Africa

Gondolt már arra, hogy egy egyszerű vérplazma-adományzás életet menthet? Akik már részt vettek ilyen eljárásban, tudják, hogy a folyamat nemcsak fontos, hanem jól szervezett és biztonságos is.

Gyakran felmerül a kérdés: milyen feltételek szükségesek ahhoz, hogy valaki vérplazmát adhasson, és miért van szükség ezekre a szigorú szabályokra? A tájékozódás mindenképp hasznos, hiszen a plazma az emberi szervezet egyik legfontosabb eleme. Ez a tiszta, sárgás folyadék alapvető szerepet játszik a tápanyagok és hormonok szállításában, valamint az immunrendszer támogatásában.

Az egészségi követelmények fontossága

A Plazma1-nél a plazmaferezis során a donor vére egy készülékbe kerül, ahol a plazmát elválasztják a vér többi részétől. Ez a folyamat szigorú orvosi felügyelet alatt történik, hiszen a donor és a későbbi betegek biztonsága a legfontosabb. A vérplazma számos betegség kezelésére felhasználható, például immungyengeséggel küzdő betegek, súlyos égési sérüléseket szenvedettek vagy vérzékenységi problémákkal küzdők számára.

Az első plazmaadás külön figyelmet igényel, és az adományozóknak tisztában kell lenniük bizonyos feltételekkel. Fontos az egészséges életmód, a kiegyensúlyozott táplálkozás és a napi legalább két és fél liter folyadék fogyasztása. Időpontfoglalás előtt érdemes tájékozódni a részletekről. Csak 18 és 60 év közötti, egészséges személyek adhatnak plazmát, akiknek az elmúlt hat hónapban nem készült új tetoválásuk vagy piercingük.

Adatfelvétel és egészségügyi vizsgálat

Az első látogatás alkalmával a donor részletes orvosi vizsgálaton esik át. A személyzet olyan paramétereket vizsgál, mint a vérnyomás, pulzus, testsúly, valamint kórtörténet felvételére is sor kerül. A plazmaadás előtt vért vesznek, ahol többek között a hemoglobinszintet és a fehérjekoncentrációt is megvizsgálják, valamint ellenőrzik a HBV, HCV és HIV jelenlétét. Az adatfelvétel során a donor köteles eredeti okmányokat bemutatni.

Az orvosi vizsgálatok alapján döntik el, hogy a jelentkező alkalmas-e a plazmaadásra. Miután az orvos megállapította a megfelelőséget, maga a plazmaadás folyamatára kerül sor. A vérvételi eljárás körülbelül 45 percig tart, amely alatt a donor kényelmes, félig fekvő pozícióban van csatlakoztatva a készülékhez. Sokan szívesen nézik kedvenc sorozatukat egy rövid rész erejéig, vagy élvezik a pihenés lehetőségét.

A szabályozás mögötti biztonság

Az adományozás szigorú szabályai nem véletlenül ilyen merevek. Ezek az előírások biztosítják, hogy minden résztvevő megfelelő ellátást kapjon. Ez fontos a betegek védelme érdekében is, hiszen a plazmaalapú gyógyszerkészítmények elengedhetetlenek a különböző betegségek elleni harcban.

A Plazma1 főként a plazma gyűjtésével foglalkozik, és a fagyasztott plazmát gyógyszeralapanyagként külföldön értékesítik. Bár a folyamat minden részlete céltudatosan és professzionálisan zajlik, a felmerülő kérdésekkel érdemes a megfelelő szervekhez fordulni, ahol szívesen segítenek.

A plazmaadás nagyban hozzájárulhat mások életének megmentéséhez, mindenkinek, aki megfelel a feltételeknek. Mindannyian tehetünk valamit azért, hogy másokon segítsünk.

The post A vérplazmaadás jelentősége és feltételei appeared first on Biztonságpiac.

Le 13 décembre 2025, une rencontre organisée par RAAL Diaspora a réuni plusieurs acteurs politiques et de la société civile autour de la situation des prisonniers politiques au Togo. Les échanges ont porté principalement sur les voies et moyens susceptibles de conduire à la libération de certains détenus à l’approche des fêtes de fin d’année.

Au cours des discussions, Yao Daté, président du Comité d’Action pour le Renouveau (CAR), a proposé l’ouverture d’un tête-à-tête avec le Président du Conseil, Faure Gnassingbé, afin de lui exposer directement les préoccupations liées au sort des prisonniers politiques. Il a, dans le même temps, invité les partis de l’opposition, la diaspora et les organisations de la société civile à se joindre à cette initiative.

Insistant sur l’urgence et la portée humaine de la démarche, Yao Daté a déclaré : « S’il faut aller rencontrer le Chef de l’État, Faure Gnassingbé, pour que les citoyens qui croupissent en prison retrouvent leur liberté, ce sacrifice n’est pas trop grand. »

De son côté, Dr Kate a appelé les différents acteurs à saisir l’opportunité offerte par le Président du Conseil, rappelant que ce dernier avait annoncé, dans son récent discours sur l’état de la nation, la libération de certaines catégories de prisonniers. Selon lui, il est essentiel de créer un momentum autour de cette demande avant le discours traditionnel du Nouvel An, tout en associant les autorités religieuses à la démarche.

Les professeurs Gogue et Dosseh ont, pour leur part, exprimé de vives inquiétudes quant à la situation de plusieurs prisonniers politiques, évoquant des cas jugés particulièrement alarmants. Pour l’ensemble des participants, permettre à certains détenus de passer les fêtes en famille ne pourrait se concrétiser que par un acte de clémence du premier magistrat du pays.

