The 3 climate priorities humanitarians need to boost their impact

Acronyms can be painful. When someone’s talking about “Taking a decision into the PM”, are they referring to policy options for the prime minister, an escalation to the project manager or merely delaying a decision until the afternoon?

But acronyms are also necessary. I repeat IFRC a lot. It’s much quicker to say than the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Acronyms can make things more memorable too. And that’s what I hope HIT will do.

National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are known for helping people after the worst hits. Increasingly, the worst that hits is climate-related. In fact, the 20 years after 2000 saw a near doubling of climate and weather-related disasters compared with the 20 years before. Collectively, they and ones since have affected hundreds of millions of people. At the IFRC, we recognize climate change as the top global challenge we face. We need to hit back.

Or HIT back. Because the myriads of ways that the IFRC network, as the world’s largest humanitarian organization, tries to address the impacts of climate change can get lost when listed. HIT is a way to summarize our approach – one that addresses Health, Investment and Timing.

Climate change is not just an environmental issue; it’s a health emergency. Extreme weather and rising temperatures – heatwaves in particular – kill close to 500,000 people a year. Even when they don’t kill directly, the health consequences of climate change ripple outwards, worsening malnutrition, spreading disease and weakening already fragile health systems.

But there are actions we can take now. Early warning systems for the silent assassins of heatwaves, for instance, save lives by enabling communities to prepare. In Greece, the Hellenic Red Cross has trained staff and volunteers in heat-related first aid, while partnerships with local governments have ensured cities like Athens can better anticipate and respond to extreme heat. The Red Cross in Nepal has rolled out simple initiatives like “water ATMs” to combat dehydration when city temperatures push well past 40°C. These efforts show what’s possible when health is put at the centre of climate adaptation.

Money is a powerful tool for change – but there’s not enough of it, and it’s not reaching the right places. The vast majority of people most impacted by climate-related disasters live in low-income countries that contribute the least to global emissions. Yet these countries receive only a fraction of climate adaptation funding.

This must change. First, the scale of commitments must grow. Baku’s COP29 climate conference saw developed countries pledge at least $300bn a year by 2035 to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change. It’s a start, but not enough. Loss and Damage funds need committed donors too. Second, funds must reach where they are needed most and can have the most impact. In practice, that means money must reach local communities, and those communities must have decision-making power over what to do with it. Locally led action, delivered through the staff and volunteers of trusted networks like Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, is one of the most effective ways to build resilience. In Kenya, for example, a drought safety net programme, developed in partnership with government authorities, means the Kenya Red Cross delivers cash transfers directly to affected families, enabling them to buy food, pay school fees and rebuild their lives. Reliable, predictable funding at the local level saves lives and strengthens communities.

Innovative finance also has a role to play. Tools like the IFRC’s Disaster Response Emergency Fund insurance policy, which paid out for the first time in 2024, demonstrate how leveraging private sector partnerships can amplify impact. In a year of record-breaking disasters, this insurance helped millions recover faster. Such models show how we can stretch every franc, dollar or euro to meet rising needs.

In disaster response, timing is everything. Every dollar spent on early action saves $10 in future recovery costs. Yet too often, resources only flow after a disaster strikes.

Of course, the ultimate in effective timing is to act to stop temperatures rising in the first place, by reducing emissions. We – and countless others – have been shouting so for decades. Sadly, not enough is being done. The world is on track to sail past 1.5°C.

So we have to time actions to deal best with the consequences.

How? By focusing on anticipatory action. Early warning systems must be paired with early action. In Vanuatu, for example, the Red Cross used community risk assessments to design awareness campaigns, from radio broadcasts to theatre performances, helping residents prepare for and mitigate the impact of extreme weather. Such proactive efforts build resilience and reduce the human and economic toll of disasters.

Timing also matters for resilience-building. Long-term investments in health systems, food security and water access ensure that communities can withstand climate shocks. The IFRC’s Global Climate Resilience Platform aims to protect 500 million people in the most climate-vulnerable contexts through these kinds of proactive measures.

Climate change is not a problem we can solve tomorrow. It demands action today. The IFRC’s HIT framework – Health, Investment and Timing – might be GLIB (“getting lost in buzzwords”), but we’re finding it’s cutting through. It’s a rallying cry: on climate, now is the moment to HIT the ground running.