Nine miles south of the picturesque French city of Bordeaux, firefighters are at war with a phenomenon straight out of an apocalyptic epic. Scientists call them pyrocumulonimbus, or PyroCbs. NASA calls them the “fire-breathing dragon of clouds”.

The port capital of Nouvelle-Aquitaine, normally bustling with tourists at peak season, is instead drowned in smog, so thick residents are forced to wear the N95 and FFP2 masks many hoped would be a thing of the past as the COVID-19 pandemic subsided.

A NASA satellite passing over the burning pine forests of the south-western Gironde region last Friday showed the PyroCb driving smoke into the city’s skies was visible from orbit. Until this month, these fire systems had been recorded almost exclusively in Australia and North America.

These firestorms occur when fires burn so hot they drive columns of superheated air upward into the atmosphere until it cools at higher altitudes, generating dry storm clouds which power their own winds, and shoot lightning at the blaze below, creating a deadly loop that accelerates the intensity and spread of the inferno.

Pyrocumulonimbus cloud rises over California during the 2022 Mosquito Fire.

“This is a phenomenon that has never been observed in France – it is a historic first,” regional fire chief Marc Vermeulen said on Sunday. “It’s like a thunderstorm of fire.”

“This phenomenon will likely continue to generate lightning strikes, but also cause what the literature refers to as ‘ember attacks,’” Vermeulen added, referring to fragments of burning, incandescent wood carried by the wind during megafires, triggering new ignition points far beyond the blaze.

The dense smog has prevented authorities from knowing exactly where the storm is located, or the speed at which it is travelling, forcing mass evacuations now up to 220,000 people in a region of just 1.6 million. If the fire reaches the city, nearly every person living in the region will be forced to flee the flames.

“If the fire reaches the city of Bordeaux, it means that we have to evacuate at least one million people,” Jerome Steffe, mayor of Cestas, said on Tuesday. “We have never, never seen [this] in France. It will be the fire of the century.”

Europe on fire  

The Bordeaux storms of lightning fire are part of a wider crisis setting Europe and the world ablaze, threatening homes, economies, and killing hundreds of thousands through respiratory and cardiovascular disease.

Land burned across the WHO European Region reached 2.2 million hectares last year, up from 1.4 million in 2022, a 57% rise in four years, while Portugal and Spain have each reported more than twice as many fires this year as at the same point in 2025, the UN health agency reported this week. 

“Behind these numbers are real people and communities,” said Hans Kluge, WHO’s regional director for Europe. “Wildfires destroy homes and livelihoods, force evacuations, and place enormous pressure on emergency services and health systems. Tragically, they also claim lives.”

Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain and Germany are all fighting significant blazes, and the EU has pre-positioned the largest firefighting fleet in its history and revised its guidance for member states on preparing for wildfires.

“These are difficult hours,” Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said at a news conference Monday from Castellón, a province on Spain’s Mediterranean coast where thousands have been forced to evacuate. “This climate emergency is exceeding every threshold and scale that scientists have long warned all of Spain and Europe about.”

Americas ablaze 

Post shared by US President Donald Trump depicting a continent-wide air filter border wall.

Nearly a thousand fires are burning across Canada in one of the most intense seasons the country has recorded, pushing smoke far enough south to place more than 120 million Americans under air quality alerts in mid-July alone.

The Canadian fires prompted US President Donald Trump to pitch an idea for a new border-spanning wall, this time built from an AI-generated air filter – dubbed the ‘MERV 16 High Efficiency Particulate Air Filter’ – to stop the “invasion of smoke” crossing his nation’s northern border. 

“The United States is being unnecessarily invaded by filthy, polluted, and unhealthy air. This is Willful Negligence, and becoming a yearly occurrence, costing the United States Billions of Dollars,” Trump said on Truth Social. “Clean Air. Clean Borders.”

In South America, Brazil is bracing for a third consecutive year of drought in the Amazon. Last year’s fire season burned 46 million hectares across the country, the second-largest series of wildfires anywhere in the 21st century. 

Climate crisis death loop 

As wildfires wreak havoc worldwide, dominating global headlines, they are set to accelerate both this year and in the long run as the ongoing El Niño – projected to peak in December and continue through 2027 – and global warming – on pace for 2.8C at current emissions levels – spike temperatures. 

Successive heatwaves, dry soils and drought have created ideal conditions for extreme fire behaviour across Spain and western Europe, the WMO said on Tuesday. The heatwave driving it is the most severe ever recorded in the region and would have been “virtually impossible” without human-caused climate change, according to the World Weather Attribution group

Warming temperatures feed into wildfires. Hotter, drier conditions turn forests into fuel; in turn, burning forests release the carbon that makes conditions hotter and drier. Fires and biomass burning fuel rising temperatures in return, releasing around 1,380 megatonnes of carbon worldwide by the end of last November, more than the United States emitted from fossil fuels across the whole of 2024.

Total area burned by wildfires globally has increased by 50% since 1970. On current emissions trajectories, UNEP projects extreme fires will increase by 14% above current levels by 2030, 30% by 2050, and 50% by the end of the century. 

Four of the five worst years for forest fires on record have come since 2020, and 2024 broke the record set the year before, according to World Resources Institute data

Count of articles indexed in PubMed as of October 15, 2025, by year that have in their title or abstract the word “smoke” and the word “health” and one of the following: wildfire, wildland fire, forest fire, bushfire, grassland fire, peat fire, boreal fire, prescribed fire, WUI fire, agricultural burn, or landscape fire.

Scientific attention has followed the smoke. Around 840 studies on wildfires and health have been indexed in PubMed since 1990, roughly three-quarters of them published since 2020.

So what do we actually know about what this smoke does to the human body? How much more dangerous is it than the polluted air billions already breathe? And what, two decades into a worsening global fire era, do we still not know?

“The health impacts extend far beyond the flames,” Kluge said. “Smoke can travel long distances, worsening heart and respiratory conditions and affecting mental health, particularly among older people, children, pregnant women and those with chronic diseases.”

Let’s take a look.

How many people are dying?

Terrifying as the image of fire-breathing lightning clouds conjured out of thin air is, it isn’t direct fire that kills millions – it’s the smoke.

By the last reliable global count in 2018, 221 deaths worldwide were recorded as directly caused by wildfires. Fourteen such deaths occurred in Spain last week, mostly foreign nationals, too late to flee the flames near the capital, Madrid.

Wildfire smoke, meanwhile, killed an estimated 154,000 people in 2024, a 36% increase from 2012, according to the Lancet Climate Countdown, setting an all-time record unlikely to stand for long as temperatures continue to rise. Deaths rose fastest in countries with low Human Development Index scores, up 46% over the same period.

While 117 countries saw increased population exposure to wildfire risks, deaths from wildfire smoke increased in only 85 of those nations, which the Lancet attributes to improved prevention, management, or reduction of available fuel for wildfires due to land-use change and deforestation. 

Around 270,000 children under the age of five die each year from landscape and wildfire smoke, UNICEF research estimates

A separate Lancet analysis counting deaths from all landscape fire smoke, including agricultural burning, controlled land-clearing fires and peat fires emitting the same toxic pollutants as wildfires, put annual deaths at 1.53 million per year in the first two decades of this century.

Canada’s record 2023 fires became the first event of their kind to be measured across two continents, quantifying for the first time the threat of what researchers term “long-range PM2.5“.

Over 354 million people across North America and Europe breathed the smoke, causing 5,400 acute deaths in North America and a further 64,300 chronic deaths across both continents. Some 22,400 of those were in Europe, where the smoke arrived thinned but settled over dense population centres.

What’s in the smoke?

Wildfire smoke is a mixture rather than a single pollutant, and what goes into it depends on what the fire burns in its path. While a fire burning through pine forests emits particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and other organic compounds contained in the burning wood, a fire that reaches a village, town or residential area will add noxious chemicals to the mix.

Burnt vehicle batteries, wiring, insulation, paint, roofing, furniture, electronics, plastics, PFAS, heavy metals and countless chemicals blend into the fire smoke. Colorado State University toxicologists have identified at least a thousand distinct compounds in it, including formaldehyde and benzene. Many of those thousand compounds have little to no research on their health effects.

The danger of fire smoke grows as the intensity of its flames grinds its composite elements into ultrafine particles, up to 25 times finer than standard PM2.5. These smaller particles carry hydrocarbons more easily past defences like masks, as well as nose hairs and mucus designed to catch larger particles, allowing them into the bloodstream, heart, kidneys, brain and placenta. 

What are the known health effects?

The respiratory effects are settled well enough that the authors of a review of medical research into wildfire smoke published last month urge researchers to stop studying them. Smoke reliably worsens asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, filling emergency rooms and leaving lingering health effects long after the smoke has dissipated.

Current research also suggests wildfire smoke appears more dangerous than ordinary urban pollution. A Southern California study found respiratory hospitalisations rose by up to 10% per 10 micrograms of wildfire-specific particulate, against a maximum of 1.3% for the same increase from traffic and industry.

