Global Voices
중도
기타
Ugandan activists make the case for ecofeminism
In this edition of Undertones, we explore a narrative calling for women to play a central role in climate-related decision-making in Uganda.
🌐 국제기구 · "PLAY" · 총 12건
필터 보기현재 지수
50.0
0 = 부정 우세
50 = 중립
100 = 긍정 우세
최근 7일 기준 5,456건을 분석한 결과, 뉴스 심리지수는 50.0(균형)입니다. 긍정 0건(0.0%)·중립 5,456건(100.0%)·부정 0건(0.0%)이며, 중립 비중이 뚜렷하게 높습니다. 성향 지수는 종합 0.0(중도 균형)입니다.
In this edition of Undertones, we explore a narrative calling for women to play a central role in climate-related decision-making in Uganda.
Countries: Lithuania, Ukraine Sources: International Organization for Migration, UN High Commissioner for Refugees Please refer to the attached file. Background Between 24 February 2022 and October 2025, over 5.7 million individuals are estimated to have fled Ukraine due to the ongoing war.¹ Of these, more than 101,000 have entered the Republic of Lithuania (hereafter referred to as Lithuania). At the time of writing of this report, more than 51,000 individuals held valid temporary residence permits pursuant to the temporary protection mechanism.² This remains the largest arrival of refugees recorded in Lithuania's history. The population that has settled in the country primarily consists of women (47%) and children (31%), along with elderly individuals (13%) and persons with disabilities (6%)—groups that often face heightened risks and require targeted support and services.³ Given the continued instability in Ukraine, it is anticipated that displacement will continue in 2026, with new arrivals seeking refuge in Lithuania and joining those already residing in the country. Lithuania has demonstrated a strong and sustained commitment to welcoming and assisting refugees fleeing Ukraine since 2022. The Ministry of Social Security and Labour leads the national coordination of the refugee response, while municipalities and civil society organizations play active roles in providing direct support and services. This collective effort— driven by government institutions, civil society, and local communities—reflects a comprehensive whole- of-society strategy aimed at ensuring protection and inclusion. Despite these coordinated efforts and the availability of tailored support for individuals with specific needs, many refugees continue to face barriers that limit their ability to fully sustain themselves and support their families. The 2025-2026 Regional Refugee Response Plan (RRP) builds on previous iterations by providing targeted, practical support to host countries. It further aims to ensure groups such as older people, children, people with disabilities and survivors of gender-based violence are receiving specialized assistance to address their needs, and that they are not left behind as the response shifts towards sustainability. To support a coordinated and effective response, access to comprehensive data is crucial for the design, delivery, and assessment of assistance programmes. In this regard, UNHCR Lithuania, working in collaboration with IOM and Lithuanian Red Cross, as well as other key actors engaged in the refugee response within Lithuania, carried out the 2025 Lithuania Socio-Economic Insights Survey (SEIS). The SEIS is a collaborative, inter-agency initiative designed to identify the most urgent needs of refugees coming from Ukraine across key sectors, including protection, health, education, accommodation, and livelihoods. It aligns with the objectives of the Regional Refugee Response Plan (RRP) for the Ukrainian refugee situation5 and specifically supports Lithuania's inter-agency RRP, led by UNHCR. SEIS serves as a source of important and comprehensive data for service providers. The 2025 SEIS in Lithuania was coordinated by UNHCR and developed through a collaborative effort, including with focal points from government, humanitarian actors and civil society, to ensure the survey maintained a multi-sectoral and inter-agency approach. Drawing on their specific expertise, each actor contributed to the design phase of the 2025 SEIS. The process included consultations at a round table event bringing together the key stakeholders involved in the refugee response. This final report serves as a strategic tool to guide humanitarian interventions in Lithuania throughout 2026 and beyond, informing the work of partners and stakeholders. It supports a more targeted and prioritized response and reflects the Grand Bargain commitments6 to improved harmonization and coordination of assessment efforts.
Country: Ukraine Sources: Voluntas, World Food Programme Please refer to the attached file. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background As Ukraine enters the fifth year of the full-scale invasion, the country remains heavily affected y ongoing hostilities. As of early 2025, 3.7 million people remain internally displaced, 6.9 million are refugees abroad, and over 40,838 civilian casualties have been recorded.1 The impact is most severe in frontline oblasts such as Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Sumy, and Zaporizhzhia.2 Continued displacement has deepened poverty, strained social protection systems, and disrupted livelihoods; particularly in rural and conflict-affected areas, where unemployment remains high.3 Social transfers, including pensions and targeted assistance to displaced people, have played a crucial role in preventing further hardship, but coverage may not be reaching hard-to-reach groups such as people without documentation, and hidden groups like Roma communities, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and people living with HIV/AIDS, or men avoiding military conscription.4 The psychological toll of the prolonged conflict is also g owing, with 63 percent of households reporting mental health challenges related to ongoing uncertainty and displacement.5 According to Ukraine’s 2025 Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan, 12.7 million people in Ukraine are in need of assistance. Among them, 45 percent are women, 30 percent are older people (60+ years old), 15 percent are children, and 14 percent have disabilities. Within this context, the humanitarian aid landscape is shifting due to funding constraints and a gradual transition from emergency relief to resilience-building efforts 7 Emergency assistance is increasingly concentrated in frontline and war-affected oblasts, while support in cent al and western Ukraine is being scaled back as international organizations shift their strategies away from short-term emergency aid toward resilience- and development-oriented programming in areas perceived as more stable.8 However, humanitarian actors have raised concerns that this shift may create gaps in assistance for vulnerable populations who continue to depend on support in these more stable areas where aid is being scaled back. As operations become more localized, humanitarian actors have also expressed concerns about the capacity of Ukraine’s social security system to take over responsibilities currently handled by international organizations . This is largely due to budget pressures, a shortage of qualified personnel, particularly in social services, and the destruction of essential facilities caused by missile strikes.9 Concerns have also been raised about the long-term sustainability of aid delivery, particularly as the war drags on and humanitarian needs continue to grow. Local organizations also worry that cross-cutting aspects of humanitarian work – such as gender equality, accountability to affected people, the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse, and disability inclusion – may be deprioritized amid international funding cuts, due to limited capacity and competing government priorities. As Ukraine navigates these ongoing challenges, a balanced approach between emergency response and long-term resilience-building is essential to ensure that basic needs are met, social tensions between recipients and non-recipients of aid are minimized, and economic recovery is supported.
