David Waskow is Oxfam America’s climate change program director.

In a year of crippling droughts around the world—from West Africa to the US Midwest—the outcome at the major UN climate negotiation in Doha, Qatar, was itself an unfortunate drought of climate action.

This was a paradoxical COP—both a stepping stone and a cliff-hanger—with developing countries hanging from the finance cliff by their fingertips.  Even though several European countries pledged climate finance for the upcoming 2013-15 period, developed countries were unwilling to commit collectively to any funding level for the upcoming period or clarity about how they’ll ramp up toward the international goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020.

The United States, arguing that it was constrained by the fiscal cliff budget negotiations, refused even to commit to maintain the funding level of the past three years of ‘fast start’ climate finance agreed during the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009. All the final text says is that developed countries are “encouraged” to maintain fast start levels. Meanwhile, there was little done at Doha to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Qumrunnessa Nazly from Bangladesh held an empty basket amidst a field of dead corn set in front of the glittering Doha skyline to demonstrate the grave impact of a changing climate on food supply and food prices, and the crucial importance of the UN climate change negotiations in providing a solution. Richard Casson/Oxfam.

A few limited but hopeful elements in the Doha outcome: an agreement to convene a high-level dialogue on climate finance at the next COP in 2013; an agreement to work this coming year to develop an international mechanism to address “loss and damage,” the effects of climate change that cannot be adapted to; formal agreement on how some countries, particularly the European Union and Australia, will continue the Kyoto Protocol until 2020; and agreement on the process for negotiating the planned 2015 comprehensive climate agreement that will take effect in 2020.

The US made a verbal commitment to work for climate finance in Congress this coming year and try to continue the finance at current levels. (Todd Stern, the US special climate envoy said that “we have every intention to continue to press forward with funding of that same kind of level, to the greatest extent that we can.”)

But beyond the minimalist outcomes agreed in the texts, one of the most noteworthy outcomes at Doha was the growing strength, breadth, and depth of engagement and collaboration by civil society organizations. A press conference last week demonstrated this growing collaboration:  Oxfam, WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Christian Aid, and ActionAid, with the chairs of the Least Developed Country and Africa negotiating groups, stood together to say that the climate talks were failing to produce meaningful change and that governments needed to shift gears dramatically.  Representing a range of perspectives, their joint statement was not just a marriage of tactical convenience—it demonstrates a real confluence around jointly shared objectives of equity and sustainability, with climate issues a central, though hardly the sole, issue.

Perhaps most important, advocates are shifting focus toward the national and local levels and bridging or even bypassing the old divides between development and environmental agendas. There’s a strong belief that this increased energy and action will eventually also flow upward back into the global level process. And home-grown advocacy on climate change is already blossoming in many developing countries. This came home for me while working with developing country partners from Nepal, Philippines, Uganda, and Zambia, partners in a new initiative to press for adaptation finance that’s accountable at the local level. They have been building strong civil society networks over the past several years and are pressing effectively for national level policy change, as well as engaging the international process.  For these groups and many others in developing countries, building advocacy from the ground up and seeing past environment-development divides are self-evident truths.

The pump is primed to water our advocacy from these sources. But there’s also an immediate question about the focus of our advocacy agenda in the US—especially on the climate finance front in coming months. We must work for robust levels of climate funding at least at the level of the past several years, joined to a public recommitment by the administration to the President’s Global Climate Change Initiative.  And we must seize opportunities to push forward on innovative sources of finance, such as a mechanism for international aviation that can limit emissions while producing financial resources.

Doha was parched—but there are oases on the horizon that we can and must move towards.

Fear of heights has consumed Washington; more specifically the fear of the dreaded fiscal cliff. The stakes are big if President Obama and House Speaker Boehner hold hands and drive over the cliff, like the Washington version of the final scene of Thelma and Louise. The defense sector faces more than $50b in cuts and a million jobs lost. Already unemployed people will lose benefits. Employed people will pay higher payroll taxes. Doctors who see elderly patients will get lower payments. The agriculture sector is concerned about how higher estate taxes will hit farm land prices.

Wall Street expresses a lot of concern about the fiscal cliff. But the financial sector doesn’t have a direct stake in the political drama. Financial taxes won’t go up, investors will continue buying and selling, traders will still make money. Even while much of America is still struggling economically, the titans of finance are back in the black with profits, big bonuses, and parties.

