Attendees flood in on the opening day of COP31 in Antalya, Türkiye.

ANTALYA – The 31st United Nations (UN) climate conference, COP31, got underway on Monday in the Turkish coastal city of Antalya, where some 100,000 people, including more than 90 heads of state and hundreds of ministers from nearly 200 countries, will gather over the next two weeks to decide what the world will or will not do to protect the future of the planet.

As has become routine, the summit follows a year of record-setting heat, floods, wildfires and drought across the globe. It is also the first since the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) concluded that the chance of holding warming to 1.5°C, the Paris Agreement’s landmark limit, “has been lost.”

On arrival at the sprawling Antalya Expo Centre, attendees who had not collected their badges the night before met a level of disorganisation reminiscent of the state of the negotiations themselves. This reporter’s wait to enter the venue lasted three hours, 21 minutes and 20 seconds, while others, stuck in highway traffic or unable to board the few buses, shuttles and trams to the venue, fared far worse.

For those brave enough to make it inside, the national pavilion halls play out like a world’s fair. Tajikistan’s is adorned with glaciers, a reminder of the Himalayan glacier collapse accelerated by climate change that killed more than 1,300 people in Nepal in August. Brazil’s is a rainforest, Oman’s a desert.

Across the hall, the UK pavilion honours the man who has arguably done more than anyone to protect the ecosystems the pavilions celebrate, the 100-year-old Sir David Attenborough.

UK Pavilion at COP31.

From the moment planes land to when buses and trams pull into the Expo Centre grounds, COP31-themed slogans blanket the city. Some play on time (“Protecting tomorrow is today’s work”), others on public transit (“Next stop: a better future,” painted on the COP31 tram). Some are classic UN jargon (“Dialogue. Consensus. Action.”), while others are just silly (“Let’s COP!”).

Yet one in particular best captures what the hosts, delegates, civil society and attendees in Antalya hope the summit will deliver: “Where dialogue becomes action.”

“COP31 must help close the gap between commitment and delivery,” said Australian climate minister Chris Bowen, who presides over the negotiations under a power-sharing deal with Türkiye. He has made finance, electrification and the ocean his priorities, and advocates: “We must turn climate ambition into real-world outcomes.”

So can the world deliver?

“The success of the next two weeks of talks will be judged by two things. The appetite to deliver on the promises we have made, and the ability to move beyond the culture of declarations that has sullied previous conferences,” said Mohamed Adow, director of the Nairobi-based think tank Power Shift Africa.

Let’s COP!

A large animated dome sitting atop the food court flips through animations of the globe, COP31 logos and the Turkish flag.

In hallowed COP tradition, the opening ceremony began an hour and a half late. The talks ran into Sunday night, stumbling over developing countries’ demands to put climate finance on the official agenda. Still, by previous years’ standards, this was a relatively short stalemate.

While the overtime talks secured an agenda item on climate finance, a two-year work programme agreed in Belém on how rich countries meet their obligation under the Paris Agreement to fund climate action in developing ones, it came at a compromise.

An African Group request for a separate item on tripling adaptation finance, the money that helps countries cope with heat, floods and failed harvests, was withdrawn after late-night talks and will be taken up under other items instead, according to Climate Home News and AFP.

Adaptation finance was a key target of civil society and developing nations alike in the run-up to COP31 because of the confusion in the text agreed last year. At COP30 in Belém, countries pledged to “at least triple” adaptation finance by 2035, but never agreed on a baseline year to triple from, or a dollar figure.

As it stands, depending on how it is measured, the pledge would cover just 20% to 29% of the roughly $420 billion a year, adjusted for inflation, that developing countries will need by 2035 to adapt to a fast-accelerating climate crisis, UNEP found in its annual Adaptation Gap Report last week.

An interactive map charting the flight paths and emissions of COP attendees.

As money continues to fall short and warming accelerates, the 44 least developed countries (LDCs) called the looming overshoot of 1.5°C “a grave betrayal of our countries who have contributed least to this crisis” in their opening-day statement.

“COP31 cannot be another exercise in deferring difficult decisions,” said the group’s chair, Ambassador Adão Soares Barbosa of Timor-Leste. “It must deliver urgent emissions reductions, address temperature overshoot, access finance and tangible protection for those most at risk.”

‘Pandemic proportions’

Top health and climate officials gather at a high-level ministerial meeting on COP31’s Health Day.

Türkiye opened COP31 with a Health Day, and health ministers and global health leaders from Geneva to the Pacific came to Antalya to argue that the health consequences of climate change have reached catastrophic proportions.

“No health system can be made resilient to an endlessly warming world,” Simon Stiell, the UN’s climate chief, told health ministers. “We must drive the transition away from fossil fuels fast and fairly.”

Stiell added that a health system can falter by degree: “A ward grows hotter. The power flickers. A refrigerator holding medicines fails. Floodwater enters a well. A mother in labor finds the road to the clinic cut off.”

At a separate press briefing on Monday, Stiell said the climate crisis is now “a global health crisis of pandemic proportions.”

Heat was linked to a record 710,000 deaths in 2023, almost three-quarters of them caused by climate change, the Lancet Countdown found last month. Air pollution from burning fossil fuels killed another 2.78 million people that year, and The Lancet authors argued that WHO should create a new category of public health emergency to classify the climate crisis.

“We can say that most heat deaths around the world are caused by climate change,” said Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, who leads WHO’s climate and health work. “They’re climate change deaths.”

Money for war and death

Opening plenary of COP31 in session.

But as dire warnings of health threats echoed around the room, for a third consecutive COP, following Brazil and Baku, governments did not announce any new investment or financing.

“Let me be direct,” said Brazil’s Health Minister, Alexandre Padilha. “Financing for health adaptation is insufficient and is falling down.”

International public commitments for health adaptation fell from about $3.2 billion in 2022 to $2.2 billion in 2024, just 5% of all international public adaptation finance, Padilha said.

Development aid fell 23% in 2025, its largest drop on record, according to OECD figures he cited, while global military spending has risen 41% in a decade to $2.9 trillion.

“Why [is there] always so much money for war and death,” he asked, “and so little for health, environment, and life?”

‘Declarations do not protect people’

Bridge to COP31 stretches over a highway, with Antalya’s surrounding mountains in the backdrop.

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, at his last COP as WHO Director-General before his term ends next August, traced health’s climb up the climate agenda, from pledges on climate-resilient health systems in Glasgow in 2021 to the first COP Health Day in Dubai and the Belém Health Action Plan last year.

“Each of those steps was driven by health ministers, but declarations do not protect people,” he said. “Implementation does.”

Tuvalu Health Minister Tuafafa Latasi said he spoke “from the front line of an immediate clinical and public health emergency,” with three of his country’s nine islands at high risk from cyclones, rising seas and salt seeping into groundwater.

“Protecting health in Tuvalu is a test of our shared humanity,” he said. “Our call at COP31 is simple: match strong climate commitment with practical support.”

In a WHO survey last year, more than 90% of countries named insufficient finance as a top barrier to their health and climate plans, Tedros said. Yet health has no item of its own in the formal talks, where climate finance is negotiated.

Resilient health systems are one of 10 priorities on Türkiye’s voluntary action agenda but, unlike electrification or waste, they have no numerical targets for 2035.

“Health is the human face of climate change,” Tedros told ministers. “It belongs in the negotiated text. It should be an explicit eligibility area for climate finance and its share should grow as adaptation finance grows.”

New ‘initiative’ launched

The headline launch from Health Day came with Türkiye and WHO’s announcement of what is known as the Antalya Initiative for Resilient Health Systems (AIR).

It is a voluntary scheme through which countries document what has worked in protecting health from climate shocks, what has not and what it cost, and share those lessons. In short, a shared feedback platform. But no countries announced their participation in the initiative as of Monday night.

“We want a successful solution developed in one country to be able to save lives in another,” said Türkiye’s Health Minister Kemal Memişoğlu. “We want to ensure that no country has to waste time reinventing solutions for the same problems.”

The initiative is designed to complement WHO’s Alliance for Transformative Action on Climate and Health (ATACH), a network of more than 100 countries that will hold their own summit on Tuesday at the COP31 health pavilion.

No funding, staff or list of participating countries has been published. Eighteen health organisations, led by Health Care Without Harm, have asked for the initiative to include a dedicated pillar for health workers.

Belém funding framework

WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus speaks at COP30 in Belém. The summit saw the launch of the Belém Health Action Plan, a Brazilian-led initiative that aligns with the WHO’s broader Global Action Plan on Climate Change and Health.
At COP30 in Belém, Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called the formalising of Belém Health Action Plan a historic shift in the role health plays in climate talks. One year later, it has 40 signatories.

Brazil, meanwhile, launched a financing framework for the Belém Health Action Plan, a voluntary list of about 60 non-binding measures now endorsed by 40 countries since it was launched last year.

Drawn up with Wellcome and the Rockefeller Foundation, it sets out for each measure which kinds of money could pay for it, from climate funds and development banks to philanthropy and national budgets, along with likely partners and examples of where it has worked.

“I wish to make it very clear: this is not a new fund,” Padilha said. “It’s a map to help countries make better use of the mechanisms that already exist.”

