Oxfam International Rights in Crisis and Climate Change Campaigns

The Right to Survive Questions and Answers April 2009

The Right to Survive

Questions and Answers
April 2009

So what’s the main finding of Oxfam’s research?

By 2015 more than 375m people are likely to be affected by climate related disasters – a projected
increase of 54% – and this threatens to overwhelm the world’s current capacity to respond.

This is likely to be because of a range of combining factors including deepening poverty, an

increasing number of natural disasters, and more people vulnerable to them.

Where does your data come from?

The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) at the University of Louvain in
Belgium maintains the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT). This is the most comprehensive
source of data on disasters in the world.

How did you calculate the 54% increase? Is it credible?

Yes it is. Oxfam GB’s Policy Research Team used the quarterly data from EM-DAT since 1980
covering over 6,500 climate-related disasters and the numbers of people affected by them. This
data shows substantial differences from one year to the next, but nevertheless an underlying trend
beneath them can be identified.

This resulted in our projected forecast of more than 375 million people in an average year by 2015.
Is this an exact prediction?
This is not an exact prediction. All methods attempting to make such projections have their
limitations and should not be seen as more than estimates. The data available has its limits,
including the increase and improvement in reporting on disasters over the last few decades,
and any biases in data collection (e.g. deliberate misreporting). It should be seen as a ballpark
estimate, not a precise prediction.

Is the number of people affected by disasters increasing? You say the system could be
overwhelm by such an increase right?

Right, yes – There is considerable variation between one year and another, but the underlying
trend is significantly upwards. The numbers reported as affected by disasters has risen
dramatically since the 1960s, and more recently between the 1980s and now.

As above, this should be attributed to a combination of factors including growing vulnerability,

population, climate change and probably improved reporting.

In short, the projected rise is due to a combination of entrenched poverty and people migrating to
densely populated slums which are prone to the increasing number of climatic events. This is
compounded by the political failure to address these risks and a humanitarian system which is not
fit for purpose.

So, the humanitarian system won’t be able to cope?

No. The global humanitarian system is already badly managed and very unfair. We need a
complete re-engineering which would allow us to act quickly and impartially and provide effective
and accountable assistance. Donors must also work much more closely together to ensure that
there is adequate funding to support timely, effective, and good-quality humanitarian action.
Increasing humanitarian aid would be a vital first step.

The world must also change the way it delivers aid so that it builds on the country’s ability to
prepare and withstand future shocks for instance. National governments, with the help of the
 Oxfam International Rights in Crisis and Climate Change Campaigns
The Right to Survive Questions and Answers April 2009
international community, need to invest more in reducing the risk of disasters. The world also
needs to increase its humanitarian aid spending from 2006 levels of $14.2 billion to at least $25
billion a year. Even this increase – the equivalent of only $50 per affected person – is still woefully
inadequate to meet their basic needs.

Also, the system needs to act swiftly and impartially after a disaster, investing money and effort
commensurate with the levels of need. Aid is often given on the basis of political or other
preferences making aid unfair. In 2004 victims of the Asian tsunami received on average of $1,241
each in official aid, in the same year those in Chad got on average $23 each.

What more do we have to do to reform the humanitarian sector?

Above all, what we need is a far greater focus on building local governments’ capacity to respond
to disasters – and, where needed, challenging those governments to use it. Then we need to focus
on the needs of the people we’re providing assistance to. These people need to become less
vulnerable to disasters and national governments can assist them in this respect.

Climate change IS the main reason why we have more natural disasters right?
It is one of the most destructive elements yes, but no one can say that climate change causes 40,
50 or 60% of the growth in disasters. It’s important to keep in mind that climate change AND
AGAIN poverty makes an increasing amount of people more vulnerable to be affected by natural
disasters. It’s the combination that makes our projection - that there will be a major increase in the
amount of people needing assistance in the near future - so worrying to us.

In short, the deadly combination of all those things IS the human disaster. The increasing number
of ‘weather events’ will be far more destructive and deadly for people living in poverty than for
those who are relatively well off.

***According to the Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, an average of 23 people die in
any given disaster in a rich country, while the average in the least-developed countries is forty
times as much: 1,052.

Isn’t it that people are just more vulnerable to disasters?

Well, for millions of people it is who they are, where they live, whether they can earn a decent
livelihood – whether they are rich or poor – that determines how much any event, like a flood or
earthquake, will affect them.

If someone lives in an urban slum little above sea level, or has very few assets to sell to get
through a crisis, she or he is likely to be far more vulnerable to disasters than others.

Other groups – including women and girls, chronically sick and elderly people and others – are
often vulnerable because their ability to cope with disasters is undermined by discrimination,
inequality or their physical health.

But the threat in the future is the lethal combination of the growing number of disasters, more and
more people living in areas where those disasters will impact, and continuing poverty and
inequality making people vulnerable to them.

(More details on the above reasons) More people may become vulnerable to disasters for a
number of reasons including:
1. Far more people living in urban slums built on precarious land.
2. Increasing pressure on rural productive land, caused by drought, population density, and
increasing demand for meat and dairy products in emerging economies, means that more
people will find it difficult to get enough to eat.
3. Climate change, environmental degradation, and conflict may drive more people from their
homes, stripping them of their livelihoods, assets, and their networks of family and
communities that can support them. Some estimates suggest that up to one billion people
will be forced to move from their homes by 2050.

2
 Oxfam International Rights in Crisis and Climate Change Campaigns
The Right to Survive Questions and Answers April 2009
4. The global economic crisis may increase unemployment and undermine social safety nets
which, in some countries, may contribute to increased humanitarian needs.

