Search

Colombia has one of the longest-running armed conflicts in the world. This briefing paper draws on Oxfam’s research in Colombia in late 2011 into the impacts of Colombia’s stabilization programme, the National Consolidation Plan (NCP). Interviewees clearly indicated that the NCP and other stabilization efforts had failed to make communities more secure, often leaving them less safe. Severe limitations were also found in the attempts to promote conflict-sensitive development. The United States is one of the leading donors to the NCP, along with Spain and the Netherlands.

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.

This policy paper provides a critical examination of international commitments on women's land rights, evaluating progress and persistent challenges. It scrutinizes commitments made through the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Generation Equality Forum (GEF) Action Coalitions, revealing a substantial disconnect between ambitions and implementation., Ce document d’orientation révèle l’urgence d’un changement transformateur pour garantir des droits fonciers équitables aux femmes et aux communautés marginalisées. En formulant des recommandations pour un large éventail de parties prenantes et en analysant les facteurs macroéconomiques à travers un prisme féministe, nous souhaitons stimuler le dialogue et contribuer à un avenir plus équitable et durable pour tou·tes.

This briefing paper argues that austerity measures are a form of gender-based violence against women, girls and non-binary people, and lays out clear examples of how fiscal consolidation affects them. Its core argument is that ending austerity must be a priority. The policies that deliver austerity’s deadly consequences can no longer be marketed as the ‘logical’ and ‘inevitable’ economic options that they have been for decades, and certainly not by any government that claims a commitment to gender equality or ending gender-based violence. Austerity takes away from those who need it most, while ignoring common-sense ways to improve both revenue and prosperity. The paper goes on to share feminist economic alternatives offer pathways that can protect the Majority World from completely avoidable suffering., Ce document d’information explique que les mesures d’austérité sont une forme de violence basée sur le genre à l’encontre des femmes, des filles et des personnes non binaires, et présente des exemples clairs de la manière dont la consolidation fiscale les affecte. Son principal propos : mettre un terme à l’austérité doit être une priorité. Les politiques d’austérité aux conséquences mortelles ne peuvent plus être présentées comme les options économiques « logiques » et « inévitables » qu’elles ont été pendant des décennies, et certainement pas par un État qui prétend s’engager en faveur de l’égalité de genre ou de la fin des violences basées sur le genre. L’austérité dépouille celles et ceux dont les besoins sont les plus criants, tout en tournant le dos aux moyens de bon sens qui permettraient d’améliorer les revenus et la prospérité. Les alternatives économiques féministes offrent des voies susceptibles de protéger le monde majoritaire10 d’une souffrance totalement évitable.

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.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented event in the modern era. Earlier studies demonstrated how ‘critical junctures’, which comprise major historical events and emergencies, often play an essential role in social change. This paper seeks to explore whether the COVID-19 pandemic would prove to be a similar pivotal moment, and what lessons and insights we could gather for positive social change., The research set out to find key insights on how individuals, communities, and organizations in civil society were responding to the pandemic in low-income populations at the intersection of multiple inequalities. These lessons could inform how donors, governments and NGOs might reshape their efforts to reduce emerging or deepening inequalities, and how civil society organisations and community-based organisations could amplify their positive impacts., Over 18 months, from September 2020 to March 2022, the ‘Emergent Agency’ research convened a global conversation between activists, development practitioners, researchers, and academics to better understand the phenomena that were taking place in response to the pandemic. The research collected more than 200 case studies and held a series of webinars and conversations in thematic clusters to uncover what these responses could teach us. The research project was enabled with funding from The Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity programme (AFSEE) of the London School of Economics., The findings from the collaborative research have been summarised in two main documents, - a research report, which retraces the steps of the study, its methodology and main findings;, - and this brief, which summarizes key points that we believe are important for those working in international and national NGOs, and donor agencies.