Much of what the plan covers, such as disease surveillance, early warning systems and training health workers, generates little or no revenue, Padilha said, yet countries are being asked to take on debt to pay for it. The framework is meant to steer those measures toward grants and public money instead, with progress to be reported by COP33 in 2028.

“With the financing framework, we have the map,” he said. “Now we need the investment.”

Alan Dangour, Wellcome’s director of climate and health, announced that the Climate and Health Funders Coalition, which pledged $300 million in Belém, had awarded more than $225 million in its first year and attracted $150 million in new commitments.

“We should approach climate negotiations as though people’s lives depend on them,” Dangour said, “because they do.”

‘Off the charts’

Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) from 1960 to 2025 as estimated from ocean heat
content.

The past 12 years are the 12 warmest on record, and the past four are the warmest of all, the WMO said in its report. Global temperatures from January to September averaged about 1.47°C above pre-industrial levels, and are likely to climb further as El Niño, forecast to be the strongest on record by December, takes hold.

“El Niño and indeed the state of the global climate in 2026 gives new meaning to the phrase off the charts,” said WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo. “El Niño doesn’t add new heat to the planet. It releases heat from the ocean, which is the warmest ever measured.”

Saulo told reporters to “prepare for another record-breaking year in 2027.” Europe’s heatwaves, drought and wildfires this year caused more than 30,000 excess deaths by preliminary estimates, the report found.

For the first time, WHO has classified El Niño’s expected health impacts as a health emergency, according to WMO. The Lancet Countdown has urged WHO to go further and create a new instrument recognising climate change itself as a global health emergency.

Three in four national weather services send health information to their countries’ health ministries, Saulo said, but only one in four ministries treats it as relevant to their decisions.

“Early warnings help save lives. Early warnings for heat, for floods, for droughts,” she said. “But they cannot be just headlines. They need to be translated into action.”

Image Credits: WHO/PAHO/Karina Zambrana .

Capitol building
Democrats swept into power during the US midterm elections, promising to restore funding to health programs and scientific research, and oversight of the Trump administration’s policies.

November’s US midterm elections swept Democrats into power in both the House and Senate, marking a shift in congressional leadership on key health policies. This comes as a former Trump administration official and a founder of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement accused the administration of catering to industry interests over the health of Americans. 

WASHINGTON – The “blue wave” that swept the US delivered a stark rebuke of the Trump administration’s unprecedented health policies. Voters registered their disapproval of steep Medicaid and food assistance cuts, MAHA-vaccine policy upheavals, and MAHA messaging that has failed to resonate in a year of high inflation and fuel costs. 

As of 9 November, the Democratic Party held the Senate majority with 54 seats and the House of Representatives with 254 members. Democrats also won in state-level and gubernatorial elections to the surprise of seasoned pollsters – including in deep red states like Texas, Kansas, Iowa, and Ohio. Several races are yet to be called but will not change the cemented Democratic majority.  

The election – held halfway into President Trump’s second term – sent a strong signal that Americans are unhappy with, among other policies, the incumbent Republican agenda of deep health care cuts, about-face MAHA policies on pesticides and environmental protections, and turmoil in public health preparedness as the measles virus has sickened over 5,000 Americans this year alone. 

The results set the Democrats to reshape health policies come January – and exert their oversight powers through investigations of key administration officials.

Over three-quarters of voters stated government corruption was a top issue in exit polling.

Congressional leadership change

Means Saunders Vaccines
Senator Bernie Saunders (I-VT), who caucuses with Democrats, is poised to chair the Senate health committee. Democrats won control of both the House and Senate.

Democratic victories netted the party at least seven seats in the Senate and more than 40 in the House, securing control of both chambers when the 120th Congress convenes in January 2027. 

With these changes, the party will control powerful congressional committees, including the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which oversees legislation and policy relating to public health, health care, and biomedical research. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who caucuses with Democrats, is poised to chair the HELP Committee. 

Notably, the HELP Committee oversaw all confirmation hearings for health agency leaders in the first two years of the Trump administration, including for Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. 

HELP chair and doctor Sen Bill Cassidy (R-LA) lost his seat, as did another HELP member, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who was known for championing biomedical research funding. 

The Senate Appropriations Committee will also change hands, giving Democrats greater influence over federal spending priorities, including funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other research agencies.

US Midterm elections Nov 2026
The US Senate midterm elections results. As of 9 November, the Democratic party holds the chamber with a majority of 54 seats.

In the House, committees on Appropriations, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means will also come under Democratic leadership. The Energy and Commerce Committee is particularly consequential for science and health policy, given its jurisdiction over the NIH, FDA, public health, and environmental quality. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) is seeking the chairmanship, while Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) is expected to lead Appropriations and Richard Neal (D-MA) to lead Ways and Means. 

The Democrats will be able to influence the kinds of bills introduced and prioritized by leadership, and call in administration officials for questioning.

Although the party holds a Senate majority, it lacks the 60 votes generally needed to overcome a filibuster, as well as the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto.

‘First 100 hours’ vows to undo Trump cuts

Medicaid funding cuts
Under the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” millions of Americans lost health care due to changes to ACA premium tax credits and Medicaid cuts.

A health policy agenda circulated prior to the elections by House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) outlined immediate, ambitious action in the first 100 hours and 100 days of the legislative session. 

The plan includes a repeal of the steep 2025 Medicaid coverage cuts in the “Big Beautiful Bill” (HR1), restoring supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) coverage, and reinstating healthcare tax credits for the Affordable Care Act. The expired tax credits left millions of Americans facing higher health insurance costs. 

US voters midterm election sentiments on health policies
US midterm voters rejected the Trump administrations health policies, including those that tackled fraud and costs.

The plan also aims to release National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding withheld by the Trump administration. Last year’s “catastrophic” cuts to the premier research funding agency led to thousands of NIH grants being paused, frozen, or terminated mid-project – including cancer and HIV/AIDS clinical trials. 

“Scientists researching new cancer cures are neither culture warriors nor campus protesters. But so far, the biggest financial blows against academia have been borne by biomedical research,” wrote David Cutler and Edward Glaeser, professors at Harvard University, in a JAMA 2025 editorial.

Nearly two dozen Democratic candidates with science or medical backgrounds used this rhetoric to decry the Trump administration’s upheaval of the US scientific research enterprise. 

Dr Jasmine Clark
Dr Jasmine Clark, a microbiologist from Georgia, made restoring research funding a top priority during her campaign for Congress.

Dr Jasmine Clark of Georgia, a microbiologist who will be the first woman to hold a STEM PhD in Congress, ran on a platform that would restore funding to the CDC and NIH, calling the cuts “unsustainable.” 

“Years of research on life changing issues like asthma and air pollution, cancer treatments, measles-rubella, and HIV, have been lost due to attacks on science,” she said.

New cohort of physicians and scientists to focus on affordability 

Annie Andrews pediatrician South Carolina
Dr Annie Andrews, a pediatrician from South Carolina, will represent her state in the Senate. She joins several other health professionals in the incoming Congress.

The incoming Congress features a near-record number of physicians and health scientists. Aside from Clark, pediatrician Annie Andrews of South Carolina and epidemiologist Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan are incoming senators who have promised to deliver on Democratic promises of expanded healthcare. El-Sayed especially leaned hard into “Medicare-for-All” messaging. 

US midterm elections health care affordability
Health care affordability was top of mind for US voters in November’s midterm elections.

According to analysis from KFF, health care affordability was a leading issue for voters, with six in 10 voters saying they were “very concerned” about the costs. Their polling also revealed broad discontent with two pillars of Republican health policies: government health program fraud crackdowns and making America healthy again. A majority of voters said the administration made both worse.

“Most midterm voters appear to reject the idea that the Trump administration’s policies have made America healthier,” KFF analysts said in their report of election sentiment data.

MAHA agenda failed to win voters

Pesticides
Crop applications in Illinois. MAHA candidates fared poorly in agricultural states as voters rebuked the administration’s policies that favored industry over health.

These sentiments extended beyond health care costs. The MAHA coalition that propelled Kennedy into his prominent role have united against what they perceived to be the most insidious health threats to Americans: pesticides, ultra-processed foods, vaccines, and even public water fluorination. 

Many of these policies focused on tackling the industries that drive poor health, including Big agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and food. 

While the administration revamped dietary guidelines that focused more on protein, it failed to regulate ultra-processed foods, including offering a definition of what ultra-processed food is.

Calley Means, a senior advisor to Kennedy who resigned shortly before the Midterms, said over the weekend that the MAHA agenda had failed due to the Trump administration’s industry interests.

“Underneath Trump’s nose…you had a group of former lobbyists, catering to the vaping industry, catering to the ultra-processed food industry, catering to the pharmaceutical industry, catering to the pesticide industry and doing their bidding with an excuse that we need their money for the midterms and [need] to go against what voters said,” Means told CBS in an interview that aired Sunday. 

Means also accused several Trump administration officials of undermining the MAHA agenda, telling CBS that these advisers were “taking money from the industries we ran on fighting against.”

Calley Means
Calley Means, a top MAHA advisor, accused the Trump administration of catering to industry interests following the November midterm elections.

