Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Gender mainstreaming in the water sector has gained increasing attention in international and national governance frameworks, yet its translation into meaningful change for women and in gender relations more broadly, in a context where both institutional arrangements and accelerating climate change are intensifying challenges around water access, control, use, and governance, remains a persistent challenge. This report examines this gap in the Moroccan context, focusing on two complementary entry points: an overview of gender mainstreaming efforts and institutional advances in the water and irrigation sectors; and the everyday realities of women farmers and cooperative members in the oasis regions of Boudnib and the Drâa Valley. Combining document analysis and institutional interviews with in-depth fieldwork, the study asks whether and how national gender mainstreaming commitments translate into tangible shifts in women’s water access, livelihoods, and decision-making power on the ground.
The findings point to a more nuanced picture. Morocco has made genuine institutional progress: gender is now formally embedded in constitutional principles, water law, sectoral strategies, and national planning instruments, and donor-financed irrigation projects have demonstrated that integrated gender approaches can yield concrete results. Yet these gains remain fragile, often conditional on external support or on the commitment of individual champions within institutions, a dependence that poses significant risks to their sustainability. Outside donor-supported projects, gender analysis is often absent from programme design, and formal inclusion, such as in land programmes, cooperatives, or training schemes, does not automatically translate into effective control over water, labour, or decisions. Many adaptive initiatives are shaped as much by women’s own agency as by the institutional programmes formally available to support them, whose reach remains uneven and frequently contingent on literacy, mobility, and institutional connections. Deeper structural constraints, including historical exclusion from water governance bodies, the growing individualisation of groundwater access, and socio-cultural norms that limit women’s recognition as farmers and irrigators, remain insufficiently taken into account by current approaches. The report concludes with five recommendations calling for stronger institutional anchoring, cross-sectoral coordination, reformed empowerment indicators, and a gradual reduction of dependence on donor financing.

Gender mainstreaming in the water sector has gained increasing attention in international and national governance frameworks, yet its translation into meaningful change for women and in gender relations more broadly, in a context where both institutional arrangements and accelerating climate change are intensifying challenges around water access, control, use, and governance, remains a persistent challenge. This report examines this gap in the Moroccan context, focusing on two complementary entry points: an overview of gender mainstreaming efforts and institutional advances in the water and irrigation sectors; and the everyday realities of women farmers and cooperative members in the oasis regions of Boudnib and the Drâa Valley. Combining document analysis and institutional interviews with in-depth fieldwork, the study asks whether and how national gender mainstreaming commitments translate into tangible shifts in women’s water access, livelihoods, and decision-making power on the ground.
The findings point to a more nuanced picture. Morocco has made genuine institutional progress: gender is now formally embedded in constitutional principles, water law, sectoral strategies, and national planning instruments, and donor-financed irrigation projects have demonstrated that integrated gender approaches can yield concrete results. Yet these gains remain fragile, often conditional on external support or on the commitment of individual champions within institutions, a dependence that poses significant risks to their sustainability. Outside donor-supported projects, gender analysis is often absent from programme design, and formal inclusion, such as in land programmes, cooperatives, or training schemes, does not automatically translate into effective control over water, labour, or decisions. Many adaptive initiatives are shaped as much by women’s own agency as by the institutional programmes formally available to support them, whose reach remains uneven and frequently contingent on literacy, mobility, and institutional connections. Deeper structural constraints, including historical exclusion from water governance bodies, the growing individualisation of groundwater access, and socio-cultural norms that limit women’s recognition as farmers and irrigators, remain insufficiently taken into account by current approaches. The report concludes with five recommendations calling for stronger institutional anchoring, cross-sectoral coordination, reformed empowerment indicators, and a gradual reduction of dependence on donor financing.

Nach der 1:3-Heimpleite gegen St. Gallen verzichtet man beim FC Basel auf Schönrederei. Für Rotblau kommt die Nati-Pause gerade recht.

WM-Zeitfahren: Remco Evenepoel (26) triumphiert erneut und schreibt Geschichte mit seinem vierten Titel in Serie. Stefan Küng (33) wird Siebter. Angesichts seiner Verletzung im Frühling ist das ordentlich.

Die historische Krimiserie «Babylon Berlin» endet mit Staffel 5. «TELE» lässt zwei Macher dieses grössten deutschen TV-Projekts zurück- und vorausblicken.

