‘Zambia Has Environmental Laws and Standards on Paper – the Problem Is Their Implementation’

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Africa, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Energy, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Headlines, Health, TerraViva United Nations

Dec 29 2025 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses environmental accountability in Zambia with Christian-Geraud Neema, Africa editor at the China Global South Project, an independent journalism initiative that covers and follows China’s activities in global south countries.

Zambia has environmental laws and standards on paper – the problem is their implementation’

Christian-Geraud Neema

A group of 176 Zambian farmers has filed a US$80 billion lawsuit against a Chinese state-owned mining company over a major toxic spill. In February, the collapse of a dam that was supposed to control mining waste released 50 million litres of toxic wastewater into the Kafue River system, killing fish, destroying crops and contaminating water sources for thousands of people. The compensation demand highlights broader questions about mining governance, environmental oversight and corporate accountability.

What’s this lawsuit about, and why are farmers seeking US$80 billion?

The farmers are suing Sino-Metals Leach Zambia, a subsidiary of the Chinese state-owned China Nonferrous Metal Mining Group, because on 18 February, the company’s tailings dam collapsed, releasing an estimated 50 million litres of acidic, toxic wastewater and up to 1.5 million tonnes of waste material into the Kafue River. This led to water pollution affecting communities in Chambishi and Kitwe, far beyond the immediate mining area.

The lawsuit reflects real harm and frustration. From the farmers’ perspective, the company is clearly responsible. Their livelihoods have been destroyed, their land contaminated and their future made uncertain. In that context, seeking accountability through the courts is a rational response.

That said, the US$80 billion figure is likely exaggerated. It shows the absence of credible damage assessments rather than a precise calculation. When no one provides clear data on losses, communities respond by anchoring their claims in worst-case scenarios.

This case also highlights a broader accountability gap. Mining companies should be held responsible, but governments must also be questioned. These projects are approved, inspected and regulated by state authorities. If a dam was unsafe, why was it authorised? Why was oversight insufficient?

It should be noted that Zambia’s legal framework allows communities to bring such cases domestically, which is a significant step forward compared to earlier cases where affected communities had to sue foreign companies in courts abroad.

What caused the toxic spill?

There is no single, uncontested explanation. There were clear structural weaknesses in the tailings dam. Reports from civil society and media suggest the dam was not built to the required standards under Zambian regulations. But the company argues the dam complied with existing standards and that it was encroachment by surrounding communities that weakened the structure over time.

These two narratives are not mutually exclusive. Even if community interactions with the site occurred, the primary responsibility still lies with the company. Mining operations take place in complex social environments, and companies are expected to anticipate these realities and design infrastructure that is robust enough to withstand them. Ultimately, this incident reflects governance and regulatory failures. It was not an isolated accident.

What were the consequences of the spill?

The impacts have been severe and multidimensional. The spill polluted large sections of the Kafue River, reportedly extending over 100 kilometres. It killed large numbers of fish, contaminated riverbeds and disrupted ecosystems. Agriculturally, farmers using river water for irrigation saw their crops destroyed or rendered unsafe. Livestock and soil quality were also affected. Acidic and toxic substances entered water sources used daily for cooking, drinking and washing, and communities were exposed to serious health risks.

What makes the situation particularly troubling is the lack of reliable and independent data. There has been no transparent and comprehensive assessment released by the government, the company or an independent body. This absence has left communities uncertain about long-term environmental damage and health effects, and fuelled emotionally charged debates instead of evidence-based responses.

Was the disaster preventable?

Absolutely. At a technical level, stronger infrastructure, better-quality materials and stricter adherence to safety standards could have significantly reduced the risk. At an operational level, companies know mining sites are rarely isolated, and community proximity, informal access and social dynamics must be factored in when designing and securing tailings dams.

But prevention also depends heavily on governance. Mining companies are profit-driven entities, and in weak governance environments, the temptation to cut costs is high. This is not unique to Chinese firms. The main difference in how companies operate is not their origin but their context: the same companies often operate very differently in countries with weak or strong regulatory oversight. Where rules are enforced, behaviour improves; where oversight is weak, shortcuts become the norm.

The key issue here is enforcement. Zambia has good environmental laws and standards on paper. The problem is their implementation.

Could this case set a precedent?

This case has the potential to strengthen existing accountability mechanisms rather than create a new precedent. Zambia has seen similar cases before, including lawsuits involving western mining companies. What is different now is the increased legal space for communities to act locally.