Country: World Source: ELRHA What if the most powerful indicator in humanitarian response was also the most neglected? When crises unfold, we count displacement, malnutrition, and funding gaps. But months later, one question often remains unanswered - how many people died? That omission matters - because mortality data changes decisions. As the UK Humanitarian Innovation Hub (UKHIH) and Elrha close Phase 2 of our Mortality Estimation in Humanitarian Crises Systems Innovation Partnership, this blog marks the beginning of a series exploring why mortality estimation matters, and how grantees are innovating so the humanitarian system can do it better. Mortality: the metric that changes the conversation Credible and timely mortality figures change conversations and decisions. As Chris Porter from FCDO put it during a 2025 panel discussion: "We often debate malnutrition rates, but deaths stop people in their tracks." Mortality metrics capture crisis severity, scale, and urgency in a way few other indicators can. Mortality data used to be central to humanitarian assessments. Over time, however, it slipped to the margins - seen as too sensitive, too political, too technically complex, or too slow to be useful. The result is a paradox: the metric that best reflects human cost in crises is often missing from decision-making altogether. Why mortality evidence is so hard - and essential Estimating mortality in crises is undeniably challenging. Data is incomplete. Access is constrained. Methods vary. Numbers can be contested or suppressed, particularly in politically charged settings. Different approaches can produce vastly different estimates, eroding trust and confidence. But the cost of not measuring mortality is higher. Without credible mortality evidence the true scale of crises is underestimated; resources are allocated reactively rather than strategically; accountability weakens and advocacy relies on anecdote instead of evidence. Mortality estimation is not just a technical exercise. It is a moral and operational necessity. From reactive funding toward systems change UKHIH-Elrha’s current investments are built on a longer history of mortality-driven action. Funding followed mortality research in Somalia that helped trigger an unusual and early UN intervention in a subsequent developing famine in 2016. That response was not driven by malnutrition figures, but by mortality data. It was rare. And it worked. Recently completed research established that mortality in southern Chad was far higher than humanitarian actors had assumed, with large segments of the affected population missed entirely. This evidence forced uncomfortable reassessments, but also opened pathways to identify deaths that would otherwise have remained uncounted. Those efforts demonstrated what's possible when rigorous methods are applied under pressure. They informed response discussions, shaped advocacy, and challenged assumptions in decision-making. But they also highlight a deeper issue: Mortality estimation has been treated as an emergency add-on rather than a standing capability in crises contexts. UKHIH’s first investment in mortality estimation proved decisive in a politically charged context. Rigorous work helped establish the credibility of mortality estimates from Gaza when official figures were being publicly dismissed. This evidence made it far harder for governments and global institutions to ignore the scale of civilian death, cutting through political pressure and reaffirming the role of independent science. Building on this work, UKHIH launched the Systems Innovation Partnership in 2024 to move beyond isolated projects and towards a durable ecosystem for mortality estimation. One rooted in equitable partnerships, shared infrastructure, and long-term investment, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. What progress looks like in practice UKHIH-Elrha is currently the only dedicated funder focused specifically on mortality estimation in humanitarian crises. Across Phases 1 and 2, we've seen tangible signs of change: Stronger methods, including improved modelling approaches and shared tools and resources like the Somalia Mortality Estimation Data Observatory (S-MED) Deeper learning, through case studies examining how mortality evidence has influenced - or failed to influence - responses in crises More equitable leadership, with LMIC-based partners SIMAD Institute for Global Health (Somalia) and Evidence for Change (Kenya) playing central roles in phases 1 and 2, scaling up partnering in phase 2 with Addis Ababa University, Mekelle University (Ethiopia) and Rebuild Hope for Africa (DRC) among others. Broader dialogue, bringing together researchers, humanitarians, policymakers, and funders to tackle the "last mile" problem of uptake and use Co-funding, for longer-term, strategic investment that builds synergies and amplifies impact across the system with European Commission Humanitarian Aid (ECHO). What this blog series will cover This blog marks the start of a weekly series showcasing the Phase 2 consortia pushing this agenda forward. IMPACT Initiatives are exploring locally led mortality estimation in Somalia, Ethiopia, and the DRC, highlighting what it takes to shift ownership and trust. Johns Hopkins University is focusing on methodological innovation in DRC, alongside practical guidance for local decision-makers on when and how mortality estimates can be generated and used. Save the Children International is developing a governance mechanism among Strategic, Technical and National Stakeholders and building an online platform making guidance, tools, and technical support accessible and equitable across the sector. Together, these consortia address not just how to count deaths, but how to ensure mortality evidence shapes response. Counting deaths to save lives Mortality evidence can't be optional because uncounted deaths represent a failure of accountability, a gap in our understanding, and a missed opportunity to prevent more. When we don’t count deaths, we're not avoiding difficult conversations - we're having them anyway, just without evidence The UKHIH-Elrha partnerships show we can do better. What remains is a choice: to embed mortality estimation as a non-negotiable part of crisis response, or to continue operating in the dark about the very metric that matters most.