Kriens-Luzern gewinnt das Spitzenspiel gegen Schaffhausen und verteidigt die Tabellenführung in der Quickline Handball League.

Today’s disruptions and reforms are paving the way for a wide range of possible futures. A key endeavour of IDOS is to contribute to sustainable futures in an increasingly multipolar order, which we are convinced requires cooperative approaches. While people and societies around the world are
facing disruptions and uncertainties collectively – albeit unevenly – our intention at IDOS is to co-shape concrete action that enables us to respond to and navigate these challenges productively. Our aspiration with this final, more exploratory, contribution to the publication is to provide a coherent scenario for a desirable (preferred) future based on the sector-specific recommendations made by the authors in this volume. In this futuring exercise, we describe the state of the world in the year 2040 – understood as an important intermediate point at which our joint vision of sustainable futures is reachable. We aim to showcase an accessible, optimistic narrative depicting a world in which our proposed reform options have been adopted and are part of a broader global push towards cooperation and sustainable development. Envisioning this scenario can provide strategic orientation for the reform pathways we have to choose today. It can be used to highlight the long-term implications of policy shifts and the potential of agency to overcome existing path dependencies. Its value lies in broadening the sense of what is possible and highlighting our agency. […]

Today’s disruptions and reforms are paving the way for a wide range of possible futures. A key endeavour of IDOS is to contribute to sustainable futures in an increasingly multipolar order, which we are convinced requires cooperative approaches. While people and societies around the world are
facing disruptions and uncertainties collectively – albeit unevenly – our intention at IDOS is to co-shape concrete action that enables us to respond to and navigate these challenges productively. Our aspiration with this final, more exploratory, contribution to the publication is to provide a coherent scenario for a desirable (preferred) future based on the sector-specific recommendations made by the authors in this volume. In this futuring exercise, we describe the state of the world in the year 2040 – understood as an important intermediate point at which our joint vision of sustainable futures is reachable. We aim to showcase an accessible, optimistic narrative depicting a world in which our proposed reform options have been adopted and are part of a broader global push towards cooperation and sustainable development. Envisioning this scenario can provide strategic orientation for the reform pathways we have to choose today. It can be used to highlight the long-term implications of policy shifts and the potential of agency to overcome existing path dependencies. Its value lies in broadening the sense of what is possible and highlighting our agency. […]

Today’s disruptions and reforms are paving the way for a wide range of possible futures. A key endeavour of IDOS is to contribute to sustainable futures in an increasingly multipolar order, which we are convinced requires cooperative approaches. While people and societies around the world are
facing disruptions and uncertainties collectively – albeit unevenly – our intention at IDOS is to co-shape concrete action that enables us to respond to and navigate these challenges productively. Our aspiration with this final, more exploratory, contribution to the publication is to provide a coherent scenario for a desirable (preferred) future based on the sector-specific recommendations made by the authors in this volume. In this futuring exercise, we describe the state of the world in the year 2040 – understood as an important intermediate point at which our joint vision of sustainable futures is reachable. We aim to showcase an accessible, optimistic narrative depicting a world in which our proposed reform options have been adopted and are part of a broader global push towards cooperation and sustainable development. Envisioning this scenario can provide strategic orientation for the reform pathways we have to choose today. It can be used to highlight the long-term implications of policy shifts and the potential of agency to overcome existing path dependencies. Its value lies in broadening the sense of what is possible and highlighting our agency. […]

When we speak of tectonic shifts, we usually refer either to geology or to the international order. In geology, tectonic plates shift and build up tension until it is released. Likewise, since the end of the Cold War, the international order has experienced mounting pressure, and seemingly entrenched
global structures have begun to shift. At the same time, societies and cooperation systems are under internal pressure from the growing impacts of environmental and climatic change, younger generations’ demands for new opportunities, and technological advances, not least in artificial intelligence. In reaction to both external and internal pressures, reforming complex systems is challenging and requires skilled, dedicated people and well-connected institutions (Reiber & Reiners, 2019). Transnational knowledge cooperation has thus gained substantial relevance (see Lynders, 2024).

When we speak of tectonic shifts, we usually refer either to geology or to the international order. In geology, tectonic plates shift and build up tension until it is released. Likewise, since the end of the Cold War, the international order has experienced mounting pressure, and seemingly entrenched
global structures have begun to shift. At the same time, societies and cooperation systems are under internal pressure from the growing impacts of environmental and climatic change, younger generations’ demands for new opportunities, and technological advances, not least in artificial intelligence. In reaction to both external and internal pressures, reforming complex systems is challenging and requires skilled, dedicated people and well-connected institutions (Reiber & Reiners, 2019). Transnational knowledge cooperation has thus gained substantial relevance (see Lynders, 2024).

