This policy brief explores two potential governance models for an IPEA’s implementation and the potential benefits.
Key Takeaways
- An independent panel on evidence for action against antimicrobial resistance (IPEA) is needed to develop equitable and evidence-informed AMR policies as a global public good for Member States.
- Lessons from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlight the importance of legitimacy, independence, timely reporting, and cost-efficiency.
- An IPEA should use an equity-based approach to enhance global coordination, build a real-time evidence base, and monitor global progress in addressing AMR.
- Two governance models for an IPEA are explored: an intergovernmental approach and a fully independent approach.
Introduction
In 2019, the United Nations’ Interagency Coordination Group for Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) called for three bodies to support global efforts to address AMR. Two of these have already been created: the Global Leaders Group (GLG) to drive political action and the AMR Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Platform (MSPP) to foster cooperation among diverse AMR stakeholders across One Health sectors. However, the third body, an independent panel on evidence for action against AMR (IPEA), has not yet been established.
The upcoming United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) High-Level Meeting (HLM) on AMR presents a historic opportunity to lay the groundwork for establishing an IPEA. A well-designed IPEA with a clear mandate could play a vital role in global AMR governance by providing evidence-informed recommendations to promote equitable AMR interventions. Drawing on lessons from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this briefing note outlines core functions that an IPEA would serve, explores two potential governance models for its implementation, and reflects on the potential benefits of an IPEA.
Two Governance Models for an IPEA