Stanford researchers put the toxicity difference at roughly tenfold, with longer and repeated exposures worsening health risks across the board. Like traditional air pollution, scientists and health experts stress there is no safe level of inhaled particles.

That increased toxicity frequently results in immediate health effects including coughing, headaches, sore throats, and brain fog. While populations such as the elderly, children, and patients with respiratory risks like asthma are the most vulnerable, even healthy adults can see such symptoms last long after the smog clears.

No temporary nuisance

Evidence of the impacts on cardiovascular disease risk is also accumulating rapidly. Yale researchers reported last week that among 65 million Medicare beneficiaries in the US, cumulative exposure was linked to more hospitalisations for ischaemic heart disease, arrhythmia, stroke and heart failure, with heart failure risk more than 20% higher at greater exposure.

“Wildfire smoke should be treated as more than a temporary respiratory nuisance,” said Harlan Krumholz, a leading expert at Yale Medical School and co-author of the study.  

“Cumulative exposure is linked to a higher risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation in older adults. Clinicians should help high-risk patients prepare for smoke events, and public health leaders should expand timely alerts, clean-air spaces, and access to effective filtration, especially for communities with fewer resources.”

A study of 25 million Medicare beneficiaries published in January found each microgram of smoke particulate in a three-year average raised stroke risk by 1.3%, nearly twice the effect of pollution from other sources, amounting to 17,226 additional strokes a year among older Americans.

 “In other words, the cardiovascular toll of wildfire smoke reaches well beyond the fire lines and well beyond the day the sky turns orange,” Kai Chen, Yale associate professor of epidemiology and co-author of the study added.

Attention deficits and pregnancy complications

Research on wildfire smoke’s effect on brain health and cognition is more in its infancy compared to respiratory and cardiovascular health, but our understanding is growing.

A study of 10,228 American adults playing a brain-training game found heavy smoke the previous day was associated with a 117-point drop in mental performance scores, with the sharpest effect in the first three hours and some impairment persisting for two days.

Mental health emergencies also rise in tandem with the smoke plumes. Analysis of 86,609 emergency department visits during California’s 2020 season found 8% more mental health presentations per 10 micrograms of wildfire smoke, 15% more for depression and 29% more for mood disorders. Children’s risk rose 35%, and Black patients were more than twice as likely to present with a mood disorder, the authors found.

Exposure to wildfire smoke during pregnancy has also been linked to adverse outcomes. One study of mid-pregnancy placentas found raised levels of a fetal immune cell associated with inflammation and impaired placental function in women who had breathed smoke, suggesting particles reaching the placenta may trigger an inflammatory response in the fetus.

Other studies have linked smoke exposure to premature births, miscarriages, and cellular damage to placentas.. Another paper released this year suggests a possible link with third trimester exposure to autism diagnoses, though the authors acknowledge the study is the first to examine such a premise.

Another especially vulnerable population to the smog is people with pre-existing kidney problems. Among 52,995 dialysis patients across 22 US states during the 2023 Canadian smoke episode, the mere presence of a plume overhead was associated with an 18% increase in same-day mortality.

A young science

A new research avenue is wildfire’s potential effects on cancer. A novel study tracking over 90,000 US adults presented in April found increased wildfire smoke exposure raised risks for multiple cancers, including blood, lung, breast, bladder and colorectal. No associations were found with other cancer types, such as ovarian or melanoma, the authors said. Its findings have not yet been peer-reviewed.

While new avenues of research into wildfire smoke are intriguing, caution is warranted with how young the evidence base is on many fronts.

In June 2024, Health Policy Watch reported on research presented to the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference linking wildfire smoke to an 18% increase in dementia risk, posing significantly greater risks to brain health than other forms of air pollution. 

That figure continues to be widely cited by media outlets to this day, despite being retracted and replaced by its own authors the following month, after a newly discovered coding error revised their estimate down to a confidence interval that cancelled out the statistical significance of their data.

Many other angles of wildfire smoke’s health effects continue to rely on just a handful of papers. Blood pressure has been examined twice worldwide, once in Montana and once among twenty hypertensive adults in Athens. Kidney disease has two studies, eczema flare-ups essentially one research group, and the cancer findings are the first of their kind. 

Further research will be required to validate the links.

A generation growing up in smoke

UNICEF, which published a technical note on wildfire smoke and children in 2024, estimates wildfire smoke particulate is up to ten times more harmful to children’s respiratory health than particulate from other sources, and most harmful to those under five.

Infants breathe more rapidly than adults and take in more air relative to their body weight. They also deposit fewer particles in the nose, so a higher proportion reaches deep into lungs that are still forming.

Particulate exposure has been linked to reduced lung function, stunted growth, and neurological and metabolic dysfunction in children. Early-life exposure to wildfire smoke specifically has been associated with immune dysregulation and lung function deficits still measurable in adolescence.

Global studies of wildfire smoke and pregnancy outcomes remain sparse, and the associations found in children and adolescents are, UNICEF notes, at a nascent stage.

But what is known already is reason for alarm. Each additional microgram of fire-derived particulate raises the risk of child mortality by 2.3%, UNICEF estimates, while each microgram of wildfire smoke across a trimester raises the odds of preterm birth by 13.2%.

What the smoke does to a child over the course of a lifetime is the question the research, picking up only two decades ago, has not yet addressed. The children growing up today as wildfires become routine rather than rare, for billions around the globe will be the involuntary subjects of a vast, unplanned experiment testing this very question.

Image Credits: UNEP, Cal Fire, Shazadul Alam.

Brazilian Health Minister Dr Alexandre Padilha

RIO DE JANEIRO – News that an antiretroviral drug injected twice a year had prevented almost all HIV infection in trials electrified the HIV sector two years ago – but access to Gilead’s lenacapavir has been slow, particularly for countries in Latin America.

Brazil, which faces significant HIV transmission in certain groups, has been routinely excluded from HIV voluntary licensing deals offered by pharmaceutical companies – particularly for long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) – as it is deemed an upper-middle-income country.

Brazilian Health Minister Dr Alexandre Padilha told the International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2026) being hosted in his country that negotiations with Gilead had run aground as the company wanted a price 10 times higher than that being paid by Indonesia and Thailand.

Brazil offers PrEP as part of its free universal health coverage, and Padilha said he was not prepared to bankrupt the health system by paying a high price for lenacapavir.

“Innovation without access is injustice,” said Padilha at the conference opening on Monday night.

Instead of pursuing lenacapavir, his country has opted to use ViiV’s cabotegravir, injected every second month, to bolster its PrEP programme as the company has offered Brazil “an acceptable price”, Padilha added.

ViiV and the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) signed a voluntary licensing agreement to enable generic manufacturers to make generic versions of long-acting cabotegravir for PrEP for 90 countries – but this excludes most Latin American countries.

ViiV’s chief medical officer, Jean van Wyk told a media briefing that his country expects the generics to be available in 2028. In the meantime, it will make two million doses of cabotegravir for LMICs at a “non-profit price”.

Eighteen countries are using it so far, with over 520,000 doses having been dispensed, Van Wyk said.

Long-acting antiretroviral medicine to prevent HIV offers the biggest global opportunity to control the virus that has long evaded a vaccine. It is particularly important to protect people who are at high risk of HIV infection.

Almost 830,000 Brazilians are living with HIV, and the virus is spreading particularly among men who have sex with men and transgender women.

Gilead under pressure over lenacapavir 

Protesters at AIDS 2026 are demanding that Gilead ensures that the countries that participated in the clinical  trial of lenacapavir get access to it at a fair price.

Last month, Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) launched a campaign to demand that the US-based Gilead “immediately make the highly effective HIV prevention medicine lenacapavir more widely available across the globe”.

The six-monthly injection is particularly important for groups most at risk of HIV, including “men who have sex with men, transgender people, sex workers, people who inject drugs, and incarcerated people, as well as those in conflict and other fragile humanitarian contexts”, said MSF.

Gilead’s senior vice president of clinical development, Dr Jared Baeten, told a media briefing on Tuesday that lenacapavir had received regulatory approval in Europe and the US a year ago – a year after the clinical trial results had been announced at the AIDS 2024 conference in Munich.

In October 2024, Gilead signed voluntary licensing deals with six generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to make and sell generic lenacapavir. The generics are expected to be ready by mid-2027.

Gilead sells lenacapavir for $28,000 a year in the US, but MSF argues that Gilead will still make a profit if it sells lenacapavir for $40 – particularly as this will enable countries to expand access far more widely.

Baeten said that the medicine was being rolled out in 10 African countries and that 600,000 people would be using lenacapavir by the end of this year. Gilead also has support from the US government to expand access to up to three million people.

PrEP is particularly important for preventing HIV in “key populations” where the virus is flourishing – including sex workers, men who have sex with men, transgender women and people who inject drugs. But the Trump administration has stopped funding most of these groups, focusing its HIV response on pregnant women and children in its HIV response.

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Director-General, said that the  “criminalisation of key populations” was one of the three key challenges undermining the HIV response.

“We have to fight that, and we need to repeal the laws that criminalise people for who they are or what they need to survive,” Tedros told the 7000 delegates at the opening of AIDS 2026. The other two key challenges are the withdrawal of funds and the undermining of community-led organisations who have been key to the HIV response.

