments of 125 of the world’s richest billionaires shows that on average they are emitting 3 million tonnes a year, more than a million times the average for someone in the bottom 90% of humanity., The study also finds billionaire investments in polluting industries such as fossil fuels and cement are double the average for the Standard & Poor 500 group of companies. Billionaires hold extensive stakes in many of the world’s largest and most powerful corporations, which gives them the power to influence the way these companies act. Governments must hold them to account, legislating to compel corporates and investors to reduce carbon emissions, enforcing more stringent reporting requirements and imposing new taxation on wealth and investments in polluting industries., Les personnes les plus fortunées du monde émettent des quantités énormes et insoutenables de carbone, et contrairement aux citoyen·nes ordinaires, 50 à 70 % de leurs émissions résultent de leurs investissements. Une nouvelle étude portant sur les investissements de 125 des milliardaires les plus riches du monde montre que chacun·e émet en moyenne 3 millions de tonnes par an, soit plus d’un million de fois la moyenne des 90 % les plus pauvres de l’humanité., Cette étude révèle également que les investissements des milliardaires dans des industries polluantes comme les combustibles fossiles et le ciment sont deux fois plus élevés que la moyenne pour les entreprises de l’indice S&P 500. Les milliardaires détiennent des participations importantes dans de nombreuses entreprises parmi les plus grandes et les plus puissantes du monde, ce qui leur donne le pouvoir d’influencer la façon dont ces entreprises agissent. Les États doivent les obliger à rendre des comptes, en légiférant pour contraindre les entreprises et les investisseurs à réduire les émissions de carbone, en imposant des exigences plus strictes en matière de reporting et en instaurant une nouvelle fiscalité sur les richesses et les investissements dans les industries polluantes.

In 2015 the world has a historic opportunity to set ambitious goals to end poverty and protect the planet. As the era of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) comes to an end, two major injustices continue to undermine the efforts of millions of people to escape poverty and hunger: inequality and climate change. The post-2015 framework that succeeds the MDGs must address these twin challenges through stand-alone goals to eradicate extreme economic inequality and to ensure climate-resilient and sustainable low-carbon development, as well as in targets throughout the framework that address both., This paper puts forwards Oxfam’s proposals for what new goals and targets should be included and how they can be designed to bring about lasting change.

For the food and beverage industry, climate change is a major threat. For millions of people, it means more extreme weather and greater hunger. The Big 10 companies are significant contributors to this crisis, yet they are not doing nearly enough to help tackle it., In this paper, Oxfam calls on the Big 10 to face up to the scale of greenhouse gas emissions produced through their supply chains, and address the deforestation and unsustainable land-use practices they allow to happen., The Big 10 must set new targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions throughout their supply chains. But they cannot tackle climate risk by acting alone. They have a duty to step off the sidelines and use their influence to call for urgent climate action from other industries and governments.

A new international emphasis on building resilience offers real promise to allow the poorest women and men to cope with, and ultimately thrive, in the face of shocks, stresses, and uncertainty. But only if risk is more equally shared globally and across societies - this will require a major shift in our approach to poverty reduction and fundamentally challenging the inequality that exposes poor people to far more risk than the rich., In this paper, Oxfam calls on governments and aid agencies to tackle the politics and power at the heart of the increasing effects of climate change, rising inequality and people’s vulnerability to disasters. Major external risks are increasing faster than attempts to reduce them. Since 1970, the number of people exposed to floods and cyclones has doubled. And it’s not just disasters: 100 million people have fallen into poverty just because they have to pay for health care. Many of these risks are actively dumped on poor people, with women facing an overwhelming burden because of their social, political and economic status.

Reducing the impacts of disasters on poor people is absolutely vital. Climate/disaster risk financing could play a useful role if it is part of an approach that includes risk reduction, if it strengthens social protection, and if it has real participation from civil society. Insurance, as one component of risk financing, could play a supportive role if carefully designed – keeping in mind the limitations, including the risk of worsening income and gender inequality., The InsuResilience Global Partnership should build more evidence of what works for poor people, invest in pro-poor business models, and ensure the insurance schemes developed are part of a broader approach to reduce risks and the inequalities that make people vulnerable to disasters.

