The coloniality of Trade and Gender: the World Trade Congress on Gender

Asha Herton-Crabb, a PhD student in the Department of International Relations, argues that for Trade and Gender initiatives (TGI) to take seriously the impacts of trade on women and non-binary people, they must look more broadly at the history of the trading system, the liberal ideas that imbue it, and the economic inequalities that sustain it

Why we need a gender advisor on SAGE

The UK government has largely failed to consider gender in its COVID-19 response, despite the many and varied differential impacts of policy interventions on women and men. Since government policy is informed by the advice ministers receive, we sought to understand whether and how gender had been considered by the UK government’s COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (SAGE). This paper uses two forms of policy analysis to assess 73 SAGE meeting minutes and background documents for 1) the explicit references to sex and/or gender, and 2) references to issues evidenced in the literature to be gendered, to understand whether the gendered implications of policy were considered. We find that the acknowledgement of the gendered dynamics of particular issues, such as school closures and feminised (or masculinised) employment sectors, were largely absent in SAGE meeting minutes and that explicit references to women were largely of a biological (sex) nature, rather than social (gender). Over time we saw increased references to the gendered impacts of policy in meeting background documents, though these references largely reproduced gendered stereotypes and roles rather than actively engaging with the gender issues. However, not all blame can be put at the feet of SAGE members, who did show awareness of equity issues and were predominantly epidemiologists and behavioural scientists likely untrained in gender analysis. SAGE members are selected based on the government’s framing of the type of emergency at hand, and COVID-19 has been treated by the government as a an epidemiological emergency, rather than a social, political and economic one. We argue that reframing emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic in a more holistic way enables us to redefine the scientific advice deemed necessary for SAGE membership, and facilitates the inclusion of gender advisors to mitigate the downstream gendered impacts of nonpharmaceutical interventions associated with the government’s COVID-19 response

Reconceptualizing successful pandemic preparedness and response: a feminist perspective

Pandemic preparedness and COVID-19 response indicators focus on public health outcomes (such as infections, case fatalities, and vaccination rates), health system capacity, and/or the effects of the pandemic on the economy, yet this avoids more political questions regarding how responses were mobilized. Pandemic preparedness country rankings have been called into question due to their inability to predict COVID-19 response and outcomes, and COVID-19 response indicators have ignored one of the most well documented secondary effects of the pandemic – its disproportionate effects on women. This paper analyzes pandemic preparedness and response indicators from a feminist perspective to understand how indicators might consider the secondary effects of the pandemic on women and other equity deserving groups. Following a discussion of the tensions that exist between feminist methodologies and the reliance on indicators by policymakers in preparing and responding to health emergencies, we assess the strengths and weakness of current pandemic preparedness and COVID-19 response indicators. The risk with existing pandemic preparedness and response indicators is that they give only limited attention to secondary effects of pandemics and inequities in terms of who is disproportionately affected. There is an urgent need to reconceptualize what ‘successful’ pandemic preparedness and response entails, moving beyond epidemiological and economic measurements. We suggest how efforts to design COVID response indicators on gender inclusion could inform pandemic preparedness and associated indicators

SDG5 “Gender Equality” and the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid assessment of health system responses in selected upper-middle and high-income countries

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare and societies, exacerbating existing inequalities for women and girls across every sphere. Our study explores health system responses to gender equality goals during the COVID-19 pandemic and inclusion in future policies. Methods: We apply a qualitative comparative approach, drawing on secondary sources and expert information; the data was collected from March–July 2022. Australia, Brazil, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the USA were selected, reflecting upper-middle and high-income countries with established public health and gender policies but different types of healthcare systems and epidemiological and geo-political conditions. Three sub-goals of SDG5 were analyzed: maternity care/reproductive health, gender-based violence, and gender equality/women's leadership. Results: We found similar trends across countries. Pandemic policies strongly cut into women's health, constrained prevention and support services, and weakened reproductive rights, while essential maternity care services were kept open. Intersecting gender inequalities were reinforced, sexual violence increased and women's leadership was weak. All healthcare systems failed to protect women's health and essential public health targets. Yet there were relevant differences in the responses to increased violence and reproductive rights, ranging from some support measures in Australia to an abortion ban in the US. Conclusions: Our study highlights a need for revising pandemic policies through a feminist lens

I was facilitating everybody else's life. And mine had just ground to a halt: the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on women in the UK

