Last year, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously agreed to a political declaration on antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which included a commitment to establish an Independent Panel on Evidence for Action against AMR. The UN, in turn, tasked the Quadripartite—the World Health Organization, the World Organisation for Animal Health, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the UN Environment Programme—to get the panel up and running by the end of 2025.
This is an ambitious target—and to ensure the panel is effective, the Quadripartite needs to carefully consider several questions about its structure and governance, content and science, and goals and outputs. In doing so, it can draw from prior scientific panels, helping learn lessons from what has and hasn't worked.
It is against this backdrop that CGD has partnered with the University of Ibadan and Boston College to conduct analysis to inform the establishment of the independent panel. Today, we have published two new papers as part of this work. The first, a CGD working report, written in collaboration with researchers from the University of Ibadan, explores different stakeholder’s priorities for an independent panel. The second, written by the AMR Policy Accelerator, looks at the science policy interfaces in global environmental governance. These two papers will be followed by five contributions, collectively providing the needed evidence to aid the panel’s formation.
What stakeholders want from an independent panel
This new working paper presents insights from a global consultation involving 60 stakeholders—spanning human, animal, and environmental health, civil society, academia, policy, and the private sector—on what they want to see from the independent panel. Participants agreed that the panel must be inclusive, context-sensitive, and independent, with meaningful representation of low- and middle-income countries, not just symbolic participation. They called for a pragmatic One Health approach and for attention to power imbalances that too often sideline the most affected regions.
The majority of stakeholders also favoured a hybrid governance model: one that combines the scientific independence of an expert body with the political legitimacy of structured engagement with governments and international institutions. Transparency, equity, and robust safeguards against undue influence were seen as essential.
In terms of composition, the stakeholders felt that the panel must go beyond traditional biomedical expertise to include economists, behavioural scientists, and people with lived experience. Behavioural and economic insights were highlighted as crucial for shaping feasible, real-world interventions.
Participants emphasised that the panel’s role should not end at evidence generation—it must also play a part in prioritising evidence gaps, translating findings into actionable guidance, and ensuring political uptake. This paper offers practical ideas for how to structure and govern the panel to make it both credible and impactful.
How environmental science-policy interfaces can guide an independent panel
This paper, written by AMR Policy Accelerator, draws lessons from science-policy interfaces (SPIs) in environmental governance—particularly the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—to inform the design of the independent panel. Based on a scoping review, the authors identify the three pillars of SPI effectiveness: legitimacy, credibility, and relevance. These are shaped by institutional design choices, including how inclusive, transparent, and sustainable the SPI is, and how well it incorporates equity into its processes.
The paper lays out policy options and trade-offs across key areas: from setting a mandate and governance structures to stakeholder engagement, expert selection, and the development of knowledge products. For example, while inclusive processes increase legitimacy, they may reduce efficiency; and while private funding can support sustainability, it may risk perceived or real conflicts of interest.
A recurring theme is the need to embed equity—including regional, gender, and disciplinary diversity—at every level of the panel’s structure. The authors also stress the importance of “firewalls” between scientific processes and political influence to maintain independence.
Ultimately, the paper argues that the independent panel can function as a global public good—but only if it is designed with careful attention to the trade-offs and lessons of past global panels. Its ability to influence AMR policy depends on how well it balances these competing demands, particularly in ensuring its outputs are timely, trusted, and usable by policymakers across contexts.
Forthcoming research
Over the coming months, CGD will publish five more outputs to inform the establishment of the independent panel.
- Suzanne Edwards and Maple Goh will look at lessons learnt from other scientific panels on, or related to, human health
- A paper led by Hannah Hughes will use interviews of people involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process to generate lessons for informing the AMR panel
- A study, first authored by Eli Kahn-Woods, will evaluate existing processes for uptake of scientific evidence on AMR
- A study written by Viviana Munoz Tellez and Francesca Chiara, will focus on how previous scientific panels have met the needs of people in the Global South
- A paper written by Olafur Valsson, will evaluate existing independent and intergovernmental panels in animal health