Which raises a question: how is the financial sector contributing to digging the country out of the budget hole? The hole created by the economic crisis? The economic crisis that was created by the financial sector’s mismanagement, irresponsible risk-taking, and gross misbehavior?

Really, not much.

I have argued that a Robin Hood tax is justified on that basis—in addition to other reasons. But it was shouting into the wind. President Obama hasn’t supported it and there seemed no chance that Congress would embrace the idea. But maybe a window of opportunity is opening…

Robin Hood activists outside the San Francisco office of Rep. Pelosi. Photo by The Robin Hood Tax.

A likely outcome of the negotiations around the fiscal cliff is a punt. Congress and President Obama can put off the most severe cuts and tax increases in the hope that a broader and more comprehensive deal can be forged later. So, a second act is in discussion that would involve a significant tax reform. Tax reform, as the term is used in Washington, generally means trying to do four interrelated things: simplify the rules, broaden the base, lower the rates, increase (or reduce) revenue. Simplifying the rules is self-explanatory, except that the complexity is usually there for a reason—and behind every tax deduction is a lobbyist (or 10) working hard to keep it. “Broadening the base” means increasing the tax base, or the number of people and activities that are taxed. That will tend to increase tax revenues. Lowering rates is what politicians love to do: give away goodies to voters! Raising or lowering revenue can be done most simply by raising or lowering rates. But there are other strategies, like creating new deductions and exemptions.

A big tax measure comes around every 10 or 15 years. So we’re due.

Big tax bills are monsters: huge, complicated and sometimes politically dangerous. Once they start moving, they become vehicles for all sorts of ideas and initiatives. They are heavily lobbied by every possible special interest and group. So the question is whether a tax reform might offer an opportunity to push a Robin Hood tax, that asks for a bigger contribution from the financial sector and uses the revenues to pay for critical social needs.  That would be broadening the base. And raising revenues.

Something to consider.

In the early morning hours on Saturday, the Senate caved to industry pressure and dealt a blow to the planet. This action comes at a time designed to avoid public attention and as many Senators head out to the campaign trail to save their jobs.

The Senate passed the “Thune Bill” (S.1956) by unanimous consent making it illegal for the US airline industry to comply with EU regulations that cut carbon emissions. See previous posts for more details.

The airline industry has been lobbying hard for Thune to pass the Senate for months after gaining a victory in the House last year and climate advocates have had little resources to compete. The vote represents only the third time in history that the US government has made it illegal under US law to comply with the law of another country—putting the European climate change law on par with South Africa’s racist apartheid laws and the anti-Israel boycott by Arab nations.

All along, governments, industry groups, and climate advocates have agreed on one thing: the optimal solution is a global scheme to be implemented by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). It’s now in the administration’s hands to proactively seek a global solution in ICAO that generates meaningful emissions reductions with fair provisions for developing countries’ airlines, including finance from the scheme being channeled to developing countries.

Unlike Congress, the administration needs to spend less time stirring up trade wars and kowtowing to industry, and more time leading the way towards an international solution.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton makes her first visit to South Sudan Friday, making her the highest-ranking US official to visit the world’s newest country. Her trip could not come at a more important time. The UN Security Council gave South Sudan and Sudan until August 2 to move forward with political negotiations and enabling humanitarian access to Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, where more than 665,000 people have been internally displaced or severely affected by conflict according to the UN. Both countries are now in violation of this ultimatum, putting them at risk of UN sanctions. In the meantime, civilians on both sides of the border are suffering, including 4.7 million people in South Sudan—half the country’s population—who do not have enough food to eat.

A new borehole drilled by Oxfam in Warrap State, South Sudan. Photo by Noah Gottschalk

The official purpose of the trip—part of a seven-nation tour of Africa—is to “reaffirm U.S. support and encourage progress in negotiations  with Sudan to reach agreement on issues related to security, oil and citizenship.” The US has remained deeply invested, both through ongoing high-level diplomacy and through the provision of significant humanitarian and development assistance, in trying to help South Sudan find its way out of the worst crisis since the end of the two decades’ long civil war. By sending America’s most senior diplomat, however, Washington is signaling its escalating concern as well as its impatience with the slow pace of progress.

In his remarks marking the country’s independence just over one year ago, President Obama expressed his confidence that “the bonds of friendship between South Sudan and the United States will only deepen in the years to come.” But being a true friend means speaking hard truths, and Secretary Clinton must use the opportunity of her visit to express concern with the political developments which are having such a massive humanitarian impact on South Sudanese civilians and putting at risk the hard-won gains of peace.

