Search

During health emergencies, neglect of gender experiences and needs can compromise the outbreak response. Ebola in West Africa and Zika in Latin America had gendered effects that were evident during the crises, yet governments and international organizations failed to prioritize a gender-inclusive response. There is the same risk that gender-inclusive responses and knowledge will continue to be neglected during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we examine the drivers of gender exclusion in health emergency response. We ask: where can we locate institutional responsibility for taking gender seriously to inform and improve sustainable disease control? The article addresses this question by turning to feminist institutional theory to explain why gender inclusion in decision-making processes is vital for effective response and post-crisis recovery. We argue that the institutional responsibility to recognize gender within the global health emergency regime lies with the World Health Organization (WHO). WHO has neglected to mainstream gender in the policies and practices that it promotes for the prevention and detection of, and response to, infectious disease outbreaks. WHO is in a position to support gender-inclusive practices, but this requires the technical agency to recognize the value of having a gender-inclusive framework to inform outbreak response, financial models, and recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Operative paragraph 7 of UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2532 (2020) acknowledges 'the critical role that women are playing in the COVID-19 response efforts', the 'disproportionate negative impact the pandemic is having on women and girls', and 'calls for concrete actions to minimise this impact and ensure the full, equal and meaningful participation of women and youth in the development and implementation of an adequate and sustainable response to the pandemic'. This Resolution is clear in its language: states must recognise and respond to the gendered effects of the pandemic. The adoption of Resolution 2532 and subsequently 2565 (2021) is an important opportunity to further integrate health emergencies and UNSC's Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda. The language is deliberate: it offers global health a set of mechanisms on how to integrate gender into complex crises and, in turn, offers WPS a chance to engage with health and pandemics as a security challenge for women and girls. However, as previous health emergencies and the WPS agenda show us, Resolutions are not a panacea: they are political compromises often riddled with contradictions and are dependent on states and the international community to implement them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Combating threats of infectious diseases has been increasingly framed as a global shared responsibility for a multi-actor framework of states, international organisations and nongovernmental actors. However, the outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) has shown that this governance framework has not been able to limit the spread of this virus, despite the normative and legislative changes to global disease control. By unbundling the concept of responsibility, this article will assess how global shared responsibility may have failed because accountability does not fall on any one state or stakeholder, highlighting an inherent weakness in the global disease governance regime. The paper concludes that a move towards multiple responsibilities may prove a more effective mechanism for ensuring global health security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]