Infectious disease outbreaks infect and affect men, women, and non-binary genders differently. In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, current data suggest that men are infected more than women with a ratio of 1.16:1, and that men suffer more severe symptoms and greater mortality (Global Health 50/50 2020). However, the downstream effects of COVID-19 are also heavily gendered and affect women disproportionately to men. In this paper, we show results from qualitative research with women in the UK on the socio-economic effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to stem the spread of the virus. These results complement other quantitative and qualitative studies, highlighting the disproportionate impacts of NPIs on women in the UK throughout the COVID-19 pandemic (Adams-Prassl et al. 2020; Smith et al. 2021; Xue and McMunn 2020)

COVID-19 & feminist foreign policy: Canada’s comparative advantage

The global COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the relationship between gender inequality and global health security. Within this context, Canada is well placed, due to its foreign and domestic policy commitments to advancing gender equity, to take a leadership role in addressing the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on women and priority populations. We propose three ways Canada might exercise this comparative advantage, to both be a leader in the global COVID-19 response and to advance a feminist foreign policy: prioritize the care economy within international assistance, champion a feminist global health agenda, and sensitize the security sector to rights-based approaches to health emergencies

Openness, Transparency and Equity in Public Health Surveillance Data Sharing

The outbreaks of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, influenza A (H1N1) in 2009 and Ebola in 2014 have shown that increasingly infectious diseases can spread globally in a short timeframe, affecting both high- and low-income countries. Taking action to mitigate the impact of future crises relies on sharing public health surveillance data across national borders in an efficient and effective way. However, data users, particularly in high-income countries, often use surveillance data, particularly from low- and middle-income countries, with little or no benefit to the data generator. As Indonesia's refusal to share influenza virus sequences during the 2006 H5N1 outbreak illustrates, this imbalance increases reluctance to share and jeopardizes the global good that can be achieved. In order to share public health surveillance data internationally in an equitable way, technical, political, ethical, and legal issues need to be addressed. The Centre on Global Health Security at Chatham House is producing guidance that will address both the policy and technical issues with the aim of establishing new norms so that data can be shared in an open, transparent and equitable way

Openness, Transparency and Equity in Public Health Surveillance Data Sharing

The outbreaks of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, influenza A (H1N1) in 2009 and Ebola in 2014 have shown that increasingly infectious diseases can spread globally in a short timeframe, affecting both high- and low-income countries. Taking action to mitigate the impact of future crises relies on sharing public health surveillance data across national borders in an efficient and effective way. However, data users, particularly in high-income countries, often use surveillance data, particularly from low- and middle-income countries, with little or no benefit to the data generator. As Indonesia's refusal to share influenza virus sequences during the 2006 H5N1 outbreak illustrates, this imbalance increases reluctance to share and jeopardizes the global good that can be achieved. In order to share public health surveillance data internationally in an equitable way, technical, political, ethical, and legal issues need to be addressed. The Centre on Global Health Security at Chatham House is producing guidance that will address both the policy and technical issues with the aim of establishing new norms so that data can be shared in an open, transparent and equitable way

Travel restrictions and infectious disease outbreaks

BACKGROUND: A key purpose of the International Health Regulations (IHR) is to prevent unwarranted interruptions to trade and travel during large and/or transnational infectious disease outbreaks. Nevertheless, such outbreaks continue to disrupt the travel industry. This aspect of the IHR has received little attention in the academic literature despite its considerable impact on affected States and commercial activity. This article outlines the challenges and gaps in knowledge regarding the relationship between outbreaks and the travel sector and discusses the opportunities for further research and policy work to overcome these challenges. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a literature review on the relationship between outbreaks and travel restrictions, with a particular focus on the 2014-16 Ebola epidemic in West Africa. This review was complemented by an expert roundtable at Chatham House and further supported by case studies and qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Numerous travel stakeholders are affected by, and affect, large-scale infectious disease outbreaks. These stakeholders react in different ways: peer pressure plays an important role for both governments and the travel sector, and the reactions of the media and public influence and are influenced by these stakeholders. While various data sources on travel are available, and World Health Organization is mandated to work with States, there is no recognized coordinating body to disseminate timely, consistent, reliable and authoritative information and best practices to all stakeholders. CONCLUSION: This article highlights the interdependent relationship between various travel stakeholders. The reasons for interruption of travel during the 2014-16 Ebola outbreak were complex, with decisions by States only partly contributing to the cessation. Decisions by non-state actors, particularly the travel industry itself, contributed significantly and were based on a variety of factors. Further research, analysis and policy development are required to mitigate the health and economic consequences of infectious disease outbreaks. Any further research will also need to take account of COVID-19 travel-related issues