Tous ont souligné le caractère urgent de l’initiative, estimant que le calendrier impose une action concertée et rapide. En marge de la question des prisonniers politiques, d’autres sujets majeurs ont également été abordés, notamment l’amnistie générale et le « grand pardon », la vie chère, la co-gestion au gouvernement ainsi que la perspective d’une assise politique nationale.

The post Togo/Prisonniers politiques : des acteurs de l’opposition et de la société civile plaident pour un dialogue direct avec Faure Gnassingbé appeared first on Togo Actualite - Premier site d'information du Togo.

Nigeria's football federation complains to Fifa over the eligibility of certain DR Congo players who took part in their 2026 World Cup play-off.

Pascal Boniface · Les États-Unis face à Israël. Avec Robert Malley | Entretiens géopo

Malgré la reconnaissance de l’État de Palestine par plusieurs États occidentaux depuis septembre dernier et la signature d’un accord de cessez-le-feu dans le cadre du plan de paix porté par Donald Trump, la réalité sur le terrain demeure inchangée. En Cisjordanie, l’occupation israélienne se poursuit et s’intensifie ; à Gaza, la population reste exposée à des bombardements continus. Quant à la solution à deux États, celle-ci ne semble à ce jour plus envisageable dans les termes formulés il y a quelques décennies et demande à être réinventée. Dans ce contexte, les États-Unis et les Occidentaux adoptent un positionnement contradictoire en n’imposant aucune sanction et pression à l’égard d’Israël. Comment interpréter le positionnement étasunien sur la question du conflit au Proche-Orient ? Observe-t-on des changements d’attitude de l’opinion publique face au gouvernement israélien ? Quels leviers réels existent face à un gouvernement israélien qui rejette explicitement le principe même d’un État palestinien ?

Dans ce podcast, Robert Malley, enseignant à l’université de Yale et ancien conseiller des présidents Bill Clinton et Barack Obama sur les affaires du Proche-Orient, revient sur les ambiguïtés régionales et internationales alimentant l’impasse israélo-palestinienne, les limites de la solution à deux États et l’évolution de la position étasunienne face à Israël.

L’article Les États-Unis face à Israël. Avec Robert Malley est apparu en premier sur IRIS.

Credit: Hivos

By Job Muriithi and Winny Nyawira
Dec 17 2025 (IPS)

Efforts to combat climate change too often sideline the very communities hit hardest by the crisis and who have contributed the least to it. This injustice was the core idea of the Voices for Just Climate Action (VCA) program. Now that VCA has concluded after five years, Job Muriithi and Winny Nyanwira from Hivos reflect on its achievements and share recommendations for governments and donors to ensure fair and equitable climate action.

In the coastal villages of eastern Indonesia, where turquoise waters lap against volcanic shores, we set out on a trip, reminding us of why this work matters. Traveling from Jakarta to Nusa Tenggara Timur, we saw firsthand that real progress begins with listening to communities, amplifying their voices and supporting locally led initiatives.

Climate finance reaching local communities

One thing that immediately stands out is the Next Level Grant Facility (NLGF), a climate finance mechanism under VCA. It shows what happens when local groups are entrusted to take the lead in climate funding. In Indonesia alone, 62 projects supported diverse initiatives in 11 provinces, reaching thousands across the archipelago in both coastal and highland communities. Over half of the grantees (57%) were first-time recipients of formal funding, working at the intersection of environmental justice, disability inclusion, and gender-responsive community action.

But statistics only scratch the surface. We saw firsthand how marginalized voices stepped into the spotlight. The NLGF fund manager, Samdhana Institute, Humanis and local partners, supported members of the NLGF grantees on climate literacy, financial literacy, reporting, and adaptive planning. Women fishers, long overlooked in policy discussions, are now consulting with government officials. Indigenous communities blended ancestral wisdom with modern adaptations to protect ecosystems. These groups emerged as first responders in crises, innovators in sustainability, and stewards of resources vital for survival.

A legacy in policies, people, and places

In Kupang, our local partner PIKUL supported fisherfolks. These communities have spent lifetimes interpreting the rhythm of the sea, preserving their catch using traditional methods, and nurturing coastal habitats. They did not need expertise; they brought it. VCA provided a platform, networks, credibility, and access to decision-makers.

Once invisible at decision-making tables, coastal communities are now key advisors to governments, advocating for environmental protection, climate-resilient infrastructure like breakwaters, and fair finance. Their transformation illustrates VCA’s core approach: recognizing that for coastal and island communities, oceans are not resources to be exploited but are fundamental to their food security, livelihoods, cultural identity, and survival. VCA brought this community-centered ocean perspective into Indonesia’s climate discussions, which had long focused primarily on land-based agriculture, often overlooking the realities of maritime populations.

In Indonesia, a nation of over 17,000 islands, communities in East Nusa Tenggara needed their government to understand that the sea connects rather than divides their lives and livelihoods. VCA provided the platform and capacity-strengthening support that enabled these communities to articulate their needs and traditional knowledge effectively. Through facilitated dialogues and inclusive forums that intentionally included women, youth, Indigenous peoples, and persons with disabilities, community members gained the skills and confidence to engage directly with policymakers. This process enabled them to influence critical policies and to establish enduring relationships with government agencies. This exemplifies something more profound: the fundamental redistribution of decision-making power to those whose lives depend on the decisions.