Climate change is having a destructive impact on many groups around the world. Pastoralists in East Africa have been adapting to climate variability for millennia and their adaptability ought to enable them to cope with this growing challenge. This paper explains the policies required to enable sustainable and productive pastoralist communities to cope with the impact of climate change and generate sustainable livelihoods.

Climate change is damaging people’s lives today. Even if world leaders agree the strictest possible curbs on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the prospects are very bleak for hundreds of millions of people, most of them among the world’s poorest. This paper puts the dramatic stories of some of those people alongside the latest science on the impacts of climate change on humans. Together they explain why climate change is fundamentally a development crisis. The world must act immediately and decisively to address this, the greatest peril to humanity this century.

There is overwhelming evidence of the harm caused by the European Union’s current bioenergy policy to people in developing countries, to the climate and to Europe’s own sustainable development. The policy is on a collision course with the Paris climate agreement and the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals., This briefing follows the trail of destruction left by the policy on three continents. It assesses the extraordinary lobbying ‘firepower’ and powerful network of influence at the disposal of the European biofuel industry and its allies, which is blocking reform. In the past year alone, actors in the biofuel value chain – from feedstock growers to biofuel producers – spent over €14m and hired nearly 400 lobbyists. Biofuel producers spend as much on EU influencing as the tobacco lobby. EU decision makers must free themselves from the stranglehold of powerful corporate groups – and choose genuinely sustainable and renewable energy to meet their 2030 climate and energy goals.

Despite sharp falls in carbon emissions in 2020 linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, the climate crisis – which is driven by the accumulation of emissions in the atmosphere over time – continued to grow. This briefing describes new research that shows how extreme carbon inequality in recent decades has brought the world to the climate brink. It sets out how governments must use this historic juncture to build fairer economies within the limits our planet can bear., Malgré une baisse importante des émissions de CO2 en 2020 en lien avec la pandémie de COVID-19, la crise climatique résultant de l’accumulation des émissions dans l’atmosphère a continué de s’aggraver. Un nouveau travail de recherche démontre comment les inégalités extrêmes en matière d’émissions de CO2, à l’œuvre depuis plusieurs décennies, précipitent le monde vers une catastrophe climatique. Il souligne pourquoi et comment les gouvernements doivent saisir ce moment historique afin de construire des économies plus justes et dans des limites soutenables pour notre planète.

Over the past century, powerful food and beverage companies have enjoyed unprecedented commercial success. But these companies have grown prosperous while the millions who supply the land, labor and water needed for their products face increased hardship. Now, a rapidly changing environment, affected communities and an increasingly savvy consumer base are pushing the industry to rethink ‘business as usual’., In this report, Oxfam assesses the social and environmental policies of the world’s ten largest food and beverage companies and calls on them to take the critical next steps to create a just food system., Find out more and take action at www.behindthebrands.org

International shipping is a major - and rapidly growing - source of greenhouse gas emissions. Agreement to apply a carbon price to shipping can both reduce emissions and raise funds for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. This paper shows that doing so is possible while ensuring developing countries face no net costs. COP17 in Durban, South Africa at the end of 2011 provides an opportunity to agree the key principles of such a deal.

As financing for climate change adaptation in developing countries begins to flow, it is essential that the governance of funding at the global and country level be shaped so that the needs of the most vulnerable can be met. The core issue is country-level ownership of adaptation finance. Providers of adaptation finance must put developing countries in the driver's seat, while the countries themselves must exercise leadership and respond to the needs of those most affected by climate change. Most importantly, civil society and vulnerable communities must be able to steer and hold accountable the way in which adaptation finance is used.