Since 2020, the richest five men in the world have doubled their fortunes. During the same period, almost five billion people globally have become poorer. Hardship and hunger are a daily reality for many people worldwide. At current rates, it will take 230 years to end poverty, but we could have our first trillionaire in 10 years., This report shows how a huge concentration of global corporate and monopoly power is exacerbating inequality economy-wide. Seven out of ten of the world’s biggest corporates have either a billionaire CEO or a billionaire as their principal shareholder. Through squeezing workers, dodging tax, privatizing the state and spurring climate breakdown, corporations are driving inequality and acting in the service of delivering ever-greater wealth to their rich owners. To end extreme inequality, governments must radically redistribute the power of billionaires and corporations back to ordinary people. A more equal world is possible if governments effectively regulate and reimagine the private sector., Depuis 2020, les cinq hommes les plus riches du monde ont doublé leur fortune. Au cours de la même période, près de cinq milliards de personnes se sont appauvries. Les conditions de vie difficiles et la faim sont une réalité quotidienne pour de nombreuses personnes à travers le monde. Au rythme actuel, il faudra 230 ans pour mettre fin à la pauvreté, alors que nous pourrions voir pour la première fois la fortune d'un multimilliardaire franchir le cap des 1 000 milliards de dollars dans dix ans., L’énorme concentration du pouvoir des grandes entreprises et des monopoles à l’échelle mondiale exacerbe les inégalités à tous les niveaux de l’économie. Sept des dix plus grandes entreprises mondiales ont un PDG milliardaire ou un milliardaire comme actionnaire principal. En faisant peser la pression sur les travailleurs et les travailleuses, en évitant l’impôt, en privatisant l’État et en participant grandement au réchauffement climatique, les grandes entreprises creusent les inégalités et contribuent à gonfler toujours plus la fortune de leurs riches propriétaires. Pour mettre fin à ces inégalités extrêmes, les gouvernements doivent impérativement redistribuer le pouvoir des milliardaires et des grandes entreprises aux citoyen·nes ordinaires. Un monde plus égalitaire est possible si les gouvernements réglementent et réorganisent efficacement le secteur privé.

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.

Glencore’s business model continues to have severe consequences for local communities and the environment. Several scandals have provided evidence of Glencore’s involvement in human rights violations, corruption, tax avoidance and environmental destruction. Glencore’s mines have had devastating impacts on their surrounding environments, with grave consequences for the communities living beside them. This report elaborates on two such examples of Glencore-owned mines: the Cerrejón coal mine in northern Colombia, and the Antapaccay copper mine in Espinar in Peru. External pressure from investors, banks, policymakers and regulators is therefore key to forcing Glencore to change. The EU should properly integrate the human rights responsibilities of the financial sector into its Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).

On 14 June 2021, the EU Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) was adopted with a budget of €79.5bn, of which 10% is allocated to migration-related actions. 93% of NDICI funds must comply with Official Development Assistance (ODA) criteria., An Oxfam analysis of the ODA eligibility of NDICI funded migration projects in Libya, Tunisia and Niger finds that a significant portion of the projects contain elements that may limit ODA eligibility and appear to prioritise the EU’s domestic migration concerns over development objectives. Moreover, insufficient documentation hinders the monitoring and democratic scrutiny needed to ensure NDICI migration programming meets the EU’s legal obligations for development spending.

Indigenous peoples have long asserted and defended their rights and customary land tenures against the unlawful enclosure of their territories. Yet, despite normative recognition of the right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC)—and public commitments by major multinational companies, international financial institutions, and global banks to apply the standard of consent—power imbalances continue to undermine the quality of agreements being reached., Negotiating Consent distills lessons from Oxfam’s work defending community consent in Peru. Drawing on research published by Oxfam partners in Peru—Cooperacción, Organización Nacional de Mujeres Indígenas (ONAMIAP) and Pueblos Indígenas Amazónicas Unidas en Defensa de Sus Territorios (PUINAMUDT), which have published research examining the politics and practices of the implementation of this law—it seeks to contribute to collective thinking around ways to improve the implementation of FPIC processes, processes that are manifestly political., With land inequality worsening, land grabbing continuing unabated, and basic environmental and social protections being rolled back, upholding the standard of consent is more important than ever. It is time companies, investors, and others look beyond paper commitments and take the steps necessary to ensure quality agreements are reached with Indigenous peoples and are maintained across the life of projects.

The triple nexus (H-D-P) approach aims to challenge a linear and sequential intervention logic. Humanitarian aid, development programmes and peacebuilding programmes must be implemented simultaneously to address the systemic inequalities and weaknesses that keep people in poverty and make them vulnerable. This paradigm shift requires major transformations in both the humanitarian and development sectors. These case studies show how some of Oxfam's interventions are adapting to and incorporating this new logic.