Navigating shrinking spaces and resources

Yet challenges persist in the form of tightening civic spaces, scarce funding, skills shortages, and deep-rooted exclusion. As VCA wraps up, these issues are not fading – they are growing sharper amid global setbacks in climate commitments.

During our visit, one hard truth stood out: the landscape that shaped VCA in 2021 had become much tougher by 2025. Indonesia exemplifies this shift – civic freedoms have narrowed, traditional advocacy paths have grown thornier, and grassroots climate funds have dried up. A 2025 study from Hivos, examining climate vulnerability in Brazil and Zambia, reveals that women-headed households spend between 10-30% of their annual income recovering from climate shocks – costs that remain largely invisible in national budgets and climate finance mechanisms.

The study’s call to recognize care work as climate action echoes what VCA demonstrated in practice –when coastal communities in East Nusa Tenggara received direct funding and decision-making power, they did not just survive climate impacts; they innovated sustainable responses rooted in local knowledge. VCA’s success in channeling resources to first-time grantees and elevating marginalized voices offers a proven model for the kind of equitable, community-centered climate finance that research shows is desperately needed but rarely delivered.

Our Indonesian partners found a strategic workaround. Rather than pushing back through confrontation in a restricted advocacy space, they pivoted to building tangible community assets: fish-processing hubs, local food-processing facilities, mangrove cooperatives, and coral-restoration sites. These visible wins – better livelihoods that communities can see and feel – in turn open doors to advocacy and attract support from other funders. In other words, community investments serve as a bridge to advocacy when direct advocacy routes are blocked.

The results prove the strategy. Partners secured subnational policy wins and leveraged almost 400,000 USD in additional funding from both government and non-governmental sources, showing that strategic local investments can multiply impact even in unfavorable environments.

Credit: Hivos

Lessons from VCA Indonesia

Managing 62 partners across 45 districts and 18 provinces strained coordination – vast distances meant virtual check-ins often fell short, and not all received support on time. From our visit we drew concrete lessons from real hurdles, like adapting the reporting for Indigenous groups with limited technological skills.

Other concrete lessons from VCA Indonesia:

• Launch grants, monitoring, and governance early to maximize time
• Scale ambitiously but coordinate resources accordingly
• Build in flexibility for challenges like civic restrictions, coastal needs, and blue economies
• Prioritize trust through ongoing, transparent partnerships
• Design accountability that fits capacities without sacrificing standards

A call to keep listening and acting

On our final evening in Waingapu, sharing stories with fishers as the sun set, one woman said, “We had answers but no audience. VCA gave us both. We have shown it works – now others must commit.” She’s right. Locally led action produces resilient, equitable results. Communities are not victims; they are experts.

But they need more: fair climate finance, protected spaces, and partners who value their expertise. That’s why we ask donors to scale up VCA’s proven models – including trust-based grants for grassroots initiatives. We ask governments to partner with these voices to meet climate goals; this means safeguarding civic spaces above all. Climate justice demands partnership with ecosystem guardians. Indonesia’s coastal communities prove local solutions can scale globally. VCA offers a roadmap – let’s follow it closely now. The planet’s future hinges on it. Ayo – let’s advance together.

This piece reflects on Hivos’ November 2025 monitoring visit to Indonesia, conducted in partnership with the Humanis Foundation and local coalition partners, including SIPIL, ADAPTASI, KOPI, and Pangan Baik. As VCA concludes, it’s a tribute to their achievements and a plea to extend them.

Author Bios

Job Muriithi is a development practitioner with over 10 years of experience in monitoring, evaluation, accountability, research, and learning across Africa, Latin America, and Asia. He serves as Global Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Officer at Hivos for the Voices for Just Climate Action Program.

Winny Nyawira is a Certified Public Accountant and Global Finance Manager at Hivos for the Voices for Just Climate Action Program. She specializes in grants management and financial administration for international development programs.

As two-time runner-up Mohamed Salah prepares for another tilt at the Africa Cup of Nations, BBC Sport Africa profiles other stars who never lifted the trophy.

The seven Kenyans had previously been denied working visas and will now be deported, South Africa says.

We need people to understand the holistic value of that natural blue capital and infrastructure. Whilst our countries (in the Pacific) are on the front line of climate change, they are also holding the front line by protecting large swaths of intact marine ecosystems that play a huge role in planetary stability—from biodiversity to climate change. —Coral Pasisi, SPC’s Director of Climate Change and Sustainability

This is the latest in a string of killings that have rocked the crime-ridden country in recent years.

Credit: Annegret Hilse/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Dec 17 2025 (IPS)

Machines with no conscience are making split-second decisions about who lives and who dies. This isn’t dystopian fiction; it’s today’s reality. In Gaza, algorithms have generated kill lists of up to 37,000 targets.

Autonomous weapons are also being deployed in Ukraine and were on show at a recent military parade in China. States are racing to integrate them in their arsenals, convinced they’ll maintain control. If they’re wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic.

Unlike remotely piloted drones where a human operator pulls the trigger, autonomous weapons make lethal decisions. Once activated, they process sensor data – facial recognition, heat signatures, movement patterns — to identify pre-programmed target profiles and fire automatically when they find a match. They act with no hesitation, no moral reflection and no understanding of the value of human life.

Speed and lack of hesitation give autonomous systems the potential to escalate conflicts rapidly. And because they work on the basis of pattern recognition and statistical probabilities, they bring enormous potential for lethal mistakes.

