The Human Consciousness Now...Our World in the Midst of Becoming...to What? Observe, contemplate Now.
MICHOACÁN, Mexico , Dec 18 2025 (IPS) - My niece Roxana Valentín Cárdenas was 21 years old when she was killed. She was a Purépecha Indigenous woman from San Andrés Tziróndaro, a community on the shores of Lake Pátzcuaro in the Mexican state of Michoacán.
Roxana was killed during a peaceful march organised by another Indigenous community commemorating the recovery of their lands. Forty-six years earlier, three people had been murdered during that same land struggle. This time, the commemoration was once again met with gunfire.
Roxana was not armed and was not participating in the march. She encountered the demonstration and was struck by gunfire. Her death was deeply personal, but it took place within a broader context of long-standing violence linked to land and territory.
That violence has intensified in Michoacán recently, where the assassination of a mayor in November this year underscored how deeply insecurity has penetrated public life and how little protection exists for civilians, community leaders and local authorities alike.
Across Mexico, Indigenous people are being killed for defending land, water and forests. What governments and corporations often describe as “development” is experienced by our communities as dispossession enforced by violence – through land grabbing, water theft and the silencing of those who resist.
A way of life under threat
I come from San Andrés Tziróndaro, a farming, fishing and musical community. For generations, we have cared for the lake and the surrounding forests as collective responsibilities essential to life. That way of life is now under threat.
In Michoacán, extractive pressure takes different forms. In some Indigenous territories, it is mining. In our region, it is agro-industrial production, particularly avocados and berries grown for export. Communal land intended for subsistence is leased for commercial agriculture. Water is extracted from Lake Pátzcuaro through irregularly installed pipes to irrigate agricultural fields, depriving local farmers of access.
Agrochemicals contaminate soil and water, forests are deliberately burned to enable land-use change, and ecosystems are transformed into monocultures that consume vast amounts of water. This is not development. It is extraction.
Violence as a method of enforcement
When Indigenous communities resist these processes, violence follows.
Two cases illustrate this reality and remain unresolved.
José Gabriel Pelayo, a human rights defender and member of our organisation, has been forcibly disappeared for more than a year. Despite an urgent action issued by the United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances, progress has been blocked. Authorities have delayed access to the investigation file, and meaningful search efforts have yet to begin. His family continues to wait for answers.
Eustacio Alcalá Díaz, a defender from the Nahua community of San Juan Huitzontla, was murdered after opposing mining operations imposed on his territory without consultation. After his killing, the community was paralysed by fear, and it was no longer possible to continue human rights work safely.
Together, these cases show how violence and impunity are used to suppress community resistance.
Militarisation is not protection
It is against this backdrop of escalating violence and impunity that the Mexican state has once again turned to militarisation. Thousands of soldiers are being deployed to Michoacán, and authorities point to arrests and security operations as indicators of stability.
In practice, militarisation often coincides with areas of high extractive interest. Security forces are deployed in regions targeted for mining, agro-industrial expansion or large infrastructure projects, creating conditions that allow these activities to proceed while community resistance is contained.
Indigenous people experience this not as protection, but as surveillance, intimidation and criminalisation. While companies may claim neutrality, they benefit from these security arrangements and rarely challenge the violence or displacement that accompanies them, raising serious questions about corporate complicity.
A global governance failure
Indigenous territories are opened to extractive industries operating across borders, while accountability remains fragmented. Corporations divide their operations across jurisdictions, making responsibility for environmental harm and human rights abuses difficult to establish.
Voluntary corporate commitments have not prevented violence or environmental degradation. National regulations remain uneven and weakly enforced, particularly in regions affected by corruption and organised crime. This is not only a national failure. It is a failure of global governance.
International responsibility, now
In this context, I have recently spent ten days in the United Kingdom with the support of Peace Brigades International (PBI), meeting with parliamentarians, officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and civil society organisations.
These discussions are part of a broader international effort to ensure that governments whose companies, financial systems or diplomatic relationships are linked to extractive activities take responsibility for preventing harm and protecting those at risk.
While the UK is only one actor, its policies on corporate accountability and support for human rights defenders have consequences far beyond its borders.
Why binding international rules are necessary
For years, Indigenous peoples and civil society organisations have called for a binding United Nations treaty on business and human rights. The urgency of this demand is reflected in the lives lost defending land and water and in the defenders who remain disappeared.