What about population growth?

The crucial issue is population density in areas, especially urban areas, subject to a high risk of
disasters. The UN projects the world’s urban population to be 5 billion by 2030 – including 2
billion squeezed into overcrowded and poorly planned slums.

This is a major issue as in rural areas, high population density, the increasing stress on
productive land, soil degradation, and increasing aridity due to climate change are making
hundreds of millions of rural livelihoods vulnerable.
People are being forced to eke out a precarious living on land that is becoming more and more arid
and degraded, with the result that food is getting harder and harder to come by and of course
people are also becoming more and more vulnerable.
Is there any hope?
Absolutely. Despite their poverty, some countries such as Cuba, Mozambique and Bangladesh
have invested heavily in protecting their people from storms. Following the 1972 super cyclone that
killed a quarter of a million people, Bangladesh invested heavily in prevention and protection
measures. The death toll from super cyclones in Bangladesh is in the low thousands – still far too
high, but much less devastating. The experience of Cuba, Mozambique and Bangladesh shows
that with sufficient help, even the world’s poorest countries can better protect their citizens.

The point is that there needs to be much more of this – a massive global investment in better
humanitarian aid for those caught in all types of humanitarian crisis, ‘disaster risk reduction’
programmes, adaptation to climate change, and a massive global effort to reduce carbon
emissions and so mitigate the impact of climate change.

Will climate change also impact on conflicts? Are conflicts on the rise or decreasing?
Yes. Some of these environmental changes will also increase the threat of new conflicts, which
would mean more people displaced, and the need for more humanitarian aid. One recent report
estimated that 46 countries will face a ‘high risk of violent conflict’ when climate change
exacerbates traditional security threats.

Overall, the number of conflicts has fallen substantially, but there is little evidence to suggest that
that trend will continue. The threat of new wars, the failure of precarious peace deals, the political
exploitation of poverty and inequality, and the destabilising impact of climate change all cast doubt
on a continued decline in the number of conflicts. All these threats could create serious new
humanitarian challenges, while the threat of existing long-running conflicts creating vast new
humanitarian demands was painfully shown by the upsurge of violence in the eastern Democratic
Republic of Congo in 2008.

TO SUM UP - Exactly what action is Oxfam saying needs to be taken?

Oxfam is calling on governments to:

1. Because more disasters mean more lives under threat right now, global humanitarian
assistance should increase to at least $42bn. Donors and humanitarian agencies must do more to
ensure that aid is spent more effectively, targeting those who need it most.
There should also be greater investment in building the capacity in developing countries not only to
respond to disasters but to prepare for them and reduce the risks they pose, particularly because
the number of localised disasters is set to increase.
2. Because climate change will affect millions more people in the medium term, rich
governments, largely responsible for global emissions, must also deliver at least $50bn a year in
addition to humanitarian and development aid budgets to help developing countries adapt to
climate change.
3. To avoid the most extreme potential impact of climate change in the longer term, a
comprehensive and effective post-2012 deal at Copenhagen must deliver clear rich country

3
 Oxfam International Rights in Crisis and Climate Change Campaigns
The Right to Survive Questions and Answers April 2009
commitments so that their emissions fall at least 25-40% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (below 1990
levels).

This is firstly, but not only a call to rich governments. Many developing countries too should do
far more to respond to their own emergencies, and help make their people less vulnerable to
them.

There’s a global recession - jobs and livelihoods are at risk everywhere. Why should we be
worrying about disaster victims in other countries?
Increasing humanitarian aid to at least $42billion will cost a tiny fraction of what rich countries
spent on the global financial crisis since 2008. At the end of March 2009, Oxfam calculated that
$8.4 trillion had already been mobilised to prop up ailing banks.

Providing life-saving humanitarian aid, for every person in need looks like a bargain by
comparison. A global recession is exactly the time when we need to be most worried about
people’s vulnerability to disasters. Recession will only make people living in poverty more
vulnerable, as livelihoods are put at risk and people are forced to spend savings that might
otherwise have provided a little protection.

Rich countries are also responsible for the vast majority of historic greenhouse gas emissions that
drive climate change impact on the lives of people worldwide. So they have responsibility, firstly to
act first and fastest to cut dramatically their excessive emissions in order to keep global warming
as far below 2oC as possible. But they also have responsibility to help those poorer countries that
will be worst affected by existing climate impacts to build their resilience and adapt to what’s
coming.

Surely more money for disaster relief is a huge waste of money. There’s too much
corruption and incompetence in the system.

Oxfam is not just calling for more money for humanitarian aid; they are calling for it to be better
spent. It is important to acknowledge that there are weaknesses in the international humanitarian
system that need to be addressed urgently if we are to respond effectively to the threat of an
increasing number of threats and growing human vulnerability.

Firstly, international humanitarian aid agencies and donors need to get a lot better at building long-
term disaster preparedness at the same time as saving lives.

Secondly, there needs to be an improvement in the quality of international humanitarian aid. Aid
needs to become more responsive to its beneficiaries, so that they can demand aid that is
relevant to their needs and that protects their dignity.

Thirdly, more needs to be done to ensure that humanitarian aid money is spent where it is needed
most – and is not allocated according to the political, military or economic priorities of the
governments who provide it.

Finally, we need to get much better at mobilizing the humanitarian resources that exist globally. For
instance, an increasing amount of money is coming into the humanitarian system from outside
‘traditional’ donor states. Countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Korea, and India and China are
playing a more significant role, but their funding is often not recognized and is not channeled to
where it is most needed.