Health Diplomacy Alliance

Tag: one health

  • AMR – G7 Summit, Evian – June 2026

    AMR – G7 Summit, Evian – June 2026

    Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has emerged over the past decade as an accelerating challenge to health, development and security agendas. While often framed as a technical matter, AMR is in fact a structural phenomenon directly shaped by how societies organize their health systems, food production, environmental regulation, and international cooperation. In this respect, it resembles other cross‑border challenges that have forced policymakers to rethink traditional distinctions between domestic and foreign policy, with consequences that are particularly pronounced in low and middle-income countries where health systems are already under strain. 

    The G7 Summit in Evian comes at a moment when this structural dimension of AMR is increasingly evident. The adoption of a political declaration on AMR at the United Nations General Assembly on 2024 and the recent One Health Summit during April in Lyon have both acknowledged that the continued erosion of antimicrobial effectiveness threatens to reverse gains in life expectancy, productivity and poverty reduction. However, as with many global health issues, there remains a gap between the scale of the commitments made and the pace at which they are translated into implementation on the ground.  

    The Health Diplomacy Alliance views health as both an outcome of, and a contributor to, broader patterns of stability and cooperation. AMR illustrates this dual role. On the one hand, rising resistance directly affects the ability of health systems to deliver, thus eroding public trust when health services can no longer provide effective treatment for common infections. On the other hand, the way governments, international organizations and private actors respond to AMR signals the reliability of global cooperation and the value placed on prevention. 

    Recent discussions at Lyon One Health summit have reinforced the understanding that AMR cannot be addressed in isolation from its wider One Health context. Therefore, in light of these developments, this commentary identifies areas where sustained G7 engagement, coordinated with other partners, could have substantial impact if it is sustained over time.  

    AMR must be recognized as a strategic global risk

    There is a case for G7 governments to treat AMR as a core strategic risk, by integrating it into national security strategies, development cooperation frameworks and climate policies rather than confining it to health ministries alone. Doing so would recognize that resistance undermines not only clinical outcomes, but also economic resilience, trade, and the functioning of health systems in crisis settings. 

    Political commitments and implementation

    G7 countries are well placed to support and close the implementation and financing gap that continues to limit the effectiveness of many national AMR action plans. This does not imply substituting for domestic responsibility, but highlighting on existing mechanisms, such as development banks, the Pandemic Fund and other global health instruments to support investments in primary health care, laboratories, surveillance and workforce development that are essential for both AMR and broader health security. A shared objective, for example, that by 2030 a majority of countries have fully costed, and partially funded AMR plans aligned with One Health principles, would offer a useful point for such efforts and enable more systematic monitoring of progress over time. 

    Closing financing gaps – for national AMR Plans

    The G7 is well positioned to lend political and financial support to the development of integrated One Health governance for AMR. Many national AMR action plans exist on paper, but too few are fully costed, funded and operationalized. The G7, could support predictable financing for laboratories, surveillance, primary care, workforce development and infection prevention, especially in low and middle-income countries where the burden of resistance is compounded by broader weaknesses in health systems.  

    Building interoperable One Health surveillance, diagnostics and data systems

    Attention should be given to surveillance and data. The One Health Data Convergence initiatives launched in Lyon specifically stress the need for systems that connect human, animal, and environmental information in usable ways. Such support should be designed in a way that strengthens national institutions rather than creating parallel structures and could include investments in the analytical and policy capacities needed to interpret and act on the data generated.  Support for diagnostics capacity and analytical expertise would make it possible to detect resistance earlier and to respond more effectively. 

    Ensure AMR policies prioritize civil‑society engagement

    Any meaningful response to AMR will depend on structured engagement with civil society organizations and other community actors who can connect scientific evidence with practice. CSOs are already supporting AMR efforts in areas such as awareness‑raising, behavior change, surveillance, and monitoring of policy commitments, but their potential contributions to implementation and knowledge generation are still underutilized. Involving CSOs, youth groups and local authorities in the co‑design of interventions, community‑based research and implementation science can help ensure that AMR policies are grounded in real‑world experience and that scientific guidance is adapted to local contexts.  