Eight million South Africans excluded

The US has also decided not to support South Africa’s HIV response, including its lenacapavir rollout, despite the country having the largest HIV positive population in the world. Approximately eight million South Africans are living with HIV, almost 13% of the population.

Last month, South Africa launched its lenacapavir rollout to high-risk groups with a modest goal of reaching 30,000 people, largely supported by the Global Fund. Young women are most at risk of HIV infection in South Africa.

The Desmond Tutu Foundation’s Elzette Rousseau said there was widespread support for injectable PrEP in the communities they worked with.

A trial of 3,700 people to test the acceptance of long-acting PrEP found that three-quarters of the participants opted for injectables rather than pills. When offered the choice between monthly injectable cabotegravir and the six-monthly lenacapavir, 80% had opted for lenacapavir, said Rousseau.

Activists from Latin America have staged several protests against Gilead at the AIDS 2026 conference, pointing out that their countries were part of the clinical trial of lenacapavir and should have access to the product.

However, Baeten said that all trial participants had access to lenacapavir, and this would only stop once they could access it in their countries. He added that 120 countries would have access to the medicine once the generics came on track.

Merck takes a different approach

Merck/ MSD’s Eliav Barr.

Merck/ MSD, which is currently testing a monthly pill, alimatravir, as PrEP, has taken an innovative approach to ensure access to its yet-to-be-proven medicine.

Last week, it announced that it had granted voluntary licenses to seven generic companies – three in sub-Saharan Africa and four in India – to produce the medicine for 129 low- and middle-income countries.

“The royalty-free agreements with these companies cover both the public and private sectors and will enable supply of generic alimatravir in 129 LMICs that account for a substantial majority of new HIV diagnoses globally,” the company announced.

Once again, Latin America was excluded – until Tuesday morning, when Merck/ MSD announced that it had signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Brazilian government’s Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz) to ensure access to alimatravir should the trial be successful.

Fiocruz is the Brazilian government’s biomedical research and medicine production agency. 

Merck/ MSD’s Dr Eliav Barr told a media briefing on Tuesday that the two parties would start to negotiate the terms of access, adding that Fiocruz could produce alimatravir for the Latin American region.

“We are trying to reach agreements now to avoid limited supply at launch,” said Barr, head of global clinical development.

The company is also preparing regulatory submissions if alimatravir proves effective at the conclusion of its phase 3 trial in the second half of 2027.

Image Credits: Márcia Moreira / IAS..

WHO headquarters in Geneva: Unprecedented reform closes a loophole, forcing campaigning Regional Directors on leave.
WHO headquarters in Geneva: Unprecedented reform closes a loophole, forcing campaigning Regional Directors on leave.

In a first, WHO Regional Directors must take a leave of absence to run for the top job, the World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed to Health Policy Watch on Monday. This sweeping election reform closes a crucial loophole in the ongoing Director-General election process, aiming to curb shadow campaigns just as the first candidates officially enter the race. Meanwhile, Dr Jarbas Barbosa, WHO Regional Director for the Americas / Pan American Health Organization, who had been reported as a possible contender, told Health Policy Watch he is not running.

The rules of global health diplomacy have quietly shifted as the WHO Director-General Election approaches. WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has closed a controversial governance loophole with a new directive, which will require WHO Regional Directors who enter the race to become WHO’s next Director-General to take leave on one-half of their salaries, while they campaign.

“All internal candidates will be placed on leave to ensure a clear separation between their campaign activities and WHO’s functions. For the first time this requirement applies also to elected officials, such as Regional Directors,” the WHO confirmed, responding to a query by Health Policy Watch.

New rule upends past precedent

The new directive closes loopholes, demanding strict separation between campaign activities and official WHO functions.
The new directive closes loopholes, demanding strict separation between campaign activities and official WHO functions.

A playbook of rules for the upcoming campaign, reviewed by the Executive Board in their last meeting in May, had already stated that the “Director-General intends to place internal candidates on special leave to ensure a clear separation between their campaign activities and WHO’s functions.”

However, these election guidelines had historically exempted Regional Directors because they are elected by WHO member states in their region. RD’s thus enjoyed a distinct structural advantage over any other WHO candidates because they could retain their influential platforms, high salaries and extensive institutional travel budgets, as well as full authority while quietly mounting a bid for the top job.

Other WHO staff, on the other hand, were required to take unpaid or half-paid leave to run for office, ensuring a clear separation between their campaign and their official work.

Regional Directors will face the same rules as other WHO staff

Now, however, under the new directive recently issued by Tedros, Regional Directors will face the same financial realities. They will be required to exhaust their accrued annual leave before being placed on half-paid special leave until the Executive Board nominates the finalists. To maintain operations, the Director-General will designate an officer-in-charge to replace any campaigning Regional Director.

As of now, the required leave triggers once a candidate’s name is published on the WHO website.

In the email response to Health Policy Watch, WHO said, however, that it reserves the right to pull the trigger even earlier in some cases: “WHO reserves the right to place staff on leave before this in the interests of the Organization, for example in the event of an earlier public and official announcement of a candidacy by a member state,” the organisation explained.

Furthermore, any internal candidates not yet publicly known will be automatically disclosed as prospective candidates once their candidacies are formally accepted following the 24 September submission deadline.

The DG issued the new leave order based on the WHO “Code of Conduct” for the DG elections, last updated by the World Health Assembly in 2020. The code states: “WHO staff members, including the Director-General in office, who are proposed for the post of Director-General, are subject to the obligations contained in the WHO Constitution, Staff Regulations and Staff Rules as well as to the guidance that may be issued from time to time by the Director-General.” (Section IV)

Grey areas remain

The WHO issued a new directive introducing leave for campaigning Regional Directors for the first time.
The WHO issued a new directive introducing leave for campaigning Regional Directors for the first time.

Even so, the revised mandate leaves a procedural grey area regarding the point at which a candidate is “officially recognised” – and thus needs to step down.

Official acknowledgement, in the form of publication on the WHO website, typically occurs at the specific request of a nominating member state to WHO.

However, should a country to delay their formal nominating request, that could feasibly allow their candidate to continue high-profile diplomatic travel, maximising their institutional privileges and travel budgets to build support for their campaigns, added a source close to the election process.

“The real grey area in this connection may be about campaign activities that take place before the formal process is launched,” explained former WHO legal counsel Gian Luca Burci, responding to a query by Health Policy Watch.

However, Burci notes that WHO Code of Conduct can should apply to any electoral activities, regardless of the exact timeline. Behind the scenes, sustained international travel to major donor capitals by regional leaders has already drawn scrutiny.

First contenders emerge, Barbosa rules out bid

WHO regional director Dr Hanan Balkhy reportedly entered the race.
WHO Regional Director Dr Hanan Balkhy reportedly entered the race.

The reform arrives as the formal succession race begins, with Saudi Arabia and Qatar reportedly circulating the first diplomatic notes to nominate Dr Hanan Balkhy, the current Regional Director for the Eastern Mediterranean, and former public health minister Dr Hanan Mohammed Al Kuwari, respectively.

Questions submitted by Health Policy Watch to Balkhy regarding her candidacy and when her mandated leave will commence remain unanswered as of publication time.

An enquiry sent to Dr Hans Kluge, Regional Director for Europe, regarding his potential candidacy had not yet received a response either.

One rumoured contender who will not be impacted by the new mandatory leave directive is the Director of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Dr Jarbas Barbosa. “I am not running for WHO DG,” said Barbosa, responding to a query by Health Policy Watch.

While expressing that he was honoured to be listed as a potential candidate, the regional leader noted his focus is to lead PAHO through these uncertain times and advance regional health agendas, including the PAHO Elimination Initiative for 30 diseases and the Better Care for NCDs programme.

Campaigning amid institutional crisis

The tightening of campaign regulations unfolds against the backdrop of a severe financial crisis.

Due to the outstanding payments by, among others, the United States after its announcement to withdraw from the WHO, the organisation has been forced to execute massive workforce cuts to address a critical funding gap.

The organisation is shedding up to 23% of its global staff, reducing the headcount to approximately 7,283 personnel. This includes 1,275 voluntary separations and 1,232 posts abolished outright.

Even after slashing its 2026-2027 base budget proposal to roughly $4.27 billion, the core mandate still faces a 15% shortfall of $660 million. Meanwhile, the organisation’s overall budget gap is projected at $1 billion.

The contrast between this dire financial reality and potential lavish, globe-trotting campaigns has sharpened scrutiny. As the field of contenders widens before the September deadline, the true test will be enforcement.

See related story:

Want to Become the Next WHO Director-General? Get in Line 

Image Credits: Guilhem Vellut, Felix Sassmannshausen/HPW, X/Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Hannan Balkhy.

Luis Pizarro (R), newly-appointed head of Unitaid, with Dr Bernard Pécoul, founder DNDi, at a hospital in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Luis Pizarro, Unitaid’s newly-appointed Executive Director comes to the organization with sizeable depth and breadth of experience – as the leader of Geneva’s Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi) and before that, leadership of ventures in Africa, Asia and the Americas.

