2026 Seminars

The humanitarian system is undergoing historic transformation. Funding is shrinking, structures are being reshaped, operational realities are changing, and the longstanding consensus on what 'lifesaving' priorities mean is increasingly contested. At the center of this debate is a critical question: what does a principled and effective humanitarian system actually mean - and for whom?

Women and girls are not only those most affected by the failures of the humanitarian system - they are also often its frontline responders, as community health workers, midwives, Gender Based Violence (GBV) caseworkers, and peer supporters, frequently continuing to deliver care under the most extreme conditions.

There is today a clear commitment that the rights and protection of women and girls must be central to the humanitarian system. This is explicitly affirmed in the Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) Humanitarian Reset Roadmap. But commitment on paper is not the same as change in practice.

In 2026, more than 61 million women and girls of reproductive age require humanitarian assistance, of whom 7.7 million will be pregnant - needing a safe place to give birth, skilled care during delivery, and support if complications arise. Without it, they risk dying. In addition, millions of women and girls are at imminent risk of GBV and conflict-related sexual violence, and in acute need of prevention and response systems. Yet the provision of such care and protection systems are contracting at alarming speed: over 1,000 health facilities and mobile teams have already closed or face imminent closure, and more than 250 women’s and girls’ safe spaces, GBV centers and adolescent-friendly spaces have shut or are projected to shut. The cumulative result is that more than 10 million women, girls and adolescents are losing access to essential Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) and GBV services at precisely the moment they need them most.

The evidence on mortality is equally stark. Of the estimated 260,000 maternal deaths globally in 2023, approximately 160,000 deaths took place in countries and territories experiencing conflict or institutional and social fragility (WHO/HRP, 2025). The risks of GBV rise sharply as crises escalate and protection systems collapse - and this is well documented across current emergencies. Reported conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan has soared since 2024 as three years of war have dismantled protection infrastructure and left survivors with nowhere to turn. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, reported rapes in North Kivu rose by nearly 40 per cent in the first half of 2025 alone as clashes intensified and health facilities came under direct attack. In Somalia, reported GBV rose by more than 60 per cent in drought-affected districts in 2025, driven by mass displacement and the collapse of already fragile services. In Lebanon, reported rape and sexual assault increased 58 per cent between 2024 and 2025, following mass displacement into overcrowded shelters. These figures reflect reported cases only; given stigma, insecurity, and the breakdown of reporting mechanisms in conflict settings, the true scale is widely understood to be substantially higher.

The pattern is consistent: as crises deepen, reported GBV cases surge. Displacement, the collapse of health and protection systems, and the erosion of safe spaces create conditions in which violence escalates, and survivors have fewer avenues to seek help. Maternal mortality tells the same story: countries included in coordinated humanitarian appeals at the start of 2025 accounted for roughly 28% of global births but 58% of maternal deaths. These deaths are preventable: the gains achieved through investments in health systems, trained midwives, and reliable supply chains in stable settings have yet to reach women in crisis settings.

GBV sector funding - already meeting less than 30% of documented needs in 2024 - has declined further in 2025 and 2026, as major donors have reduced or eliminated contributions to gender-focused humanitarian programming. No equivalent tracking exists for SRH funding within humanitarian response plans: SRH remains embedded within the broader Health sector in OCHA's Financial Tracking Service, making it impossible to isolate the true scale of investment - or disinvestment - in lifesaving maternal and reproductive care. The absence of dedicated SRH tracking within humanitarian funding systems represents a gap that could be addressed through existing mechanisms.

Effective coordination is the backbone of humanitarian response: it identifies gaps, removes duplication, and ensures that essential services for women and girls remain visible and prioritized within the wider system. Without dedicated coordination capacity for GBV and SRH, these services risk becoming invisible, losing any meaningful accountability. Yet the coordination architecture is under strain. In 2025, only 44% of IASC countries had a dedicated GBV coordinator - a significant drop from 63% in 2021.

Alongside these challenges, there are emerging solutions. Integrated service delivery models are demonstrating that sexual and reproductive health (SRH) and GBV services need not be delivered in isolation. New approaches to coordination, financing and monitoring are helping to strengthen accountability for women and girls in humanitarian settings, while locally led delivery models and innovative cash assistance mechanisms are expanding access to care where traditional systems have broken down. At the same time, humanitarian actors are exploring new partnerships and service delivery models to sustain essential health and protection services in the face of shrinking resources. This session will bring these emerging approaches into dialogue with the systemic challenges facing the sector to examine what a principled, effective and sustainable response for women and girls should look like in practice.