    The AMR issue is important because it exposes the limits of fragmented responses and the need for a more integrated approach to health, development, and diplomacy.  

    Closer alignment between political commitments with financing, governance, and implementation would strengthen the international response to AMR and reinforce the practical relevance of One Health approach.  The Health Diplomacy Alliance will continue to follow this development with interest and reflect it on its Check the Box Initiative.  

  • Check the Box Factsheet

    Check the Box Factsheet

    View Fullscreen
    Skip to PDF content
  • Launch of the Joint Task Force on the ICJ Advisory Opinion

    Launch of the Joint Task Force on the ICJ Advisory Opinion

    We are pleased to announce the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the East, Central, and Southern Africa Health Community (ECSA-HC), marking an important step toward strengthening collaboration in health diplomacy, regional health governance, and capacity development across Africa and beyond.

    The MoU establishes a framework for cooperation between the two organizations in areas of shared interest, recognizing the growing importance of diplomacy, partnership building, and cross-sector collaboration in addressing today’s complex health challenges.

    Through this collaboration, HDA and ECSA-HC aim to promote dialogue and knowledge exchange on health diplomacy and global health while supporting initiatives that strengthen leadership, institutional capacity, and regional cooperation.

    The partnership will also create opportunities for joint activities, including policy engagement, research, training, technical exchanges, and the convening of stakeholders from across government, academia, civil society, and international organizations.

    The agreement also underscores the importance of regional organizations in shaping global health discussions and ensuring that diverse perspectives contribute to international decision-making processes. By combining HDA’s expertise in health diplomacy with ECSA-HC’s extensive regional network and experience, both organizations are well positioned to advance practical solutions that respond to evolving health priorities.

  • Signature of MoU to Advance Regional and Health Diplomacy

    Signature of MoU to Advance Regional and Health Diplomacy

    We are pleased to announce the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the East, Central, and Southern Africa Health Community (ECSA-HC), marking an important step toward strengthening collaboration in health diplomacy, regional health governance, and capacity development across Africa and beyond.

    The MoU establishes a framework for cooperation between the two organizations in areas of shared interest, recognizing the growing importance of diplomacy, partnership building, and cross-sector collaboration in addressing today’s complex health challenges.

    Through this collaboration, HDA and ECSA-HC aim to promote dialogue and knowledge exchange on health diplomacy and global health while supporting initiatives that strengthen leadership, institutional capacity, and regional cooperation.

    The partnership will also create opportunities for joint activities, including policy engagement, research, training, technical exchanges, and the convening of stakeholders from across government, academia, civil society, and international organizations.

    The agreement also underscores the importance of regional organizations in shaping global health discussions and ensuring that diverse perspectives contribute to international decision-making processes. By combining HDA’s expertise in health diplomacy with ECSA-HC’s extensive regional network and experience, both organizations are well positioned to advance practical solutions that respond to evolving health priorities.

  • The AMR–Health Security Equation: Why Diplomacy Matters for Cooperation?

    The AMR–Health Security Equation: Why Diplomacy Matters for Cooperation?

    Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents one of the most urgent and complex health challenges of our time. As life-saving drugs lose effectiveness, previously treatable infections risk becoming untreatable, crossing state borders, and threatening global health security. AMR can reverse the gains of modern medicine, including surgeries, cancer therapies, and intensive care. Without decisive action, AMR could result in millions of deaths annually and impose severe economic losses that strain health systems and national economies.

    Excessive antibiotic use in agriculture also raises resistance to zoonotic diseases, indirectly impacting human health. These connections make AMR a cross-cutting issue hindering progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Because resistant pathogens move between humans, animals, and ecosystems, and with globalized trade in livestock and agriculture, AMR’s inherently transboundary nature necessitates a One Health approach-driven international cooperation.