However, his main challenge at Unitaid will be steadying the financially troubled organization, which has raised less than half of the funds needed to sustain its annual investment budget of $300 million for 2026. And it faces a shortfall of more than $800 million in the current five-year $1.5 billion budget cycle (2023-2027).  

The crisis follows the loss of support for Unitaid’s innovative financing model, built upon the world’s first solidarity fund taxing airline tickets and certain financial transactions. The model was pioneered two decades ago by France, Unitaid’s leading donor, in the birthing of the organization in 2006. 

But the Solidarity Fund for Development was abolished last year in the wake of French legislation redirecting the airline tax revenues and fees to the general budget.  That leaves Unitaid heavily exposed to the vagaries of donor whims in annual fund-raising cycles.

Meanwhile, Unitaid’s longtime director, Philippe Duneton, who was instrumental in the foundation of the agency in 2006, is stepping down. 

Philippe Duneton, Unitaid’s outgoing director signs a collaboration agreement with Mohamed Janabi, Director of the WHO African Region, in February 2026.

First in a series of leadership changes in Geneva 

Despite the criticism of opacity around the leadership selection process, response to Pizarro’s appointment was upbeat. 

The Chilean-born and French trained medical doctor has a CV well suited to the task at hand. Prior to joining DNDi, he was the first CEO of the French-based health NGO Solthis, developing it into a leading actor in West and Central Africa through upheavals such as the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak. Between 2020-2022, Pizarro served briefly as head of Unitaid’s HIV portfolio at the height of the COVID pandemic before taking over the helm at DNDi. 

“I have only positive things to say, I think he’ll do a great job,” one long-time Geneva health policy actor told Health Policy Watch, on condition of anonymity. “But with French funding at risk, his main job will be fundraising, I think.”

“In a sense this is the first piece of the puzzle in terms of finding new leadership for Geneva institutions,” added Thiru Balasubramanian, Geneva representative of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), a US-based NGO focused on equitable access to medicines and vaccines.

Dr. Sania Nishtar Chief Executive Officer, Gavi, in Cairo.

“The Global Fund and WHO are still in the hunt of course, and now, DNDi.

“And perhaps Gavi will be as well,”  he said, referring to as-yet-unconfirmed reports that Gavi’s Executive Director, Sania Nishtar, might leave her current post to compete in the race for Director General of WHO.

Overlapping mandates  

One of Unitaid’s big recent achievements – a $40 annual price for injectable lenacapavir, a twice-yearly HIV prevention shot just two years after first regulatory approvals.

Unitaid was established in 2006 by France, Brazil, Chile, Norway, and the United Kingdom as a collaborative initiative hosted by the WHO. 

As Unitaid’s primary architect, France became the agency’s dominant donor, contributing more than $2 billion, which accounts for roughly 56% of the organisation’s overall funding since its inception. 

However, in light of the recent cutbacks in official development assistance by European governments, as well as the United States, critics now are questioning whether the WHO-hosted Unitaid can justify its current model, including some 110, mostly Geneva-based, employees. 

That model involves an institutional mandate and administrative system separate from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria – while the two larger organizations serve as the platform for scaleup and rollout of the innovations that Unitaid trials and tests. 

French ‘toy’ or essential global health tool?

Speaking to Health Policy Watch earlier this month, French Minister Delegate for Foreign Affairs, in charge of international partnerships, Éléonore Caroit, affirmed that the Unitaid model remains relevant and that France would remain Unitaid’s “leading partner.”

“Unitaid has an ‘end-to-end’ mandate – identifying, coordinating, and funding the interventions that make efficient, low-cost rollout possible – which then allows the Global Fund and Gavi to take those solutions to scale”.

Unitaid’s work and that of these other bodies is therefore complementary, not duplicative, she argued.

“Merging these entities and their mandates would risk a loss of specificity and expertise, an excessive concentration of missions in one place, and ultimately, less impact for the people who need it most,” Caroit warned.

However, not everyone remains so convinced.  

One one seasoned Geneva health expert described Unitaid as a ‘French toy’ saying it is “likely to close soon.” 

https://healthpolicy-watch.news/unitaid-leadership-search/

Image Credits: @ProfJanabi , @Unitaid.

IAS president Beatriz Grinsztejn, UNAIDS executive director Winnie Byanyima, Erika Castellanos of the Global Action for Trans Equality, Dr Joe Phaahla, South Africa’s Deputy Minister of Health; PAHO director Dr Jarbas Barbosa, and Brazil Secreatry of Health Dr Mariângela Simao.

RIO DE JANEIRO – Donor funding for HIV dropped by 25% in 2025 – a staggering drop of $2.1 billion – driven by the United States slashing its funding, according to analyses by KFF and the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). 

This is the largest single-year drop ever, reducing funds to 2007 levels, according to the reports released shortly before the opening of the International AIDS Conference on Monday.

In 2025, US disbursements for HIV totalled $4.6 billion, down from $6.7 billion in 2024.

Although spending from HIV’s other key donors remained steady in 2025 (at $1.6 billion), they had already halved their aid since 2011 ($3.2 billion). 

The US remains the largest HIV donor to HIV in the world, and its total donor government funding for HIV has risen from 59% in 2011 to 74% in 2025 in the face of other donors’ retreating commitments. 

France, the UK, Japan, and Germany are the other major HIV donors. However, when ranked by their contributions in relation to GDP, the Netherlands ranks first, followed by the US, Denmark, Norway, and France.

Impact on prevention

Forty-one million people were living with HIV in 2025, 1.2 million of whom were infected that year.

“Every day, around 3,400 people acquire HIV around the world. Every day, around 1,600 people die from AIDS-related illnesses. The HIV pandemic is not over. Without urgent action, it could resurge,” Byanyima warned. 

The funding cuts also threaten global 2030 targets – particularly to reduce HIV infections by 90% in comparison to 2010 levels.

The impact has been felt across all programmes, but prevention services have been particularly badly affected. 

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) programmes, antiretroviral medicine taken to prevent HIV transmission, and condom purchases “declined drastically and suddenly between 2024 and 2025 in some countries”, according to UNAIDS. 

“In countries with a high level of HIV, funding for condom programming declined by 93%, and funding for programmes that ensure people can reach prevention services (eg supportive laws, regulations and policy environments) reduced by 80%,” said UNAIDS.

In Cameroon, Nigeria and Zambia, the number of people receiving PrEP declined by more than 50%. 

Meanwhile, a poster presented at the AIDS2026 conference estimates that over 75,000 people will become infected with HIV within a year as a consequence of full withdrawal of the US President’s Emergency Plan to Fund AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and no additional government or international support. Zimbabwe has been unable to reach agreement with the US on new HIV funding. 

“Efforts to reach the 2030 targets are threatened by converging crises, including declines in external financing, high debt burden in the countries most affected by HIV, a growing number of humanitarian crises and displacements globally, emerging epidemics such as Ebola, and a backsliding on human rights and gender equality, which all impact HIV services,” according to UNAIDS.

Domestic funding is not enough

UNAIDS indicates that around 60% of the HIV response is now funded by domestic resources. 

Dr Joe Phaahla, South Africa’s Deputy Minister of Health, said that African countries were continuing to strengthen domestic investment.

However, Phaahla warned that the 25% cut in a single year had forced African governments “to make very difficult prioritisation decisions at a very high speed”.  

The cuts have affected “the availability of medicines, commodities, pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment commodities, and community health workers, surveillance and data systems”, he added.

“No country can replace the scale of international partnership that has driven the global HIV response for decades,” warned Phaahla. “Ending the HIV pandemic will require stronger domestic financing, sustained international support and shared responsibility.”

Decades of progress in jeopardy

This HIV treatment centre in Bahir Dar in Ethiopia has closed as a result of funding cuts.

The funding cuts threaten decades of progress, Byanyima warned.

“Since the peak of HIV, new infections have fallen by 65% and AIDS-related deaths have fallen by 73%. More than 28.5 million lives have been saved through antiretroviral treatment. Today, 32.1 million people are receiving life-saving treatment, the highest number in history,” said Byanyima. “This is one of the greatest public health achievements of our lifetime. But let’s be clear: progress is not the same as victory.

“Last year, 1.2 million people acquired HIV, 570,000 people died from AIDS-related illnesses, and 8.9 million people with HIV are without life-saving treatment, and nearly 45% of children living with HIV are still not on treatment.”

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), described progress against HIV as “fragile”.

“We have the tools, the knowledge and the evidence to save lives and prevent new acquisitions. The challenge now is to sustain the commitment, investment and solidarity needed to reach every person who needs prevention, testing, treatment and care, and to finish the job,” said Tedros, who also called for “key populations” most at risk of HIV to be decriminalised.

Swing to the right

Dr Mariângela Simao, Brazil’s Secretary of Health and Environmental Surveillance.

Dr Mariângela Simao, Brazil’s Secretary of Health and Environmental Surveillance, said the funding crisis was partly due to the “increasingly conservative world”. 

