Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!
Who funds the system, who sets its priorities, and who remains excluded from decision-making. Explores the redistribution of power in a multipolar humanitarian landscape.
Shrinking aid budgets, donor fatigue, debt crises, and geopolitical competition are straining the legitimacy and sustainability of existing humanitarian financing models. While many Global South countries now shoulder more of their own healthcare financing, decision-making power still concentrates among external donors and institutions — and humanitarian priorities are increasingly shaped by political visibility and alliance rather than equitable need. The panel asks why wealthier Global South economies (Gulf states, India, China, Singapore) remain only partly integrated into traditional humanitarian governance, and whether that reflects a deliberate choice to avoid systems still seen as Western-led and politically selective. At stake is not just who funds the system, but who has a seat at the table in setting its priorities, and what future architecture — of sovereignty, financing, and governance — should replace it.
Women sustain health and humanitarian systems globally, yet remain structurally excluded from leadership. Examines the political economy of care work and the feminisation of humanitarian labor
Health and humanitarian systems run on women’s labor — as doctors, nurses, community health workers, and unpaid caregivers — yet women remain structurally excluded from leadership and decision-making. Their work is routinely framed as service or sacrifice rather than skilled, political labor: India’s ASHA workers, for instance, became indispensable during COVID-19 while remaining underpaid and institutionally unrecognized. Barriers to education and public participation, as in Afghanistan, compound the problem by weakening the long-term resilience of the systems women are relied on to sustain. The panel examines the political economy of care work and asks not just who provides care, but who defines humanitarian priorities, whose expertise counts, and what more equitable models of leadership and labor could look like.
IP regimes, technology transfer, regional manufacturing, and equitable access. What cooperation is still possible in a fragmented world?
COVID-19 exposed how dependent global health remains on unequal supply chains and concentrated pharmaceutical manufacturing — making clear that access to medicines, diagnostics, and vaccines is a political choice as much as a scientific one. This has pushed health sovereignty to the center of global health debates, understood not as national self-sufficiency but as the capacity to cooperate, share knowledge, and build regional manufacturing while staying connected to global research and solidarity. Traditional South–South solidarity, rooted in postcolonial struggle, is itself being reassessed amid new economic competition and shifting alliances. In partnership with the MSF Access Campaign, the panel will examine intellectual property, technology transfer, regional manufacturing, and what forms of international cooperation can still support resilient, equitable health systems without tipping into isolation.