Israel’s assault on Gaza has offered the first glimpse of AI-assisted genocide. The Israeli military has deployed multiple algorithmic targeting systems: it uses Lavender and The Gospel to identify suspected Hamas militants and generate lists of human targets and infrastructure to bomb, and Where’s Daddy to track targets to kill them when they’re home with their families. Israeli intelligence officials have acknowledged an error rate of around 10 per cent, but simply priced it in, deeming 15 to 20 civilian deaths acceptable for every junior militant the algorithm identifies and over 100 for commanders.

The depersonalisation of violence also creates an accountability void. When an algorithm kills the wrong person, who’s responsible? The programmer? The commanding officer? The politician who authorised deployment? Legal uncertainty is a built-in feature that shields perpetrators from consequences. As decisions about life and death are made by machines, the very idea of responsibility dissolves.

These concerns emerge within a broader context of alarm about AI’s impacts on civic space and human rights. As the technology becomes cheaper, it’s proliferating across domains, from battlefields to border control to policing operations. AI-powered facial recognition technologies are amplifying surveillance capabilities and undermining privacy rights. Biases embedded in algorithms perpetuate exclusion based on gender, race and other characteristics.

As the technology has developed, the international community has spent over a decade discussing autonomous weapons without producing a binding regulation. Since 2013, when states that have adopted the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons agreed to begin discussions, progress has been glacial. The Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems has met regularly since 2017, yet talks have been systematically stalled by major military powers — India, Israel, Russia and the USA — taking advantage of the requirement to reach consensus to systematically block regulation proposals. In September, 42 states delivered a joint statement affirming their readiness to move forward. It was a breakthrough after years of deadlock, but major holdouts maintain their opposition.

To circumvent this obstruction, the UN General Assembly has taken matters into its hands. In December 2023, it adopted Resolution 78/241, its first on autonomous weapons, with 152 states voting in favour. In December 2024, Resolution 79/62 mandated consultations among member states, held in New York in May 2025. These discussions explored ethical dilemmas, human rights implications, security threats and technological risks. The UN Secretary-General, the International Committee of the Red Cross and numerous civil society organisations have called for negotiations to conclude by 2026, given the rapid development of military AI.

The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a coalition of over 270 civil society groups from over 70 countries, has led the charge since 2012. Through sustained advocacy and research, the campaign has shaped the debate, advocating for a two-tier approach currently supported by over 120 states. This combines prohibitions on the most dangerous systems — those targeting humans directly, operating without meaningful human control, or whose effects can’t be adequately predicted — with strict regulations on all others. Those systems not banned would be permitted only under stringent restrictions requiring human oversight, predictability and clear accountability, including limits on types of targets, time and location restrictions, mandatory testing and requirements for human supervision with the ability to intervene.

If it’s to meet the deadline, the international community has just a year to conclude a treaty that a decade of talks has been unable to produce. With each passing month, autonomous weapons systems become more sophisticated, more widely deployed and more deeply embedded in military doctrine.

Once autonomous weapons are widespread and the idea that machines decide who lives and who dies becomes normalised, it will be much hard to impose regulations. States must urgently negotiate a treaty that prohibits autonomous weapons systems directly targeting humans or operating without meaningful human control and establishes clear accountability mechanisms for violations. The technology can’t be uninvented, but it can still be controlled.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Residents travel by boat through flooded streets in Colombo after heavy rains from Cyclonic Storm Ditwah. Credit: UNICEF, Sri Lanka

By the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)
BANGKOK, Thailand, Dec 17 2025 (IPS)

Cyclones Ditwah and Senyar are indications of a shifting disaster riskscape, not anomalies. Both storms broke historical patterns: Ditwah tracked unusually south along Sri Lanka’s coast before looping into the Bay of Bengal, dumping over 375 mm of rain in 24 hours and triggering landslides.

Senyar, only the second cyclone ever recorded in the Strait of Malacca, intensified near the equator and stalled over Sumatra, worsening floods in Aceh and North Sumatra.

The rising human and economic toll

According to the ESCAP Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2025: Rising Heat, Rising Risk, the Asia-Pacific region is entering an era of cascading risks driven by intensifying heat and extreme weather with marine heatwaves and warmer sea surface temperatures fueling this new normal.

Historical low-risk zones like Sri Lanka’s central hills and Thailand’s southern strip are now climate-risk hotspots.

The report projects that in South and South-West Asia alone, average annual flood losses could increase from US$47 billion historically to 57 billion.

Across Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam, the storms of late November 2025 caused more than 1,600 fatalities, left hundreds of people unaccounted for, and affected well over ten million people.

Widespread flooding and landslides displaced 1.2 million people, disrupted essential services and isolated numerous communities, underscoring the scale of the response required and the substantial economic fallout expected

The value of preparedness

While improved early warnings have reduced loss of life compared to past decades, these storms show that disasters are becoming more destructive. Yes, early warnings saved lives—impact-based forecasts triggered mass evacuations and community drills helped families reach safety. But thousands were still stranded.

Alerts arrived, yet on-the-ground implementation was unclear, and some evacuation routes were already flooded. In many cases, social media became the lifeline when official systems fell short.

The trend is clear: technology alone cannot save lives without trust and rehearsed responses. Warnings work only when people know what to do and feel confident acting.

The ESCAP multi-donor Trust Fund for Tsunami, Disaster and Climate Preparedness shows that investing in preparedness pays off many times over. Its 2025–26 call for proposals offers countries a chance to strengthen coastal resilience, integrate science and technology and embed community-led action — before the next storm season tests our readiness.

