The comments here are in response to what is lacking from the draft document and essential to the creation of a proper independent and diverse panel that can adequately address the AMR threat.
SCIENTIFIC INDEPENDENCE: The “I” in “IPEA” stands for “independent”. Yet, the Zero Draft is meant to establish a panel with strong “inter-governmental” features, similar to the IPCC and the IPBES. The UNGA was aware of these panels but chose to invite the establishment of a scientifically “independent” panel instead. The Zero Draft does not fully honour this choice: e.g., the six scientists leading the work (the “Interdisciplinary Expert Committee”) are nominated by the Quadripartite and elected by the Plenary, and the scientific work programme is first drafted by the Secretariat, then approved by the Plenary. Nothing about the structure envisioned in the Zero Draft supports the independence of IPEA’s scientific work. For example, the great bulk of the work of IPEA should be in response to deliverables requested by Member States, but the IPEA should have the ability to initiate reports as well.
INCLUSION AND REPRESENTATION: There are only six core experts proposed in the Zero Draft. Sufficient diversity across disciplines (including social science and other areas under-exploited in AMR discourse and inquiry), sectors (all One Health domains), and geographies cannot be met with only six individuals. Attempts to do so will inevitably exclude groups historically under-represented in AMR policy decision-making such as youth and LMIC representatives. Though recognising that resources will be limited, we suggest expansion of this core, as well as a broad call for nominees.
DUPLICATION AND WASTE: UNGA insisted IPEA should be “making use of existing resources and avoiding duplication of on-going efforts,” but the Zero Draft features four levels of governance, plus the actual working groups of scientists. No role is found for three other elements of global governance already in existence: (a) the GLG; (b) the biennial Ministerial Conference; and (c) the MSPP. What is the relationship between the Plenary and the Ministerial? E.g., should the Ministerial be given an additional key role, something along the lines of the COP? How will IPEA interact with the GLG and the MSPP? E.g., should the MSPP be used to channel multi-stakeholder input?
CLOSE EVIDENCE GAPS: We welcome that gap identification is one of the functions laid out in the Zero Draft. As the Draft also emphasises that IPEA will not generate evidence, it is important to consider how the Panel can support and frame priorities for capacity strengthening for evidence-generation. Otherwise, lopsidedness in evidence availability, from resource rich settings versus resource poor ones, will continue.
LAGOS LESSONS LEARNED MEETING. We further wish to highlight that signatories of this letter convened and attended a global meeting of over 80 stakeholders in Lagos, Nigeria in April 2025: Lessons Learned for the IPEA from Previous International Science Panels. A short summary of their deliberations, which includes the points we raise above, is available here https://verixiv.org/articles/2-280/v1. Final versions of the papers commissioned to brief the Lagos attendees are posted here: https://www.cgdev.org/project/building-amr-independent-panel-lessons-and-insights.
These comments were produced by the list of signatories below:
- Professor Iruka N. Okeke, PhD, University of Ibadan and Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science
- Professor Kevin Outterson, JD, Boston University
- Javier Guzman MD, MBA
- Dr M. Oladoyin Odubanjo, FISC, Executive Secretary, The Nigerian Academy of Science
- Robert Leo Skov, MD, ESCMID President
- Mathieu JP Poirier, PhD, York University
- Professor Clare Chandler, PhD, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
- Anthony McDonnell, MS, Centre for Global Development
- Ayodele A. Akinyele, PhD, University of Ibadan