    This event will explore why addressing AMR demands robust health diplomacy and a globally coordinated response grounded in the One Health approach. Strengthening hygiene and infection prevention, ensuring responsible antimicrobial use, improving surveillance systems, integrating into health emergency preparedness response and resilience, and accelerating investment in new diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines are essential pillars of an effective strategy. Bringing together diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, scientists, health practitioners, international organization and civil society this discussion aims to chart actionable pathways that mitigate AMR as a global health and security objective.

    Summary

    As part of the 79th World Health Assembly, the Health Diplomacy Alliance convened a side event on 18 May 2026 to discuss antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a health security issue. The event examined how AMR moves across human health, animal health, agriculture, water systems, environment, trade and financing. The discussion was moderated by Kate Warren, Executive Vice President at Devex. Katherine Urbaez, Founder and Executive Director of the Health Diplomacy Alliance, moderated the Spanish-language regional segment. 

    The purpose of the discussion was to discuss the implementation. Existing commitments, national action plans and regional strategies do not by themselves create laboratory capacity, surveillance systems, financing, regulation or public awareness. The discussion therefore focused on how commitments can be moved into practical action. 

    Kate Warren opened the session by placing AMR within the wider health security agenda. She explained that the event was taking place on the opening day of the 79th World Health Assembly, where health leaders were discussing decisions with long-term effects on global health. She described AMR as a threat to the basic functions of modern medicine, including routine infection treatment, surgery, cancer care and intensive care.  

    AMR as a Health Security Issue

    Kate Warren argued that AMR should be understood as part of health security planning. Resistant infections reduce the effectiveness of life-saving drugs and make treatable infections harder to manage. This affects individual patients, but it also affects the capacity of health systems to function during routine care and emergencies. She also linked AMR to economic losses and development setbacks, noting that the consequences would be felt by health systems and national economies. 

    AMR is already recognized in political declarations, G20 targets and ministerial commitments. The more difficult question is how those commitments are reflected in preparedness budgets, health security planning and implementation systems. The problem is therefore the gap between evidence, political commitment and operational capacity. 

    Dr. Silvia Bertagnolio, Unit Head for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance and Laboratory at WHO, addressed this problem through diagnostics and surveillance. She stressed that countries need stronger laboratory systems and better access to diagnostics in order to know where resistance is occurring and how it is changing. She also described access to diagnostics as a human rights issue. This matters because without diagnosis, patients may receive inappropriate treatment and governments may lack the data needed to respond. 

    AMR as a Cross-Border Problem

    H.E. Fernando Boyd Galindo, Minister of Health of Panama, connected AMR to Panama’s geographic position. He described Panama as a strategically connected country. This connectivity is an advantage, but it also creates health responsibilities. He then referred to migration through Panama and explained that the movement of people also involves the possible movement of pathogens. His main point was that AMR cannot be addressed by one country alone. 

    Minister Galindo also stressed that AMR does not know borders. Panama’s role as a transit country means that national health risks also have regional implications. Migration, trade, mobility and environmental exposure all create routes through which resistant organisms can move. For this reason, national action plans need to be linked to regional surveillance and cooperation. 

    Sr. Jose Renan De Leon Caceres, Executive Secretary at SE-COMISCA, made a similar argument from the Central American perspective. He explained that Central American countries share borders, food systems and markets. He referred to the movement of agricultural and livestock products between countries, showing that practices in one country can affect others. 

    One Health Governance

    One Health was the main framework used by the speakers. Nevertheless, it was discussed as a governance issue rather than only as a technical concept. H.E. Dr. Angel Eduardo Midence Ochoa, Vice Minister of the Republic of Honduras, explained that the health sector has to convene other sectors, including environmental health, animal health, natural resources and related institutions. His point was that AMR cannot be managed by the Ministry of Health alone. 

