British Academy Equitable Partnership Webinar

Overview

We are currently living in a moment of profound disruptions in global health: USAID dismantled, the UK government’s development and health funding retrenchment, and a number of funding organisations and groups, such as Global Health Partnerships (GHP, formerly THET), have had to close successful programmes. But beneath the funding alarm, there are also key issues being debated that may be timely for how global research partnerships might ride out the current geopolitical storms.  This blog presents a debate held online in February 2026 as part of a wider British Academy project on Equitable International Partnership. The focus of the debate was on what makes a global health partnership genuinely equitable, and what it takes for that equity to help partnerships outlast the current funding crises.

This webinar followed British Academy workshops in various countries, providing stakeholders interested in equitable partnerships with an opportunity to explore collaborative research challenges and opportunities. At workshops in Kenya and London, participants from Africa, including Uganda, explored this topic from their own experiences. This informed the current programme aimed at strengthening South–South and South–North partnerships to improve equitable international research collaborations. Our project is led by Makerere University in collaboration with Uganda Martyrs University, Mountains of the Moon University, NARO, and NTU, and draws on lessons from our successful NTU Mak Partnership and from a series of webinars and workshops, with discussions among partners. Dr Damilola Omodara skilfully facilitated this final webinar, creating a warm and engaging atmosphere.

The Funding Architecture Is Changing, Are We?

Megan Jones, Programme Coordinator at GHP, opened with a frank assessment that many in the funding sector are reluctant to say aloud. The bar graphs do not lie: the era of dependable, large-scale institutional funding from governments like the UK and the US may be over (at least for now). The global funding ecosystem has shifted.

But her response was not despondent. It was a morale booster for partnerships, encouraging participants to seek creative ways to fund their projects. GHP is actively mapping new donor landscapes: philanthropy, foundations, corporate giving, in-kind contributions, and journal fee waivers. Alongside the search for new money, Ms Jones made a case for how partnerships should use the current fallow period to prepare impact evidence, strengthen relationships, and build the institutional memory that tends to evaporate when the funding does.

“One of the key things that needs to happen is building relationships, positioning organisations... trying to make yourself visible and known and seen so that your application for funding doesn't just get lost in emails.”

— Megan Jones, Global Health Partnerships

Power Is Not a Side Issue. It Is the Issue.

Dr Matthew Nyashanu moved the conversation to a harder place. He argued that before we can build equitable partnerships, we have to be willing to name what makes them inequitable in the first place. That means sitting with four uncomfortable realities, not as abstract theory but as lived realities that shape every research relationship right now.

The first is addressing historical power imbalances. Who holds institutional authority, and where does that authority come from? History is not background context; the past shapes every negotiation happening today. The second is that control through funding money is not neutral, and understanding who funds what is essential before any agenda-setting conversation can claim to be fair.

Third is agenda ownership: whose research questions are asked and whose outcomes are measured? Often, the partner who frames the question determines the answer. Finally, Dr Nyashanu indicated, perhaps most visibly, who the author of publications is. Co-authorship is not professional courtesy. It is the signal, visible to the wider world, that all contributors to knowledge are valued. When it’s absent, claims of equity become hollow.

Building Relationships and Trust

Prof Toby Green extended the discussion into the broader course of history, reminding participants that the structural inequalities being discussed today did not develop overnight. He further added that genuine trust between institutions takes time to establish. The message was clear: relationship-building is not merely a soft skill alongside the ‘real’ work. It is the work. The funding crisis heightens this urgency, not diminishes it. When grants vanish, relationships determine whether a partnership remains dormant or collapses.

“At the very least, kick-off meetings led by partners in the South – chairing sessions and presenting – where the targets are finalised [by the team in the South].”

— Prof Toby Green, King's College London

The Conversation Beyond the Panel

During the lively Q&A session, the audience shared their thoughts, expressing what they were experiencing. Participants pointed out that the structural inequalities discussed by the panel speakers were not just hypothetical, but they were very real, and they are facing them as well.

Across the presentations, five themes recurred not as new ideas, but as things the sector keeps learning and forgetting.

Five Takeaways: What the Conversation Crystallised.

1. The funding crisis is structural, not cyclical. This is not a temporary dip. Partnerships that assume ‘normal’ funding will return are misreading the landscape. Adaptation is not optional.
2. Relationships are the real infrastructure. No funding gap will destroy a partnership built on genuine trust, regular communication, and shared purpose. Relationships outlast grants. That’s not a platitude; it’s a competitive advantage.
3. Equity requires active, visible practice. Co-authorship, shared agenda-setting, and inclusive decision-making are not aspirations to be revisited once things stabilise. They are operational standards that must be embedded from day one.
4. Impact evidence is now a competitive asset. Philanthropic funders want to know how many lives were changed, not just how many trainings were run. Rigorous impact documentation is not bureaucracy; it’s a strategic priority.
5. Knowledge flows both ways. The Global South does not receive expertise; it shares it. Partnerships that treat knowledge as unidirectional entirely miss the most transformative dimension of collaboration.

Recommendations: What Should We Actually Do Next?

The speaker’s presentations ended with practical steps provided and actions organisations and individuals can take now, regardless of the funding environment.

• Diversify your funding streams now by using new donor landscapes through philanthropy, corporate partnerships, in-kind contributions, and journal fee waivers.

• Use the funding gap to build capacity, as the pauses are not dead time. Prepare templates, protocols, impact reports, and leadership development programmes so you’re ready when the next window opens

• Lobby Ministries of Health by establishing partnerships, and a proven impact that should make the case to national governments for embedding continuation within institutional budgets, creating domestic ownership that does not depend on external grants.

• Strategically move activities online through mentorship, communities of practice, and knowledge exchange. Much of what keeps partnerships alive can continue digitally at low cost. COVID proved it. The tools exist.

• Audit your own power dynamics. Who chairs meetings? Who is the first author? Who sets the agenda? Run an honest internal review of where equity is rhetorical and where it is real. The answers may be uncomfortable. That’s the point.

• Invest in visibility, and not just grant applications. Position your organisation at summits, networks, and ministry meetings. Funders increasingly seek known partners; your reputation is your application.

A central question remains: who determines the meaning of “equitable partnership,” and does it matter that this definition is frequently established by Global North institutions? While there are no definitive answers, it is essential that we collectively and persistently advocate for greater inclusivity in shaping these definitions. The presenters and participants of this webinar have demonstrated approaches to advancing inclusivity within the current funding environment. Clearly, a truly equitable definition will only emerge when these challenges are addressed collaboratively through practical action. We must continue these discussions and ensure that all perspectives contribute to defining equity in global health partnerships.