We are living through an unprecedented moment of multiple crises. Tens of millions more people are facing hunger. Hundreds of millions more face impossible rises in the cost of basic goods or heating their homes. Poverty has increased for the first time in 25 years. At the same time, these multiple crises all have winners. The very richest have become dramatically richer and corporate profits have hit record highs, driving an explosion of inequality. This report focuses on how taxing the rich is vital to addressing this unprecedented polycrisis and skyrocketing inequality. The report explores how, in recent history, taxation of the richest was far higher; how talk of taxing the rich and making billionaires pay their fair share is hugely popular; and how taxing the rich claws back elite power and reduces not just economic inequality, but racial, gender and colonial inequalities, too. The report lays out how much tax the richest should pay, and the practical, tried and tested ways in which governments can raise such taxation. It shows us how taxing the rich can set us clearly on a path to a more equal, sustainable world free from poverty., Nous traversons une période sans précédent marquée par des crises multiples. Des dizaines de millions de personnes supplémentaires sont aujourd’hui confrontées à la faim. Des centaines de millions d’autres font face à des augmentations intenables du coût des produits de première nécessité ou du chauffage. Pour la première fois en 25 ans, la pauvreté gagne du terrain. Mais parallèlement, d’autres profitent de ces crises multiples. Les plus fortuné·es se sont considérablement enrichi·es, et les bénéfices des entreprises ont atteint des sommets, provoquant une explosion des inégalités. Ce rapport montre en quoi il est indispensable de taxer les personnes riches pour faire face à cette succession de crises sans précédent et à la montée en flèche des inégalités. Il détaille comment, dans l’histoire récente, l’imposition des plus riches était bien plus élevée. Il souligne le fait que les discours visant à taxer les personnes riches et à faire payer aux milliardaires leur juste part sont extrêmement populaires. Il met en évidence la manière dont l’imposition des personnes riches permet de limiter le pouvoir des élites et de réduire non seulement les inégalités économiques, mais aussi les inégalités raciales, de genre et coloniales. Il dévoile le montant de l’impôt que les plus riches pourraient payer, ainsi que les solutions éprouvées dont disposent les gouvernements pour lever cet impôt. Il explique comment la taxation des personnes riches peut clairement nous mettre sur la voie d’un monde plus égalitaire, durable et exempt de pauvreté.

As 2020 draws to a close, the economic devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic shows no sign of abating. Without urgent action, global poverty and inequality will deepen dramatically. Hundreds of millions of people have already lost their jobs, gone further into debt or skipped meals for months. Research by Oxfam and Development Pathways shows that over 2 billion people have had no support from their governments in their time of need. Our analysis shows that none of the social protection support to those who are unemployed, elderly people, children and families provided in low- and middle-income countries has been adequate to meet basic needs. 41% of that government support was only a one-off payment and almost all government support has now stopped., Decades of social policy focused on tiny levels of means-tested support have left most countries completely unprepared for the COVID-19 economic crisis. Yet, countries such as South Africa and Bolivia have shown that a universal approach to social protection is affordable, and that it has a profound impact on reducing inequality and protecting those who need it most., In addition to the full paper and executive summary, an Excel file with the data analysed by Oxfam and Development Pathways is available to download on this page, along with an annex on the crisis in Latin America and the Caribbean.

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.

This year marks an historic chapter in the story of international aid. On 24 October 2020, it will be 50 years since high-income countries committed to spending 0.7% of their gross national income (GNI) on aid to low- and middle-income countries., This paper examines how aid has helped to improve the wellbeing of people in low- and middle-income countries. It discusses how donors’ broken promises on the 0.7% target have limited the potential of aid to reduce poverty and inequality. Oxfam has calculated that in the 50 years since the 0.7% promise was made, high-income countries have failed to deliver a total of $5.7 trillion in aid. Finally, this paper reflects on the future of aid.

Las previsiones de retroceso económico y social en América Latina y el Caribe son alarmantes. La COVID-19 golpea con fuerza la región marcada que tendrá que afrontar una contracción del 9,4%, una de las más severas en todo el planeta. La desigualdad, la informalidad y la insuficiente dotación sanitaria lastran las posibilidades de hacer frente a la pandemia. Pero son los más vulnerables quienes asumen el costo, hasta 52 millones de personas que podrían caer en la pobreza y 40 millones podrían perder sus empleos, un retroceso de 15 años para la región., Pero la COVID-19 no afecta a todos por igual, una élite se mantiene inmune al contagio de la crisis económica. Desde el principio de los confinamientos, hay 8 nuevos milmillonarios en América Latina y el Caribe, personas con un patrimonio superior a los mil millones de dólares. Las personas más ricas han aumentado su fortuna en US$ 48 200 millones desde marzo 2020, lo que equivale a un tercio del total de los paquetes de estímulo de todos los países de la región., Para hacer frente a esta crisis tan profunda, Oxfam propone una serie de reformas que recaigan sobre quienes más tienen y menos han sufrido la pandemia. Entre otros un impuesto sobre el patrimonio neto de las personas más ricas con el que se podría recaudar al menos US$ 14 260 millones, 50 veces más de lo que ahora se estaría recaudando sobre esta élite de grandes fortunas., In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, forecasts for economic and social decline in Latin America and the Caribbean are alarming. The region will face a 9.4% contraction in its economy, among the most severe in the world. Coping with the pandemic is hindered by inequality, weak and insufficient social protection and limited public health capabilities. Up to 52 million people could fall into poverty and 40 million could lose their jobs – a 15-year setback for the region., Yet, an elite remains ‘immune’ to the contagion of the economic crisis. Since the beginning of the pandemic, there have been 8 new billionaires in LAC: 1 every 2 weeks since the lockdowns began. The richest people have increased their fortune by $48.2bn since March 2020, equivalent to a third of the total stimulus packages of all countries in the region., In this paper, Oxfam proposes a series of reforms targeting those who have being less affected by the pandemic. They include a net wealth tax that could potentially generate $14.3bn, 50 times more than billionaires in the region pay now in theory, under current tax systems.

