Research results

The climate after Copenhagen

akramer — 2010-02-08T21:52:04Z

Copenhagen was an unprecedented moment in the history of climate change policy. Heads of State – more than 100 of them – participated in UN climate negotiations for the first time, adding a sense of political weight and import to the negotiations. And global attention was focused like never before on climate policy and negotiations.

This was the direct outcome of two years of negotiations and preparation by governments, added to in critical ways by civil society mobilization. The negotiated outcome at Copenhagen very clearly left the job undone, with a low level of ambition and many gaps left to be filled. But it did create some forward movement, and it should most importantly be seen as a moment that crystallized a global focus on climate change in historic ways.

The task now is to capture that energy and mobilize our public and political power for a fair, ambitious, and legally binding deal by the next major UN climate summit in Mexico City at the end of 2010. As Copenhagen demonstrated, this will not be an easy task, but there is no credible alternative. We try to capture here what happened at Copenhagen, as well as what is necessary to do in the coming year.

Quick Impact, Quick Collapse

mhart — 2010-02-22T16:23:14Z

Militarized aid is not only wasteful and ineffective, it is putting Afghan lives at risk. An estimated $1.7 billionn in development aid has flowed through the military (primarily US forces), with another $1.2 billion allocated for 2010.

The Afghan people have suffered three decades of conflict and disorder leaving the country the second poorest in the world. Donor countries need to improve the impact of international aid as a whole, much of which has been wasted and does not meet the basic needs of the people, many of whom are poor farmers. Aid should go to key sectors such as agriculture, education, and law and order, and to build the capacity of Afghan institutions, including at local level. Aid and, above all, the diplomatic effort with the Afghan government and international partners, must be focused on ensuring that good government and development goals are prioritised and effectively delivered.

Reconstructing Haiti

mborum — 2010-01-25T16:38:39Z

All those delivering assistance on the ground must immediately work to coordinate within the UN established system and with the Haitian government.

All actors should ensure that the people of Haiti have a central role in the process of reconstruction and that reconstruction is equitable.

The UN and the US government are trying to ensure that there is adequate fuel to support the relief effort. Fuel supply will remain a concern for humanitarian agencies in the near term. In consultation with NGOs, the UN should establish a system to determine who receives fuel, for what purposes and in what priority.

The Haitian government, UN and international military actors must work together to improve the security situation, preempting a potential deterioration of the situation, with increased patrols, transparency in operations and clear conjoined rules of engagement and chain of command.

Protection, particularly for women and children, should be mainstreamed into the design of all programs, including any camps for affected people or expansion of patrols, in consultation with affected people and local civil society.

The government, UN, donors and other actors must ensure that efforts to restore and improve public services, infrastructure and economic activity prioritize poorer communities. In a socially divided society such as Haiti, there is a real danger that the better off and politically influential will secure their needs first.

It is not too early to lay a new foundation for Haiti's reconstruction and development with complete debt forgiveness, aid in the form of grants not loans and a "pro-poor" approach that prioritizes livelihoods and sustainable development led by Haitians from the start.

Rescuing Education for All

cengstrom — 2010-01-21T16:06:20Z

Remarkable progress has been made in the last ten years toward achieving the education-related Millennium Development Goals. Many more girls are in school and enrolment rates are on the rise, due to higher-quality aid and to political commitment in developing countries. However, these achievements could be derailed by the global economic crisis, newly falling aid levels, and educational challenges. With 72 million children still out of school, the world’s poorest countries urgently need a global financing initiative that can deliver the resources to scale up to Education For All.

Why are humanitarian advocates leading on aid reform?

apalaniappan — 2010-01-12T14:25:54Z

The US government has an unparalleled capacity to deploy humanitarian aid to emergencies and natural disasters. But an out-of-date bureaucracy is keeping humanitarian aid workers from responding to affected communities as effectively as possible.