MAHA supporters also felt betrayed when the Trump administration issued an executive order boosting the production of glyphosate, a pesticide banned in many countries for its adverse health and ecological effects. 

The Republican candidates’ failure to strike a resonant chord with voters in the elections could reshape the MAHA coalition’s alignment with MAGA Republicans in favor of Democrats. 

Several Democratic members of Congress have stated their support of MAHA tenets such as fixing the US food supply and protecting environmental health. 

Rep Chellie Pingree (D-ME) launched a “Fix Our Food Caucus” and has long worked on popular MAHA issues.

“If RFK survives all this, I hope we can get the focus back on healthier foods, food is medicine, and straighten out the CDC and vaccine side of it,” Pingree said in an interview.

But she also said she would “absolutely” call in the Environmental Protection Agency’s director, Lee Zeldin, for questioning on the unprecedented deregulation of pollution, pesticides, and environmental protections.

Measles crisis bungled, calls for Kennedy’s impeachment 

Measles case map US Nov 2026
Measles cases have topped 5,000 in the US as vaccination rates have slipped.

Congressional Democrats are looking to exert their oversight authority on Kennedy through subpoenas, investigations, hearings, and even removal from office. 

“I want to hold RFK Jr accountable for the damage that he has done to America’s public health system,” Andrews said in an interview following her election. “He is the reason that Spartanburg County, South Carolina, had a measles outbreak just last year.”

Measles cases in the US have surpassed 5,000 – the highest number of infections since the 1990s. The virus, which can cause severe and permanent complications such as severe pneumonias and brain infections, is vaccine-preventable. Several states have reported their first measles deaths in over three decades.

RFK Jr testimony day 1 Jan 2025
RFK Jr testified before the US Senate Finance Committee during his two-day confirmation hearing schedule. He is expected to be called to testify with greater frequency now that the Democratic party controls the chamber.

Kennedy has become a divisive figure in vaccine policy, backing a reduction in the number of recommended childhood vaccines and casting doubt on the efficacy of vaccines.

US public health agencies like the CDC and FDA have also seen massive workforce reductions in the past two years. 

Sanders was asked whether he agreed with Andrews that RFK Jr should be removed from his role as HHS secretary. 

“I am absolutely open to that,” Sanders said. “The bottom line is we need a secretary of HHS who is concerned about the health and well-being of our kids and all Americans, not involved in crazy conspiracy theories.”

Sen Ralph Warnock (D-GA) went further. “Unless RFK Jr is interested in spending the next two years in front of Congressional committees, he should go ahead and resign now,” he said in a social media post. 

Image Credits: Unsplash, HELP Committee, AP, Statista, KFF, Jasmine4GA, drannieandrews, James Baltz, CIDRAP, CDC, CSPAN.

WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus met with Sadikin at WHO headquarters in July 2026.
WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus met with Sadikin at WHO headquarters in July 2026.

Budi Sadikin, Indonesia’s Minister of Health and the country’s nominee for WHO Director General, has in fact spent most of his career in finance –  as a top executive at Indonesia’s largest bank, PT Bank Mandiri TBk.

“Before, my job was to make my clients wealthy; now my job is to make my people healthy,” says Sadikin with a smile. Sadikin, who also holds an undergraduate degree in physics, believes his executive experience will help him tackle WHO reform, even as the organization suffers big cuts in donor funding.

But he is also a firm believer in health equity, telling us that during a global pandemic, emergency treatments “should become global public goods.”  The good relations he enjoys with the United States, politically and personally (he did several executive education stints at places like Wharton, Harvard and UC Berkeley), could also help pave the way for Washington to rejoin the WHO, he suggests.

But he also has a warning for Washington, saying: “if any country believes it can safeguard its population on its own during the next pandemic, that is scientifically and practically impossible.”

Listen to the full podcast:

The podcast series with candidates is being co-produced by the SwissInfo media platform with the Geneva Graduate Institute’s Global Health Centre, as part of a collaboration covering the upcoming WHO election – also supported by Health Policy Watch.

See more about the candidates on Health Policy Watch’s special WHO election website.

WHO DG Elections 2027

UN Resident Coordinator in Zimbabwe, Dr Rosemary Kalapurakal, and health workers at the solar power installation at Victoria Falls District Hospital earlier this year.

HARARE, Zimbabwe – As she opened and shut the doors of four giant refrigerators inside a dispensary at Budiriro Polyclinic in the capital of Harare, the nurse beamed.

Since the clinic became linked to solar power, critical medicines that need refrigeration are no longer at risk of spoiling when the national power grid is unavailable.

While the rest of the world is moving towards solar as a clean energy option, Zimbabwe turned to it out of sheer survival to keep its health clinics from operating in the dark. 

Run by the United Nations Development Fund (UNDP) and the Global Fund, in active collaboration with the government of Zimbabwe, the country’s “solar-for-health” program was launched in 2015.

Budiriro Polyclinic was one of the first beneficiaries. At the time, Zimbabwe experienced power cuts of up to 18 hours a day as drought sapped away water from dams and lakes, heavily impacting hydro-electricity.

By August this year, over 1,263 health facilities and medical warehouses across Zimbabwe had solar energy systems, driven by a partnership between the UNDP, the Global Fund, and the government. 

These installations power maternity wards, such as the ones at Budiriro Polyclinic, as well as vaccine cold chains and emergency operating rooms at hospitals during lengthy periods of power blackouts. 

In 2024, to shield medical drugs from the incessant power blackouts, the UNDP  donated a state-of-the-art 450 kWp solar system to Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Health and Child Care and the National Pharmaceutical Company (NatPharm). 

Solar pride

In Harare, where a 500-kW hybrid solar-battery system was installed at Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals, Zimbabwe’s biggest referral hospital, the transition to clean, reliable solar energy has brought relief to healthcare workers and patients previously plagued by blackouts.

“Before the coming of solar here, as nurses, we would order expecting mothers to buy candles and torches for lighting because power outages were severe. We no longer do that because solar has made our lives better,” a nurse at Parirenyatwa Hospital told Health Policy Watch. 

“I’m so happy because there is solar power here now. In the past, each time I would be admitted here, there would be total darkness with no alternative when power went off. But with solar now, that is no more,” said Neliet Magosvongwe, a hypertension patient.

In 2024, the Global Fund’s Linden Morrison, Zimbabwean Health Minister Dr Douglas Mombeshora, and UNDP’s Dr Ayodele Odusola at a ceremony to hand over the 450kW solar system to the National Pharmaceuticals Company (NatPharm).

Solar plants increase

Zimbabwe is steadily scaling its healthcare grid, marked by a continuous rise in solar-powered clinics.

Such is the case at the United Bulawayo Hospitals (UBH), a central referral hospital west of the country which serves five provinces. UBH now has a 350kW solar plant that became fully operational in February.

“The solar plant here has massively consolidated power reliability while it has also resulted in a cut in costs that have often been incurred by the hospital through the use of diesel while powering generators for energy supplies,” said a staffer at UBH.

Patients upbeat

Miriam Matshona from Budiriro is expecting her third child. In 2018, Matshona had her second child at the clinic when a solar plant had just been installed. When power cuts hit the clinic then, the lights remained on, so she is confident that this will be the case for her next birth. 

Nurses no longer dread nocturnal deliveries, when they battled to monitor women’s labiur by candlelight.

“Before solar came, when power went off, we would turn to candles or the diesel generator, but that was noisy, smoky and not fit for use around patients. But now we have solar which provides clean energy,” said a nurse at Budiriro Polyclinic.

Approximately 25% of healthcare facilities in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have no access to electricity, while a further 28% do not have reliable access to power and experience frequent outages that have often affected the continuity and quality of health care, according to UNDP. 

 

Image Credits: UNDP, UNDP.

Zainab Shinkafi-Bagudu and Khaled Ghanem
Zainab Shinkafi-Bagudu and Khaled Ghanem

A child diagnosed with cancer in a wealthy country has more than an 80 percent chance of surviving. In Syria, one hospital has managed to bring survival rates to 76 percent, despite years of war and severe shortages, while in parts of Nigeria, survival remains around 30%.

For Dr. Khaled Ghanem, a pediatric oncologist who directs a cancer unit in Damascus, the difference is not necessarily the disease itself, but whether children can access the treatment they need.

“A curable disease is dependent on the health system available,” Ghanem said.

Speaking on the latest episode of Global Health Matters, Ghanem joined Dr. Zainab Shinkafi-Bagudu, founder of Nigeria’s Medicaid Cancer Foundation and president-elect of the Union for International Cancer Control, to discuss how partnerships, early diagnosis and financial support can improve childhood cancer survival in resource-limited settings.

Ghanem’s unit, operated in partnership with the non-profit BASMA, treats approximately 400 children annually, working with international partners to secure medicines, specialised diagnostics and training. He said the programme operates on an annual budget of approximately $1.5 million.

In northern Nigeria, Shinkafi-Bagudu described a different set of challenges, including late diagnosis, limited access to hospitals and treatment costs that can force families to sell their homes or farmland.

“I have seen children that move from stage two to metastatic and even palliative care stages simply because they’re not able to access that care,” she said.

She also warned that many families and healthcare workers still do not recognise childhood cancer as a possibility, delaying diagnosis until treatment becomes more difficult.