A binding treaty could require mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence across global supply chains, guarantee access to justice beyond national borders, and recognise the protection of human rights defenders as a legal obligation. It could make Free, Prior and Informed Consent enforceable rather than optional.
Such a treaty would not prevent development. It would ensure that development does not depend on violence, dispossession and impunity.
Defending life for everyone
Indigenous peoples are not obstacles to progress. We are defending ecosystems that sustain life far beyond our territories. Indigenous women are often at the forefront of this defence, even as we face extraordinary risks.
When defenders disappear, when others are murdered, and when young women like my niece lose their lives, it is not only our communities that suffer. The world loses those protecting land, water and biodiversity during a deep ecological crisis.
Defending life and land should not come at the cost of human lives.
Claudia Ignacio Álvarez is an Indigenous Purépecha feminist, lesbian, and environmental human rights defender from San Andrés Tziróndaro, Michoacán. Through the Red Solidaria de Derechos Humanos, she supports Indigenous and rural communities defending their territories from extractive industries and organised crime. Her work has been supported by Peace Brigades International (PBI) since 2023.
IPS UN Bureau
Sindh People’s Housing for Flood Affectees ensures that those most vulnerable to climate change, including women-headed households, widows, and elderly women, gain long-term security and financial inclusion, embedding justice and resilience into the recovery process. — Khalid Mehmood Shaikh, CEO of SPHF
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 communitiesOne 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 placesIn 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 resourcesYet 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
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 actingOn 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.
BELÉM, Brazil, Dec 17 2025 (IPS) - On the Pacific Islands, where the ocean horizon is both a lifeline and a warning, communities have long interpreted environmental change through traditional knowledge, lived experiences, stories, and practice. Their observations echo those across the Pacific region, where traditional knowledge remains central to understanding shifting environments and responsible stewardship.
This grounding shaped the early work of Coral Pasisi, Director of Climate Change and Sustainability at the Pacific Community (SPC)—the region’s scientific and technical organization—and it is these experiences, including those from her home country of Niue, that anchor her lived realities and values to her work across the Pacific.
She remembers the early years of her scientific career, going from village to village with a laminated satellite image stitched with the cadastral base of roads and buildings, a few colored pens in hand, asking communities to add what they remembered.
“In times of drought, where were your main water source and caves? What areas remain important to protect as traditional medicines gathering or food security? Where are the traditional sites of ‘tapu’ and graves? And please mark where you remember waves reaching in the big cyclones experienced as far back as you can remember,” says Pasisi, explaining that they used the information to add important information into the Geographic Information System (GIS) to help understand environmental change and inform development resource use management plans.
“So, in one database, you have traditional knowledge, lived experience, and modern science together as a tool for governments and communities to make decisions. It also provided certainty for development and investments the villages were seeking to advance their sustainable development aspirations.”
Women gleaning for octopus as part of an SPC study aimed at building knowledge on ecology, biology and identification of the marine species. Credit: Stuart Campbell/SPC
In a region where most countries and territories are Indigenous-run, the knowledge held by those with generations of traditional wisdom is science—it’s just verified in a different way than modern science. It enhances formal scientific data, giving countries twice as much information to track change and calibrate understanding.
“SPC probably has the world’s most advanced fish monitoring systems in the Pacific region. But we can’t take that data alone because there are always going to be some gaps, so it’s important that community knowledge and experience are also factored in to informing the state of fisheries in the region,” Pasisi adds.
“Pacific People are great storytellers, especially fishing folks, as I am one! But when you document those stories, including old photos, you can stitch together a timeline of the sizes of fish that were caught at different periods, the species of fish, and what they ate, and all of a sudden, you have this incredible documented knowledge from traditional practitioners that you can combine with the modern science and information.”
“So traditional knowledge and practice is basically applied science that has been refined over the years. It is just verified in different ways,” she says.
But climate change is making it harder for Indigenous people to apply this knowledge and anticipate change and response, because much of that knowledge was “tied to predictable seasons and patterns of occurrence, but those are going a little crazy now with climate change. In the Pacific, this loss of predictability affects food systems, freshwater access and coastal safety across all 22 Pacific Island Countries and Territories. It even affects our five metropolitan members, but they have built modern systems of early warning, remote sensing and disaster management that are calibrated to cope better with the rapidly changing environment we are now in.”
The destabilization of once-reliable environmental signals has strengthened the region’s insistence that global action must align with the scientific findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which show that surpassing 1.5°C dramatically increases risks to reefs, fisheries, health and entire island ecosystems and territories.