A fair and adequate global climate regime requires a massive effort across the board to reduce the risks to lives and livelihoods that poor people face first and most. Rich countries must reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions first and fastest, with ambitious targets at home. High levels of rich-country pollution over the last century mean that even ambitious emissions-reductions targets will not be enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. Deep emissions reductions in rich countries are still critical, but climate security will now be won or lost as a result of co-operative efforts in which rich countries finance large-scale reductions in emissions in developing countries. Establishing a Global Mitigation and Finance Mechanism could achieve these reductions while respecting principles of equity, and delivering tangible development gains for poor people. This must be a centrepiece of the Copenhagen deal in December 2009. But much greater political attention and support is needed for this vital part of the deal to be developed in time.

The year 2008 is halfway to the deadline for reaching the Millennium Development Goals. Despite some progress, they will not be achieved if current trends continue. Aid promises are predicted to be missed by $30bn, at a potential cost of 5 million lives. Starting with the G8 meeting in Japan, rich countries must use a series of high-profile summits in 2008 to make sure the Goals are met, and to tackle both climate change and the current food crisis. Economic woes must not be used as excuses: rich countries' credibility is on the line.

Climatic disasters are increasing as temperatures climb and rainfall intensifies. A rise in small- and medium-scale disasters is a particularly worrying trend. Yet even extreme weather need not bring disasters; it is poverty and powerlessness that make people vulnerable. Though more emergency aid is needed, humanitarian response must do more than save lives: it has to link to climate change adaptation and bolster poor people's livelihoods through social protection and disaster risk reduction approaches.

The current biofuel policies of rich countries are neither a solution to the climate crisis nor the oil crisis, and instead are contributing to a third: the food crisis. In poor countries, biofuels may offer some genuine development opportunities, but the potential economic, social, and environmental costs are severe, and decision makers should proceed with caution. Biofuels are presented in rich countries as a solution to two crises: the climate crisis and the oil crisis. But they may not be a solution to either, and instead are contributing to a third: the current food crisis.

Climate change is forcing vulnerable communities in poor countries to adapt to unprecedented climate stress. Rich countries, primarily responsible for creating the problem, must stop harming, by fast cutting their greenhouse-gas emissions, and start helping, by providing finance for adaptation. In developing countries Oxfam estimates that adaptation will cost at least $50bn each year, and far more if global emissions are not cut rapidly. Urgent work is necessary to gain a more accurate picture of the costs to the poor. According to Oxfam's new Adaptation Financing Index, the USA, European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia should contribute over 95 per cent of the finance needed. This finance must not be counted towards meeting the UN-agreed target of 0.7 per cent for aid. Rich countries are planning multi-billion dollar adaptation measures at home, but to date they have delivered just $48m to international funds for least-developed country adaptation, and have counted it as aid: an unacceptable inequity in global responses to climate change.

Climate change is already negatively affecting the lives and livelihoods of poor men and women. Yet it is estimated that less than a tenth of climate funds to date have been spent on helping people in vulnerable countries adapt to the impacts of climate change. The poor are losing out twice: they are hardest hit by climate change they didn’t cause, and they are being neglected by funds that should be helping them. Climate finance can and must be made to work from the bottom up, particularly for women smallholder farmers. Starting with the formal establishment of a new Global Climate Fund, decisions on climate finance governance need to set a new direction for a post-2012 era. This paper presents a vision for a new Fund and broader finance system that is effective in meeting the scale of developing country financing needs, and is widely considered – by governments and civil societies – to be legitimate in its decision-making.

Globally, 1.7 billion farmers are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts. The many who are already hungry are particularly vulnerable. Yet scaling up localised ‘resilience’ successes offers hope for these farmers, while helping to address the climate problem. New thinking to recognise vulnerable farmers as critical partners in delivering solutions is needed to increase their resilience and to enable them to help combat climate change. Bold new public investment to the supporting institutions will be needed.

Recognizing that poor communities in developing countries are the least responsible for climate change but most vulnerable to its impacts, the Bali Action Plan calls for ‘new and additional resources’ and ‘innovative finance mechanisms' to address urgent climate adaptation needs. Oxfam suggests that new financing mechanisms linked to emissions reduction regimes could be the way forward in the post-2012 climate negotiations and yield the minimum of $50 billion per year necessary for adaptation needs in developing countries.