Both experts emphasised that improving survival requires more than medicines, including stronger health systems, partnerships and practical support that allows families to complete treatment.

“We can cure it; it’s one of those with a good outcome,” Shinkafi-Bagudu said.

Watch more episodes on Health Policy Watch >> 

Image Credits: Global Health Matters.

Regional development bank headquarters in Lomé, Togo, representing the institutional shift toward loan-based health financing as grant aid contracts.
West African Development Bank headquarters in Lomé, Togo, representing the institutional shift toward loan-based health financing as grant aid contracts.

Multilateral development banks (MDBs) are moving to centre stage in global health financing, driven by collapsing bilateral aid and political momentum from initiatives like the Accra Reset. Experts view the shift as an opportunity to deliver the predictable, large-scale investment needed to strengthen domestic health systems – provided governments and lenders can ensure transparent terms that safeguard sovereign solvency.

Peter Piot, co-chair of the Accra Reset High-Level Panel and professor of global health at LSHTM.
Peter Piot, co-chair of the Accra Reset High-Level Panel and professor of global health at LSHTM.

“Multilateral development banks will probably become the major external source of funding, just like in high-income countries where we go to banks,” explained Peter Piot, professor of global health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, in an interview with Health Policy Watch at the World Health Summit in Berlin.

A veteran negotiator who represented the United Nations (UN) in establishing the Global Fund, Piot co-led the Accra Reset High-Level Panel workstream on governance and institutional reform.

According to the panel, integrating MDBs into national health budgets is inevitable as domestic tax revenues fall short of mounting post-pandemic healthcare demands. Unlike short-term, disease-specific donor grants, development bank loans offer multi-year, scalable capital designed to finance foundational health infrastructure, digital systems, and workforce expansion.

Bilateral aid declines, development bank financing steps in

Regional development bank funding surged by 32% as traditional grant channels and UN agencies faced steep, widespread contractions.
Regional development bank funding surged by 32% as traditional grant channels and UN agencies faced steep cuts.

Recent preliminary data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), published by Think Global Health, underscores the volatility of this pivot. Development assistance for health from regional development banks grew by an estimated 32% ($270 million) between 2025 and 2026 – alongside a 2% ($91 million) increase from the World Bank.

This rebound follows a 48% contraction the previous year as pandemic-era emergency disbursements unwound. But bank lending falls far short of replacing the billions lost in bilateral and multilateral grant cuts, demonstrating that development banks are being pulled into a primary role by default as traditional grant streams recede.

Overall, global health grant aid contracted by 12% in 2025 and a further 5% in 2026. External health funding to sub-Saharan Africa alone fell by nearly 70% between 2021 and 2025 following the expiration of emergency COVID-19 facilities, according to the Accra Reset High-Level Panel report.

Although low-income nations increased government health spending by an average of 8% per year between 2024 and 2026 to cushion these losses, budget constraints and mounting external interest burdens meant total per capita health spending still fell by 3% annually.

Sharp cutbacks from major donors – led by the United Kingdom slashing assistance by 37% ($891 million) and the United States by 8% ($668 million) – were compounded by parallel declines across multilateral grant channels, including an 18% drop for UN agencies and a 15% drop for Gavi.

Disbursements from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria contracted by 25% between 2024 and 2025, followed by another 2% drop in 2026, as emergency funding unwound. This comes as the organisation registered an unprecedented $5.32 billion shortfall in its Eighth Replenishment.

Blended finance: the Global Fund-Islamic Development Bank deal

Bridging grants and loans: Headquarters of the Islamic Development Bank in Jeddah (left) and the Global Fund in Geneva (right).
Bridging grants and loans: Headquarters of the Islamic Development Bank in Jeddah (left) and the Global Fund in Geneva (right).

To bridge this widening fiscal gap, traditional global health funds are turning to financial engineering, using grant dollars to stretch capital through blended finance. In October, the Global Fund and the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) signed a partnership agreement mirroring the new fiscal realities.

This institutional framework blends Global Fund grant capital and technical expertise with IsDB’s concessional lending portfolio and implementation scale to fund public health priorities, including integrated primary healthcare, supply chains, and health workforce development.

The partnership focuses on a major shared territory: 43% of the Global Fund’s country grants (roughly $4.5 billion) goes to nations that are also IsDB member states, enabling the two institutions to coordinate joint and blended financing streams.

Responding to queries from Health Policy Watch, the Global Fund explained that the agreement forms part of a broader strategic effort to collaborate with MDBs – including parallel arrangements with the World Bank and Asian Development Bank – to stretch capital. A spokesperson cautioned that these bank co-investments mobilise complementary capital and cannot replace continued donor grant commitments or domestic health allocations.

However, the organisation confirmed that the precise financial terms and interest structures of its co-investment arrangements remain undisclosed to the public – leaving public watchdogs unable to assess the ultimate repayment liabilities being incurred.

Concerns over health equity trade-offs

Mariska Meurs, Senior Global Health Advocate at Wemos.
Mariska Meurs, Senior Global Health Advocate at Wemos.

While critical of the sparse published partnership details, Mariska Meurs, global health expert at Dutch civil society advocacy organisation Wemos, sees potential in these new financing instruments. Co-investing through global health initiatives offers the advantage of directing MDB capital into public systems rather than commercial ventures.

However, she stresses that it is essential to distinguish public bank borrowing from private-sector de-risking when evaluating health equity. Public MDB concessional loans expand state budget capacity; by contrast, blended models engineered to de-risk private commercial investment tend to channel funds toward profitable medical services rather than non-profit public healthcare for high-need populations.

Over-relying on MDB borrowing also risks distracting global health advocates from systemic fiscal solutions, including progressive national and international tax justice and sovereign debt cancellation.

“To solve the health financing gap, the global health community should rally behind campaigns for debt and tax justice,” Meurs urged, highlighting public-sector initiatives like the WHO-EIB-IsDB Health Impact Investment Platform (HIIP) focused directly on primary healthcare.

Financing experts warn of growing debt risks

Rapidly rising public debt across developing countries severely constrains the fiscal space required to fund essential public healthcare.
Rapidly rising public debt across developing countries severely constrains the fiscal space required to fund essential public healthcare.
Bodo Ellmers, Director of Financing for Development at Global Policy Forum Europe.
Bodo Ellmers, Director of Financing for Development at Global Policy Forum Europe.

While closer coordination between global health funds and multilateral development banks reduces donor fragmentation, analysts warn that converting grant streams into debt risks locking vulnerable nations into an escalating debt spiral.

“A trend toward blended finance must be treated with caution, as it means more loans and thus more debt for the Global South,” warned Bodo Ellmers, director of financing for development at the German NGO, Global Policy Forum Europe, in response to a query by Health Policy Watch.

“The Global Fund has historically disbursed almost exclusively grants, and that should remain the case, as many developing nations are already groaning under an unsustainable debt burden.”

This warning comes against a broader backdrop of mounting fiscal distress across the Global South. Developing nations face an escalating sovereign debt crisis, with interest payments on external public debt across developing countries (excluding China) outstripping net new lending since 2022, according to UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) data. This systemic interest burden leaves borrowing governments under severe fiscal constraints precisely as grant aid recedes.

Debt swaps offer fiscal space alongside bank capital

Panelists discuss the Accra Reset roadmap for health sovereignty at the World Health Summit in Berlin. Pictured (from left to right): Shingai Machingaidze (Accra Reset), Peter Piot (LSHTM), Priscila Ferraz (Fiocruz), Elhadj As Sy (Kofi Annan Foundation), and Catherine Kyobutungi (APHRC).
Panellists discuss the Accra Reset roadmap for health sovereignty at the World Health Summit in Berlin. Pictured (from left to right): Shingai Machingaidze (Accra Reset), Peter Piot (LSHTM), Priscila Ferraz (Fiocruz), Elhadj As Sy (Kofi Annan Foundation), and Catherine Kyobutungi (APHRC).
Elhadj As Sy, Co-Chair of the Accra Reset High-Level Panel and Chair of the Kofi Annan Foundation Board.
Elhadj As Sy, Co-Chair of the Accra Reset High-Level Panel and Chair of the Kofi Annan Foundation Board.

To create the fiscal room needed to absorb development bank capital without triggering defaults, Accra Reset leaders argue that new loans must be paired with debt relief mechanisms, such as debt-for-health swaps. Through these swaps, creditors forgive or restructure sovereign debt on the condition that saved interest payments are redirected into national health budgets.

“The discussion going on is to create more fiscal space – that is debt swaps for health, and bringing the International Finance Corporation and the private sector along so that we can have a more critical combination,” explained Elhadj As Sy, chair of the board of the Kofi Annan Foundation and co-chair of the Accra Reset High-Level Panel, during an interview with Health Policy Watch in Berlin.

In As Sy’s view, pairing debt restructuring with development bank loans and private capital is intended to create the structural headroom necessary for countries in the Global South to build self-reliant health systems anchored in domestic resources.

Reform agenda maps pathway to health sovereignty

The African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, where head-of-state leadership anchors the Accra Reset roadmap for continental health sovereignty.
The African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, where head-of-state leadership anchors the Accra Reset roadmap for continental health sovereignty.