“We are seeing that conservative ways tend to criminalise or punish people that are different, [and] create problems for access to the treatment people deserve. The human health to right the right to health is a human right,” she added.

Erika Castellanos, executive director of the Global Action for Trans Equality (GATE), who has been living with HIV since 1995, supported Simao.

“I have watched medicines transform HIV from a death sentence into a manageable health condition, but I have also watched people die while those medicines existed,” said Castellanos.

“I have watched many of my friends die while those medicines existed. Science did not fail my friends. Science did not fail those people. Politics did. Survival is determined by a healthcare system recognising our humanity, a government considering our lives worth protecting, and a world that is willing to pay the cost of keeping us alive.”

End of UNAIDS?

UNAIDS itself faces an uncertain future amid a United Nations-wide funding crisis. As part of his UN80 reform plan, the UN Secretary-General has proposed “sunsetting” the programme by the end of this year and “mainstreaming capacity and expertise into relevant entities of the United Nations development system in 2027”.

However, International AIDS Society (IAS) president Dr Beatriz Grinsztejn said that losing UNAIDS would be a “big mess”, particularly for tracking data on HIV.

Grinsztejn acknowledged that UNAIDS would likely need to scale back further, but “we do need UNAIDS to stay in place, and we hope that this can be the final decision”. 

“We already have a big issue that most of the systems are not in place anymore for us to understand the numbers: the number of infections, the number of deaths, the number of people on treatment and on prevention.”

UNAIDS has already slashed staff by around 55%, and its Geneva head office has been massively reduced.

The UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board (PCB) has set up a working group to develop “a plan on the further transition and integration of UNAIDS into the UN system and beyond, in coherence with the UN80 Initiative and based on a realistic financial scenario” by October.

The working group is mandated to identify “functions and units to be transferred, transformed, downsized, merged, decentralised, and/or absorbed by the UN system and other stakeholders”. 

How to preserve UNAIDS functions 

However, the PCB has stressed that UNAIDS core functions “must be preserved and safeguarded either together in a single unit or with individual UN entities”. It also directs the working group to ensure the “preservation of the role of communities and civil society”, a hallmark of UNAIDS operations.

The PCB has also tasked UNAIDS executive director Winnie Byanyima with preparing a 2027 workplan and budget “aligned with the ongoing downsizing and informed by the plan of the working group”.

Addressing the PCB earlier this month, Byanyima said: “Even in a complex global political context, UNAIDS still has that unique power to unite the world behind a shared vision to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.

“We will not deliver on that promise through institutions alone. We will deliver it through people, through the communities who refuse to be invisible, through the staff who carry this mission every day, through leaders in governments and partner organisations acting with courage in the face of uncertainty.”  

While the international AIDS conference has scaled back significantly in recent years, the Rio conference has still managed to attract 7,000 delegates, under the theme“rethink, rebuild, rise”, 

Image Credits: UNAIDS.

Dr Delese Mimi Darko, Director General of the African Medicines Agency.

When the African Medicines Agency became operational in Kigali in October 2025, it inherited one of the continent’s most difficult health-policy problems: how to make medicines regulation faster, more trusted and less fragmented across 55 African Union member states.

For years, African countries have relied on a patchwork of national regulators, regional harmonisation initiatives, WHO prequalification, collaborative registration procedures and external pathways such as Swissmedic’s Marketing Authorisation for Global Health Products. Those systems have helped accelerate access to some products, but they have not removed the deeper problem of fragmentation.

For Dr Delese Mimi Darko, the inaugural Director General of the African Medicines Agency (AMA), the issue is not that Africa lacks regulatory expertise. It is that the expertise is unevenly distributed and poorly coordinated.

“AMA is not there to replace any national agency,” Darko explains. “It is there to coordinate them to ensure that their impact or their strengths are magnified as a body.”

In an interview with Health Policy Watch in London on the sidelines of the Global Vaccine Manufacturing Summit, Darko discussed whether the agency is already operating, what it can offer beyond existing reliance pathways, how it is being built institutionally, whether it can function as a single continental regulatory channel, why ratification still matters, and how it is being drawn into the response to the Bundibugyo Ebola outbreak.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

African Union leaders sign an agreement with Rwanda’s Ministry of Health to establish the African Medicines Agency’s first headquarters in Kigali, in June 2023.

Health Policy Watch: Is AMA actually operating yet?

Darko: Yes. AMA was operationalised in October 2025, when I assumed office in Kigali. We now have 33 member states that have ratified the treaty out of 55. 

Treaty ratification is one of the main things we must ensure happens if we want the impact of having a continental agency to be felt. All 55 have to ratify. We have a ratification envoy who will be going around to encourage ratification. 

Part of what AMA is doing is that there is going to be continental approval of certain products. AMA does not do everything. AMA focuses on complex products, vaccines and products of public health importance.

If AMA is able to do a centralised approval of a new vaccine, for countries to benefit from it in the general pathway, they would have to be state parties. That means they should have signed and ratified the treaty.

The second major priority is capacity strengthening of national regulatory authorities, because at the end of the day, the product is not going to end up only in Kigali. It is going to end up in Nigeria, South Africa or wherever it is used. 

Local national regulatory authorities are the ones who must ensure that the product is of the right quality, that what was approved is what actually enters the country, and that quality, safety and supply chains are monitored.

Health Policy Watch: WHO already has collaborative registration procedures, and Swissmedic has its MAGHP process. What can AMA offer beyond those pathways?

Darko: Those pathways are important, but AMA is trying to do something different.

WHO’s collaborative registration procedure and Swissmedic’s MAGHP process are reliance and collaboration mechanisms. They allow national regulators to draw on assessments or participate in reviews involving other trusted authorities.

AMA is meant to be different because it is a treaty-based African institution built around African regulators themselves. It is not just an external pathway through which countries rely on a decision taken elsewhere.

We are building a system where African regulators are part of the process, where their expertise is used, and where the outcome strengthens the continent’s regulatory capacity.

Africa does not lack expertise. A high proportion of people who do prequalification for WHO are from the African continent. The problem is not expertise. The problem is coordination of that expertise and ensuring it is used properly.

AMA has set up a Regulatory Innovation and Market Readiness Office, where sponsors and innovators can come for early scientific advice. The idea is to bring regulators into the process earlier, before a product has reached the end of development and before regulatory questions become delays.

The aim is not to duplicate existing mechanisms, but to bring African regulators into the process earlier and more systematically.

Sketch of the architecture of the African Medicines Agency.

Health Policy Watch: How is AMA set up institutionally?

Darko: AMA has the organs set out in its treaty: the Conference of State Parties, the Governing Board, the Secretariat and Technical Committees. The Secretariat is based in Kigali. Operationally, however, our work is built around coordination with national regulatory authorities.

We have a network of the current [countries on the continent with] WHO maturity level three agencies (the second highest level in terms of regulatory agency capacity), and they are going to be the initial backbone of the work AMA does. When AMA gives a scientific opinion or a recommendation for a product to be put on the market, we will start with those agencies.

But even apart from them, there are agencies that may not have been fully assessed by WHO but have expertise in areas such as good manufacturing practice, inspections or clinical trials. We will use those as well.

AMA will also work through technical committees. These include committees for clinical trials, inspections, authorisation and safety. Those committees are made up of national regulatory authorities and focal persons from those agencies.

AMA is a coordinating body, ensuring that regulators can come together and maximise their impact.

Header of the official African Medicines Agency Treaty, adopted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on 11 February 2019.

Health Policy Watch: How is AMA being financed sustainably?

Editor’s note: A detailed public breakdown of AMA’s current budget, staffing and long-term revenue mix has not yet been published. The AMA Treaty gives the Conference of State Parties responsibility for setting annual and special contributions from state parties to the agency’s budget. Public reporting has also referred to seed contributions from state parties and partner support for AMA’s operationalisation.

That leaves two related questions: how AMA sustains its own headquarters, secretariat, technical committees, digital systems and scientific review functions; and how the national regulatory authorities that AMA depends on are strengthened, because the continental agency cannot function well if national agencies remain under-resourced.

Darko: AMA is only as strong as its agencies. The stronger we make them, the better it is for us, and the more value we add.

Can AMA act like a single regulatory review channel, similar to the European Medicines Agency (EMA)?

Darko: That is the ambition, but AMA is not simply copying the EMA model. Africa has 55 member states with very different legal systems, regulatory capacity and treaty status. Some countries have ratified the AMA Treaty, some have signed but not ratified, and others have not signed.

So AMA cannot yet function as a full single channel for every country in the way some people may imagine.

The goal is that manufacturers and developers should not have to duplicate 55 separate mechanisms or go to 55 countries for approval. We are building a network so that one application can serve the continent, while still strengthening national regulators. See related content here: 

African Medicines Agency Countdown

AMA adds the most value for products where expertise is unevenly distributed across countries. If a company is making antibiotics or paracetamol, AMA does not necessarily need to get involved because there may be no added value. 

But if a company is working on vaccines, complex products, or products of public health importance such as malaria or tuberculosis tools, that is where a centralised approach can help products go quicker and reach everyone who needs them.