Countries: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia Source: ELRHA In the first blog introducing this series, Adrienne Testa, from the UK Humanitarian Innovation Hub and Elrha discussed how fundamental it is to measure excess mortality if response actors want to understand the severity of a humanitarian crisis and guide aid prioritisation. In our second blog we focus on the work of a consortium led by IMPACT Initiatives. This consortium is drawing attention to the roles that national and local actors play in mortality data collection and use by decision-makers and what is needed to design more localised mortality estimation systems in humanitarian contexts. The structural barriers we need to talk about Many of the challenges for local and national actors to collect mortality data and inform responses are well known, but poorly documented. They have fewer opportunities for technical training; face inequitable access to financial resources for activities; and structural barriers limit their representation in coordination forums where decision-making occurs about whether mortality data should be collected, who collects it, and what findings can mean. Meanwhile, international actors frequently have a seat at the table, and therefore control the narrative, deciding what data matters and how it will shape response priorities. Yet, local and national actors – including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), universities, and public health institutes – are often ideally placed to collect mortality estimates and inform response decisions. They have established connections and access to affected communities and contextual understanding of how to appropriately and effectively operate. They understand political sensitivities and how to navigate these so that mortality estimation findings will carry legitimacy with key stakeholders and decision-makers. Crucially, locally-led mortality estimation initiatives challenge long-standing power imbalances associated with colonial, top-down approaches to humanitarian assistance. Recognising this, three partners in our consortium, Evidence for Change, London School of Tropical Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and SIMAD University, were funded by the Humanitarian Innovation Hub in 2024-25 to imagine what an ideal mechanism might look like to systematically trigger mortality data collection for accountable decision-making in crises. Consultation with global humanitarian stakeholders confirmed: If we want better mortality data, we must widen the pool of people able to generate it. This starts with investing in and strengthening the capacities of local actors. Funding local actors’ priorities and strengthening capacities With follow-on funding from UKHIH-Elrha in 2025-26, our consortium expanded. We teamed up with IMPACT Initiatives along with their partners at Addis Ababa and Mekelle Universities in Ethiopia and World Needs and Help, an NGO in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Together, we’re working to better understand real-world opportunities and obstacles faced by national actors when implementing mortality estimation activities. Our goal is to use this evidence to strengthen advocacy for approaches that support and prioritise local actors in this vital work. Rather than imposing a predefined research plan, each national partner has selected, tailored and implemented a mortality estimation activity to their context. Our consortium operates a ‘help desk’ to foster peer-learning and strengthen capacities across contexts. Activities include: Somalia: New approaches in a fragmented landscape Our previous work in Somalia demonstrated the effectiveness of well-designed data collection exercises to influence humanitarian decision-making - when findings were communicated - in a timely fashion and to the right people. However, we also saw how fragmented the current data landscape is, with mortality data not always collaboratively shared between institutions, and major gaps in mortality data coverage, particularly in areas outside government control. SIMAD University is therefore running a qualitative study with community burial attendants in hard-to-reach areas of Somalia, exploring what would be needed for this to become a feasible and acceptable mechanism of mortality reporting to bridge data gaps. Drawing on a nutrition and mortality surveillance system originally developed in the NGO sector, Evidence for Change is training female health workers to collect mortality data within a large-scale community-based government programme. Ethiopia: Regional partnerships for regional aid prioritisation Previously, universities across Ethiopia ran demographic surveillance sites in their local areas, with mortality and other data flowing to government authorities. Conflict dismantled many of these surveillance programmes. Addis Ababa and Mekelle Universities, which previously ran surveillance sites, are now partnering with regional health authorities in drought-affected Somali region and conflict-hit Tigray to conduct mortality surveys to help guide regional aid prioritisation. Mekelle University is also including a verbal autopsy component to describe the causes of death, something regional authorities found particularly valuable about the pre-war surveillance system because it helped them monitor the health of populations. Democratic Republic of Congo: Navigating insecurity and mistrust Engagements with both formal and informal authorities in eastern Congo can create tension or mistrust, complicating operational permissions and community access. Nevertheless, World Needs and Help is initiating a mortality survey in a conflict‑affected North Kivu region, to document the human toll of ongoing violence and displacement. While the organisation has no prior experience in mortality estimation, our consortium helped them expand their technical skillset. Their experience supporting needs assessments among various partners across the east means they are well positioned to navigate the complex challenges to ensure mortality estimation is possible. Alongside these activities, we are documenting how teams have approached the process, keeping a close eye on context. We are building on social science methodological approaches we developed in phase 1 to help us understand how politics, institutional identities and other evolving challenges shape the ways mortality actors work. Equitable and sustainable systems change None of these challenges have quick fixes. Building an equitable and sustainable approach to mortality estimation will require the concerted efforts of many stakeholders, working together to drive change. Our own consortium is part of that broader momentum. By documenting barriers and testing solutions today, our hope is to inform the strategy that will address these challenges tomorrow, supporting UKHIH’s drive for true systems innovation in humanitarian action.