If successful, the case could reinforce civil society advocacy for responsible mining, greater transparency and stronger enforcement of environmental regulations. It could also raise awareness among communities living near mining sites about their rights and the risks they face.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Facebook
TikTok
Twitter
YouTube
Christian-Geraud Neema/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
South Africa: ‘Environmental rights are enforceable and communities have the right to be consulted and taken seriously’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with The Green Connection 12.Dec.2025
DRC: ‘International demand for coltan is linked to violence in the DRC’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Claude Iguma 09.Jul.2025
Ghana: ‘We demand an immediate ban on illegal mining and strict enforcement of environmental laws’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Jeremiah Sam 29.Oct.2024

  Source

A Grim Year for Democracy and Civic Freedoms – but in Gen Z There Is Hope

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Gender, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Inequality, LGBTQ, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

People take part in an anti-corruption protest in Kathmandu, Nepal on 8 September 2025. Credit: Navesh Chitrakar/Reuters via Gallo Images

NEW YORK, Dec 24 2025 (IPS) – 2025 has been a terrible year for democracy. Just over 7 per cent of the world’s population now live in places where the rights to organise, protest and speak out are generally respected, according to the CIVICUS Monitor, a civil society research partnership that measures civic freedoms around the world. This is a sharp drop from over 14 per cent this time last year.

Civic freedoms underpin healthy democracies, and the consequences of this stifling of civil society are apparent. At the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, the world is experiencing 19th century levels of economic inequality. The wealth of the richest 1 per cent is surging while some 8 per cent of the world’s population – over 670 million people – suffer from chronic hunger. Weapons-producing firms, closely intertwined with political elites, are reaping windfall profits as death and destruction rains down in Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine and many other places. It should surprise no one that the political leaders fomenting these conflicts are also squashing civic freedoms to avert questions about their motivations.

From Lima to Los Angeles, Belgrade to Dar es Salaam and Jenin to Jakarta, far too many people are being denied the agency to shape the decisions that impact their lives. Yet these places have also been the site of significant protests against governments this year. Even as authoritarianism appears to be on the march, people are continuing to pour onto the streets to insist on their freedoms. As we speak people in Sofia in Bulgaria are demonstrating in large numbers against endemic corruption which recently forced the government to resign.

History shows that mass demonstrations can lead to major advances. In the 20th century, people’s mobilisations helped achieve women’s right to vote, liberation of colonised peoples and adoption of civil rights legislation to address race-based discrimination. In the 21st century, advances have been made in marriage equality and other LGBTQI+ rights, and in highlighting the climate crisis and economic inequality through protests. But in 2025, the right to protest, precisely because it can be effective, is under assault by authoritarian leaders. Around the world, the detention of protesters is the number one recorded violation of civic freedoms, closely followed by arbitrary detentions of journalists and human rights defenders who expose corruption and rights violations.

This backsliding is now happening in major established democracies. This year, the CIVICUS Monitor downgraded Argentina, France, Germany, Italy and the USA to an ‘obstructed’ civic space rating, meaning the authorities impose significant constraints on the full enjoyment of fundamental rights. This regression is being driven by anti-rights nationalist and populist forces determined to degrade constitutional checks and balances and advance ballot box majoritarianism that denies minorities a fair say in economic, political and social life.

The push to degrade democracy by anti-rights forces now coming to fruition has been many years in the making. It accelerated this year with the return of Donald Trump. His administration immediately withdrew support to international democracy support programmes and instead built links to politicians responsible for crushing civic freedoms and committing grotesque human rights violations. Trump has laid out of the red carpet to El-Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, Hungary’s Victor Orbán, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, ushering in a new era of values-free might-is-right diplomacy that threatens to undermine decades of painstaking progress achieved by civil society.

The fallout is clear. Many wealthy democratic governments that traditionally fund civil society activities have significantly reduced their contributions. At the same time, they have linked their remaining support for civil society to narrowly defined strategic military and economic interests. In doing so, they have played directly into the hands of powerful authoritarian states such as China, Egypt, Iran, Nicaragua and Venezuela that seek to discredit domestic calls for accountability. Countries including Ecuador and Zimbabwe have introduced laws to limit the ability of civil society organisations to receive international funding.