The lessons we must learn

• Trusted local networks and well-equipped community-led preparedness efforts make alerts meaningful

Early warnings have their limits. In many areas, alerts were issued and hotlines opened, yet fast-rising floods left families stranded, relying on rescue teams and volunteers. These events show that mobility constraints and uneven household preparedness can limit action even when information is available.

Community-led initiatives, such as those championed following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, demonstrate how local knowledge and regular drills improve decision-making. Twenty years later, social cohesion has become a marker of resilience.

For example, the Bangladesh Cyclone Preparedness Programme (with 76,000 volunteers) has sharply reduced cyclone deaths by delivering house-to-house warnings and guiding evacuations.

• Urban growth without risk-informed planning magnifies disaster impacts

Ditwah and Senyar exposed how rapid urban growth without risk-informed planning magnifies disaster impacts. Colombo’s wetlands have shrunk by 40 per cent, while Hat Yai’s drainage was overwhelmed.

Many hard-hit towns in Sumatra were located in known landslide-risk zones, resulting in severe disruptions to hospitals, transport networks and local businesses.

When natural buffers disappear, rainfall that once drained slowly now floods cities within hours. Urban resilience depends on integrating risk into development planning by preserving wetlands, enforcing zoning and investing in drainage and flood defences.

Infrastructure alone is not enough; it must be designed for extremes. Cities that embed resilience into planning and protect natural systems are better positioned to withstand future storms and safeguard economic activity.

• Regional solidarity and shared solutions can save lives.

The Asia-Pacific region is faced with converging risks, with storms amplifying monsoonal hazards, cascading into mudslides and exacerbated by infrastructure weaknesses. Regional cooperation is no longer optional – it is the foundation for resilience in the most disaster-impacted region of the world.

November 2025 saw 8 countries (including Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand) activate the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters, enabling rapid satellite imagery for emergency planning, proving the value of shared systems (see figure).

As floodwaters surged across the region, participants at the ESCAP Committee on Disaster Risk Reduction reaffirmed their commitment to regional early warning systems and anticipatory action – because hazards do not respect borders.

The Asia-Pacific region’s resilience depends on investing in people and preparedness cultures, regional solidarity, urban planning for extremes, protecting natural buffers and ensuring that last-mile guidance reaches every household.

Building generations and societies equipped to manage rising risks is the smartest investment for a safer future.

Source: ESCAP

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

A plan for a brand new road that should boost trade comes at a cost to some farmers.

Mohamed Salah's Liverpool row felt like "humiliation" for Egyptian fans, who are rallying behind their star man before the Africa Cup of Nations begins.

C'est de la coopération militaire à bas bruit, en mode contraint : petit pas, petit calibre, petit feu. Mais la France, sollicitée le dimanche 7 décembre par le gouvernement du Bénin, sur la côte ouest africaine, aux prises avec une tentative de putsch, a admis avoir accordé au régime de Cotonou un appui présenté comme ponctuel et « strictement technique ». Voire un peu plus. Le signe d'un retour vers l'Afrique par la petite porte, après en avoir été chassée ces dernières années ?

- Défense en ligne

The US accuses Rwanda of backing the rebel advance in breach of a deal brokered by President Trump.

Former South Africa women's captain Lusanda Dumke dies after being diagnosed with a rare gastric cancer.

Sahrawi refugees walk near the Awserd Refugee Camp in the Tindouf Province of Algeria. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, India, Dec 16 2025 (IPS)

The global refugee system is entering a period of deep strain. The delivery of protection and assistance is undergoing a transformation due to funding cuts, institutional reforms, and shifting donor priorities.

Against this backdrop, a new Global Synthesis Report titled From the Ground Up highlights the many issues faced by refugees in the Middle East and Africa.

Regional Perspectives on Advancing the Global Compact on Refugees has highlighted a rare, refugee-centered assessment of what is working, what is failing, and what must change. The report draws on regional roundtables held in East Africa and the Middle East and North Africa, followed by a global consultation in Geneva, to feed into the 2025 Global Refugee Forum progress review

According to the report, refugee-led and community-based organizations are increasingly taking on responsibilities, but they are not receiving power, funding, or legal recognition. As international agencies scale back under what is being called the Humanitarian Reset and UN80 reforms, refugees are expected to fill widening gaps without the authority or resources required to do so safely and sustainably.

The East Africa roundtables, held in Kampala with participation from refugee organizations in Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia, highlight a region often praised for progressive refugee policies. Countries here host millions displaced by conflict, hunger, and climate stress from South Sudan, Sudan, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Laws and regional frameworks promise freedom of movement, inclusion in national systems, and meaningful participation. The lived reality, however, remains uneven.

Education emerged as a central concern. Refugee children are enrolling in schools at higher rates, especially where they have been integrated into government-aided systems. Yet access remains unequal. Refugee students struggle to have prior qualifications recognized.

Many are treated as international students at universities and charged higher fees. Refugee teachers, often qualified and experienced, receive lower pay than nationals or are excluded from formal recognition. Language barriers and lack of psychosocial support further undermine learning outcomes. Refugee-led groups are already stepping in with mentorship, counseling, and bursary support, but they do so with fragile funding and limited reach.

Documentation and freedom of movement form another critical fault line. Uganda is widely cited for its rapid issuance of refugee IDs and settlement-based approach. Kenya and Ethiopia have made progress through new refugee laws and policy reforms. Still, gaps between policy and practice persist. Refugees in urban areas remain undocumented in large numbers. Identity documents often have short validity, forcing repeated renewals.