The central point is that AMA works with national regulators; it does not replace them. Every piece of work we do links back to the national regulatory agencies. They give us focal persons. They do the work with us. AMA’s role is to coordinate, support and strengthen.

Health Policy Watch: Some of Africa’s largest countries have been slow to sign or ratify. Why does treaty status matter?

Darko: When Covid struck, when Ebola struck, DRC was not a ratified country. The benefits of AMA are to add value to every country, so if the countries are not there, you will not feel the full impact of what AMA does. When the disease is going into a country, it doesn’t care whether it’s a ratified country or not.

If AMA wants to build capacity on the continent, AMA, by legislation, can really only work with ratified countries. So if I am building capacity and you are a country that has not ratified, you have a problem.

If you take South Africa that has not ratified, it’s a big country, it has capacity. But if South Africa manufactures a product that’s going to be available in all the countries, if you are not a ratified member, the benefits go both ways, for the country and for AMA.

It matters to us. We want to stand united as one continent.

Health Policy Watch: Some national regulators have worried that AMA might take over their authority. How are you addressing that?

Darko: Sometimes there is a fundamental thought that if AMA is there, then national agencies will no longer exist.

We have tried to create awareness by working directly with the heads of agencies. We brought them together and developed our five-year strategy with them. Our IT strategy was also developed with them.

We are not working without the agencies. That has given many of them confidence that they are part of AMA.

AMA is there to add value. We continually speak with the heads of national regulatory agencies and ask where they need impact and where AMA can add value. Many countries have not ratified not because they do not want to join, but because the process is long. It goes through parliament, legislative structures and attorneys general.

The way we convince them is by showing that AMA is built with the agencies, not above them.

Health Policy Watch: What is AMA’s current top priority?

Darko: The current top priority is to support capacity building for regulators on the continent.

AMA is only as strong as its agencies. The stronger we make them, the better it is for us, and the more value we add.

And it is the only way Africa can advance any strategy, whether it is health security, clinical trials or access to medical products.

If you have strong regulators, products move more quickly. Safety is monitored properly. Quality is monitored properly. The patient receives the right medication.

The most important thing for us now is getting national regulators together and ensuring there is more equitable capacity strengthening across the continent.

Once we do that, everything else follows.

Health Policy Watch: Has AMA been involved in the current Bundibugyo Ebola outbreak – noting the plans for the clinical trials of two antivirals, and most recently, trials of a vaccine candidate?

Darko: Yes. AMA has been involved in regulatory discussions around the outbreak, including work with the European Medicines Agency and African national regulatory authorities on clinical trial designs and medical countermeasures.

For an outbreak like Bundibugyo Ebola, where there are no authorised vaccines or treatments for that specific virus species, the regulatory pathway has to be prepared early. Regulators need to know which products are in the pipeline, what data may be needed, which clinical endpoints are appropriate, and how to balance speed with scientific rigour.

Nearly 7 tonnes of emergency medical supplies and equipment along with a team of 35 experts from WHO and the DRC Ministry of Health arrive in Bunia from Kinshasa to support frontline Ebola response in Ituri Province.

That is exactly the kind of situation where AMA can add value: bringing regulators together early so that developers and researchers are not waiting until the end of the process to find out what evidence is required.

EMA’s  Emergency Task Force is working with the AMA, African national regulatory authorities and WHO AFRO’s African Vaccines Regulatory Forum on discussions covering candidate vaccines, treatments and post-exposure prophylaxis for Bundibugyo virus disease.

For AMA, the Ebola response is an early test of whether it can coordinate African regulatory input during a fast-moving public health emergency, rather than leaving each national regulator to work separately.

Health Policy Watch: What would success look like for AMA over the next few years?

Darko: The current top priority is to support capacity building for regulators on the continent. That is the only way AMA will be strong, and it is the only way Africa can advance any strategy, whether it is health security, manufacturing, clinical trials or access to medical products.

If you have strong regulators, products move more quickly. Manufacturing is done according to the right quality. Safety is monitored correctly. Quality is monitored correctly, and the patient receives the right medication.

The most important thing for us now is getting our national regulators together and ensuring that there is more equitable capacity strengthening on the continent. Once we do that, everything else follows.

At the end of the day, everything we are doing is about the patient. We also need to ensure that all 55 member states have signed and ratified the treaty.

“If you have a strong regulator, your products go quickly,” Darko said. “Your safety is monitored correctly. Your quality is monitored correctly. The patient receives the right medication.”

Image Credits: Rwanda MoH, Rwanda Ministry of Health, African Medicines Agency , @WHO African Region.

Consumption of highly processed food is linked to rising non-communicable diseases, with low- and middle-income countries seeing the fastest increases.

A trillion-dollar food industry sues to keep prevention at bay while governments spend billions subsidising the drugs that treat what bad diets do. Meanwhile, Ebola outruns a hollowed-out WHO, and its Director-General’s legacy hangs on whether he can get a grip.

‘If all else fails, sue’

Last week’s most telling global health story was not about welfare but lawfare. A team of investigative journalists exposed the pandemic of litigation unleashed by ultra-processed food companies against the policies meant to restrain them: warning labels, junk-food taxes, marketing limitations. The companies brought 239 lawsuits across Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, US, UK, and India between 2010 and 2025.

Eight multinational corporations including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Mondelēz and Danone, accounted for nearly two-fifths of the cases identified by the Netherlands-based Lighthouse Reports team of journalists. Although the industry lost three-quarters of the suits concluded, litigation snarled up health ministries for a cumulative 595 years in court.

This tactic is straight out of the tobacco industry playbook, the aim being to delay, deter, and derail reforms. Including by suing, if all else fails. One Mexican bottler argued that its soft drinks were safer than local water. Colombian food-and-drink companies gave €5.85 million to political parties, two-fifths of all such donations in a year. In India, legislation mandating front-of-package labeling has been stalled since 2014, with companies suing social media influencers who post nutritional breakdowns of food products such as instant noodles and baby food. In the European Union, EU-wide food policy regulations for ultra-processed foods (UPFs) don’t adequately address their systemic health risks. But attempts by individual nations to enact more stringent regulations, taxes or front-of-package labeling rules on UPFs would face challenges under the EU’s single-market and competition rules.

The chilling effect on public health policy-making is not a by-product of strategy; it is the strategy.

A market for the cure

Walking on the beach in the fishing village of Belle Garden, Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean. Small island states are among the low- and middle-income nations that have seen local diets edged out by imported ultra-processed foods, fueling an epidemic of obesity.

Set that against the direction health policy is travelling – with 2026 crowned as “the year of obesity pills.” WHO issued its first global guideline on GLP-1 medicines for obesity. The US launched a Medicare GLP-1 Bridge, offering beneficiaries a month of weight-loss drugs for $50, and European health systems have opened conditional access.

The real story is around ‘money’. The global processed-food industry is valued at an annual $2.2 trillion, rising toward $3.4 trillion by 2035. The GLP-1 market stood at $79 billion in 2025 and is forecast to reach $190 billion by then. The antidote, in other words, is around one-twenty-eighth the size of the products creating the problem – a downstream market spun off from an upstream one.

Both are dwarfed by the costs of the diseases caused by unhealthy diets. Overweight and obesity will cost the world more than $4 trillion a year by 2035, over 3 percent of global GDP, comparable to the Covid-19 shock in 2020. So, the public purse is asked to subsidise the cure at the very moment efforts to mitigate the cause are litigated into paralysis.

Not a zero-sum game

Globally, WHO estimates that 22% of men and 14% of women will die prematurely (before age 70) due to a non-communicable disease (NCD), with the highest rates in Africa and Asia where timely diagnosis and treatment are harder to access.

This is not an either/or argument for prevention rather than treatment. GLP-1 drugs are genuinely transformative and widening access is a real good for the 4 billion people in 2035 – 51% of the globe who are overweight.  The drugs also have been recommended by WHO for people with type 2 diabetes – which can be linked to genetic factors as well as to lifestyle and diet.

But insofar as a large proportion of obese and overweight people also are members of lower-income socio-economic groups, at least in countries and economies where junk foods are cheaper than healthier alternatives, access to GLP-1 treatment is also highly asymmetric.

And so the injectables most often first reach higher-income groups with insurance and disposable income, while the contested warning labels and sugar taxes are no-cost tools that can protect the poorest. And it is in the latter group, mostly concentrated in low-income countries, where NCD rates are growing most rapidly and where the burden of premature death from diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular conditions is the highest.

A world that finds billions to medicate while it will not spend political capital to prevent disease in the first place is making a choice. It is not a neutral one, let alone sensible, from the socio-economic perspective.

The reforms that didn’t reach Ituri

WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in Ituri, Democratic Republic of Congo on May 30, at the outset of the Bundibugyo Ebola outbreak.

If that is the skewed ledger of prevention-and-cure, Congo provides the arithmetic of failure. The Bundibugyo Ebola outbreak this column tracked at 719 deaths in mid-July had, by 25 July, reached 2536 cases and 1033 deaths. The uncomfortable question is why is this outbreak expanding faster than the previous thirty outbreaks since the Ebola virus was discovered in 1976 in DRC itself?