When we speak of tectonic shifts, we usually refer either to geology or to the international order. In geology, tectonic plates shift and build up tension until it is released. Likewise, since the end of the Cold War, the international order has experienced mounting pressure, and seemingly entrenched
global structures have begun to shift. At the same time, societies and cooperation systems are under internal pressure from the growing impacts of environmental and climatic change, younger generations’ demands for new opportunities, and technological advances, not least in artificial intelligence. In reaction to both external and internal pressures, reforming complex systems is challenging and requires skilled, dedicated people and well-connected institutions (Reiber & Reiners, 2019). Transnational knowledge cooperation has thus gained substantial relevance (see Lynders, 2024).

Academic freedom and independent scientific knowledge production are fragile achievements – first secured during the Enlightenment in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries – that now face substantial headwinds. In the United States in 2026, the Trump administration has advanced further proposals to reduce science spending (Grimm & Hornidge, 2025). Most notably, the White House foresees a 55 per cent cut in funding for the National Science Foundation in 2027 compared with 2026 levels (Garisto & Nature Magazine, 2026). However, the threats to science systems in the United States and beyond cannot be reduced to – drastic – budget cuts alone. Political interference in scientific quality assurance and decisions about which research receives funding is also reported to have increased substantially, particularly in the United States (e.g. Finucane, 2026). Although the Trump administration’s actions are notably blatant, attacks on science systems, academic freedom and knowledge cooperation, whether overt or subtle, can be observed in countries across income levels and continents. In Germany, the German Research Foundation recently published a position paper on threats to academic freedom and the German science system, explicitly referencing the positioning and influence of the right-wing political party AfD, as set out in its “government programme” for the state election in Saxony-Anhalt (Ad-hoc-Arbeitsgruppe, 2026). At the same time, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development announced in 2026 that China’s research spending had reached parity with that of the United States (OECD, 2026). This is also the year in which the African Union Commission and the African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD) launched the Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa 2034 Implementation Plan. According to the AUDA-NEPAD, this marks “Africa’s determination to move beyond overreliance on imported technologies and towards the sovereign production of globally competitive knowledge, stronger industrial capabilities, and socioeconomic value creation” (AUDA-NEPAD, 2026). Moreover, in 2026 the European Commission adopted a recommendation on the first-ever European Union (EU) framework for science diplomacy. Finally, on the multilateral level, 2026 marks two years since the launch of the UNESCO International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development, with UNESCO holding a large international conference with the ambition to “spotlight how transdisciplinary research, open science and strengthened science-policy-society interfaces can drive more inclusive and equitable futures for all” (UNESCO, 2026). With these developments shaping science systems in 2026, how is Germany positioning itself through national science policy to further develop its science and innovation systems and invest in transregional science cooperation as an engine for mutual learning, innovation and change? In early 2026, the German Science Council addressed the rise of anti-pluralist and anti-academic forces in a paper envisioning Germany’s science system in 2040 (Wissenschaftsrat, 2026). In it, the Council identifies four possible scenarios. Two scenarios assume substantial investment in science and in the science system as a whole: Scenario one outlines a well-funded German science and innovation system in a geopolitically turbulent world marked by high levels of societal polarisation, security risks and non-alignment with EU partners; scenario four envisages a global research area in which science cooperation is closely coordinated by a supranational organisation, creating cross-regional innovation spaces but also less localisation, and a decoupling of research and education as well as of research and society and policy. The two remaining scenarios give science far lower priority. Scenario two envisions a system in which science is predominantly instrumentalised for economic gain, while scenario three depicts science as marginalised, struggling for funding and political attention, and barely able to realise its potential. In the following, we explore selected developments in science policy in 2026, differentiate between different types of innovation policy and argue for the role of knowledge cooperation in creating shared innovation spaces. Finally, we bring this analysis together with the German Science Council’s scenario perspective and propose an additional, more visionary scenario that policy- and science-system-related decision-makers should strive to realise.