Rescuing the Peace in Southern Sudan

jlee — 2010-01-07T21:29:02Z

In 2009, some 2,500 people were killed and 350,000 fled their homes. With landmark elections and a referendum on the horizon, the peace deal is fragile and the violence likely to escalate even further unless there is urgent international engagement.

Southern Sudan is one of the least-developed regions in the world. Its poverty, combined with limited government and aid agency capacity to respond to emergencies and deliver development, exacerbates the potential for renewed conflict.

The people of southern Sudan have shown extraordinary resilience to emerge from decades of war. If they are to have hope for the future, they urgently need development and protection from violence. Sudan faces many interlocking challenges, but if the international community acts now, they are surmountable.

International Conference on Extractive Industries Contracts

ldiolosa — 2009-12-17T16:53:56Z

Oxfam America and six other international organizations concerned with reform of the oil, gas, and mining industries (Oxfam Novib – Netherlands, Revenue Watch Institute, International Institute for Environment and Development, Global Witness, Bank Information Center, and Publish What You Pay – USA) hosted an international conference in Washington on September 23 to discuss contracts between corporations and governments. This report summarizes the presentations and discussion.

These contracts determine how much governments will receive from the development of their resources and have important implications for communities, human rights, and the environment. While much international attention has been given to transparency and management of government revenues from these industries, less attention has been paid to the underlying agreements between companies and host governments.

The conference discussed the political and legal context of extractive industry contracts; licensing and negotiation; confidentiality and transparency of contracts; citizen and parliamentary participation in negotiation; approval and monitoring of contracts; the financial "take" of the government contracts; and contract renegotiation experiences. Specific experiences in Liberia, Ghana, Peru and Azerbaijan were also examined from a variety of perspectives. Conference participants discussed key areas for a reform agenda as a contribution towards addressing the “resource curse”.

Making Investments in Poor Farmers Pay

mborum — 2009-12-15T19:40:16Z

This research paper is one of several prepared as background to an Oxfam International briefing paper on public investments in agriculture, written to support the agricultural campaign of Oxfam International and affiliates. The paper is motivated by the concern that despite growth in agricultural productivity over the past century, many of the developing world’s farmers continue to live in poverty, particularly in areas that are marginal in terms of either agricultural potential, access to markets, or both. For decades, economists have debated whether or not more should be invested in agricultural research and development in marginal areas. The paper begins by summarizing this debate, concluding that it is narrow and off-center of Oxfam’s campaign. Rates of return to investments in agricultural research are good enough in marginal areas, although they may be higher in other sectors such as infrastructure, and they are lower than in more favored areas. The economic reason for investing in agricultural research and development for marginal areas is that doing so reduces poverty, contributes to sustaining the environment, and benefits not only these farmers but the rest of the world—in a number of ways. There are also moral arguments, well-known to Oxfam.

Turning the Tables

mborum — 2009-12-15T19:54:51Z

The 20th century witnessed unprecedented growth in agricultural productivity spurred by technological change and predicated on the commitments of governments to invest in agricultural research and development (R&D) and supporting sectors. In developing agricultural areas, spectacular growth occurred most visibly in the locus of the rice- and wheat-based "Green Revolutions" of Asia. Such growth contributed in recent years to a public complacency about the world food supply; in development circles, it was common to hear experts emphasize entitlements to food over constraints to food production. The public was lulled by the fact that "at the end of the 20th century, crop prices were at their lowest point in all recorded history." Even the extraordinarily sharp price hike of 1973 was followed by a downward trend in real prices of bulk commodities. This trend flattened from the late 1980s, and some observers suggested that the long-term decline had ended. It was not until the food price crisis of 2008, however, that public complacency also came to end.

The Cost of War

mhart — 2010-02-22T18:01:39Z

Afghan experiences of conflict, 1978-2009

People-centered resilience

mborum — 2009-11-16T10:04:41Z

Globally, 1.7 billion farmers are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts. The many who are already hungry are particularly vulnerable. World hunger currently stands at 1.02 billion people, its highest level ever. Yet scaling up localised ‘resilience’ successes offers hope for these farmers, while helping to address the climate problem. New thinking to recognize 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.