Travel documents are difficult to obtain, especially in Ethiopia, limiting cross-border movement, livelihoods, and participation in regional or global policy forums. Without documentation, refugees face arrest, harassment, and exclusion from services. For refugee organizations, lack of legal registration means operating in constant uncertainty.

Access to justice, described in the report as one of the least discussed yet most pivotal issues, cuts across all others. Refugees cannot claim rights or seek redress without functioning justice pathways. Language barriers in courts, xenophobic profiling, and lack of legal aid remain common.

Refugee-led organizations already provide mediation, paralegal support, and court accompaniment, often acting as the first point of contact between communities and authorities. Yet their work is rarely formalized or funded at scale.

These findings came alive during a webinar held at the launch of the report, where refugee leaders from different regions spoke directly about their experiences. One participant from East Africa reflected on repeated engagement in international forums. This event was his third such process, following meetings in Uganda and Gambia. He noted that participation was no longer symbolic. Governments and institutions were beginning to listen more closely.

He pointed to concrete differences across countries. In Kenya, refugees do not require exit visas. In Ethiopia, they do. Sharing such comparisons, he argued, helps governments rethink restrictive practices and adapt lessons from neighbors.

From the Middle East and North Africa, the discussion shifted to documentation and access to justice. A Jordan-based lawyer explained that civil documentation is not mere paperwork. It is the foundation of rights and accountability. Without birth registration, children cannot access education.

Without legally recognized marriages, women and children remain unprotected. Many Syrian refugees arrived in Jordan without documents, having lost them during flight or lacking legal awareness. Over time, Jordan introduced measures such as fee waivers, legal aid, and even Sharia courts inside camps like Zaatari to facilitate birth and marriage registration. Civil society groups have provided thousands of consultations and legal representations, bridging gaps between refugees and state systems.

The webinar also highlighted language as a structural barrier. In Jordan, Arabic serves as a common language for Syrians, easing communication. In East Africa, linguistic diversity complicates access to justice and services. Uganda hosts South Sudanese, Sudanese, and Congolese refugees, each with distinct languages, while official processes operate in English and Kiswahili. Governments have made efforts to provide interpretation, but gaps remain, particularly in courts and police interactions.

In Ethiopia, where Amharic dominates official institutions, refugee organizations often rely on founders or leaders who speak the language fluently, limiting broader participation.

As the conversation turned to the future of the humanitarian system, the tone grew more urgent. Participants acknowledged that funding cuts have already halted programs and exposed vulnerabilities. One speaker stressed that legal aid and documentation cannot be seen as optional sectors.

Without sustained support, entire protection systems risk collapse. Empowerment, he argued, goes beyond providing lawyers. It means building refugees’ confidence and capacity to navigate legal systems themselves.

Another participant addressed donors and UN agencies directly. Localization, he said, will fail if refugee organizations are treated only as implementers of predesigned projects. Power must shift alongside responsibility.

Refugee organizations should help design programs, raise resources, and make decisions based on community priorities. Otherwise, localization becomes another layer of outsourcing rather than a genuine transfer of agency.

The speaker’s final intervention starkly highlighted the stakes involved. With funding shrinking and uncertainty growing, refugees may soon have no option but to rely on themselves. Investing in refugee-led organizations, the speaker said, is not a luxury. This represents the final line of hope for refugees on the ground.

The MENA roundtables echo many of these concerns but in a more restrictive political context. Civic space is tighter. Legal recognition for refugee organizations is often impossible or risky. In Jordan, refugees cannot legally register organizations. In Egypt, civil society laws limit advocacy.

In Türkiye, registration is technically possible but bureaucratically daunting. Despite this, refugee-led initiatives have multiplied, filling gaps in education, protection, and livelihoods as international actors retreat.

The report warns of a dangerous paradox. Localization is advancing by necessity, not design. International agencies withdraw. Local actors step in. Yet funding, decision-making, and protection remain centralized. Refugee organizations absorb risk without safeguards. Participation is often tokenistic. Refugees are present in meetings but absent from real influence.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

A new global synthesis report and refugee voices from East Africa and the Middle East warn that reductions in humanitarian footprints risks breaking the refugee protection system.

Victor Osimhen is described as a striker "on another level" by team-mate Frank Onyeka ahead of Nigeria's bid to win the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres addresses the high-level pledging event on the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) 2026. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 16 2025 (IPS)

2025 has been an especially turbulent year for humanitarian aid operations as global aid budgets have experienced record declines in funding. As conflicts, environmental disasters, and economic crises intensify and disproportionately impact the world’s most vulnerable communities, the resources available in global emergency funds are falling far short of rapidly growing needs.

For 2026, humanitarian agencies project that even more people may be left without critical support if funding gaps continue to widen. In response, the United Nations (UN) and its partners are urgently calling on the international community to mobilize increased support for its Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) at an annual pledging event to commemorate the fund’s 20th anniversary on December 12.

“The humanitarian system’s tank is running on empty – with millions of lives hanging in the balance,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres. “This is a moment when we are asked to do more and more, with less and less. This is simply unsustainable.”

According to figures from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA ), the UN aims to save 87 million lives next year, which will require approximately USD 23 billion in funding. In addition, the agency seeks to raise about USD 33 billion to support 135 million people across 50 countries through 23 national aid operations, along with six additional operations dedicated to refugees and migrants.