Countries: World, United Republic of Tanzania Source: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies At a school on the Unguja Island, part of the Tanzanian archipelago known as Zanzibar, volunteers from the Tanzania Red Cross Society explain to a classroom full of students how to protect themselves from the dangers of extreme heat. The volunteers’ efforts were part of a larger heatwave awareness campaign in early 2026, led by the Tanzanian Red Cross, that has reached more than 4,000 people in schools, madrasas, markets, and communities around the island. This is just one of many ways Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies around the world regularly work to protect people from the dangers of extreme heat – including the very particular dangers of indoor heat. Why focus on indoor heat? When thinking about or preparing for heatwaves, people often think of blistering days outside in the hot sun. But people living or working indoors, in uncooled or poorly ventilated spaces, can sometimes be at even greater risk of heat stroke, dehydration and other heat-related risks. Those most susceptible to rising body temperatures — children and the elderly — are particularly vulnerable and, often, they must spend long periods of the day inside. These are some of the reasons Heat Action Day 2026 focuses on ‘indoor heat’ — putting the spotlight on the health risks people face inside their homes, schools, workplaces, care facilities, transport hubs, prisons and even public vechiles such as busses and taxis. (Learn more about how to #BeatTheHeat and about how to take part in Heat Action Day 2026.) This threat is nothing new to Red Cross and Red Crescent volunteers who often go door-to-door during heatwaves, visiting people who live in densely populated urban neighborhoods, work in poorly insulated industrial areas, or live in camps for people displaced by emergencies. Very often, such facilities or temporary shelters lack insulation or access to energy or water sources that can help keep people cool. Building materials, design characteristics, and urban heat island all play a role in determining indoor temperatures. Rising risks Without respite and access to cooling, high day- and night-time indoor temperatures pose significant health risks, particularly for older people and those with pre-existing medical conditions. Beyond heat stroke, high temperatures can have a wide range of health effects. According to a 2020 study, for example, high indoor temperatures affect multiple aspects of human health, with the strongest evidence for respiratory health, diabetes management and core schizophrenia and dementia symptoms, according to one 2020 study. Other studies show that prolonged exposure to high indoor temperatures is also responsible for sleep disturbances, cognitive impairment of workers, reduced learning uptake in students, and domestic violence. More research needs to be done, however, so policy makers, urban planners and architects can better understand how to reduce extreme urban heat. At the same time, building standards and indoor heat policies need urgent updates. In many places, indoor heat standards do not exist, or they overlook vulnerable populations and climate projections. The good news is that it is possible to improve the way buildings and public spaces are designed and constructed to better protect people living and working indoors. Meanwhile, more governments, agencies and communities are taking action. For example: painting roofs white, keeping windows covered during the hottest times of day, and using passive cooling at night when temperatures outside cool down. There are also many low-cost actions one can take to cool the body: a cool shower, submerging feet in cool water, self-dousing with water, using an evaporative cooler or misting fan, ingesting cold water, wearing clothing made from natural fibres, and sleeping with a wet sheet, among other measures. As part of its 2026 Heat Action Day activation, the IFRC also encourages people to proactively reach out to support the elderly and chronically ill during times of extreme heat, especially those with limited mobility who may need help getting to a cooler space. How can you take part in Heat Action Day? As the organization that created Heat Action Day, the IFRC each year encourages more and more activities to raise awareness and encourage people to take concrete action to prevent heat related illness and death. Whether you're sharing life-saving tips on social media or organizing a community event, there are many ways to get involved and help #BeatTheHeat. Learn more here and register to participate and create your own Heat Action Day event or activity
Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo Source: Direct Relief A clinical pharmacist and Direct Relief’s regional director for Africa, Dr. Samuel talks about the current Ebola outbreak, how it's different than past events, and how it can be contained. By Talya Meyers When the first cases of Ebola virus were announced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo this month, Dr. Jeffrey Samuel, traveling in East Africa, read about it on the Direct Relief website. Dr. Samuel, a clinical pharmacist and Direct Relief’s regional director for Africa, was visiting hospital partners in Uganda at the time the country’s first cases were being identified and contained. “We were already engaging with and supporting partners in Uganda through routine medical shipments and other ongoing support,” he explained. “That work was not Ebola-specific, but it reflects the kind of sustained support health systems need before, during, and after an emergency.” Direct Relief also dispatched $2.5 million in emergency medical support to the DRC, the epicenter of the outbreak, to support Ebola containment and treatment. But Dr. Samuel stressed that routine support can’t be disentangled from emergency response. Both are vital to containing an Ebola outbreak or similar public health emergency, and to helping affected communities respond and recover. “Ebola response is about much more than Ebola alone,” he said. “Stronger health systems allow countries to continue delivering essential healthcare services even while responding to an emergency.” Direct Relief: So many people are unfamiliar with Ebola, and it’s frightening. Can you give us some background? How does Ebola spread, what are the symptoms, and how do people stay safe? Jeffrey Samuel: Yeah, absolutely. Ebola is a severe viral disease: It primarily spreads through direct contact with body fluids from someone who is either sick with the disease or has died from it. That includes blood, vomit, diarrhea, urine, saliva, sweat, and other types of bodily fluids like that. It can also spread through contaminated medical equipment, unsafe burial practices, or direct contact with the body of someone who has died from the disease. One important thing I always emphasize with Ebola is that it’s not airborne, like measles or Covid-19. You can’t get Ebola simply by walking past someone. That’s why healthcare workers, the families that take care of these patients, and the people involved in different burial practices are often at the highest risk. Ebola typically starts with non-specific symptoms: stuff like fever, fatigue, muscle aches, headaches, and weakness. It can look like malaria, typhoid and other infectious diseases common in the region, so it’s hard to distinguish at the outset. It’s not until the disease starts to progress that many patients start developing vomiting, diarrhea, and dehydration. Their organs start to fail, and in some cases, patients can experience hemorrhaging in the later stages of illness. The incubation period, which means the time between when a person is exposed to when the symptoms begin, is usually between 2 and 21 days. That’s a very large range, which does not help [with diagnosis and containment] either. Direct Relief: How dangerous is this outbreak? Jeffrey Samuel: Historically, Ebola has been extremely deadly. Fatality rates typically depend on the strain involved, how quickly the outbreak is detected, and