Academic freedom and independent scientific knowledge production are fragile achievements – first secured during the Enlightenment in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries – that now face substantial headwinds. In the United States in 2026, the Trump administration has advanced further proposals to reduce science spending (Grimm & Hornidge, 2025). Most notably, the White House foresees a 55 per cent cut in funding for the National Science Foundation in 2027 compared with 2026 levels (Garisto & Nature Magazine, 2026). However, the threats to science systems in the United States and beyond cannot be reduced to – drastic – budget cuts alone. Political interference in scientific quality assurance and decisions about which research receives funding is also reported to have increased substantially, particularly in the United States (e.g. Finucane, 2026). Although the Trump administration’s actions are notably blatant, attacks on science systems, academic freedom and knowledge cooperation, whether overt or subtle, can be observed in countries across income levels and continents. In Germany, the German Research Foundation recently published a position paper on threats to academic freedom and the German science system, explicitly referencing the positioning and influence of the right-wing political party AfD, as set out in its “government programme” for the state election in Saxony-Anhalt (Ad-hoc-Arbeitsgruppe, 2026). At the same time, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development announced in 2026 that China’s research spending had reached parity with that of the United States (OECD, 2026). This is also the year in which the African Union Commission and the African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD) launched the Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa 2034 Implementation Plan. According to the AUDA-NEPAD, this marks “Africa’s determination to move beyond overreliance on imported technologies and towards the sovereign production of globally competitive knowledge, stronger industrial capabilities, and socioeconomic value creation” (AUDA-NEPAD, 2026). Moreover, in 2026 the European Commission adopted a recommendation on the first-ever European Union (EU) framework for science diplomacy. Finally, on the multilateral level, 2026 marks two years since the launch of the UNESCO International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development, with UNESCO holding a large international conference with the ambition to “spotlight how transdisciplinary research, open science and strengthened science-policy-society interfaces can drive more inclusive and equitable futures for all” (UNESCO, 2026). With these developments shaping science systems in 2026, how is Germany positioning itself through national science policy to further develop its science and innovation systems and invest in transregional science cooperation as an engine for mutual learning, innovation and change? In early 2026, the German Science Council addressed the rise of anti-pluralist and anti-academic forces in a paper envisioning Germany’s science system in 2040 (Wissenschaftsrat, 2026). In it, the Council identifies four possible scenarios. Two scenarios assume substantial investment in science and in the science system as a whole: Scenario one outlines a well-funded German science and innovation system in a geopolitically turbulent world marked by high levels of societal polarisation, security risks and non-alignment with EU partners; scenario four envisages a global research area in which science cooperation is closely coordinated by a supranational organisation, creating cross-regional innovation spaces but also less localisation, and a decoupling of research and education as well as of research and society and policy. The two remaining scenarios give science far lower priority. Scenario two envisions a system in which science is predominantly instrumentalised for economic gain, while scenario three depicts science as marginalised, struggling for funding and political attention, and barely able to realise its potential. In the following, we explore selected developments in science policy in 2026, differentiate between different types of innovation policy and argue for the role of knowledge cooperation in creating shared innovation spaces. Finally, we bring this analysis together with the German Science Council’s scenario perspective and propose an additional, more visionary scenario that policy- and science-system-related decision-makers should strive to realise.