Translating health sovereignty into practice requires overhauling how external capital enters recipient nations. Rather than allowing lenders to impose parallel application and reporting processes, the Accra Reset urges MDBs and global health funds to channel financing through a single country interface aligned behind one national health plan – a model demonstrated in Indonesia, where four development banks harmonised $4 billion in capital.

Shingai Machingaidze, Advisor to the Accra Reset Secretariat.
Shingai Machingaidze, advisor to the Accra Reset Secretariat.

This structural alignment is critical because development bank borrowing requires formal approval from Ministries of Finance managing tight sovereign debt ceilings.

To ensure fiscal discipline without sidelining healthcare, the Accra Reset mandates that national health investment plans be jointly co-signed at the cabinet level by ministers of finance, health, and planning, with external lenders relying on national audit offices rather than duplicative reporting tracks.

Reflecting on previous reform initiatives – including the 2023 Lusaka Agenda – Shingai Machingaidze, advisor to the Accra Reset Secretariat, noted in an interview with Health Policy Watch that earlier frameworks correctly identified the systemic flaws of donor-driven aid but struggled to compel change through voluntary compliance.

“Everything said in those previous analyses remains valid today,” Machingaidze explained. “If we continue to rely on voluntary implementation, we should expect the same results – the difference with the Accra Reset is that it is anchored at the Head-of-State level, providing a direct political pathway to practical implementation.”

Ultimately, whether this new financial architecture succeeds will depend on converting Head-of-State political momentum into resilient, self-reliant health systems that safeguard national sovereignty long after grant aid recedes.

See related story:

Accra Reset’s Plan for Health Sovereignty Includes Closing Some Global Health Bodies

Image Credits: mtcurado via Canva, Think Global Health / CFR, Suzanne Blanchard Photograhy, UNCTAD, Global Policy Forum Europe, Felix Sassmannshausen/HPW, derejeb via Canva.

Singer Aloe Blacc, co-founder of the cancer start-up Pepto-ID, on the main stage of the Abu Dhabi Future Health Summit

A painkiller designed by artificial intelligence that beat morphine in animal tests; a “biological age” score on a government app. Smart-ring makers fighting each other in court while signing deals with the same health department. At its Future Health Summit, Abu Dhabi showed how hard it is to bet on the business of ageing, and its own longevity doctor was the first to admit that the evidence has not caught up.

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates – The doctor at the heart of Abu Dhabi’s longevity ambitions did something rare in his line of work. When asked whether the medicine he practises can actually make people live longer, he said that no one can yet show that it does.

“I’m being honest with you. I would say to you there’s no evidence,” Dr Rory Melville, medical director of the Institute for Healthier Living Abu Dhabi (IHLAD), told Health Policy Watch on the sidelines of the Abu Dhabi Future Health Summit. 

Dr Rory Melville, Medical Director of the Institute for Healthier Living Abu Dhabi, speaking at the Abu Dhabi Future Health Summit.

“For me to work out whether there’s evidence, I’m going to have to wait for that person to get to the end of their life, which could be, you know, 20, 30, 50, 70 years.”

The admission came from inside the very institution that Abu Dhabi presents as the flagship of a new branch of medicine. In November 2024, the emirate’s Department of Health (DoH) licensed IHLAD as “the world’s first specialised Healthy Longevity Medicine Centre”.

On the summit’s exhibition floor, a longevity stand carried its promise in large letters: “Longevity for all”.

Between that slogan and that admission lies one of the boldest bets in health today. Over three days in October, the emirate courted wearable makers, AI drug developers and longevity clinicians, all chasing the same prize: to measure how fast our bodies are ageing, and to sell ways of slowing it down. 

Rulebook for the ‘wild, wild West’

Longevity medicine has a reputation problem. Private clinics sell blood panels, infusions and “biological age” tests to people who are already well, often for thousands of dollars a year. 

“It’s a wild, wild West at the moment,” Prof Andrea Maier of the National University of Singapore, a founder of the Healthy Longevity Medicine Society, told MIT Technology Review in 2024. 

Eric Verdin, head of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging, was harsher: “It’s medicine for the rich, by the rich, which is something I deplore.”

Abu Dhabi’s answer is regulation. Its Healthy Longevity Medicine Clinic Standard, in force since April 2025, is more cautious than much of the industry’s advertising. Epigenetic and protein-based “clocks” that claim to measure biological age are listed as “Optional AND needs further validation”. Drugs repurposed for longevity should have “randomized controlled trial (RCT) data in humans with positive results”.

But the rules were written by a small circle. Melville said IHLAD helped DoH write them, “with the expert help from the Healthy Longevity Medicine Society”, on whose council IHLAD’s chief executive, Dr Nicole Sirotin, sits. 

In effect, the regulator, the clinic and the society wrote the rulebook together. Asked who had reviewed it independently, Melville said there were no global standards yet. “I would say they’re probably as independent as you’re going to get in this field, given that they’re so young.”

He was just as blunt about his own trade. “There are a lot of people out there who are selling longevity,” he said. “I cannot say something to you if it’s not been proven fact.”

Mohit Kumar, founder and chief executive of Ultrahuman.

The boldest experiment is not in a clinic but on residents’ phones. On 13 October, a week before the summit, the Abu Dhabi Public Health Centre signed a two-year agreement with Indian smart-ring maker, Ultrahuman, to build a “biological health age” model from medical test results and wearable data. 

The DoH already runs its own “health age” score in Sahatna, an app also offered inside the government services platform TAMM, which joins wearable readings to patients’ records in the Malaffi health information exchange, according to a white paper on wearables released at the summit.

“The score is visible on the government app, and it is available for anyone who is a resident here,” Mohit Kumar, Ultrahuman’s founder and chief executive, told Health Policy Watch.

Kumar was candid that the number won’t reveal anything a doctor could not. “Doctors can say and tell anything that the model could tell because it’s the same human body and biological information,” he said. “The only difference is that we could tell this continuously.” 

The aim, he said, is to take a “burden” off doctors that they cannot carry at scale. He argued that Abu Dhabi’s model is more open than rivals “doing their own calculations in a closed window kind of a setup and you don’t know whether what’s going into it, what’s not going into it.” 

Migrant workers, who make up most of the UAE’s population, would also have access to the app, he said. The catch is the cost of the device. Kumar priced his ring at $350, though he said Ultrahuman is exploring with governments a device for 10 million people at $50-$100.

The bigger catch is the science. A wearable ageing clock “doesn’t really measure a true age in a literal sense,” Dr Russell Bowler of the Cleveland Clinic said in June. 

In August, a review in JAMA Internal Medicine found that “there is no scientific evidence” that continuous glucose monitors, another product sold by Ultrahuman, improve health or prevent disease in healthy people. 

Even the ring’s heart-rhythm alert runs on FibriCheck, whose software, not the ring, holds the US and European medical clearances.

What a “biological age” score can and cannot tell you.

Ring wars

Ultrahuman is not alone. Abu Dhabi is courting the whole wearable industry, rivals included. At the summit, DoH and Finland’s Oura launched Project Cradle, a two-year study at Corniche Hospital and Mediclinic Airport Road testing whether a ring worn through pregnancy can warn doctors of premature labour. 

“We know today that we can identify about two weeks before labour what the signs of the onset of labour are,” Oura’s chief executive, Tom Hale, said. “What we want to do is take those signals and see if we can identify them in preterm births.”

The same week, the US company WHOOP deepened its own research deal with DoH. Its founder, Will Ahmed, said Gulf membership had grown more than 85% in a year, after Abu Dhabi’s state investor Mubadala put $75 million into the company in May. 

“In the future, we will be able to say you are at risk of a heart attack,” he said, conceding that “the timing of some of that partnership was complicated with the wars in this region” 

Behind the handshakes, two of Abu Dhabi’s partners are at war. Oura won a US trade case in 2025 that barred imports of Ultrahuman’s older ring. After US customs cleared a redesigned Ultrahuman ring in March, Oura filed fresh patent claims against Ultrahuman’s new Ring Pro – in the very week of the summit. 

Kumar said the ring remains on sale and that his company will answer the claims “through the appropriate legal process”.

For the emirate, the prize is data: millions of hours of heartbeats, sleep and body temperature, joined to clinical records. Its own wearables White Paper concedes that the most basic rule is still missing, posing the question it does not answer: “What consent model should govern wearable data across clinical care, public health, research, and secondary use?”

The painkiller that beat morphine – in animals

The most startling claim of the week came from Alex Aliper, co-founder and president of Insilico Medicine, which runs an AI drug-discovery centre in Abu Dhabi’s Masdar City. His company’s software designed a new painkiller, ISM9528, which is not an opioid.

“In terms of injectable formulation, we showed that it was on par and even sometimes outperformed morphine in terms of its efficiency of ameliorating and stopping pain,” Aliper told Health Policy Watch. “So it can replace morphine.” Then came the sentence that matters most: “That’s what we saw in animals.”

If that result holds up in people, it would be enormous. Opioids have driven an overdose crisis that has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone. 

“If you have a safe, non-addictive way to treat pain, that’s a game changer,” Aliper told The National days before the summit. But ISM9528 has not yet been given to a single human being, and most medicines that shine in animals fail in people.

