Shaping the future of AMR evidence-based action: Insights into the IPEA founding document and consultations

ReAct’s Input: Strengthening the panel’s design

ReAct provided consolidated feedback on the zero draft through the virtual multi-stakeholder verbal consultations organized by the Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Platform (MSPP) as well as written submission, highlighting critical areas for enhancement.

These included:

ReAct underscored the importance of a clear and well-defined objective and mandate for the Panel from the outset, advocating for early agreement on key deliverables, rather than leaving this for the Panel to decide once established.
A suggested deliverable would be annual reports that could offer comprehensive global and regional AMR assessments, including policy options. These reports would ideally collate data from existing platforms like TrACCS, ANIMUSE, and GLASS. That notwithstanding, ReAct expressed concern that a focus solely on existing scientific research might lead to High-Income Country (HIC)-skewed evidence due to data scarcity in low- and middle-income countries.

On institutional arrangements and governance, a core recommendation was the necessity of adequate and fair representation from LMICs across the Panel structure, on basis of where AMR’s highest impacts occur.
ReAct also advocated for the Expert Committee to be ‘front and center’ of the Panel and to operate independently. There is a perceived risk that the proposed structure is ‘top-heavy’ with a large Plenary and a relatively slim Expert Committee, raising questions about efficiency and independence.

ReAct instead suggested a more agile structure, drawing inspiration from mechanisms such as the High-Level Panel of Experts for the Commission on Food Security and Nutrition. This body’s composition aligns with the IACG’s proposition to the UNGA for IPEA’s ToRs, which recommended that the Panel comprise of 10 to 15 experts with proven knowledge, strategic skills and experience on AMR; that the Panel be augmented by networks of experts and task groups; that the panel members represent a wide range of geographic regions, relevant communicating across the science-policy and policy-practice interface and contributions from early to mid-stage professionals to be encouraged (IACG 2019).

Additionally, to ensure the voice of the traditionally under-represented stakeholders is heard, the Panel could include Member States’-owned regional bodies, such as the Africa CDC, at the Plenary governing level.

Regarding financial matters, ReAct highlighted the challenging funding landscape and advised the establishing of a sufficiently nimble panel that can be quickly set up to deliver scientific guidance, with the capacity to grow and develop over time as needed.
While financial contributions should be void of conditionalities and not earmarked for specific activities, resource allocation should consider issues most relevant to low- and middle-income countries so as to mitigate inequitable distribution against the backdrop of critical data gaps in these countries.

Finally, on accountability and evaluation, ReAct requests clarity on IPEA’s relation to the wider governance system; that is, how it relates to other mechanisms such as the MSPP and how to ensure the IPEA’s accountability.
For constructive engagement, the Panel must be viewed as a transparent, trusted body from the start to prevent robust evidence from being disregarded due to mistrust.

ReAct hopes these comments can contribute to evolving IPEA’s foundational design as it is further developed, ensuring it is robust, equitable, and effective in its critical mission against AMR.

Experts call for important gaps in the IPEA foundational documents to be addressed

This joint statement from ReAct Africa, ReAct Europe, Global Strategy Lab, BSAC, GARDP, and the Wellcome Trust highlights key areas that must be addressed for the IPEA to function as a truly trusted global hub for AMR evidence. Member States need clear and meaningful ways to engage with the panel’s work, the Expert Committee must remain fully independent and science-driven, and the roles of all IPEA bodies must be clearly defined. Strengthening these elements, while building strong links with existing AMR governance mechanisms, will be essential to ensuring the panel’s outputs drive real and sustained policy action.

Read the full joint IPEA statement by ReAct Africa, ReAct Europe, Global Strategy Lab, BSAC, GARDP, and the Wellcome Trust.