Achieving farm resilience requires building up the resilience of vulnerable farmers by developing their skills, expertise and voice while supporting their use of agro-ecological farming practices. Building resilience depends not just on how farmers manage resources, but on how well local, national, and global institutions support farmers. Agro-ecological practices can empower vulnerable small-scale farmers, offering them both greater control over their lives and an accessible means of improving their food security, while decreasing their risk of crop failure or livestock death due to climate shocks. Vulnerable farmers can use agro-ecological practices to build resilient farms and improve their livelihoods, achieving multiple benefits: 1. improved food security; 2. adaptation to a changing climate; and 3. mitigation of climate change.

People-centred resilience consists of five principles which should guide how investments in vulnerable farming communities are designed and implemented. They are:

Restored and diversified natural resources for sustainability.
Responsive institutions grounded in local context.
Expanded and improved sustainable livelihood options.
Sound gender dynamics and gender equality.
Farmer-driven decisions.

Following these principles ensures that investments support farmers in their efforts to become food-secure and adapt to climate change. Four institutions central to delivering people-centered resilience are: secure land rights; dynamic farmer associations; responsive agricultural advisory services; and public support for environmental services.

Protect and serve or train and equip?

Marc J. Cohen, Tara R. Gingerich — 2009-11-19T19:22:08Z

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent declaration of the “Global War on Terror,” US international security assistance has increased substantially, with billions of dollars going to support security forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other “frontline” states. The United States has also adopted a new approach to security assistance in fragile states, called security sector reform (SSR). In principle, SSR moves security assistance well beyond the traditional “train and equip” approach and takes the physical security of the state’s population and protection of human rights from the sidelines to mid-field.

In practice, however, US-supported SSR efforts often continue to focus primarily on training and equipping military and police forces, especially in connection with counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations. This paper looks at the implementation of US-supported SSR programs, and particularly at how they have integrated protection of civilians. The paper identifies current gaps between global standards of good practice—with which US doctrine and principles increasingly conform—on the one hand, and actual US practice in the field on the other. Oxfam believes that protection of civilians must be a cornerstone of US foreign policy, so effective links between SSR and protection must be present in practice as well as in principle. The paper concludes by offering legislative and policy recommendations that can help ensure that US-supported SSR serves as an instrument of protection.

Transparency is happening right now: USAID and Indonesia's national budget

Porter McConnell — 2009-10-26T16:16:12Z

Transparency is key to strengthening local ownership of US foreign aid. It’s already happening in Indonesia.

Band aids and beyond

cmccabe — 2009-10-22T14:48:56Z

On the 25th anniversay of an Ethiopian famine that left one million people dead, Oxfam calls on interntational donors to adopt a new approach to humanitarian crises which focuses on preparing communities to prevent disasters before they strike.

Exposed

mborum — 2009-10-21T19:23:44Z

The effects of natural disasters and climate change vary widely by state, county, and community. Although social variables such as income and age do not determine who will be hit by a natural disaster, they do determine a population's ability to prepare, respond, and recover when disaster does strike.

Historically, studies about climate hazards and social vulnerability have been conducted in separate silos. The Social Vulnerability Index (SoVI) is the first study of its kind to examine both the potential impact of natural hazards and which populations are most likely to be negatively affected. The SoVI statistically examines the underlying social and demographic characteristics of the population and how they impact certain segments of the population in disabling ways when it comes to climate change-related hazards.

This research, commissioned by Oxfam America, includes a series of layered maps that depict social and climate change-related hazard vulnerability. The maps assist in identifying hotspots in the US Southeast, which are at significant risk in the face of four particular climate change-related hazards: drought, flooding, hurricane force winds, and sea-level rise.

The specific region of focus is the 13-state region of the US Southeast: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Roughly 80 percent of all US counties that experience persistent poverty (defined as a county in which at least 20 percent of the population experiences poverty for three decades or more) lie in this region.

For more details and to view interactive maps, visit oxfamamerica.org/adapt.