What AI has already changed is speed. Reaching a promising drug candidate usually takes about five years, Aliper said. Insilico’s first took 18 months; it now averages about 13 and its fastest took nine. “This year we’re nominating a candidate a month,” he said. “This year we discovered two drugs, two drug candidates out of our Abu Dhabi office.”

“You don’t have to be located in US, China, Europe,” he said. “You can innovate here in Abu Dhabi. If you have the right technology, if you have AI.” 

He borrowed Apple’s label, “Designed in California, made in China”, for a company that designs its molecules in the emirate and runs more than 60 contract laboratories around the world from there.

Ageing claims are where caution is needed most. Insilico’s lead drug, rentosertib, treats idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a scarring lung disease that, Aliper said, “is heavily involved in aging. It has many hallmarks of aging integrated in there.” 

In September, the company’s scientists reported in Nature Biotechnology that 42 patients from an earlier trial of the drug looked biologically “younger” on six protein-based ageing clocks. 

These are exactly the kind of clocks that Abu Dhabi’s own standard says need “further validation”, and a small analysis of this kind cannot on its own show whether patients aged more slowly or simply had healthier lungs.

The real test has only begun. In September, Insilico dosed the first patients in a 52-week phase III trial of rentosertib, and plans to enrol 320 people at 47 centres, all in China. 

Aliper insisted the rigour must stay. “Clinical trials are there for a good reason. Science has to be rigorous,” he said. As of October, no drug discovered with AI had won full approval from the US Food and Drug Administration.

From computer screen to pharmacy shelf: where Insilico’s AI-designed drugs stand.

On the summit’s second day, singer Aloe Blacc took the main stage as co-founder of Pepto-ID, a cancer start-up built on “molecular mask” research by Gomika Udugamasooriya of the University of Houston. 

“We’re targeting some of the most difficult-to-address cancers, the biggest unmet needs,” he said on stage.

The epidemic behind the glamour

For all the talk of algorithms, the case for longevity medicine in the Gulf rests on an old-fashioned epidemic. 

“We have a 21% incidence of diabetes in this country,” Melville said. “The global incidence on average is 11%. So we’re double, we’re double.”

The International Diabetes Federation puts age-standardised diabetes prevalence among UAE adults at 20.7%, and estimates that nearly two in three of them (64%) have never been diagnosed.

“Up until 50 years ago they were living a Bedouin life, so they actually had a much more active life,” Melville said of Emiratis. Then came Western food. 

“As soon as we bring Westernized diets into local cultures, their health deteriorates.” Genes play a part too. Emiratis “do genetically seem to have a predisposition to cardiometabolic disease”, he said, and South Asians, a large part of the UAE’s workforce, develop heart and metabolic disease at a much lower body weight than Europeans.

Then came the line that should give every health minister pause. Despite all the screening, “looking at the statistics, the [Abu Dhabi] population [are] not getting any healthier. And there’s something not quite right with the system.”

Better years, not more of them

The wider science counsels humility. Survival to 100 this century “is unlikely to exceed 15% for females and 5% for males,” S. Jay Olshansky and colleagues concluded in Nature Aging in 2024. The realistic prize is fewer years lived in sickness: worldwide, the gap between lifespan and healthy lifespan reached 9.6 years in 2019, according to a study in JAMA Network Open.

Melville would not promise even that: “We can’t prove this either, that it does compress the time that we live in disease or frailty at the last decades of our lives. I can’t even prove that,” he said. “We need to prove that what we’re doing actually does have validity.”

IHLAD says its research arm is trying to answer exactly that, asking, in Melville’s words, “What tests are worthwhile doing and bring value for money?”, and what can be carried from the clinic “into the general populace”.

“Better health decisions need better evidence”: the Institute for Healthier Living Abu Dhabi’s population health research display at the summit. Image: Rifat Hossain/Health Policy Watch

Longevity for whom?

That leaves the question that matters most beyond the Gulf. Nearly 90% of the people living in the UAE are not citizens, and many of them are low-paid workers. 

Health Policy Watch could find no published prices for IHLAD’s services. A $350 ring is a smaller barrier than a clinic programme, but a barrier all the same. Kumar sees no ceiling on demand. A person “below poverty line” can “still aspire for an iPhone today because internet is the true leveller,” he said.

Abu Dhabi has the money, the genomes, the connected records and the political will to turn the science of ageing into regulated medicine, something no country has yet done. 

If it insists on trial evidence, publishes how its scores are validated and carries what it learns into primary care for the construction worker with undiagnosed diabetes, it could give health systems everywhere a model worth copying. If it does not, it will have built a licensed version of the Wild, Wild West, with a government seal on the door.

Melville, for his part, sounded more like a sceptical family doctor than a salesman. “I think there’s a lot of promise,” he said, “but we just need to wait and see whether that comes to fruition.”

See Health Policy Watch‘s first story on the summit:

Abu Dhabi Wants Health Systems to See Disease Coming. But Who Owns the Data and Who Gets Left Out?

 

Image Credits: Rifat Hossein, Future Health, Rifat Hossain.

Rich countries’ share of the COP30 adaptation pledge could be worth as little as $45 billion a year against the $305 billion developing countries need, UN report finds ahead of COP31, as a deal with no baseline year or dollar figure meets shrinking aid budgets.

The pledge to triple climate adaptation funding hammered out in the closing hours of last year’s UN climate summit in Brazil would still leave developing countries with less than a third of the money they need to protect people from deadly heat, rising seas, failing harvests and other mounting threats from the climate crisis.

The UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) annual Adaptation Gap Report, released on Wednesday ahead of next week’s COP31 climate talks in Antalya, Türkiye, estimates developing countries will need around $305 billion a year by 2035 to adapt, or $420 billion once inflation is counted.

Rich countries provided $28.2–31.7 billion in public funding for that work in 2024, roughly a tenth of what is needed.

“For every dollar developing countries need to adapt, they receive just 10 cents,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres said. “We know who is most at risk. We know what works. What is missing is the money and the political will.”

“The choice is simple,” the UN chief added. “Invest in adaptation today, or pay for catastrophe tomorrow.”

UNEP said last month that the chance of holding warming to 1.5°C, the Paris Agreement’s stricter limit, without overshooting it “has been lost”, with current policies pointing toward 2.8°C.

Even if emissions nearly halve by 2035, temperatures would peak at around 1.7–1.8°C by mid-century before falling back to 1.5°C by 2100. The adaptation report warns that climate risks will keep rising through any overshoot, and some of the harm done during that time may be irreversible.

“The world is not ready to adapt to current climatic conditions, never mind what overshoot of 1.5°C will bring,” said Inger Andersen, UNEP’s executive director. “Nations must focus on intensifying efforts to achieve the COP30 [pledge] of tripling adaptation finance by 2035, while understanding that they will need to go even higher to save lives, avoid losses and damages and protect economies.”

A pledge ‘not as ambitious as it seems’

An early draft of the COP30 agreement carried a demand from the least developed countries (LDCs), a UN-designated group of the lowest-income nations, to triple adaptation funding to at least $120 billion a year by 2030, in grants rather than loans.

The final deal pushed the deadline to 2035, dropped the requirement for grants so that loans developing countries must repay can count, and never said which baseline year funding should be tripled from, how much money that adds up to or how much of it must come from rich countries’ public budgets.

Depending on the starting point, the pledge could mean anything from about $85 billion a year by 2035, if rich countries triple what they actually provided in 2024, to $120 billion if they triple the roughly $40 billion they promised for 2025 at the Glasgow climate summit in 2021, the report found, leaving developing countries with only 20 or 29% of what they need either way.

Analysts said at the time that the wording had been left vague on purpose. And unlike the Glasgow promise, the report’s authors note, the Belém deal “does not include a baseline”, and its interpretation “should be advanced in the negotiations”.

The deal also ignores inflation and only “calls for efforts” to triple, wording the report says is much weaker than past UN climate finance goals such as the 2009 “promise” of $100 billion a year.

The pledge is also tied to the broader $300 billion-a-year climate finance goal agreed at the COP29 summit in Baku in 2024, so money from developing countries and private investors counts towards it too.

Developing countries’ contributions rose from $3.8 billion in 2019 to $9.6 billion in 2024, roughly a quarter of all international adaptation funding, none of which counted towards the Glasgow promise.

Developing countries’ growing contributions, said Henry Neufeldt, the report’s chief scientific editor, “will contribute to the NCQG goal of reaching $300 billion in climate finance, and we know from last year’s report that, of course, is not enough.”

“It’s not very clear, and I think one of the messages from the report is that the negotiations should look very closely at this relationship between developing countries’ and developed countries’ contributions and responsibilities,” Neufeldt said.

Once inflation and developing countries’ money are stripped out, rich countries could end up providing as little as $45 billion a year by 2035 in today’s money, the report found, only about 60% more than the roughly $28 billion they give now and nowhere near a tripling.

“The money is there, but the political will to provide it isn’t,” said Pooja Dave, adaptation lead at Climate Action Network International. “Adaptation is not charity. It is a legal and moral obligation.”

Flows stall as aid shrinks

Adjusted for inflation, rich countries’ adaptation funding has fallen every year since peaking at $31.5 billion in 2022, even though unadjusted figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show it edging up by $1 billion in 2024, UNEP found.