In December, I watched Secretary Clinton address the International Engagement Conference on South Sudan in Washington. In one of the most frank speeches of the two-day event, she welcomed the new nation to the international stage while clearly outlining the challenges ahead. While lauding the new country on achieving its “quest for peace and dignity”, she urged South Sudan to “move forward”, “leave war behind”, and “finalize [the] hard-won peace”. Her discussions with senior South Sudanese officials in Juba, including President Salva Kiir, will not be easy. As Clinton herself recognized, South Sudan has many reasons to be skeptical of continued diplomacy, and progress depends on a “willing partner in Khartoum”. Nevertheless, both countries have no other option but to end their political and economic crisis through negotiations. By sending this message, Secretary Clinton joins the growing voices in South Sudanese civil society urging the government to make the difficult compromises necessary to stop the spiraling crisis in the immediate term, and over the long run, to enable a brighter future for the people of both Sudan and South Sudan.

What if world leaders had an opportunity to set the world on track towards a sustainable future, uniting development and environment efforts, but nobody really knew it? That’s the situation Secretary Clinton is facing as she sets out to lead the US delegation at the Rio+20 Summit next week.

While the world still produces more than enough food to feed everyone, there are more hungry people today than twenty years ago. Photo: Sokunthea Chor/Oxfam America

Since the Rio ‘Earth Summit’ in 1992, progress towards achieving sustainable global development without exceeding ecological limits has stalled. While the world still produces more than enough food to feed everyone, there are more hungry people today than twenty years ago. Eighty percent of people live in areas with high levels of threats to water security, including 3.4 billion people in the most severe threat category. Globally, greenhouse gas emissions increased by 36 percent between 1992 and 2008, from around 22 to just over 30 gigatonnes.

It is vital that governments, and the US, in particular, demonstrate resolve at Rio+20 to get things back on track. While we know that binding agreements won’t be achieved or new significant sources of financing agreed to, governments can make progress towards addressing a series of critical development and environmental priorities. Here are three concrete outcomes that Secretary Clinton could help achieve at the summit:

1. Commit to establish a single set of ‘global development goals’ to guide development efforts of all countries in the post-2015 period that brings together environmental and social themes. These would build off the current UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

2. Develop high-level, time-bound goals towards achieving a sustainable, resilient, and equitable food system that provides sufficient, nutritious food for all through fair shares of limited natural resources, including land and water, along with a safe climate.

3. Provide concrete pledges of technical and financial support to developing countries to deliver sustainable energy access that puts poor people first and help cut greenhouse gas pollution, and a rapid phase-out of environmentally and socially harmful energy subsidies.

Oxfam is part of a large and growing movement of inspired citizens who are choosing to build an economy that serves the people and preserves the environment. We need the US government to support and lead the way towards this vision by re-focusing economic development so that poverty can be eradicated and economic growth no longer depends on rising volumes of natural resources.

On behalf of the Obama administration, Secretary Clinton can help jumpstart this shift and provide the leadership needed to secure broad-based international consensus around this agenda in Rio. Maybe if she does, more people will start to take notice.

As Louisiana literally sinks into the Gulf of Mexico—wetlands disappearing at the rate of a football field per hour or so—it becomes imperative and even urgent to find ways to stop coastal land loss. Five years ago, Congress recognized the need for action, and approved the Louisiana Coastal Area Program (LCA), which authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to plan and construct several large scale ecosystem restoration projects.

A scene from Southern Louisiana. Valerie Downes/Oxfam America.

It’s one thing to come up with a plan (and a website); it’s another to come up with the money to fund the projects and make them happen. Since approving the program in 2007, Congress has yet to fund the construction of the projects. While time ticks on, the challenge only grows: land loss accelerates, projects get much more expensive and people are put at greater risk of being displaced. The longer the wait, the thornier (and more expensive) it gets to take effective action.

Last week, the White House made a bold move in insisting that the House Appropriations Committee send money toward the LCA, or it would veto the entire Energy and Water Appropriations Bill; as the Energy and Water Subcommittee relented on their threat to cut these funds, the result is a modest but significant beginning of new construction aimed at restoration.

In the past two budget cycles, President Obama has made requests for the Army Corps of Engineers to fund LCA restoration construction. Last year, the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee reduced the requested $16.2 to $1 million (the federal budget outlay was roughly $3.8 trillion). In the end, it was zeroed out altogether.