Despite the urgent global need for increased support, funding for humanitarian appeals has faltered more steeply than ever before, with contributions for budgets at the lowest levels recorded in decades. The appeal for 2025, which called for USD 12 billion, reached roughly 25 million less people than the previous year.

OCHA recorded a multitude of immediate consequences around the world– including an exacerbation of the global hunger crisis, increasingly strained health systems to the point of near collapse, the erosion of critical education programs, and a considerable blow to protection services for vulnerable displaced communities facing protracted armed conflicts. In some contexts, it has been increasingly dangerous for aid workers, with more than 320 killed this year amid what officials describe as an “utter disregard for the laws of war”.

“So when we’re needed at full strength, the warning lights are flashing,” said Tom Fletcher, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator. “It’s not just a funding gap – it’s an operational emergency. And if the CERF falters, then the world’s emergency service will falter. And the people who rely on us will suffer.”

With resources in desperately short supply, the UN and its partners have been forced to scale back certain lifesaving services to prioritize others, leaving urgent humanitarian crises critically underfunded. Due to these strategic allocations, the UN has been largely unable to assist numerous displaced communities fleeing from conflict in Darfur, Sudan– which has been described as “the epicenter of human suffering.”

“As you’ve heard and as you know, the brutal cuts that we’re experiencing have forced us to make brutal choices, a ruthless triage of human survival,” Fletcher added. “This is what it means when we put power before solidarity and compassion.”

UN officials also underscored the extreme importance of CERF, as the fund has acted as a lifeline for vulnerable communities around the world for decades, delivering over USD 10 billion worth of aid in more than 110 countries since 2006. Through these efforts, CERF has acted as a “rapid and strategic” source of financing that reached struggling civilians before other sources, saving countless lives.

According to Guterres, “in many places, CERF has made the difference between life-saving help and no help at all.” Earlier this year, when humanitarian operations were allowed to resume in the Gaza Strip, CERF helped deliver vital fuel supplies to hospitals, restore water and sanitation systems, and reinforce other essential lifesaving services.

In 2025, CERF invested nearly USD 212 million to sustain relief efforts across underfunded crises. The UN also announced an additional allocation of USD 100 million to meet critical needs—including those of women and girls—in severe crises in Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Haiti, Myanmar, Mozambique, Syria, among others.

To date, CERF has supported millions of people across 30 countries and territories through a total allocation of USD 435 million. These funds have ensured the scale-up of humanitarian efforts in Gaza following the implementation of the ceasefire, and provided critical assistance to those fleeing armed conflict in Darfur.

These efforts by CERF solidify the center of the “humanitarian reset” that the UN foresees for 2026. “And that’s why the Humanitarian Reset matters: not a slogan, but a challenge to us all,” added Fletcher. “A mission, but also a survival strategy for the work we do and for so many people. It’s about being smarter, faster, closer to the communities we serve, more honest about the difficult trade-offs that we face. Making every dollar count for those we serve.”

The UN’s largest individual humanitarian response plan in 2026 will focus on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which requires roughly USD 4.1 billion to assist roughly 3 million people who have experienced catastrophic levels of violence and destruction. Other response efforts will target Sudan—the world’s largest displacement crisis—which requires USD 2.9 billion to assist 20 million people, and Syria, which requires USD 2.8 billion to help 8.6 million people.

With funding for CERF at its lowest projected levels in over a decade, the UN seeks a funding target of USD 1 billion, and will begin appealing to its member states for support. Countries are also being urged to use their influence to bolster protection measures for civilians and humanitarian workers, as well as to reinforce accountability mechanisms for perpetrators of armed violence.

“We have to imagine, even now, in this tough moment for humanitarian funding, what the next 20 years could look like with a fully funded CERF,” said Fletcher. “A fund that makes the UN faster, smarter, more cost-effective, greener, more anticipatory, more inclusive. A fund that amplifies the voices of communities and proves that solidarity still works. Backed by a movement of citizens who believe in that solidarity.”

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Europe’s push to shift asylum procedures to third countries risks outsourcing not only refugees, but also its moral and political responsibility.

By Judith Kohlenberger
VIENNA, Austria, Dec 16 2025 (IPS)

The debate on reforming the European asylum system has gained significant momentum following the agreement reached by EU interior ministers last week. Alongside questions of solidarity and distribution, the possibility of establishing ‘return hubs’ outside the EU was at the heart of the meeting.

Outsourcing asylum procedures – or at least those concerning rejected asylum seekers – has long been a desire of many heads of state and government, and the European Commission now aims to make this possible by creating the necessary legal foundations, for example by scrapping the so-called connection criterion. In future, rejected asylum seekers would therefore no longer need to demonstrate a personal link to the third country to which they are transferred.

Previously, such links included earlier stays or family members living there. Yet the EU remains a long way from concrete implementation.

One reason is the high cost of such outsourcing projects. According to the UK’s National Audit Office, the British Rwanda deal cost the equivalent of more than €800 million, with limited effect: only four asylum seekers were relocated over two years.

Under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the plan was shelved for good due to excessive costs and minimal benefit. And despite the heated migration debate in the United Kingdom, a revival appears unlikely. Denmark faced a similar situation with its own Rwanda plans, which the country put on hold in 2023 due to unfeasibility. And then there is the much-cited Italy–Albania agreement, whose original idea – conducting asylum procedures under Italian law on Albanian soil – was never implemented.