All these developments are negatively impacting on civil society efforts for equality, peace and social justice. Yet the story of 2025 is also one of persistent resistance, and some successes. The courage demonstrated by Generation Z protesters has inspired people around the world. In Nepal, protests triggered by a social media ban led to the fall of the government, offering hope for a much-needed political reset. In Kenya, young protesters continued to take to the streets to demand political reform despite state violence. In Moldova, a cash-rich disinformation campaign run by a fugitive oligarch failed to sway the course of the national election away from human rights values. In the USA, the number of people joining the No-Kings protests just keeps on growing.

With over 90 per cent of the world’s population living with the institutional denial of full civic freedoms, anti-rights forces must be feeling pretty smug right now. But democratic dissent is brewing, particularly among Generation Z, denied political and economic opportunities but understanding that another world – one more equal, just, peaceful and environmentally sustainable – is possible. It’s far from game over yet, and even in difficult times, people will demand freedoms – and breakthroughs may be just around the corner.

Mandeep S Tiwana is Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

  Source

Myanmar’s Sham Election: Trump Legitimises Murderous Military Dictatorship

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Armed Conflicts, Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Migration & Refugees, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Issei Kato/Reuters via Gallo Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Dec 22 2025 (IPS) – Myanmar is heading for an election, beginning on 28 December, that’s ostensibly an exercise in democracy – but it has clearly been designed with the aim of conferring more legitimacy on its military junta.

Almost five years after its February 2021 coup, the regime continues to fight pro-democracy forces and ethnic armed organisations, barely controlling a fifth of Myanmar’s territory. The junta has acknowledged that voting won’t be possible in much of the country.

The upcoming election fails every test of democratic legitimacy. The main democratic parties — the National League for Democracy and the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy — are banned. What remains is the Union Solidarity and Development Party, the military’s puppet party, plus minor groups that won no seats in the democratic election held in 2020. Independent media outlets have been crushed, journalists are arrested and intimidated daily and internet access is heavily restricted. In areas that resist military rule, civilians face escalating violence and arbitrary detention.

This election is designed not to reflect the popular will but to entrench military power. It comes as the regime continues its systematic campaign of violence against civilians: weeks before the junta announced the vote, Myanmar’s air force bombed a school in Oe Htein Kwin village, killing two teachers and 22 children, the youngest only seven years old.

The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners has confirmed 6,231 civilians have been killed by the military since the coup, though true figures could be much higher. Nearly half of all civilian deaths are estimated to have been caused by airstrikes. These are not indiscriminate military operations where civilians are collateral damage; they are deliberate attacks where civilians are the targets. The majority of locations of airstrikes have been sites with protected status under international law: camps for displaced people, churches, clinics and schools, often with no presence of armed groups nearby.

The junta has some powerful international allies. China backs it with billions in aid and advanced weapons. Russia supplies the fighter jets that drop bombs on civilians. India quietly sells arms. The three have long provided diplomatic cover and shielded the junta from international accountability. Meanwhile, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) continues pursuing its failed Five-Point Consensus agreed with the regime in April 2021, despite its systematic violation of every commitment. Regional powers have negotiated exclusively with the junta without input from the National Unity Government — the government in exile formed by democratically elected lawmakers — effectively treating the military regime as Myanmar’s legitimate rulers.

Now recent decisions by the Trump administration threaten to tip the balance decisively in favour of legitimising military rule. Trump has lifted sanctions, cut independent media funding and eliminated the protections formerly afforded to Myanmar’s refugees in the USA. Consistent with his transactional approach, he’s choosing access to rare earth minerals over democracy.

The concern now is that ASEAN member states may follow suit, using the sham election as justification to normalise relations with the military regime. Some have already started moving in this direction, with the junta leader invited to regional meetings.

Myanmar’s pro-democracy forces continue to resist despite the shifting international context. The People’s Defence Forces and ethnic armed groups maintain coordinated operations across most of the country. Civil society continues documenting violations, providing aid to displaced people and advocating for international action. They deserve better than to watch the world legitimise their oppressors.

The junta’s control on the ground remains tenuous, but its diplomatic position is strengthening. Whether this consolidation continues depends on how the world responds to the election. The international community must be clear that treating the election as legitimate would signal to authoritarians everywhere that democratic institutions can be overthrown with impunity, war crimes carry no real consequences and regimes that bomb schools and imprison elected leaders can secure international acceptance.