“The pace of growth is slowing when it should be accelerating,” Andersen told reporters, “and this growth is below the pace required to double flows to approximately 40 billion by 2025, which is what we agreed back in Glasgow.”

The Glasgow goal could still be met, the report says, as development banks report a joint $10.3 billion increase in adaptation finance for 2025, but that hinges on rich countries’ foreign aid budgets, which supply much of their adaptation funding and are estimated to have shrunk 23% that year.

“Promises are very important because that means we can hold people to account,” Andersen said when asked whether climate finance pledges were worth anything if they went unfulfilled. “What we often see is, however, that it’s difficult for the collective promise to be fulfilled.”

Private money drawn in by public funding doubled to $3 billion between 2019 and 2024, but UNEP found that only 15 of the 111 such investments it reviewed were clearly aimed at climate risks, and that private finance could cover just 15–20% of the gap for the public projects countries have prioritised, such as flood defences.

“You cannot protect a harvest with a pledge,” said Mohamed Adow, director of the Nairobi-based think tank Power Shift Africa. “Protecting a company’s assets is different from protecting a community that cannot afford to pay.”

Losses and damage

In a first attempt to tally “loss and damage”, the UN term for climate harm that adaptation fails to prevent or cannot prevent, the report found that low- and middle-income countries accounted for 99% of the 765 million people affected by floods and landslides between 2020 and 2025.

The Fund for responding to Loss and Damage, agreed at the COP27 climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in 2022 to help vulnerable countries recover from such harm, received requests worth $2.8 billion from 119 developing countries in its first funding round.

Governments have pledged $822 million to the fund in total, only $631 million of which has been formally committed, and it has yet to approve money for a single project, with the first approvals not due until December, according to the report.

“The first funding round of the fund for responding to loss and damage generated requests outstripping the initial funding envelope by a factor of eight,” Neufeldt said. “This demonstrates a large unmet demand, but we do not yet know the global loss and damage finance gap.”

The fund’s first real test came in August, when a glacier collapse high in the Himalayas sent a flood tearing through five districts of Nepal, killing more than 1,300 people and leaving over 5,000 missing, according to the report.

Last month the fund provisionally set aside $21.6 million for Nepal, its first allocation to any country, but that is less than 0.5% of the $4.7 billion Nepal says it needs to recover, and none of it has yet been paid out.

“Shortfalls in adaptation finance are a death sentence,” said Jess Beagley, policy lead at the Global Climate and Health Alliance. “Without adaptation finance, governments of the most vulnerable countries cannot guarantee nutrition, safe water, or resilient health systems for their populations.”

Image Credits: CC.

Meg Doherty, Director, Science for Health, announces the WHO recommendation to advance two Bundibugyo Ebolavirus vaccine candidates to Phase2/3 clinical trials.

WHO has greenlighted Phase 2/3 trials for two brand new vaccine candidates that specifically target the Ebola Bundibugyo virus species ravaging the Democratic Republic of Congo. Actual trials could forseeably commence  “within three to four weeks” – as soon as  DRC regulators issue their own approval,  said WHO’s Science Director Meg Doherty, at a Wednesday press briefing.   

The candidates include the ChAdOx1 BDBV, developed by the University of Oxford and the Serum Institute of India, and Moderna’s mRNA-1469. 

Doherty said that the preliminary data from animal and Phase human 1 safety trials of the two vaccine candidates had yielded “very positive results” leading to high hopes that the vaccines could indeed protect humans from the Bundibugyo ebolavirus species – for which there is currently no vaccine or treatment. 

The recommendation was made by the World Health Organization’s Technical Advisory Group on Candidate Vaccines Prioritization (WHO TAG-CVP), and follows their review of the preclinical and Phase 1 clinical data. 

Initial results expected in early 2027

Ebola Bundibugyo vaccine candidate, ChAdOx1 BDBV, developed by the University of Oxford and the Serum Institute of India, and greenlighted by WHO for Phase 2/3 clinical trials along with Moderna’s mRNA-1469.

If all goes well, initial results could then be expected in early 2027. And WHO is meanwhile discussing post-trial access to the vaccine with manufacturers, Doherty said. 

The two new vaccine candidates will be added to the already ongoing Tumaini Trial, Swahili for ‘hope’, launched on 23 October in Bunia. 

The same “ring vaccine” trial protocol, which offers immunization to contacts of people who became ill or died from Ebola, will be used for the new candidates, Doherty added. 

Four vaccination rings are already in place, with several more being prepared. 

So far, that trial has been testing if the Ervebo vaccine might also offer cross protection against Bundibugyo.  Ervebo, developed by MSD, first won European Medicines Agency regulatory approval in 2019 to protect people from the Zaire ebolavirus species, which  ravished West Africa in the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak and then hit again in DRC and other parts of central Africa in 2018-2020. 

Two vaccine candidate specifically designed to target Bundibugyo

DRC Minister of Health Dr Roger Kamba (centre),receives the first consignment of the Ervebo vaccine at N’djili International Airport in Kinshasa on 21 August.

The two new vaccine candidates specifically target the Bundibugyo species that’s caused the most recent health emergency, killing over 5,300 people, mostly in DRC, with more than 10,500 cases confirmed.  

“Do these vaccines show any immunogenicity in animals and non-human primates? And what we are seeing is ‘yes very much so’,” Doherty said. “They’re seeing very positive-looking results that these will be effective in developing immune response.” 

In terms of human trials, the ChAdOx1 BDBV, a viral vector vaccine. entered its first  Phase 1 trial in the United Kingdom on July 24, evaluating safety and immune response in 50 healthy volunteers. In early October, the trial was expanded to Uganda.  On 4 August, the mRNA-1469 (Moderna) vaccine candidate commenced a Phase 1 rial in Canada across three sites with roughly 80 volunteers.

Research into treatments also advancing 

Ebola treatment centre in the DRC, epicenter of the outbreak in which more than 10,500 people have been confirmed ill and more than 5,300 have died.

The DRC’s Institut National de Recherche Biomédicale, the national public health and biomedical research institute is leading the vaccines trial, with support from the University of Antwerp, Belgium, WHO, Epicentre, Médecins Sans Frontières, the Institute of Tropical Medicine of Antwerp, and the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The Oslo-based Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), has been supporting R&D for the two vaccine candidates as well as preliminary research on two additional vaccine candidates under development by the global non-profit biotech research organization, IAVI, in collaboration with Hilleman Laboratories and the UK-based biotech company, Public Health Vaccines .

Research into potential treatments is also moving ahead, WHO said in a statement accompanying the TAG recommendations. 

The WHO-sponsored PARTNERS trial, launched in July, is evaluating whether the monoclonal antibody MBP134, the antiviral remdesivir, or a combination of both can improve survival among patients with confirmed Bundibugyo virus disease. In addition, maftivimab will soon be added to the trial to assess its use as a potential treatment. A complementary post-exposure prophylaxis study with obeldevisir is underway.

Said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, “Vaccines alone will not end this outbreak, but they could become a powerful new tool for bringing it under control.” 

Image Credits: University of Oxford , DRC Health Ministry, WHO Africa.

A new WHO report says six climate-health measures could save 1.6 million lives a year, but most of those lives depend on higher fossil fuel taxes.

Scaling up six climate and health measures worldwide could prevent 1.6 million deaths a year and generate $3.9 trillion in economic benefits annually, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Wednesday, days before the COP31 climate talks open in Antalya, Türkiye.

Five of the six measures, from improved heat-health warning systems to cleaner household fuels, would save about 360,000 lives a year. They would cost roughly $35 billion a year and return $24 for every dollar spent, according to the new WHO report.

But 1.2 million of the 1.6 million lives saved, and all $5.4 trillion a year in extra government revenue the report projects, would need to come from phasing out fossil fuel subsidies as well as taxing coal, oil and gas at higher rates, to reflect their pollution and climate damage.

And no cost is attached to the fossil fuel pricing reform recommended. The policies would also have to be adopted in all 168 countries the report covers to reach their targets.

“The climate crisis is a health crisis, but much of the harm it causes can be prevented with tools we already have,” said WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “This report shows that scaling up proven, affordable actions could save millions of lives, with the greatest gains in the countries that need them most.”


Fossil fuel subsidies are going up

WHO says the solutions are “available today, ready for global scale-up.” Yet it puts no figure on what the fuel reform would cost, including shielding households, transport operators and all other fossil fuel-dependent industries across the global economy from higher costs.

Meanwhile, governments are heading the other way. With the Strait of Hormuz still closed, the UN Development Programme said last month that fossil fuel subsidies could top $1 trillion this year.

“If countries are able to make the transition to cleaner energy sources, for example by phasing out subsidies on fossil fuels and putting efficient pricing on fossil fuels, that brings a very wide range of benefits,” said Dr Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, who heads WHO’s climate change, air quality, energy and health unit, at a press briefing on Tuesday. “Most immediately in reducing air pollution, which takes almost 7 million lives every year around the world.”

Familiar figures, new price tags

Comparison of the 2024 WHO analysis issued for COP 29 and the 2026 analysis prepared for COP31.