The popular excuse is that aid cuts compromised surveillance systems and delayed detection. Then there are challenging field conditions in a large region with poor infrastructure, experiencing prolonged civil conflict, and chaotic population displacement. Also, socio-cultural resistance and mistrust of health workers, and lack of a specific vaccine against the Bundibugyo strain.

Is that sufficient justification? Many comparable factors were also present in the 2014-2016 West African outbreak that so far remains the largest to date, with 29,000 cases and 12,000 deaths. As an advisor in West Africa for the International Medical Corps (IMC), I experienced that epidemic directly on the ground – and equally noteworthy the delayed and incompetent WHO response. Bringing the epidemic under control ultimately required military assets from the US, UK, and France, and UN leadership superseding the WHO.

That episode posed an existential threat to WHO – as the world debated whether health emergency management should be taken away from the Organization to a new body. Fortunately, sense prevailed with the WHO reforms born out of the West African catastrophe. They included a beefed-up Health Emergencies Programme with new systems and a new  Contingency Fund for Emergencies – as well as the birthing of a new, and assertive Africa Centres for Disease Control (CDC) to lead the continent’s public health challenges.

Following the Covid-19 pandemic, WHO’s International Health Regulations governing member states response to health emergencies were revised and in 2025 a Pandemic Agreement was approved by the World Health Assembly.

Unanswered questions

Ebola continues to spread in eastern regions of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The question – unanswered so far – is why these new capacities, protocols, procedures, and partnerships are not making for a more effective showing in Congo? Is it because the post-2016 reforms are not being applied by a hollowed-out WHO, or are they irrelevant to Congo’s unforgiving realities?

Or is it that the joint Africa CDC and WHO Ebola response plan launched with much fanfare in early June has diffused leadership and accountability between Geneva and Addis? When two bodies declare the same emergency, share one under-filled budget, and apportion the command-and-control of a fast-moving crisis, where do you address concerns over a faltering response?

Post-outbreak evaluations will, no doubt, provide answers. But such exercises often say more about how to win past battles than tackling future ones. Meanwhile, immediate improvements to Ebola management in Congo cannot wait.

Shaping leadership legacies

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Recognising how history’s long arc inexorably bends should focus mindsets. Consider how the last great Ebola failure of 2014-16 in West Africa remade WHO’s leadership. It tarnished the end of the tenure of Director-General Margaret Chan, obliging her to concede that the Organization’s response “did not match” the required scale. That debacle forged a reform mandate, clearing the path for the election of WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in 2017 as the ‘outsider-reformer’ vowing that WHO would never again be caught flat-footed by an emergency.

Now that Tedros is moving towards ending his own decade in office, what could be his legacy? The irony is sharp. A tenure that should be applauded for many achievements, including championing universal health coverage and standing up for global health through the depredations of Covid-19 and fragmented geopolitics may, instead, be remembered by his last battle.

That is because legacies in a fickle world are written more by the crisis a leader handles on the way out than by the ones they managed earlier – however competently. Unless WHO gets a grip on Congo now by bending the two-headed response into one, forcing limited available money to work better, and closing the gap between the ‘reformed’ machinery in Geneva and the struggling ground game in Ituri — the last chapter will be written not over laudatory cocktails in the Director General’s leaving parties but in Ituri’s wailing cemeteries.

It would be disappointing if the reformer who rode in on the last Ebola failure is seen out by the next.

That also raises a question for those seeking to succeed Dr Tedros next year as Director General. How can that high office allow its holder to shape events instead of being shaped by them? On the evidence of the week’s vital signs — stalling courtrooms, multi-billion drug markets, and mounting death tolls — it is fair to ask who is really in charge of our health?

Mukesh Kapila is professor emeritus of global health and humanitarian affairs at the University of Manchester, and a board member of Health Policy Watch. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author.  

 

 

 

Image Credits: Unsplash/Hamza Nouasria, WHO / Alasdair Bell, WHO/NCD Portal, X/Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, X/Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, X/Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Activists disrupt the US government session on its bilateral health agreements.

RIO DE JANEIRO – The United States has conceded that the HIV epidemic cannot be stopped “unless we have services for all people at risk” at a major event on the eve of the International AIDS Conference.

Dr Rebecca Bunnell, deputy head of implementing the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), made the remark at a US government event to explain the new “America First Global Health Strategy”.

“We can’t forget any group because if we do, we will fail,” added Deputy Assistant Secretary Bunnell, a deputy assistant secretary who is second in command to the US global AIDS coordinator.

She was responding to a question about how to include “key populations” – groups most at risk of HIV, including sex workers, men who have sex with men and people who inject drugs – who have been excluded from the new US approach to HIV, which prioritises preventing HIV in mothers and babies.

‘Key population’ exclusion

A new study released last week reported on huge disruptions to HIV treatment throughout the world following the Trump administration’s changes to PEPFAR.

Some 1,714 HIV service sites had closed, including over 1,000 public health facilities, according to the PEPFAR Pulse Study conducted by the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR).

“Partners were most likely to have permanently stopped providing services for key populations, the groups most vulnerable to HIV. Among partners providing HIV treatment, more than one in five (21%) had permanently stopped at least one HIV clinical care activity,” according to the International AIDS Society, which released the research.

Dr Temitope Ilori, Director General of Nigeria’s National Agency for the Control of AIDS, told the session that “the new policy” had disrupted some programmes aimed at key populations but several of these had been integrated into government programmes.

US officials Rebecca Bunnell and Jeff Graham and Dr Temitope Ilori, Director General of Nigeria’s National Agency for the Control of AIDS.

‘You lie, people die’

Earlier, the US government session had been interrupted by HIV activists blowing whistles and chanting: “You lie, people die. Restore PEPFAR now.”

“For months, there has been a public health emergency caused by your government’s deadly disruptions in PEPFAR programming and global health aid, and we will not allow this fact to be erased. We will not allow our communities to be erased by your anti-science, anti-LGBTQ, anti-participation agenda,” said HealthGAP’s Asia Russell, who had taken the microphone from Jeff Graham, the acting US global AIDS co-ordinator. 

“Today, you’re talking about memoranda of understanding with nice words like country ownership and self-reliance. But let’s be honest. These are coercive bilateral deals that expel people with HIV from the negotiating table on purpose in order to try to extract mineral wealth, to try to extract data, to extract whatever the Trump administration wants,” added Russell.

Health GAP’s Asia Russell (centre).

Graham later told the meeting that, while the MOUs had been linked to access to countries’ assets including critical minerals, “there are no critical minerals mentioned in any MOU”. 

However, some of the health MOUs – notably with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Guinea – were signed alongside mineral deals. Meanwhile, the US MOU with Zambia reportedly fell apart as the two countries could not agree on US terms for mineral access.

All MOUs involve co-financing from partners. In Nigeria’s case, it is investing $3 billion to the US investment of $2 billion.

Graham said that while the MOUs were “non-binding”, if a country did not live up to its co-financing promises, “we will have to assess that because we’re trying to make progress together”.

He described co-investment as a positive because if countries were able to finance their own health response, that “ultimately is a good thing”.

Several of the MOUs envisage a rapid path to government self-reliance, but Graham said that a transition resilience fund would assist if countries ran into trouble.

Protesters demonstrating against global funding cuts during the opening ceremony of the International AIDS Conference 2025. This year’s conference opens on Monday amid massive budget cuts for HIV.

The African Union held a special health summit this week, primarily aimed at mobilising high-level political support for more domestic health spending – particularly on HIV, tuberculosis and maternal health.

The summit coincided with the release of two new studies reporting on the huge disruptions to HIV treatment throughout the world following the Trump administration’s changes to the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

Some 1,714 HIV service sites had closed, including over 1,000 public health facilities, according to the PEPFAR Pulse Study conducted by the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR).

AmfAR’s study, based on a survey of 166 PEPFAR implementing partners in 46 countries, found more than half had at least one grant terminated while over three-quarters had to restrict their work.

Partners reported that they were unable to obtain condoms (23%), pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV (22%) or antiretroviral drugs (20%).

The second study, based on an analysis of PEPFAR data for fiscal year 2025, found that 77,163 fewer children living with HIV received PEPFAR-supported treatment in comparison to 2024 – a decline of 14.2%.

The worst impact was in South Africa, which recorded a 45% drop as 30,880 fewer children received treatment support from PEPFAR. Declines were also noted in Uganda, Haiti, Zambia and Kenya.

The US has decided to cut all PEPFAR aid to South Africa by early next year due to political disagreements. 

Both studies were released by the International AIDS Society (IAS) ahead of its global HIV conference, which opens in Rio on Monday.

‘Sunsetting’ UNAIDS?

UNAIDS executive director Winnie Byanyima at the body’s recent Programme Coordinating Board (PCB) meeting.

The conference, held under the theme “rethink, rebuild, rise”, comes at an extremely difficult time for the sector and for the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).

Amid a massive funding crisis, the UN Secretary-General produced a UN80 strategy that proposed “sunsetting” UNAIDS by the end of this year and “mainstreaming capacity and expertise into relevant entities of the United Nations development system in 2027”.