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.

Ce rapport s’intéresse d’abord aux causes et défis qui permettent d’expliquer la marginalisation des acteurs locaux en faisant notamment remonter leurs perceptions. Une deuxième partie met en valeur les bonnes pratiques existantes et proposer des actions concrètes pour renforcer la place des acteurs locaux et éventuellement le leadership humanitaire local (LHL) dans la réponse au Burkina Faso., Cette étude permet la proposition de pistes pour une réponse dirigée par les acteurs humanitaires locaux et qui soit plus adaptée aux besoins, plus rapide, plus durable, plus appropriée, et qui réponde enfin au changement de réalité imposé par l’augmentation des violences, tout en maintenant les populations au centre de la réponse., This report looks at the marginalization faced by local actors in the humanitarian response in Burkina Faso. It examines the causes and challenges of their experience, in particular by foregrounding their perceptions. The report highlights existing good practice and proposes specific actions to strengthen the role of local actors and potentially local humanitarian leadership in the response., The study suggests ways of developing a response led by local humanitarian actors that better meets needs and is faster, more sustainable, more relevant and, finally, more responsive to the changing reality dictated by increased violence, while keeping people at the centre.

The wealth of the world's 10 richest men has doubled since the pandemic began. The incomes of 99% of humanity are worse off because of COVID-19. Widening economic, gender, and racial inequalities—as well as the inequality that exists between countries—are tearing our world apart. This is not by chance, but choice: “economic violence” is perpetrated when structural policy choices are made for the richest and most powerful people. This causes direct harm to us all, and to the poorest people, women and girls, and racialized groups most. Inequality contributes to the death of at least one person every four seconds. But we can radically redesign our economies to be centered on equality. We can claw back extreme wealth through progressive taxation; invest in powerful, proven inequality-busting public measures; and boldly shift power in the economy and society. If we are courageous, and listen to the movements demanding change, we can create an economy in which nobody lives in poverty, nor with unimaginable billionaire wealth—in which inequality no longer kills., Depuis le début de la pandémie, la fortune des dix hommes les plus riches au monde a doublé. 99 % de l’humanité a des revenus moins importants que prévu à cause de la COVID-19. L’augmentation des inégalités économiques, de race et de genre, ainsi que les inégalités entre pays, fragmentent notre monde. Ceci n’est pas le fruit du hasard, mais de décisions politiques délibérées : une « violence économique » s’opère lorsque les choix de politiques structurelles sont faits pour les personnes les plus riches et les plus puissantes. Ces choix nous affectent toutes et tous, en particulier les personnes les plus pauvres, les femmes et les filles et les groupes racisés. Les inégalités contribuent à la mort d’au moins une personne toutes les quatre secondes. Mais nous pouvons repenser nos économies de façon radicale afin de faire de l’égalité notre priorité. Nous pouvons nous attaquer à la concentration extrême des richesses grâce à une fiscalité progressive ; investir dans des mesures publiques luttant contre les inégalités et repenser la distribution du pouvoir dans l’économie et la société. Si nous agissons avec courage et que nous écoutons les mouvements appelant au changement, nous pourrons construire une économie dans laquelle personne ne vit dans la pauvreté alors même qu’une autre personne peut amasser des milliards, une économie dans laquelle les inégalités ne tuent plus.

March 2016 marks five years of upheaval and conflict in Syria – conflict that has reduced lives to shadows and cities to rubble. The Syrian government and its allies, as well as armed opposition and extremist groups, bear the primary and direct responsibility for the horrific reality that Syria’s civilians face on this grim anniversary. They have targeted civilians, laid siege to cities and towns and denied access to life-saving assistance., This paper examines what the UN Security Council demands happen in Syria; the situation since March 2015, and significant actions by the Permanent Members of the UNSC. In the first months of 2016 and at time of drafting this paper, some progress has been made in securing greater humanitarian access to those in besieged areas and a cessation of hostilities in parts of the country which has resulted in a significant decrease in civilian casualties. These are important steps that should be recognised and built on, but they remain fragile and limited in the context of the overall deterioration experienced by civilians inside Syria over the last horrendous year of violence.