The estimates of how many lives each measure would save are based on previously published data from WHO’s 2025–2028 investment case, according to the report. These cover deaths averted from extreme heat, unsafe water and sanitation, and polluting cooking fuels, and through removing fossil fuel subsidies.

But the methods, analysis and results are also different from findings issued just before the 2024 COP29 UN Climate Conference in Baku, Azerbaijan.

At that time, WHO issued a report stating that five key interventions, including equipping energy-strapped health facilities with renewables, such as solar power, would save “almost 2 million lives a year” and return $4 per dollar invested. In contrast, the new report estimates only 1.6 million lives saved, but a return of $24 on each dollar invested in the measures.


The new report also drops solar power for health facilities, and splits water, sanitation and handwashing, previously one package, into three separate measures, so the two sets of interventions are not directly comparable.

Dr Frank Pega, the report’s lead author, said in a written response to Health Policy Watch that internal WHO guidelines for health economic analyses have been standardized so that health sector interventions can no longer be assessed with a benefit-cost analysis alone. That made solar power for health facilities ineligible for the 2026 report, he said.

The estimates of lives saved by each measure did not change between the two reports, Pega said. But the three water, sanitation and hygiene measures are now modelled together, which removes overlap in their health effects and lowers their combined total. Dropping solar, which WHO said in 2024 would save about 290,000 lives a year, accounts for most of the gap.

Assumes full fuel price reform in 168 countries

Dr Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum.

The new scenario also assumes a full fossil fuel price reform in 168 countries starting in 2024, a year that has already passed. This would include a removal of all existing fossil fuel subsidies plus new taxes to cover the indirect costs of fossil fuel use, such as air pollution, and the same VAT as other goods.

The estimates also assume universal access to safe drinking water, sanitation and clean cooking fuels by 2030.

In 2024, 2.1 billion people still lacked safely managed drinking water and 3.4 billion lacked safely managed sanitation, according to WHO and UNICEF data. Around 2 billion relied on polluting fuels to cook, a separate energy progress report co-authored by WHO found.

In a separate commentary, published in The Lancet, the authors admit these targets are “aspirational rather than realistic.”

Moving the needle?

The six climate and health measures considered by WHO include: universal access to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene, clean household fuels, and in vulnerable countries, heat-health systems. But the biggest benefits would be from higher prices on fossil fuels.

“Constrained governments really need clear evidence, economic evidence, health evidence, on which investments deliver the greatest benefits,” said Pega. “Governments need to know not only what works, but what offers the greatest value for money.”

Campbell-Lendrum said 30 climate summits had produced too little progress.

“We sometimes hear that this is because there is too much uncertainty around the impacts, or that the actions that we need to take will cost too much,” he said.

“Well, today WHO is launching a report which demonstrates that that is not the case.”

But as WHO attempts to get eyes on the health argument to act against climate change in the run-up to COP31, whether or not this new report, running to more than 550 pages and 22 annexes, can move the needle remains an open question.

The health measures

Heat-health warning systems, which issue alerts when temperatures reach dangerous levels, could save about 100,000 lives a year if built in the 57 countries WHO identified as lacking one. At about $230 million a year, they offer the report’s highest return, $835 per dollar.

“Once they’re implemented,” said Pega, who put the time needed to build them at about five years, “they return huge benefits within a short time.”

Climate-resilient water, sanitation and handwashing services – built to keep working through floods, storms and droughts – together would save about 170,000 lives a year from diarrhoea and pneumonia, at a combined cost of about $30 billion. Returns range from $6 per dollar for drinking water to $32 for handwashing, the report said.

Those three figures are deliberately partial. WHO assumes a tenth of the benefits and costs of giving everyone these services comes from making them climate-proof, and counts only that tenth.

“These services are shown to provide an enormous return on investment,” Pega said of handwashing facilities. “So it’s clear that they’re a no-brainer intervention.”

Switching households from wood, charcoal and kerosene to gas, electric or improved stoves would save about 90,000 lives a year at a cost of about $5.2 billion, a return of $51 per dollar.

Fossil fuel reforms drive the climate and health gains

The opportunity to limit warming to 1.5ºC with no or limited overshoot “has been lost”, UNEP warns for the first time, urging action to “minimise overshoot and return to 1.5ºC” by the end of the century, UNEP said in October.

The fossil fuel reforms would also account for 98% of the climate benefits linked to the six WHO-recommended policies. That is about 16.4 billion of the 16.7 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, measured in CO2 equivalent, that the six would cut each year, according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) models.

But that would also mean changing how almost every government prices energy. By WHO’s count, 168 countries fall short of the standard, and the scenario modelled has all of them ending subsidies to fossil fuel producers and consumers, beginning in 2024.

Countries would also have to tax coal, oil and gas until prices cover both the cost of supplying them and the damage they cause, and charge fuel the same VAT as other goods. The IMF, whose figures WHO uses, counts two kinds of subsidies for fossil fuels.

Explicit subsidies are the money governments spend keeping fuel cheap, $725 billion in 2024, according to its latest data. Implicit subsidies are the IMF’s estimate of the damage fossil fuels cause that nobody pays for, mostly air pollution and climate change, which it put at $6.7 trillion that same year.

Removing explicit subsidies alone would avert about 70,000 air pollution-related deaths a year, the IMF estimates. Removing both would avert 1.1 million deaths annually, but the implicit subsidies can only be removed through new taxes that would push fuel prices even higher worldwide.

WHO’s own figure of 1.2 million lives saved comes from an older IMF analysis, based on 2019 data on fossil fuel use and subsidies. WHO moved the start date to 2024 without updating the IMF’s inputs, such as how much fuel countries burn and how large their subsidies are.

Those inputs have swung sharply since. The IMF put explicit subsidies at about $1.3 trillion in 2022, during the energy price spike, before they fell to $725 billion in 2024. Assuming nothing changed between 2019 and 2024, the report concedes, “is known to be false.”

In the same Lancet comment, Pega and his co-authors acknowledge that the fuel pricing estimates, which carry most of the report’s headline lives and dollars, “warrant further examination.”

Lives valued in dollars



WHO’s estimate of $3.9 trillion a year in economic benefits from all six measures is also a gross figure. It counts the value of the benefits without subtracting what the measures would cost, and the cost of the fuel price reforms is not estimated at all.

“These are not net benefits,” Pega said, “these are total benefits.”

For the five measures WHO costed, net benefits come to about $844 billion a year, less than a quarter of that total. Even so, savings on outright health-care costs, the part a budget-strapped health ministry would actually see, come to only about 0.5% of the five costed measures’ benefits – $4.75 billion a year worldwide.

Roughly nine-tenths of the five costed measures’ benefits come from the monetary value WHO assigns to the 360,000 lives they would save, according to Health Policy Watch calculations drawn from the report’s tables.

WHO puts a monetary value on each death averted using a “value per statistical life” (VSL), a method widely used to monetize human health gains – but also widely contested. The value is scaled to each country’s average income, so a death averted in a wealthier country counts for far more in WHO’s totals.

On WHO’s formula and the latest World Bank income data, a death averted is valued at about $195,000 in Burundi, $2.4 million in South Africa, $10.2 million in France and $13.4 million in the United States, according to Health Policy Watch calculations.

“Unlike productivity gains, tax revenues or GDP increases,” WHO notes in a Q&A published with the report, “VSL-based monetary estimates are not real economic flows.”

Taken together, low-income countries would account for about a fifth of the lives saved by the five costed measures but only about 6% of their projected economic benefits, according to Health Policy Watch estimates drawn from the report’s income-group tables.

High-income countries account for 4% of all deaths averted but nearly 30% of the $3.9 trillion in projected economic benefits, largely because each death averted in wealthy nations is valued so much higher.

Health still outside the negotiating room and text

COP31 will feature major battles over the future of climate financing for low-income nations. With health sitting outside the formal negotiations, the odds of securing major financing are slim.

Türkiye, which holds the COP31 presidency, has made resilient health systems one of ten themes in its action agenda and will open the summit next week with a Health Day. None of that is part of the formal negotiations.

“Everything that I’ve described up until now is sort of adjacent to the negotiations,” Campbell-Lendrum said. “Health should be in the negotiations.”

A WHO review of national climate plans published last month found that 91% of 140 parties mention health, but only 23% estimate what health-related climate action would cost.

WHO’s own COP31 briefing notes that, unlike many of the presidency’s other themes, health “carries no numerical target for 2035.” It also asks parties “to consider the inclusion of health in the UNFCCC process.”

Several civil society groups working on health in the climate talks oppose a stand-alone item. WHO, they say, has never spelled out what such an item would actually negotiate. A separate health track, they argue, could make it easier for countries to push health out of the rooms where fossil fuels and finance are decided, creating the kind of silo the health community has spent years arguing against.

Small delegations from vulnerable countries, already stretched across parallel negotiations, would also struggle to staff yet another negotiating track, civil society groups say, leaving negotiations on a health item to be shaped by larger, wealthier delegations, including fossil fuel producers.

“We are asking the countries there to negotiate as if people’s lives depend on it,” said Campbell-Lendrum of COP31, “because they do.”

Image Credits: CC, Health Policy Watch/WHO , WHO, 2026 , Marcin Jozwiak.