Academic freedom and independent scientific knowledge production are fragile achievements – first secured during the Enlightenment in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries – that now face substantial headwinds. In the United States in 2026, the Trump administration has advanced further proposals to reduce science spending (Grimm & Hornidge, 2025). Most notably, the White House foresees a 55 per cent cut in funding for the National Science Foundation in 2027 compared with 2026 levels (Garisto & Nature Magazine, 2026). However, the threats to science systems in the United States and beyond cannot be reduced to – drastic – budget cuts alone. Political interference in scientific quality assurance and decisions about which research receives funding is also reported to have increased substantially, particularly in the United States (e.g. Finucane, 2026). Although the Trump administration’s actions are notably blatant, attacks on science systems, academic freedom and knowledge cooperation, whether overt or subtle, can be observed in countries across income levels and continents. In Germany, the German Research Foundation recently published a position paper on threats to academic freedom and the German science system, explicitly referencing the positioning and influence of the right-wing political party AfD, as set out in its “government programme” for the state election in Saxony-Anhalt (Ad-hoc-Arbeitsgruppe, 2026). At the same time, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development announced in 2026 that China’s research spending had reached parity with that of the United States (OECD, 2026). This is also the year in which the African Union Commission and the African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD) launched the Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for Africa 2034 Implementation Plan. According to the AUDA-NEPAD, this marks “Africa’s determination to move beyond overreliance on imported technologies and towards the sovereign production of globally competitive knowledge, stronger industrial capabilities, and socioeconomic value creation” (AUDA-NEPAD, 2026). Moreover, in 2026 the European Commission adopted a recommendation on the first-ever European Union (EU) framework for science diplomacy. Finally, on the multilateral level, 2026 marks two years since the launch of the UNESCO International Decade of Sciences for Sustainable Development, with UNESCO holding a large international conference with the ambition to “spotlight how transdisciplinary research, open science and strengthened science-policy-society interfaces can drive more inclusive and equitable futures for all” (UNESCO, 2026). With these developments shaping science systems in 2026, how is Germany positioning itself through national science policy to further develop its science and innovation systems and invest in transregional science cooperation as an engine for mutual learning, innovation and change? In early 2026, the German Science Council addressed the rise of anti-pluralist and anti-academic forces in a paper envisioning Germany’s science system in 2040 (Wissenschaftsrat, 2026). In it, the Council identifies four possible scenarios. Two scenarios assume substantial investment in science and in the science system as a whole: Scenario one outlines a well-funded German science and innovation system in a geopolitically turbulent world marked by high levels of societal polarisation, security risks and non-alignment with EU partners; scenario four envisages a global research area in which science cooperation is closely coordinated by a supranational organisation, creating cross-regional innovation spaces but also less localisation, and a decoupling of research and education as well as of research and society and policy. The two remaining scenarios give science far lower priority. Scenario two envisions a system in which science is predominantly instrumentalised for economic gain, while scenario three depicts science as marginalised, struggling for funding and political attention, and barely able to realise its potential. In the following, we explore selected developments in science policy in 2026, differentiate between different types of innovation policy and argue for the role of knowledge cooperation in creating shared innovation spaces. Finally, we bring this analysis together with the German Science Council’s scenario perspective and propose an additional, more visionary scenario that policy- and science-system-related decision-makers should strive to realise.

Two features of AI stand out among technological innovations: It is exceptionally powerful, and its (computing) power is increasing faster than any previous technology in human history. AI is not a tool that can simply be added to the existing arsenal just for the sake of task automation and increased efficiency (Sinanoglu, 2025a). Its consequences are so profound that using it to advance broader development objectives requires changes to some of the ways development cooperation works. In this chapter, we go beyond more general assessments (OECD, 2025) of the use of AI by governments (OECD, 2026) and of the global development risks posed by AI (United Nations Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence, 2026). We argue that successful development cooperation for sustainable futures depends on collaboration with others in iterative and adaptive ways to exploit opportunities for positive change more effectively in challenging contexts. To this end, current development-cooperation structures and processes should be reformed to facilitate and encourage organisational learning (Brandi & Büge, 2026) and adopt a more iterative approach to cooperation. To what extent does development cooperation currently deploy AI tools for such organisational learning? By “AI”, we mean generative and agentic artificial intelligence. We also distinguish between “AI in development” and “AI for development”. Whereas the former refers to how AI is used in middle- and low-income countries, the latter refers to how the development sector can use AI. We catalogued how the supply side of development cooperation (donors, ministries, agencies, development banks, United Nations (UN) entities, humanitarian implementers and funders) uses AI in its own operations, programming, advisory work and evaluations. The database comprises 172 AI deployments and, while not exhaustive, provides a comprehensive primary-source snapshot that lets us answer three questions empirically: Who is deploying AI? What for? And how far has it matured? (See Figure 9) Our data suggest that almost 60 per cent of recorded uses fall into just two functions: getting services to people in the field (programme delivery) and speeding up the back office at headquarters (internal operations). Together, the functions most closely tied to organisational learning – monitoring, evaluation, planning and coordination – account for only roughly 19 per cent of deployments. In short, the sector is now using AI to do its existing work faster, but not yet to change how it works and learns. 

