Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the greatest health challenges of our time. It is responsible for 1.14 million deaths a year, and failure to keep resistance in check could lead to $1.7 trillion dollars a year of economic losses by 2050. At the 2024 UN High-Level Meeting on AMR, governments called for the creation of an Independent Panel for Evidence for Action (IPEA)—a body to ensure evidence is systematically gathered, assessed, and translated into action.
To help inform the set-up of this independent panel, CGD has worked with the University of Ibadan, Boston University, the South Centre, and the AMR Policy Accelerator to produce seven research papers that identify lessons from climate and health panels, understand stakeholder expectations and governance options, and look at how evidence on AMR is currently—and often poorly—translated into policy. (The organisations behind this work, joined by both the Nigerian Academy of Science and European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, recently submitted a comment to the Quadripartite Joint Secretariat emphasising the need for scientific independence for IPEA.)
This blog briefly summarises the seven papers and draws out the cross-cutting lessons for how to design the IPEA to ensure it has the greatest impact in fight against AMR.
What the papers tell us
- Learning from health panels (Edwards and Goh) reviewed six health-related panels to learn lessons for the IPEA.
- Evidence uptake in AMR policy (Kahn-Woods and McDonnell) reviewed AMR evidence diffusion and progress on National Action Plans.
- Lessons from the IPCC (Hughes, Beynon, and McDonnell) used interviews and a literature review to determine how well the IPCC works to identify lessons for establishing the IPEA.
- Lessons from animal health panels (Valsson) reviewed seven panels in the animal health and food safety space and their relevance for IPEA.
- Environmental science–policy interfaces (Ruckert, Shafaque, Wallace, Boily-Larouche, and Poirier). This work led by the AMR Accelerator examines the lessons from climate and biodiversity panels and their relevance for AMR.
- Lessons from global health, climate change and biodiversity (Muñoz Tellez and Chiara). This work, led by the South Centre, focuses on IPEA’s mandate and how to engage with low- and middle-income countries.
- Understanding stakeholder perspectives (Khan, Akinyele, Olamijuwon, and McDonnell). Authors spoke with 60 stakeholders across sectors to understand their goals and concerns with the IPEA.
Eight cross-cutting lessons
Across the seven papers, eight cross-cutting lessons emerged:
1. Independence vs. relevance
All independent panels seem to face a trade-off between independence and relevance. If panels are given a high degree of independence then they may do work that policymakers do not find policy relevant, making it easier for their work to be dismissed. However, where governments or international organisations are involved in setting agendas, there’s a risk that research becomes politicised.
Where possible the IPEA should strive to find a middle ground: scientifically independent analysis, anchored in intergovernmental processes to ensure uptake. Ultimately, it won’t be possible to fully avoid this trade-off, and a normative decision needs to be made on how to prioritise either independence or relevance.
2. Get the design right first time
Institutions are incredibly difficult to reform once created. Choices on mandate, governance, and funding made in the next year will define IPEA’s trajectory for decades. Hughes’ paper illustrates this: the World Meteorological Organization’s role in convening its first participants still shapes how countries engage today, more than three decades later.
Other panels show the same pattern. Valsson outlined how the Codex Alimentarius was set up with a strong food safety focus, and decades on it still struggles to adapt to broader One Health issues. The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board was designed with a narrow mandate and has found it difficult to expand without undermining its credibility.
Policymakers must decide whether to prioritise speed to show progress, or to take the time to get the fundamentals right, even if that delays the panel’s launch. The UNGA Political Declaration also emphasized the need to avoid duplication, which implied coordination with other elements of the AMR global health architecture such as annual ministerial meetings, the Global Leaders Group, the Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Platform, and the Global AMR R&D Hub.
3. Equity is foundational
All papers argue that equity cannot be an afterthought. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face the highest burden of AMR, yet are often marginalised in global evidence and governance. Panels like the IPCC show how hard it is to achieve equitable participation. LMIC experts face resource constraints, lack access to paywalled literature, and their employers often cannot afford to release or support them—especially when so much of this work is unpaid. Trust funds and regional quotas help, but inequities persist.
Muñoz Tellez and Chiara outline how equity must go further than seats at the table: it should mean addressing structural imbalances in evidence itself—funding LMIC research, valuing local and operational knowledge, and resourcing sustained participation.
4. Sustainable funding matters
The experience of other panels shows how funding shapes credibility. Relying heavily on a small set of donors risks capture, while broad assessed contributions are politically difficult to secure. Philanthropic support can plug gaps, but may raise questions about influence.