Practical implementation remains doubtful

What third countries gain from allowing such outsourcing on their territory is obvious: money, and even more importantly, political capital. Speaking on a panel at the ‘Time to Decide Europe’ conference organised by the Vienna-based ERSTE Foundation, Albania’s Prime Minister and Socialist Edi Rama stated openly that his small country of just under three million people must join any alliance willing to take it in.

This includes – and above all – the EU. For Albania, which is an EU candidate country, it therefore makes sense to appear accommodating to a not insignificant member state with which it is also historically closely connected, and to help solve its unpopular ‘migration question’, at least to the extent that refugees arriving in Italy do receive protection, but, in practice, ‘not in my backyard’.

So far, however, this principle has not been put into action due to objections raised by Italian courts. That is also why – and to put the costly asylum camps built in the Albanian towns of Shëngjin and Gjadër (construction and operations are believed to have already cost hundreds of millions of euros) to some use – the European Commission created the option of return hubs, which were formally adopted last week at the meeting of EU ministers.

Italy can therefore repurpose the facilities originally intended for asylum procedures as deportation centres for asylum seekers who were already on Italian territory and whose applications have been legally rejected. Here too, the number of cases remains limited, and it is unclear on what legal basis those transferred there could be held for extended periods to prevent them from re-entering the EU via Montenegro and Bosnia. De facto detention, however, would present yet another legal complication, even if the connection criterion and other EU-law barriers are removed.

Anyone striving for ‘fair burden-sharing’ would have to redistribute towards Europe, not away from it.

There is, therefore, still a long way to go before any concrete return hubs become reality. Not only because, in the usual trilogue process, the European Parliament must also give its approval — and some MEPs, including Birgit Sippel of the Socialists and Democrats group, have already announced their opposition.

But even if a parliamentary majority can be secured, the practical implementation remains doubtful: where are the trustworthy and willing third countries; how can infrastructure be built there; how can respect for human rights standards be monitored and enforced from Europe (which proves difficult even within an EU member state such as Hungary); and how should looming legal disputes be handled?

Among the countries mentioned so far are several that themselves regularly appear among the places of origin of refugees arriving in Europe. Alongside Rwanda, the East African state of Uganda is frequently cited; it already hosts the largest number of refugees from other parts of Africa, especially from Sudan, South Sudan, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Like Rwanda, it lies directly next to regional conflict zones; the protection rate for Ugandan nationals in European host countries stands at around 60 per cent.

The country is considered authoritarian — and precisely for that reason, it has an interest in striking an outsourcing deal with EU member states, such as the one it has already concluded with the Netherlands. Such an agreement implicitly acknowledges and legitimises the Ugandan government.

The notorious EU–Turkey Statement of 2016 demonstrated how refugees accommodated in third countries can repeatedly be used as leverage in foreign policy disputes, for example when Prime Minister Erdoğan had them bussed to the Greek border to put pressure on the EU. EU strategists may euphemistically call this ‘migration diplomacy’, but for the layperson, it is simply blackmail.

The example of Uganda illustrates not only how Europe, through deals with third countries, outsources not just refugees but also bargaining power and control; it also reflects the fundamental imbalance in a one-sided debate on externalisation.

Already today, 71 per cent of all refugees find protection in developing and emerging countries, with 66 per cent hosted in neighbouring countries in the Global South or the Middle East and North Africa. Anyone striving for ‘fair burden-sharing’ would therefore have to redistribute towards Europe, not away from it.

Europe’s answer cannot, under any circumstances, be to emulate the Trump administration by resorting to ever-tougher asylum policies.

This leads to the fundamental questions that EU policymakers appear increasingly unwilling to ask, let alone answer: How does Europe want to position itself in future with regard to global refugee protection? How will people in need of protection from persecution – whose numbers are rising in an ever more unstable world – gain access to that protection?

How can the liberal post-war order be preserved, including and especially the Geneva Conventions, which were created in response to the lessons of the two World Wars and the Shoah? How should Europe position itself vis-à-vis an increasingly illiberal, in parts authoritarian United States, which now tends to view Europe more as an adversary than a partner?

A confident response to the new US national security strategy – which claims that migration threatens Europe with ‘civilisational erasure’ – must lie in emphasising Europe’s civilisational achievements since 1945. These include, above all, the prohibition of torture enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: it applies absolutely, and therefore also to asylum seekers who are obliged to leave and who may not be deported to countries where they risk inhuman treatment. This is precisely where the line between civilisation and barbarism lies.

Furthermore, a united Europe that wants to stand its ground against attacks from former allies must recognise societal diversity as one of its strengths, and acknowledge the indispensable contribution that migrants – from guest workers and refugees to highly skilled expats – have made to Europe’s reconstruction and prosperity.

Europe’s answer cannot, under any circumstances, be to emulate the Trump administration by resorting to ever-tougher asylum policies that effectively validate the American assessment.

For that would indeed amount to an obliteration — an obliteration of the founding idea of a united, open and liberal Europe which, let us not forget, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 and stands for a rules-based order that has ensured decades of peace as well as economic prosperity. In short: for the very life that we are fortunate enough to enjoy day after day, in diversity, security and freedom.

Dr Judith Kohlenberger heads the FORM research institute at WU Vienna and is affiliated with the Austrian Institute for International Affairs, the Jacques Delors Centre Berlin and the Einstein Centre Digital Future. Her book Das Fluchtparadox (The Flight Paradox) was named Austrian Science Book of the Year in 2023 and nominated for the German Non-Fiction Prize. Her most recent publication is Migrationspanik (Migration Panic) (2025).

Source: International Politics and Society (IPS), Brussels, Belgium

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');