Two features of AI stand out among technological innovations: It is exceptionally powerful, and its (computing) power is increasing faster than any previous technology in human history. AI is not a tool that can simply be added to the existing arsenal just for the sake of task automation and increased efficiency (Sinanoglu, 2025a). Its consequences are so profound that using it to advance broader development objectives requires changes to some of the ways development cooperation works. In this chapter, we go beyond more general assessments (OECD, 2025) of the use of AI by governments (OECD, 2026) and of the global development risks posed by AI (United Nations Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence, 2026). We argue that successful development cooperation for sustainable futures depends on collaboration with others in iterative and adaptive ways to exploit opportunities for positive change more effectively in challenging contexts. To this end, current development-cooperation structures and processes should be reformed to facilitate and encourage organisational learning (Brandi & Büge, 2026) and adopt a more iterative approach to cooperation. To what extent does development cooperation currently deploy AI tools for such organisational learning? By “AI”, we mean generative and agentic artificial intelligence. We also distinguish between “AI in development” and “AI for development”. Whereas the former refers to how AI is used in middle- and low-income countries, the latter refers to how the development sector can use AI. We catalogued how the supply side of development cooperation (donors, ministries, agencies, development banks, United Nations (UN) entities, humanitarian implementers and funders) uses AI in its own operations, programming, advisory work and evaluations. The database comprises 172 AI deployments and, while not exhaustive, provides a comprehensive primary-source snapshot that lets us answer three questions empirically: Who is deploying AI? What for? And how far has it matured? (See Figure 9) Our data suggest that almost 60 per cent of recorded uses fall into just two functions: getting services to people in the field (programme delivery) and speeding up the back office at headquarters (internal operations). Together, the functions most closely tied to organisational learning – monitoring, evaluation, planning and coordination – account for only roughly 19 per cent of deployments. In short, the sector is now using AI to do its existing work faster, but not yet to change how it works and learns. 

Two features of AI stand out among technological innovations: It is exceptionally powerful, and its (computing) power is increasing faster than any previous technology in human history. AI is not a tool that can simply be added to the existing arsenal just for the sake of task automation and increased efficiency (Sinanoglu, 2025a). Its consequences are so profound that using it to advance broader development objectives requires changes to some of the ways development cooperation works. In this chapter, we go beyond more general assessments (OECD, 2025) of the use of AI by governments (OECD, 2026) and of the global development risks posed by AI (United Nations Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence, 2026). We argue that successful development cooperation for sustainable futures depends on collaboration with others in iterative and adaptive ways to exploit opportunities for positive change more effectively in challenging contexts. To this end, current development-cooperation structures and processes should be reformed to facilitate and encourage organisational learning (Brandi & Büge, 2026) and adopt a more iterative approach to cooperation. To what extent does development cooperation currently deploy AI tools for such organisational learning? By “AI”, we mean generative and agentic artificial intelligence. We also distinguish between “AI in development” and “AI for development”. Whereas the former refers to how AI is used in middle- and low-income countries, the latter refers to how the development sector can use AI. We catalogued how the supply side of development cooperation (donors, ministries, agencies, development banks, United Nations (UN) entities, humanitarian implementers and funders) uses AI in its own operations, programming, advisory work and evaluations. The database comprises 172 AI deployments and, while not exhaustive, provides a comprehensive primary-source snapshot that lets us answer three questions empirically: Who is deploying AI? What for? And how far has it matured? (See Figure 9) Our data suggest that almost 60 per cent of recorded uses fall into just two functions: getting services to people in the field (programme delivery) and speeding up the back office at headquarters (internal operations). Together, the functions most closely tied to organisational learning – monitoring, evaluation, planning and coordination – account for only roughly 19 per cent of deployments. In short, the sector is now using AI to do its existing work faster, but not yet to change how it works and learns. 