IPEA’s architects must decide what matters more: financial stability or distance from funder agendas. Sustainable operations require diversification, but each funding model carries trade-offs in legitimacy and autonomy. No structure can insulate IPEA fully—so the real decision is how much control over the agenda governments and donors should retain. Note also that the IPEA does not appear to have any fundraising resources at present.
5. Outputs must be usable
The IPCC’s history shows that there can be real advantages in moving slowly and deliberately. Its assessment reports take years to produce, but that very process gives it authority and legitimacy. Governments are involved throughout, ensuring the final product is hard to dismiss, and the scale of the exercise signals seriousness.
But as Kahn-Woods’ work highlights, depth can come at a cost: timeliness. In fast-moving policy areas like AMR, decision-makers often need rapid guidance. If IPEA focuses only on long assessments, it risks irrelevance when urgent decisions arise. If it prioritises quick briefs and dashboards, it risks being seen as superficial or politically ungrounded. IPEA has two near-term deadlines for possible initial deliverables: the 2026 Ministerial Meeting in Nigeria on AMR and the 2029 UNGA High-Level Meeting on AMR.
As Ruckert argues, IPEA will need to decide where on this spectrum to sit: should it emulate the gravitas of the IPCC and accept slower outputs for greater legitimacy, or lean towards rapid products that meet immediate policy needs but may carry less weight?
6. Build in adaptability
Successful panels are those that can evolve. Panels that endure can evolve. The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board widened its scope from pandemics to broader health security, while OHHLEP expanded its remit as new issues emerged. Meanwhile, the IPCC now focuses more on LMICs, communication, and interdisciplinary research than it did when it was launched. More rigid bodies, such as Codex Alimentarius, have ensured predictability but often at the cost of responsiveness.
For the IPEA, the choice is whether to embed mechanisms for mid-course correction and external review, or to prioritise stability so governments know what to expect. Too much adaptability risks an institution that feels unreliable; too little leaves it unable to respond to fast-changing science and politics. If stability is prioritised, then getting the design right from the start becomes even more important. As noted above it can be difficult for organisations to reform with time, including mechanism for change will make this easier.
7. Balance breadth and efficiency
Khan’s stakeholder consultations stress that legitimacy depends on interdisciplinary inclusion: AMR is a One Health issue, yet panels often privilege biomedical expertise over economics, social science, or civil society voices. Valsson’s review of animal health panels found the same problem—limited disciplinary diversity weakened their capacity to address AMR in its full complexity. Ruckert and colleagues argue that legitimacy and relevance come from integrating diverse knowledge systems, while Edwards shows that health panels struggled when they failed to bring in operational and local evidence alongside formal science. Many have called for stronger representation from social sciences in the IPEA.
The challenge is that breadth brings legitimacy but also risks paralysis, while narrow expert groups move faster but exclude critical perspectives. A hybrid model—broad consultations for agenda-setting, leaner groups for technical synthesis—may help, but even this requires difficult choices about which disciplines are prioritised, and whose knowledge counts.
8. Communication is critical
Papers led by Hughes (IPCC lessons), Edwards (health panel comparisons), and Khan (stakeholder consultations) all highlight that evidence alone is not enough—what matters is whether it is communicated in a way that is trusted, heard, and acted upon. The IPCC’s authority rests partly on its careful communications strategy, including clear summaries for policymakers and managed approval processes. Edwards shows that health-focused panels often faltered when their outputs were too technical or inaccessible. Khan’s consultations confirm that stakeholders want products that are timely, clear, and tailored to local contexts, not just long global reports.
For IPEA, communication cannot be an afterthought. It will need dedicated staff and resources to translate complex AMR evidence into usable formats—briefs, dashboards, decision tools, and public messaging—that resonate with diverse audiences across the globe. Without this, even the most rigorous analysis risks irrelevance. With it, IPEA can build trust, legitimacy, and impact.
Final reflections
The case for an Independent Panel for Evidence for Action on AMR is clear. Drug resistance is a major killer, and without stronger global coordination we risk losing the ability to treat common infections. An IPEA could provide the platform we need: to track resistance and responses across countries, to learn systematically what policies work and what do not, and to improve care worldwide.
But setting up such a body will not be straightforward. As these papers show, there are many difficult design choices and unavoidable trade-offs—between independence and relevance, speed and depth, breadth and efficiency. If I’ve learnt anything from this project, it is that there is no perfect way to do it. Almost every option faces trade-offs with drawbacks as well as benefits.
We hope this package of work frames the discussion and adds evidence to inform deliberation. The choices ahead matter enormously. I would encourage anyone engaged in this debate to read the seven papers themselves—they provide rich insights, diverse perspectives, and concrete lessons that can guide the creation of a panel equal to the scale of the AMR challenge.