This science underpins why Pacific countries place such emphasis on strong climate agreements and multilateral cooperation and accountability. A hard-won Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reinforced this, affirming that keeping warming below 1.5°C is not just a political aspiration but a legal obligation rooted in international law.
A fisherman in Tuvalu. Traditional wisdom helps inform the knowledge systems in the Pacific region. Credit: SPC
“I think the ICJ Advisory Opinion is going to continue to play a very significant role in influencing the outcomes of the COP that was held in Brazil and all COPs to come. There is nothing like the clarification of existing law and responsibility to help stakeholders stay on the right side of the law. Frankly, the consequences of not doing so present much greater risks than litigation. The highest price is existentiality and our region is on the front lines of that.”
“It’s highly beneficial, and it just gives, I think, a level of authority to the positions that our countries have held for a long time but which are often shot down by the ambiguity of interpreting agreements and responsibilities to deliver on those. The capacity constraints of Pacific SIDS mean they are often up against huge delegations from larger countries that come with lots of fancy people who bring fancy language in and make all these very fancy arguments about what is legal and what isn’t,” Pasisi adds. “The ICJ AO levels the playing field somewhat in that we don’t all need to be lawyers to understand what our responsibilities are and what the consequences of inaction could be; the highest court in the world has now done that for us.”
Mary Nipisina working her peanut garden in Tanna, Vanuatu. Credit: SPC
“There are many developed and developing countries that believe that this is an important tool in the international toolkit of global responsibility to help steer the world in the right direction.”
Pacific youth have echoed this call. The entire United Nations family supported the call for the ICJ AO process, and, at COP30, Pacific leaders, officials, partners and youth highlighted its value in upholding critical planetary tipping points like the 1.5°C limit in global warming underpinned by the best available science of the IPCC, reminding the world that decisions today will shape the survival, culture and sovereignty of future generations.
Organic farmers in Vanuatu. Climate change. In the Pacific, this loss of climate predictability affects food systems, freshwater access and coastal safety. Credit: SPC
Climate finance was a major focus at COP30 as countries negotiated how to advance the implementation of the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance. The approval of the Belém “Mutirão” decision was a significant step, establishing a two-year work programme and recognizing the need to dramatically scale up climate finance.
For Pacific Small Island Developing States, however, the question is not only whether climate finance increases but also whether countries can actually access it. Many do not have the staffing, systems or financial structures required by major international funds. Without simplified and equitable access, Pasisi notes, increased pledges will not reach the places where they are most urgently needed.
These concerns were strongly voiced during the final plenary in Belém. Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change, Hon. Ralph Regenvanu, acknowledged the difficulties of the negotiations.
“We recognize that we did not get everything we wanted at this COP, but we also know that this is the nature of our processes, and we continue to move forward together in solidarity towards what science requires, what justice demands, and what our people deserve,” he said.
He reminded the world that current pledges do not keep warming below 1.5°C “as science and equity demand,” and that future negotiations and actions must address this gap honestly.
Looking ahead, COP31—co-hosted under the joint leadership of Australia—will include significant participation from Blue Pacific countries. A major pre-COP event is expected to take place within the region, focusing on the ocean, energy transition, and climate finance, amongst other things. The importance of capitalizing the Pacific Resilience Facility within the solutions of addressing the complex climate finance landscape of access for the region was spotlighted.
“In relation to the ocean, we really need people to understand the holistic value of that natural blue capital and infrastructure. Whilst our countries 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,” Pasisi says.
“It seems very unjust that Pacific countries and territories on the front line cannot access the resources needed to respond to climate change and sustainably protect their large ocean real estate. So, informing that narrative from a Pacific lens is critical, showcasing not just the extreme manifestations of the impacts of climate change, but also the positivity and innovation that comes from there, this is what our region is very keen to showcase.”
And she says it is not just about this generation, but the “rights of future generations—it’s our children’s earth that we are mortgaging right now.”
Her message echoes the wider Pacific call: climate action must be grounded in science, guided by justice, and shaped by the lived realities of Pacific communities. As seas rise, storms intensify and ecosystems shift, the combination of traditional knowledge, modern science and intergenerational leadership has become one of the Pacific’s strongest contributions to global climate diplomacy, and one the world is increasingly recognizing as essential.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Excerpt:
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
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
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 meaningfulEarly 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 impactsDitwah 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
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
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.
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