the strength of the healthcare system responding to it. Most people are familiar with the Zaire virus, which caused the large Ebola outbreaks from 2014 to 2016 in West Africa. Those outbreaks often had fatality rates around 50 to 70 percent, which is extremely high. The Bundibugyo virus, which is the one that’s causing the current outbreak, has historically had somewhat lower fatality rates – generally around 25 to 50 percent. But that’s still a very serious and potentially fatal disease. Direct Relief: How is Ebola prevented and treated? Jeffrey Samuel: In terms of prevention, the most important measures are early identification of cases, isolation of those suspected cases, infection prevention and control – in other words, good hand hygiene and personal protective equipment – contact tracing of people those patients have been in contact with recently, and safe burial procedures. You need strong community engagement and trust. That’s a big [issue] specifically with this outbreak. There have been reports of Ebola treatment units being attacked and set on fire, which shows how difficult containment becomes when fear, grief, and mistrust are present. Right now, the treatment is supportive care. That includes IV fluids, electrolyte replacement, oxygen support, treatment of secondary infections, management of blood pressure, providing the right nutritional support, and very careful monitoring. These supportive care measures can really improve survival in a massive way. For us at Direct Relief, focusing on supporting these areas is top priority. Direct Relief: Can you talk about the difference between treating the Zaire and Bundibugyo strains? Jeffrey Samuel: Absolutely. The biggest practical difference is that this current outbreak is being caused by the Bundibugyo virus, while the 2014 to 2016 West Africa outbreak was caused by the Zaire Ebola virus. That distinction matters because all of the approved vaccines and monoclonal antibody treatments that were developed over the past decade were specifically designed for the Zaire Ebola virus. But it’s important to remember that during that outbreak, these tools were not widely available. In fact, that outbreak is what accelerated [Ebola] vaccine and therapeutic development globally. Researchers are now working on similar tools for the Bundibugyo virus as well. In the meantime, the public health response principles remain largely the same. It’s really surveillance, monitoring, contact tracing, infection prevention and control, supportive care, and community engagement. Direct Relief: Why did this outbreak take so long to surface? Jeffrey Samuel: One of the biggest challenges is that early symptoms of Ebola look very similar to many other diseases common in the region. A patient with fever, vomiting, fatigue, or diarrhea may initially be suspected of having malaria, cholera, typhoid, or another common illness. In many outbreaks, the alarm bells only begin once healthcare workers become infected, or if there’s a cluster of unexplained deaths that appear, or if the laboratory testing confirms something unusual. This outbreak is also occurring in an incredibly complex environment. The eastern DRC has faced years of conflict, displacement, insecurity, and strain on the healthcare system. Insecurity can delay surveillance teams from reaching the affected areas. It can limit testing capacity, disrupt transport, and make it harder to trace contacts effectively. There are also trust issues that can emerge during outbreaks. In some communities, people may fear isolation centers or avoid seeking care because they worry about stigma or separation from family members. And because the Bundibugyo virus is relatively uncommon compared to the Zaire Ebola virus, it may not have been the first thing clinicians initially suspected when they were seeing these cases. Direct Relief: Is this going to spread much further? What happens if it does? Jeffrey Samuel: Yes, there’s certainly a risk of further regional spread, which is why neighboring countries have implemented stricter border controls, enhanced surveillance, and other preparedness measures. Rwanda, for example, temporarily closed key border crossings with the DRC. And in the U.S., travelers who have recently visited the DRC, Uganda, or South Sudan are being routed through designated airports for enhanced public health screening. The biggest danger is that outbreaks can overwhelm fragile health systems and healthcare facilities. They can reduce routine care access. They can increase infections in healthcare workers, and interrupt normal services like maternal and child health or vaccination programs. Ebola really creates broader humanitarian impacts, and in settings already affected by conflict or displacement, the response becomes even more difficult. A lot of measures have been put in place to try to prevent it from spreading further regionally. But that doesn’t negate the impact that’s happening on the ground right now. Direct Relief: During the West Africa outbreak, Americans were diagnosed with Ebola – it’s happened during this event too – and they had much better survival rates than the West African people who got sick. Why is that? Jeffrey Samuel: It’s important to state clearly that the differences in outcomes were not biological. They were largely about access to care and the strength of the surrounding healthcare system. Patients treated in highly resourced settings like the U.S. often received earlier diagnosis, intensive monitoring around the clock, aggressive fluid and electrolyte replacement. That’s a real key. They also had access to oxygen support, advanced laboratory testing, PPE, and intensive care when needed. [Note: the federal administration has announced that Americans diagnosed with Ebola during this outbreak are being routed to Kenya, not the U.S., for treatment.] In many outbreak settings, especially in places affected by conflict or displacement, it can be much harder to provide that same level of care consistently because the infrastructure and resources are often much more limited. And that can have a real impact on patient outcomes. Honestly, this is one of the broader lessons Ebola keeps exposing globally: Outbreak preparedness and health system strengthening are deeply connected. Direct Relief: Direct Relief has shipped a significant range of medical support, including PPE, cardiovascular drugs, and IV fluids, to the DRC in response to this Ebola outbreak. How did the organization decide what to send, and what role will that support play? Jeffrey Samuel: All these items play a very practical and important role in the outbreak response. PPE helps protect healthcare workers and prevent transmission inside of healthcare facilities. During Ebola outbreaks, protecting healthcare workers is critical because health worker infections can quickly weaken the overall response capacity. IV fluids are absolutely key to supportive care. Ebola patients often experience severe vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, and electrolyte loss. So a key part of treatment is being able to replace those fluids and electrolytes. Beyond Ebola-specific supplies, essential medicines like cardiovascular drugs, antibiotics, and other critical treatments help keep the broader health system functioning during an outbreak. Ebola response does not pause the rest of healthcare – patients still need care for chronic diseases, infections, pregnancy complications, and other urgent health needs. And our approach is very much partner-driven. We work directly with local partner organizations, hospitals, and in-country ministries of health to understand the actual operational and clinical needs on the ground. We also look at storage capacity, cold chain requirements, logistics, and feasibility for what we send. The strongest responses happen when that emergency support is layered onto resilient local systems. Emergency response plus long-term system strengthening go hand in hand. The goal is to support countries not only in responding to the current outbreak, but also to build stronger systems for whatever comes next.
Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo Source: World Health Organization To the people of DRC, especially to the people of Ituri Jambo kwenu wakahaji wa Ituri Mbote na bino, bato ya Ituri My name is Tedros, and I am the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO). But today, I am not writing to you as an official. I am writing to you as someone who knows your region, who has walked your streets, and who cares deeply about what happens to you and your families. I am writing because I want to be with you in these moments. And I want you to know that you are not alone. Ebola is not new to me personally. From 2018 to 2020, I came fourteen times to North Kivu, the epicentre of the outbreak at that time. Fourteen visits to Beni, Butembo, Katwa, Goma, and many other communities. During that outbreak, Ebola spread across North Kivu, South Kivu, and reached parts of Ituri as well. I was alongside families who had lost their loved ones. I met health workers risking their lives every day. I met community leaders, traditional healers, religious leaders and business leaders who refused to abandon their people. I saw men and women show extraordinary courage in the most difficult of circumstances. The people there, who saw me coming back again and again, wanted to give me a name that belonged to their community. They asked me whether I was the first, second, or third child of my parents. When I told them I was the firstborn, they gave me the name Dr. Paluku. I carry that name with pride. It is not just a name. It is a bond. It is a reminder that this work is not about titles or institutions. It is about people. It is about you. That outbreak was one of the most complex in history. It did not unfold in a stable, peaceful environment. It happened in the middle of armed conflict, with communities displaced, supply routes disrupted, and health workers operating under constant threat. People were fleeing violence while also trying to protect themselves and their families from a deadly disease. I remember being in Beni on more than one occasion while fighting was taking place on the outskirts of the city. We could hear it. And yet the health workers around me did not stop. They kept working. That kind of courage is something I will never forget. The challenges of that time are not so different from what you are facing today in Ituri. I understand that. I have seen it with my own eyes. Mistrust ran deep, and the security situation cost us precious time. Our health workers were attacked. Clinics were targeted. People who were only trying to save lives found themselves caught in the middle of a conflict they did not start. Lives were lost that we might have saved, and that weighs on me still. But I also witnessed something remarkable. When we listened, when communities felt respected and heard, things began to change. Trust grew slowly, then more quickly. People came forward. And together, we managed to contain the outbreak. We did it. The people of DRC did it. I will never forget that. Ebola is now back. This time, the outbreak is hitting Ituri province the hardest. More than 90% of all cases have been reported in Ituri province, with a small number of cases also reported in North Kivu and South Kivu. I know how frightening that is, and I know that the people of Ituri are bearing a burden that is not easy to carry. I know that many of you are exhausted. You are already carrying so much: malaria, hunger, insecurity, and the daily struggle to keep your families safe. And now Ebola. It is not fair, and I will not pretend otherwise. But I also want to say something else about Ituri, because this province deserves to be seen for more than its hardships. Ituri is a place of remarkable energy. It is a province of vibrant commerce, of entrepreneurial spirit, of communities that have refused to be defined by the conflicts around them. The markets of Bunia buzz with life. Traders, farmers, teachers, and young people building their futures against all odds. That spirit, that refusal to give up, is exactly what we need now. It is the foundation on which we will build our response. We do not come to Ituri with only medicine and expertise. We come to join a community that already knows how to fight for its survival. I want to say a special word to the young people of Ituri. You are growing up in circumstances that no young person should have to face. And yet what I see, again and again, is not despair but determination. You are the future of this province and this country. In this outbreak, you have a vital role to play. Talk to your friends and your families. Share what you know about Ebola. Help break the fear and the silence that allow this virus to spread. Your voice carries further than you know, and we need it now more than ever. And to the health workers of Ituri, I want to say this: you are seen, and you are not alone. Every day you go to work knowing the risks, and you go anyway. You do it for your patients, for your communities, for your families. You are the backbone of this response. Without you, none of this is possible. I know the conditions are hard. I know the resources are often not enough. I know that fear and exhaustion are real. Please know that WHO stands with you, that we are working to get you the support you need, and that your courage and dedication are known and deeply valued far beyond the borders of this province. I also know that the security situation in parts of this region remains very difficult. Conflict and displacement make everything harder, including reaching people who need care and keeping health workers safe. I want to be honest: this is one of our greatest challenges. We cannot do this work if those who are trying to help are prevented from doing so or put in danger. We are working closely with all relevant partners to ensure that the response can reach every community that needs it, and that no one is left behind because of where they live or what is happening around them. That is why today I am making a direct appeal to all warring parties in this region: please, declare a ceasefire. Even briefly. Even just enough to let health workers through. People are dying from Ebola who do not have to die. Children are sick. Families are suffering. No cause, no conflict, no grievance is worth condemning innocent people to death from a preventable disease. A ceasefire, even a temporary one, would save lives. I urge you, I implore you: give us the space to help the people who need it most. I also know that there is anger and mistrust in some communities, and I understand why. Trust must be earned, it cannot be assumed. We have not always done things correctly. But I promise you, we are here to learn as much as we are here to help. I need to be honest with you about something important. Most previous Ebola outbreaks in DRC were caused by a virus called Ebola Zaire, for which we have vaccines and treatments. This outbreak is caused by a different virus called Ebola Bundibugyo. There are currently no approved vaccines or treatments for it. This is serious, and you deserve to hear that plainly. But I also want you to know this: while there are no specific treatments for Bundibugyo, there is much we can do together to prevent the spread of this virus and save lives. Early supportive care in our treatment centers can make a real difference. If you or someone you know falls ill, please do not wait. Coming forward early can make the difference between life and death. And