This year, the President requested $16.8 million; then watched as the House Energy and Water Subcommittee struck it out of their proposed bill. The funds fell victim to a misguided debate where subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) claimed, despite significant evidence to the contrary, that ecosystem restoration projects did not create jobs, like other navigation or flood protection projects constructed by the Army Corps.

This time around, however, the White House took the bold step of threatening a veto if the appropriations bill did not include some funding for the LCA. In a statement released two weeks ago, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) called on the House to restore funding for several priority Army Corps of Engineers projects. Shortly after, Reps. Steve Scalise, R-LA and Cedric Richmond, D-LA, proposed an amendment to restore $10 million for the program; the move was passed 216-177 on June 1.

While $10 million is a modest sum compared to the $50 billion in projected projects planned in the state of Louisiana to thwart land loss, Congressional support for breaking ground on new construction is critical. Once the construction starts, it will be easier to get funding in future cycles to complete these projects.

Ironically, these types of ecosystem restoration projects have benefits on many levels, including creating abundant jobs that pay well and can employ local residents. Patrick Barnes, President of BFA Environmental Consulting and founder of a job training nonprofit organization, cites the benefits to the local economy. “These projects will generate all types of jobs: from data collection to manual labor to engineering and more. A lot of it is physical labor and field inspection, and we can train for these types of skills.”

Investing in these projects would benefit the local and national economy; reduce risk (this is hurricane season after all); help the unemployed and underemployed; and protect and restore the environment and wildlife. (Beyond Recovery, a joint report from Oxfam and the Center for American Progress explores the benefits of restoration projects.)

As the White House puts it: “Investing in these areas is critical to the Nation’s economic growth, security, and global competitiveness. The Administration also strongly objects to the inclusion of ideological and political provisions that are beyond the scope of funding legislation.”

The White House deserves credit for being willing to stick its proverbial neck out for coastal Louisiana—not exactly within the President’s political base—and risk delaying a big bill like this in an election year, in order to protect vulnerable communities along the coast.

And yet again, Reps. Scalise and Richmond are showing Congress that big challenges (like losing landmass the size of Rhode Island) can be tackled with sensible bipartisan solutions to, quite literally, put money where our mouth has been—in this case since 2007.

For months now, Oxfam has been warning that a crisis is looming for millions of people across West and Central Africa. Resources have been mobilized, programs modified, and a response developed to provide short-term humanitarian relief. Now entering the “lean season”, more than 18 million are now at risk of hunger as households exhaust their food stocks, and cash reserves dwindle. The next few months will require increased support from donors, UN agencies, and organizations to assist in meeting basic needs. This will require the political will and financial backing of national governments—both donor and developing—to ensure plans to provide assistance are put in place and acted upon in a timely manner (meaning right now).

Unfortunately, early warnings in the Sahel have not yielded the kind of early action that can eliminate the worst suffering. It’s a pattern all too clear from the recent example of the Horn of Africa. As Oxfam and Save the Children documented in their recent report, despite information about the impending disaster, the international community responded late, a delay that cost thousands of lives.

The problem was not that we didn’t know an emergency was looming. In fact, there are now very good early warning systems in place. The problem was that we did not act with the information we had.

Seeking to avoid a similar fate in the Sahel, Oxfam’s first demand has been to call on governments—developing and donor countries alike—to take action now to head off the worst of the suffering and to make sure that adequate resources are provided to meet urgent humanitarian need. And, of course, we support efforts to raise the voice of concerned individuals to send a message to their political leaders (Secretary Clinton, are you listening?) to do the same.

So far, needs identified by governments in the region (for example through the development of national emergency response plans) have not been matched by the funding needed to fully implement response efforts. By the middle of May, two-thirds of need had been covered. In the intervening month, funding requirements have been adjusted upwards to $1.6 billion while contributions have not kept pace.

Scaling-up humanitarian response is just one step in a longer–term process of responding to this disaster and trying to reduce the likelihood and impact of future droughts and crop failures. Addressing the underlying factors that contribute to vulnerability among smallholder food producers requires a sustained effort only possible with real political commitment. Which is why the GROW Campaign is focused on strengthening investments in smallholder food producers. At the same time we are urging governments to act now to respond to the crisis, we are also working with partners in the region to shape an agenda for future once the worst of the crisis has subsided. Our message is that while the next few months are critical, the immediate response does not lessen the need to build resilience over the long-term to break the cycle of hunger.