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were agreed in 2015 in a political environment in which broad multilateral agreement still appeared possible. They reflected the belief that universal goals, shared language and collective implementation could organise international cooperation, even if
they were never free from contestation (Biermann, Kanie, & Kim, 2017; Chaturvedi et al., 2020). For global health, this mattered. The 2030 Agenda broadened the health agenda beyond selected infectious diseases and maternal and child health. It included universal health coverage, non-communicable diseases, mental health, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and the wider social, economic and environmental determinants of health (Murray, 2015; WHO, 2015). With only a few years left until 2030, progress remains uneven and many health-related targets are off track. At the same time, the political context for a future global development framework has changed substantially. Global health cooper-
ation is increasingly shaped by donor retrenchment, weaker multilateralism, geopolitical competition and ideological polarisation (Held, Kickbusch, McNally, Piselli, & Told, 2019; Kickbusch & Liu, 2022). Issues such as gender equality, vaccination, climate action and migration have become more contested. These tensions now affect financing, normsetting, institutional stability and the conditions under which cooperation remains possible. Three shifts are particularly important. First, financing has become more uncertain. Aid cuts and donor retrenchment weaken multilateral health institutions and create incentives for selective, interest-driven cooperation (Poddar & Rao, 2025; Witter et al., 2025). Second, ideological polarisation makes established health commitments more contested, especially around sexual and reproductive health and rights, vaccination, and climate and health (Greene, 2026; Khosla & Allotey, 2025). Third, the global health order is becoming more multipolar. Regional organisations, middle powers,
South-South cooperation and issue-based coalitions are gaining influence (Bull & Banik, 2025; Franz et al., 2024; Lal, 2026). Together, these shifts affect who leads, which priorities are defended and how ambition is defined. At stake is not only whether new commitments can be agreed, but whether the core principles of global health cooperation can be preserved. These include rights-based commitments, universality and equity, national ownership in implementation and international solidarity through coordinated collective action. These principles are grounded in the normative framework of the World Health Organization (WHO) and reflected, although unevenly, in the 2030 Agenda and subsequent declarations on universal health coverage (UN, 2015, 2019, 2023; WHO, 1948). The risk is not only stagnation. A more serious risk is selective rollback. Commitments that seemed relatively stable during the SDG period may become vulnerable in post-2030 negotiations. This applies particularly to sexual and reproductive health and rights, vaccination and climate-related health commitments (Haeuser et al., 2025; Khosla & Allotey, 2025; Romanello et al., 2024). If consensus becomes harder to reach, the price of agreement may be dilution. A future framework may preserve the language of multilateralism while narrowing the substance of global health ambition (see also Berger & Leininger in this volume).

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were agreed in 2015 in a political environment in which broad multilateral agreement still appeared possible. They reflected the belief that universal goals, shared language and collective implementation could organise international cooperation, even if
they were never free from contestation (Biermann, Kanie, & Kim, 2017; Chaturvedi et al., 2020). For global health, this mattered. The 2030 Agenda broadened the health agenda beyond selected infectious diseases and maternal and child health. It included universal health coverage, non-communicable diseases, mental health, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and the wider social, economic and environmental determinants of health (Murray, 2015; WHO, 2015). With only a few years left until 2030, progress remains uneven and many health-related targets are off track. At the same time, the political context for a future global development framework has changed substantially. Global health cooper-
ation is increasingly shaped by donor retrenchment, weaker multilateralism, geopolitical competition and ideological polarisation (Held, Kickbusch, McNally, Piselli, & Told, 2019; Kickbusch & Liu, 2022). Issues such as gender equality, vaccination, climate action and migration have become more contested. These tensions now affect financing, normsetting, institutional stability and the conditions under which cooperation remains possible. Three shifts are particularly important. First, financing has become more uncertain. Aid cuts and donor retrenchment weaken multilateral health institutions and create incentives for selective, interest-driven cooperation (Poddar & Rao, 2025; Witter et al., 2025). Second, ideological polarisation makes established health commitments more contested, especially around sexual and reproductive health and rights, vaccination, and climate and health (Greene, 2026; Khosla & Allotey, 2025). Third, the global health order is becoming more multipolar. Regional organisations, middle powers,
South-South cooperation and issue-based coalitions are gaining influence (Bull & Banik, 2025; Franz et al., 2024; Lal, 2026). Together, these shifts affect who leads, which priorities are defended and how ambition is defined. At stake is not only whether new commitments can be agreed, but whether the core principles of global health cooperation can be preserved. These include rights-based commitments, universality and equity, national ownership in implementation and international solidarity through coordinated collective action. These principles are grounded in the normative framework of the World Health Organization (WHO) and reflected, although unevenly, in the 2030 Agenda and subsequent declarations on universal health coverage (UN, 2015, 2019, 2023; WHO, 1948). The risk is not only stagnation. A more serious risk is selective rollback. Commitments that seemed relatively stable during the SDG period may become vulnerable in post-2030 negotiations. This applies particularly to sexual and reproductive health and rights, vaccination and climate-related health commitments (Haeuser et al., 2025; Khosla & Allotey, 2025; Romanello et al., 2024). If consensus becomes harder to reach, the price of agreement may be dilution. A future framework may preserve the language of multilateralism while narrowing the substance of global health ambition (see also Berger & Leininger in this volume).