everything we do, we will do with you. We will listen to you, we will share information with you, and we are here to help. And for those we cannot save, we will mourn with you. We will help you grieve your lost loved ones with safe and dignified burials. We are working under the leadership of the Government of DRC, together with all relevant partners, united around one goal: to stop this outbreak and protect your communities. No one is working alone. No one is working at cross purposes. We are coordinated, we are committed, and we are here. That is why I am coming to Bunia. I will be there in person, alongside my colleagues, meeting your leaders, listening to your concerns, and doing everything in my power to help you. I will not be managing this from a comfortable office far away. This is the 17th Ebola outbreak in DRC. Together, you have overcome every single one before. That is not a small thing. That is a testament to the strength and resilience of your communities. I have seen that strength with my own eyes. My brothers and sisters of Ituri, I want you to know that the world is watching your courage. You are not forgotten. Together, we will overcome this outbreak, as you have overcome every challenge before. Your resilience is the light that guides us all. We will get through this one too. Not because of anyone, but because of you. Our teams are already on the ground, and they will stay for as long as necessary. And when this outbreak is over, we will not quietly disappear. We will not forget you. We will stay, and we will keep working with you to build health systems that protect every person in every community. I look forward to seeing you in Bunia soon. Until then, please know that you are in my thoughts. With respect and solidarity, Paluku Tedros Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Director-General, World Health Organization
Country: World Source: Oxfam Please refer to the attached file. Humanitarian diplomacy is gaining renewed prominence within the European Union (EU) and among its Member States, with new policy initiatives and strategies aimed at strengthening the protection of civilians and promoting compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL). However, this momentum risks remaining largely rhetorical unless it is fundamentally reoriented toward tangible protection outcomes, meaningful engagement with conflict-affected communities, and accountability for violations. Today’s conflicts - characterised by rising geopolitical tensions, weakened multilateralism, and persistent impunity - underscore the urgent need to rethink humanitarian diplomacy. Across contexts such as Sudan, Gaza, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lebanon, and Ukraine, civilians continue to face grave violations of IHL with limited consequences for perpetrators. This has eroded trust in international tools and mechanisms, while at the EU level it has raised serious questions about the credibility and consistency of its action and that of its Member States. This briefing argues that humanitarian diplomacy must be re-imagined as community-driven and justice-oriented. Rather than focusing primarily on access negotiations or diplomatic processes, it should prioritise the rights, safety and dignity of people affected by conflict and guarantee their protection. This requires a shift from top-down, state-centric approaches to models that recognise and empower local actors as central agents of diplomacy. Community leaders, civil society organisations, and local networks already play a critical role in negotiating access, mediating tensions, and protecting civilians - often with greater legitimacy and effectiveness than international actors. matic efforts are informed by realities on the ground. The report concludes with key recommendations to the EU and EU Member States.
Country: South Africa Source: Government of South Africa Minister Steenhuisen calls on provinces to speed up vaccinations as millions more foot and mouth disease vaccines arrive The Minister of Agriculture, John Steenhuisen, has announced that the first batch of a 3.5 million dose consignment of Biogénesis Bagó Foot and mouth disease (FMD) vaccines arrived on Sunday, and has called on all provincial departments to ensure their top priority for the next few weeks must be to vaccinate as many animals as quickly as possible. The remainder of this record-breaking shipment from Argentina is already en route and expected to arrive during the course of the week. “This is the largest single consignment of FMD vaccines ever imported into South Africa. Provinces must now move with speed and urgency to scale up frontline vaccination efforts and protect our national herd of approximately 14 million cattle,” said Minister Steenhuisen. With the arrival of the 3.5 million doses, South Africa will have successfully secured and imported a total of 13.5 million vaccine doses before the end of May 2026. This forms part of the Department of Agriculture’s wider strategy to achieve and maintain “FMD free with vaccination” status, while safeguarding rural livelihoods, food security and agricultural exports. To maintain the pace and effectiveness of the campaign, the department is already fully prepared to facilitate the importation of follow-up consignments required for the critical booster vaccination programme. This will ensure that second-round vaccinations can be administered within the required timelines to establish durable immunity across the national herd. “The acquisition of 13.5 million doses in just four months demonstrates the seriousness with which we are confronting this disease,” Minister Steenhuisen said. “If we maintain this disciplined and aggressive trajectory, and ensure these vaccines are administered rapidly and effectively, we can ensure that South Africa never again experiences outbreaks on this scale. But government cannot do this alone. Every livestock owner has a responsibility to protect their animals through strict biosecurity measures, compliance with movement controls, and full participation in vaccination and identification programmes.” The Minister emphasised that defeating FMD requires a unified national effort across government, industry and farming communities. “This is a moment that demands partnership and collective action. Commercial farmers, communal farmers, veterinarians, industry bodies and government all have a role to play if we are to defeat this disease and secure the future of our livestock sector. “The stakes could not be higher. This is about protecting jobs, defending rural economies, safeguarding food security, and protecting the national interest,” Minister Steenhuisen said. To support the accelerated vaccination campaign, more Animal Health Technicians will be appointed and deployed across affected provinces to strengthen frontline operations and expand vaccination capacity. For media enquiries, please contact: Ms Joylene van Wyk Director: Media Liaison Ministry of Agriculture Email: joylenev@nda.gov.zaor medialiaison@nda.agric.za Cell: 083 292 7399 or 063 298 5661 Toll-Free FMD Support Line: 0860 246 640 Email: FMDcommandcent@nda.gov.za FMD WhatsApp Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vags5R83gvWWZOhk9946 FMD Reporting System: fmd.nda.gov.za #ServiceDeliveryZA