A good place to start is by incorporating disaster risk reduction activities into the current response to help prepare for the next drought, for example by rehabilitating water points and introducing agriculture practices that can capture and better utilize rain water. Going forward efforts to help farmers manage risk through weather-based index insurance (currently being planned in Senegal through Oxfam America’s R4 work) also hold promise. Side by side these efforts, farmers need strong support backed by their governments to make them more productive as food producers and more able to profit from their efforts. Investments in infrastructure to facilitate market access, research and development to identify practical solutions to help farmers adapt to climate change, and the provision of agriculture extension services to provide advice and information that will increase crop production are just three examples where increased investments are urgently needed.

Calling for these kinds of interventions is easy, conceptualizing concrete solutions more complex, and turning plans into real programs of support for food producers, harder still. But if we want to assist farmers from being in this position then next time a major drought hits, it’s essential.

Oxfam is aiming to help 1.2 million people across seven countries with programs that include cash transfers and cash-for-work initiatives, veterinary care for the livestock on which many families depend, and access to clean water and sanitation. We are also campaigning to change the root causes of this crisis. Find out how you can support our efforts.

Victoria Marzilli is Oxfam America’s new media specialist.

As the G8 Summit came to a close, we had a bit of a surprise twist in the outcome. There was more movement on food security than we expected and day one of the summit was focused almost solely on that issue, a rarity in recent G8 history. The increased attention was due in part to the stirring outcry from anti-hunger and poverty activists all over the world.

In the weeks before the Summit, Oxfam supporters contributed to the nearly three thousand #DearG8 tweets, keeping the pressure on G8 leaders to help 50 million people lift themselves out of poverty. Our supporters sent thousands of letters to President Obama, to reiterate that message. We also held two media “stunts” during the week of the summit, bringing activists dressed as the G8 leaders to the White House, and then outside the Reagan Building where President Obama unveiled his “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition”.

In his pre-G8 speech at the Chicago Council Symposium, and again in his closing remarks, he mentioned the G8 will set a new goal of helping 50 million men, women, and children lift themselves out of poverty through country-led agriculture plans. Since 500 million small farms in developing countries support nearly 2 billion people, supporting those farmers means that their families can earn an income, get an education, and thrive. The goal is spot-on, but the way to achieve that goal doesn’t add up.  Though fulfilling their L’Aquila pledges (which were $7.3 billion per year through 2012), the G8 failed to renew their commitments. Instead, they’ve invited the private sector to pledge $3 billion over 10 years in a New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. This is a shrinking response to a growing problem and, even if companies deliver, it still represents 96% decrease in investment from previous public funding levels. At a time when more than 18 million people across West Africa are facing a massive food crisis, we need to recognize that the scale of the problem requires a serious investment that matches the plans from people on the ground. After all, aren’t the world’s small-scale farmers who sell their goods in local markets part of the private sector, too?

On the bright side, G8 countries have made additional pledges of $1.2 billion to the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). Read more about GAFSP here: http://www.gafspfund.org/gafsp. We’re happy to see this important mechanism for country ownership get the funding it deserves.

While it’s reassuring that our leaders are making food security a global priority, we must make sure that we hold them accountable to match the scale of the need and listen to what people in developing countries really need.

Though fulfilling their L’Aquila pledges (which were $7.3 billion per year through 2012), the G8 failed to renew their commitments. Photo: Victoria Marzilli/Oxfam.

Porter McConnell is the Oxfam policy lead for the G8 Camp David summit.

This Friday, G8 leaders are making a big announcement on food security. We expect the launching of a new initiative. Past summits haven’t always had development on the agenda, and the US hosts deserve credit for making sure food security is front and center. Now that the G8 is on the trail to food security, how will we know if they get there?

Although we don’t have all the details of the initiative, here are some key mile-markers to measure the G8’s progress on the new food security initiative. If they can meet these mile-markers on their trail, it will indeed be a great day for nearly 1 billion poor and hungry people:

1.       Does it match the scale of the need?

G8 leaders committed to support developing-country plans for agriculture to the tune of $7 billion a year over three years when they met in L’Aquila, Italy, three years ago. Earlier in Maputo, African governments committed to allocating 10% of their budgets to support agriculture, since it’s how three-fourths of Africans make a living. Experts suggest the global need for agriculture funding is between $60 and $75 billion a year. As much as private sector commitments are welcome, they are usually in the millions of dollars, rather than billions.  There’s no substitute for public investment. If the G8 wants to stay on the trail, the new G8 food security initiative needs to scale up the G8’s public sector investments from $7 billion a year to $10 billion to show forward momentum. At a minimum, the modest funding commitments of L’Aquila should not be eroded.