UNAIDS has already slashed staff by around 55%, and its Geneva head office has been massively reduced.

The UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board (PCB) has set up a working group tasked with developing “a plan on the further transition and integration of UNAIDS into the UN system and beyond, in coherence with the UN80 Initiative and based on a realistic financial scenario” by October.

The working group is mandated to identify “functions and units to be transferred, transformed, downsized, merged, decentralized, and/or absorbed by the UN system and other stakeholders”. 

However, the PCB has stressed that UNAIDS core functions “must be preserved and safeguarded either together in a single unit or with individual UN entities”. It also directs the working group to ensure the “preservation of the role of communities and civil society”, a hallmark of UNAIDS operations.

The PCB has also tasked UNAIDS executive director Winnie Byanyima with preparing a 2027 workplan and budget “aligned with the ongoing downsizing and informed by the plan of the working group”.

Addressing the PCB earlier this month, Byanyima said: Even in a complex global political context, UNAIDS still has that unique power to unite the world behind a shared vision to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.

“We will not deliver on that promise through institutions alone. We will deliver it through people, through the communities who refuse to be invisible, through the staff who carry this mission every day, through leaders in governments and partner organisations acting with courage in the face of uncertainty.”  

Delivering on 25-year-old promise

Chairperson of the AU Commission, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf,

Meanwhile, leaders who addressed the AU summit urged African states to implement the Abuja Declaration decision, adopted 25 years ago, to allocate at least 15% of national budgets to health.

Deliberations focused on HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, maternal and newborn health, viral hepatitis, neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), and non-communicable diseases (NCDs).

The summit also discussed how to advance the AU Roadmap to 2030 and Beyond, which envisions ending HIV as a public health threat and sets out how to control TB, malaria, NTDs and NCDs.

AU Commission Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf called on countries to make a “decisive shift from commitments to implementation”.

“Future generations will remember this Summit not for our speeches, but for whether we changed the trajectory of health in Africa,” said Youssouf.

Speaking at the close of the two-day summit, AU Health Commissioner Amma A. Twum-Amoah urged countries to “translate the AU Roadmap and the Accra Declaration into concrete national action.

“This means strengthening primary health care, integrating services, increasing domestic investment, advancing the local production of medicines, vaccines and diagnostics, investing in the health workforce and reinforcing surveillance, laboratory and digital health systems,” she said.

Image Credits: Jean Bizimana/ IAS.

India faces a growing burden of cancer, but survivors are struggling with the cost of treatment and stigma – even after they have recovered.

Life was normal for 27-year-old Delhi-based lawyer Deeba Fariyal until six years ago when she was diagnosed with synovial sarcoma, a rare soft-tissue cancer that typically affects young adults. Since then, she has endured six relapses, leaving her with few treatment options.

All the treatments have stopped working,” she said. “My cancer is one of the rarest forms, and there are very few treatment options.” 

Two years ago, the disease left her temporarily paralysed, although she has since regained the ability to walk. Today, tumours in her lungs and spine, combined with Delhi’s worsening air pollution, make everyday life increasingly difficult.

Yet, Fariyal says the greatest burden is neither the disease nor its complications—it’s the financial cost. 

“Everything is so expensive. Treatment at a private hospital in India can easily cost between $20,000 and $30,000,” she said. 

“The targeted therapy medicine I’m taking costs more than $120. Most patients avoid government hospitals because the waiting lists are so long. If you’re diagnosed with Stage 1 cancer, by the time your appointment comes, you could be in Stage IV. If you want timely treatment in India, you need a job, and that’s nearly impossible for many people [with cancer] to keep.”

Her struggle reflects a broader challenge facing cancer survivors worldwide: surviving the disease does not always mean returning to a normal life. 

High unemployment

A 2009 study published in JAMA found that 33.8% of cancer survivors were unemployed, compared with 15.2% of people without a history of cancer. 

Experts say the financial burden has only intensified in the years since, driven by rising treatment costs and persistent gaps in access to affordable care.

India’s growing cancer burden has made the issue increasingly urgent. The country records more than one million new cancer cases each year, while improvements in diagnosis and treatment mean more people are surviving the disease. 

The latest available estimates suggest India had around 2.1 million cancer survivors in 2017-18. Globally, about 32 million people are living after a cancer diagnosis. As survivorship rises, oncologists and patient advocates say returning to work has become an increasingly overlooked challenge.

A cancer patient receives chemotherapy. Not only do Indian cancer patients face expensive treatment, but many struggle to keep or find work after they have recovered.

When cancer costs you your job

For 36-year-old Richa Rana from Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, surviving breast cancer was only the beginning. Returning to work proved to be another battle. 

Rana was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2022 while working in the private sector. Instead of receiving workplace support, she says her employer placed her on nearly six months of unpaid leave. 

“At first, the company didn’t take any immediate action. They just put me on unpaid leave for almost six months,” she said. “When my treatment was over, I returned to work and proved that I was healthy enough to do my job.”

But a few months later, the cancer returned. The company again granted her unpaid leave while she underwent treatment. Once doctors declared her fit to return, she informed her employer that she was ready to resume work. 

“Instead of welcoming me back, HR replied that the company wanted to separate from me,” she recalled. “I was already going through a very difficult period. My father was also undergoing a liver transplant.”

Rana wrote a lengthy email to the company’s chief executive, pleading her case. She says the human resources department acknowledged that her performance had never been a problem. 

“They admitted they had no issue with my work. I lost my job because I had taken those two medical leaves even though they were both unpaid.”

Finding another job proved equally difficult. Rana says she cleared several interviews, only to be rejected after disclosing that she was a cancer survivor. 

“The interviews would go really well, but the moment I told them I was a cancer survivor, they would reject me,” she said. “Maybe employers think I’ll need frequent leave or that my productivity will be lower. But rejecting someone without even giving them a chance isn’t justified.”

After months of searching, Rana eventually secured another job – but only by keeping her medical history private. 

“During the interview, I didn’t tell them I was a cancer survivor,” she said. “I only told my manager after I’d been in the role for more than six months and had proved myself. He said they already had an idea, but by then they had seen my work and decided to keep me. We have to do this much just to make a living.” 

Discrimination against survivors

Fariyal says she has faced similar discrimination.

“Living with Stage IV synovial sarcoma has cost me my career,” she said. “Since October 2024, I have faced continuous unemployment not because I lack merit, but because of institutional bias.

According to Fariyal, employers often praise her legal research experience and her work teaching students preparing for law entrance examinations. But once she explains the gap in her résumé, the conversation changes. 

“I tell them honestly that the gap in my CV was because I was undergoing cancer treatment,” she said. “The door is immediately shut. I’m repeatedly told that despite my qualifications, they cannot recruit me because of my health condition.”

A cancer patient is comforted during chemotherapy.

India’s labour market leaves cancer survivors particularly vulnerable, says labour economist Professor Arun Kumar.

“The country’s high unemployment allows companies to replace workers who develop serious illnesses with little consequence,” Kumar told Health Policy Watch. “From a macroeconomic perspective, spending on hospitals, medicines and doctors contributes to GDP and appears as economic growth. But this is a negative form of growth because it reflects illness rather than improvements in people’s well-being.”

Nearly 94% of India’s workforce is employed in the informal sector, where workers have little or no social protection, paid medical leave, health insurance or employment benefits, note Kumar. Even among the roughly 6% employed in the formal sector, employer-provided benefits often fall short of covering the prolonged costs of cancer treatment.

Although treatment is available free at many government hospitals, patients frequently face overcrowded facilities, long waiting lists and limited access to specialised care, making timely treatment difficult.

Calls for stronger workplace protection

For Urvashi Prasad, a public policy specialist and Stage IV cancer survivor, India needs stronger legal protections against workplace discrimination. 

“In countries such as the UK, employers cannot discriminate against someone because of a serious illness. India needs similar protections,” she said, but conceded that legislation alone will not solve the problem. 

“Even where legal protections exist, implementation remains weak,” Prasad said, pointing to India’s maternity benefit laws as an example. “Many workers still face discrimination despite the law because enforcement is inconsistent and pursuing legal action is expensive and time-consuming.”

She said many cancer survivors simply cannot afford lengthy legal battles, while government agencies often lack the resources to enforce labour protections effectively. 

“The government cannot do everything on its own,” Prasad said. “Employers also need workplace policies that support people through serious illnesses and help them return to work.” 

Kumar agrees that stronger public policy is urgently needed.

“Employers should not be allowed to terminate workers simply because they fall seriously ill,” he said. “India needs stronger provisions for medical leave and social security, particularly for workers in the informal sector, so they are protected during major illnesses not just cancer.” 

As India’s cancer survival rates continue to improve, experts say the next challenge extends beyond healthcare. Ensuring survivors can return to work without facing discrimination, financial ruin or job loss, they argue, will be critical to improving both their quality of life and long-term recovery.

Image Credits: Prashanth Pinha/Unsplash, National Cancer Institute, USA, National Cancer Institute, USA.