Countries: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda Source: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Please refer to the attached file. On 15 May, the Institut National de Recherche Biomédicale (INRB) Kinshasa confirmed an outbreak of the Ebola virus in Ituri Province, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The virus, reported to have originated from the Mongbwalu, Bunia, and Rwampara health zones of Ituri province, has been confirmed as the Bundibugyo Virus Disease (BVD), a severe and often fatal strain. As of 19 May, more than 500 suspected cases, including 130 suspected deaths, have been reported by the Ministry of Health. So far, 33 cases have been confirmed in the DRC. The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), due to the risk of further spread within the region, including across borders. Unlike previous outbreaks caused by the Zaire strain, this Bundibugyo strain does not currently have a licensed vaccine or specific targeted treatment, making community-based measures, early detection, supportive healthcare, and prevention efforts more critical than ever. The outbreak appears to have circulated for several weeks (with the first known case dated 24 April 2026) prior to confirmation as Ebola. The early presentation of cases with nonspecific febrile symptoms, common to endemic diseases such as malaria, combined with initial laboratory testing focused on the more common Zaire strain, contributed to delays in identification. As a result, transmission occurred in both community and healthcare settings before targeted control measures were fully implemented. Alongside multiple existing health risks in the eastern DRC, gaps in health practices may contribute to ongoing transmission of the Bundibugyo strain among communities and healthcare settings. Infection prevention and control (IPC) measures are not consistently applied, increasing the risk of transmission among health workers. The absence of an approved vaccine or specific treatment further emphasises reliance on core public health measures, including early detection, isolation, contact tracing, and supportive care, which require sustained operational capacity and resources. The outbreak comes just months after the DRC’s sixteenth Ebola outbreak in Kasai Province, which was declared over in December 2025. Authorities in Uganda have confirmed two BVD cases linked to cross-border movement from DRC into Kampala. The outbreak in Ituri Province in the DRC lies along the country’s northeastern border with Uganda, placing it in close geographic proximity to neighbouring Ugandan districts. Key affected areas in DRC, including Mongbwalu, Rwampara, and Bunia, are located within relatively short distances of the border, in some cases approximately 100-150 km, and are linked through active cross border routes. Bunia, the provincial capital, is connected to Uganda by a major road corridor of roughly 180 km, facilitating the regular movement of people and goods, while Lake Albert also provides commonly used boat crossing route. This geographic proximity, combined with high levels of cross-border mobility for trade, mining, and service access, substantially elevates the risk of cross-border transmission into Uganda. There is a heightened risk that refugee settlements in Uganda, particularly in the West Nile region, could be affected. These areas host large refugee populations from the eastern DRC and are situated close to the border, with strong social, economic, and family ties spanning both countries. Continuous population movement, already evidenced by imported cases into Uganda, combined with active trade routes, increases the likelihood of exposure. In addition, refugee settlements often face structural constraints such as overcrowding and limited health, water, and sanitation services, which could facilitate transmission if the virus is introduced. A key underlying driver of risk is high population mobility, especially along established transport corridors and informal border crossings. The movement of traders, transport workers, and mining communities between the eastern DRC and Uganda plays a significant role in potential disease spread, as mobility patterns are closely linked to early Ebola transmission dynamics. These cross‑border linkages, reinforced by routine economic activity and service access, further elevate the likelihood of transmission and underscore the need for strengthened surveillance, community engagement, and coordinated cross‑border response. South Sudan also faces a high risk of BVD importation due to its proximity to the DRC and increased cross-border movement, compounded by very high vulnerability and insecurity, with limited readiness capacity despite some baseline measures such as Safe and Dignified Burial (SDB) protocols and trained SDB teams.
Countries: World, Canary Islands (Spain), Mauritania, Morocco Source: Mixed Migration Centre Please refer to the attached file. This paper examines migrant smuggling dynamics and protection risks on irregular journeys to the Canary Islands, based on 1,216 surveys conducted with migrants and refugees in Mauritania and Spain between March and September 2025, complemented by 11 in-depth qualitative interviews. Findings document the realities of the Atlantic crossing, the diversity of smuggling arrangements, and the conditions that drive people toward irregular routes. The paper calls for protection-sensitive, route-based programming and access to regular migration pathways. Key findings: Refugees and migrants arriving in Spain were much more likely to say they left because of violence (29%) or human rights concerns (28%) compared to those in Mauritania (7%). The dangers of the journey are widely known: however, when legal pathways and meaningful future prospects are absent, these risks are weighed against the certainty of harm at home, making high-risk movement a perceived necessity rather than a reckless decision. Maritime crossings to the Canary Islands primarily embark from Morocco (41%), Mauritania (30%), and Senegal (24%). A smaller number embarked from further south: 12 from Gambia, 5 from Guinea-Bissau, and 3 from Guinea, reflecting a trend toward longer routes to bypass heightened surveillance along northern coasts. Indeed, one in three embarkations left from countries south of Mauritania. More southerly embarkation points extend the time spent at sea and increase the dangers of the Atlantic crossing. 71% of those interviewed in Spain identified at least one location as dangerous along their journey. The Atlantic crossing remains the most dangerous, with the majority (64%) fearing death during the maritime crossing; but respondents also perceived risks in other locations, with Algeria being frequently reported among those who transited the country. While 40% of those who arrived in the Canary Islands used a smuggler for a portion of the journey, 16% did not use a smuggler, highlighting the existence of “self-organised” irregular journeys in especially among fishery communities. Around half of those who had considered migrating regularly said they resorted to irregular journeys with a smuggler because of the financial barriers to regular migration, or after a visa denial. Smuggling dynamics vary along the route: smuggling networks in Senegal and Gambia appear less systematic, compared to more organized structures operating from Morocco and Mauritania. There appears to be a link between smuggler use and perceived risk: respondents who did not use a smuggler on the Atlantic more often reported the Atlantic as dangerous, suggesting that smugglers may play a risk-mitigating role in these journeys.