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

  Source

Kenyan Court Restores Seed Freedom: Landmark Ruling Boost for Food Security and Sovereignty

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Africa, Biodiversity, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Systems, Natural Resources, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment

Food Systems

Farmers celebrate in Gilgil town in Kenya, after a court ruling that decriminalized the sharing of indigenous seeds. Credit: Jackson Okata/IPS

Farmers celebrate in Gilgil town in Kenya, after a court ruling that decriminalized the sharing of indigenous seeds. Credit: Jackson Okata/IPS

NAIROBI, Dec 18 2025 (IPS) – For years, smallholder farmers across Kenya have been engaged in a legal battle with the government over a law that criminalizes the practice of saving, sharing and exchanging indigenous seeds.

In 2022, a group of 15 Kenyan smallholder farmers petitioned the country’s High Court, seeking to compel the government to review sections of a law that bans the sharing and exchange of uncertified and unregistered seeds.

Rural smallholder farmers in Kenya rely on informal farmer-managed systems to acquire seeds through seed saving and sharing, but the Seeds and Plant Varieties Act limited their access.

Kenya’s government enacted the law in 2012 to develop, promote, and regulate a modern and competitive seed industry, but farmers are calling for its review.

The informal farmer-managed seed system allows farmers to store a portion of their seeds after harvesting, which guarantees them seeds for the next planting season.

Victory for Farmers

In a decisive victory for food sovereignty and climate justice, the High Court on November 27, 2025, ruled in favor of smallholder farmers, declaring punitive sections of the Seed and Plant Varieties Act unconstitutional.

The judgment effectively decriminalizes the age-old practice of saving, sharing, and exchanging indigenous seeds, affirming that Farmer-Managed Seed Systems (FMSS) are a protected right, not a criminal activity.

Under the punitive law, farmers faced jail terms of up to two years and a fine of 1 million shillings (about 7,800 USD) for selling or exchanging unregistered seeds.

Farmer rights defenders had argued that the law gave control of the country’s food system to multinational corporations.

In her judgment, Justice Rhoda Rutto declared unconstitutional sections of the Act that gave seed inspectors sweeping powers to raid seed banks and seize seeds meant for the next harvest, made it illegal for farmers to process or sell seeds unless they were registered seed merchants, gave extensive proprietary rights to plant breeders and none to farmers, and made it illegal for farmers to save or share seeds from their harvest without prior knowledge of seed proprietors.

Samuel Wathome, a smallholder farmer who was a petitioner in the case, says that “just like his grandmother did, he can now freely save seeds for his grandchildren without fear of police or prison.”

According to Elizabeth Atieno, a Food Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, the court ruling affirmed the long-known tradition of seed sovereignty.

“The court ruling removed shackles from Kenya’s farmers.  This is not just a legal win; it is a victory for our culture, our resilience, and our future,” Atieno told IPS.

She added, “By validating indigenous seeds, the court has struck a blow against the corporate capture of our food system. We can finally say that in Kenya, feeding your community with climate-resilient, locally adapted seeds is no longer a crime.”

Protecting Biodiversity

According to Gideon Muya, Programs Officer, Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya, the judgment is a shield for the country’s biodiversity.

“Indigenous seeds are the library of life because they hold the genetic diversity we need to withstand droughts, pests, and a changing climate. The court has recognized that you cannot patent nature’s heritage. We have reclaimed the right to choose what we plant and what we eat, free from the coercion of commercial seed monopolies,” Muya told IPS.

Claire Nasike, an agroecologist, noted that the judgment indicates that the seed is life, and it is sovereign, and whoever controls it influences the lifeline of a generation.

Nasike observes that the ruling is a big boost for biodiversity, climate resilience and food sovereignty since indigenous seeds tend to be well adapted to local conditions like soil types, rainfall patterns, pests and disease traits that are often lost in uniform, certified commercial seeds.

“By enabling farmers to save, exchange and diversify their seed stock, communities can preserve genetic diversity, a key buffer against climate shocks like droughts and pests, as well as a safeguard for long-term food security.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

My Niece Was Killed Amid Mexico’s Land Conflicts. The World Must Hold Corporations Accountable

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

My Niece was Killed Amid Mexico’s Land Conflicts.

Claudia Ignacio Álvarez in San Lorenzo de Azqueltan, Jalisco, Mexico. Credit : Eber Huitzil

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

  Source

Refugees Forced to Fill Gaps as Funding, Power and Legal Recognition Move Out of Reach

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Africa, Armed Conflicts, Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Disaster Management, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Middle East & North Africa, Migration & Refugees, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Migration & Refugees

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.

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

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

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

  Source