A new G8 food security initiative needs to be consistent with Africa's plans for agriculture. Photo: Alun McDonald/Oxfam

2.       Is it consistent with Africa’s plans for agriculture?

Just as important as the “how much” test is the “how” test. Efforts to tackle food insecurity work best when they are led by the people and the nations who are closest to the problem. That’s why the G8 committed, through the Rome Principles, to channel their funding through country investment plans for agriculture. While a lot of the G8 countries are on track to meet their “how much” goals, they’re not doing so great on this “how”. A recent ActionAid report suggests that donors are, for the most part, still not funding through country plans. Any new initiative has to be consistent with country plans if it’s to succeed. Unfortunately, this week, we expect the G8 leaders to focus on private sector investment—despite the fact that most country plans don’t include much of a funding role for the private sector. African civil society wants to see a continued commitment to L’Aquila and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), not a distraction or a shift in responsibility. A new initiative needs to prove it’s part of Africa’s plans to be headed in the right direction.

3.       Does it hold everybody accountable for delivering on promises?

Every year, the G8 puts out an accountability report intended to hold itself accountable for progress. This year, the US hosts are to be commended for making an effort to include not just what the G8 committed, but what it actually delivered. But next year and especially the year after, the accountability report will be measuring progress against the new food security initiative. How does—or should—the G8 hold the private sector accountable for pledges made? They don’t answer to other G8 leaders, they answer to their shareholders. Their pledges are strictly voluntary. For the new food security initiative to succeed, all pledges must have a clear accountability mechanism, or else the initiative will get stuck at the trail head.

4.       Is it based on evidence, with a clear path to poverty reduction?

Governments are often tempted to turn to well-resourced multi-national companies and investors in a period of constrained public budgets. But this faith in the private sector as a panacea is not always based on evidence. There’s not much evidence that using donor dollars to leverage private sector funds delivers results for poor people. A recent report by the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group pointed out that less than half of its International Finance Corporation (IFC) projects successfully reached the poor. For a new G8 food security initiative to succeed, it needs to have a clearly-marked path to poverty reduction, one that’s based on the evidence, not on blind faith.

On Friday, G8 leaders will announce a new food security initiative at a special event in Washington the day before they head out to Camp David. Stay tuned this week to hear how they’re faring on the trail!

Victoria Marzilli is Oxfam America’s New Media Specialist focusing on social media.

In less than a month, leaders of the top eight economies of the world will gather in the secluded Camp David locale for the 38th annual G8 Summit—a forum for discussion on today’s most pressing issues. This year, top priorities include food security and agriculture—and for a few good reasons! Hunger is the world’s number one health risk with one in seven people going hungry. Fighting for food security initiatives at the G8 is just one part of Oxfam’s GROW campaign to build a better food system that sustainably feeds a growing population and empowers poor people to earn a living, feed their families, and thrive.

In addition, the deadline is up for commitments made at the 2009 G8 Summit in L’Aquila—and G8 countries need to move forward with a bold food security initiative that helps 50 million people lift themselves out of poverty through agriculture with a $30 billion commitment over three years. While we’re thankful that food security and agriculture are going to be discussed, we need to make sure that leaders deliver more than just empty promises; 50 million lives depend on it.

So starting today, Oxfam is working together with a big group of other NGOs including Save the Children, ONE, InterAction, and many more, to raise the volume on the issue —so loud that G8 leaders can’t ignore it.

Join us in taking the fight against hunger and poverty to Twitter!

A moment like this could be a turning point for the millions of small-scale farmers working hard every day to fight poverty and hunger, but it’s up to us to hold our leaders accountable.

Take action with us to speak up and ask President Obama to lead the G8 to keep their promises. Click the links below to tweet at the @WhiteHouse!

• .@WhiteHouse #DearG8, help 50 million people lift themselves out of poverty at the #G8! http://bit.ly/HKr4td

• .@WhiteHouse, 1 in 7 people will go hungry. Act now: support food security at the #G8! http://bit.ly/HQYKau #DearG8

You can also send a message to President Obama here and follow all of the conversation by searching #DearG8 on Twitter. And don’t stop there. Share the action with friends on Facebook, at work, and at school!

Since 2009, thirty poor countries have risen to the challenge: they have developed plans to improve agriculture and food security in their countries. Now Obama needs to lead the G8 to keep their promise and play their part.