    Vice Minister Midence described the work of building coordination between sectors for mitigation, detection and disease management. He also connected AMR to access to medicines, prescription practices and regulatory control. AMR governance depends on routine public administration. Planning, prescription control, access to medicines and regulatory capacity are the mechanisms through which AMR policy becomes operational. 

    H.E. Dra. Gina Beatriz Estrella Ramia, Deputy Minister for Risk Management and Environmental Health of the Dominican Republic, also described AMR as a One Health problem. She argued that AMR is no longer only an issue inside hospitals. It is now linked to borders, agriculture, aquaculture, water, sanitation and environmental systems. Speaking from the perspective of an island country, she referred to agriculture and aquaculture, including fish, mollusks and crustaceans, as sectors that need to be included in AMR surveillance and control. 

    Dra. Estrella Ramia also raised the question of governance and budgets. She explained that no sector should be treated as more important than the others. Each sector has a responsibility. This reflects a central difficulty in One Health implementation. The approach requires different ministries and agencies to work together even when they have different mandates, budgets and incentives. 

    Sr. Jose Renan De Leon Caceres referred to the regional One Health strategy in Central America. He explained that the strategy was approved through the health, agriculture and environment ministers. This gave the issue political weight, not only technical support.  

    Water, Environment and Sanitation

    The environmental dimension was discussed most clearly by Minister Fernando Boyd Galindo and Dra. Gina Beatriz Estrella Ramia. Minister Galindo referred to water systems, river basins and ecological balance in Panama. He argued that years of insufficient attention to water and environmental systems can create wider health consequences. AMR cannot be separated from sanitation, wastewater and environmental management. 

    Dra. Estrella Ramia also placed water and sanitation within AMR surveillance. She explained that environmental health, water, agriculture, livestock and aquaculture are all part of the resistance problem. Because resistant organisms and antimicrobial residues can circulate through water systems and environmental pathways. If these systems are not monitored, AMR surveillance remains incomplete. 

    This part of the discussion showed that environmental surveillance remains a weak part of AMR implementation. Countries may focus first on hospitals and clinical laboratories, but AMR is also shaped by water treatment, sanitation infrastructure, agricultural runoff and waste management. These areas often require investment outside the health sector, which is why political coordination and financing are necessary.

    Financing and Implementation

    A repeated theme was that AMR commitments need financing. Minister Fernando Boyd Galindo argued that health should not be treated only as a cost. It should be treated as an investment in a healthy population. He linked weak investment in water, sanitation and health systems to later public health and economic consequences. Underinvestment does not remove costs. It only moves them into the future. 

    Dr. Ntuli Angyelile Kapologwe, Director General of ECSA-HC, connected this point to ministries of finance. He argued that ministries of finance need to be part of AMR discussions from the beginning. Because AMR strategies cannot be implemented if they remain only in technical health documents. Financing decisions determine whether laboratories, surveillance systems, stewardship programmes and public campaigns can continue. 

    Standalone initiatives may raise attention, but they can be difficult to sustain. AMR work needs to be connected to national budgets, health security planning, laboratory systems, primary care, environmental monitoring and regional platforms. Otherwise implementation depends on short-term projects and external support. 

    Katherine Urbaez also directed attention to what needs to be monitored in implementation. The relevant questions are what has been committed, who is responsible, what is financed, what is monitored and what still needs political attention. These questions are important because they move the discussion from general political support to accountability. 

    Surveillance, Diagnostics and Data

    Dr. Silvia Bertagnolio’s intervention focused on surveillance and diagnostics. She explained that representative data is needed to understand the burden and spread of AMR. Weak laboratory capacity creates weak data, and weak data makes policy less precise. This is especially important in lower-resource settings where access to diagnostics is limited and infections may be treated without laboratory confirmation. 

    Sr. Jose Renan De Leon Caceres also discussed regional technical capacity. He referred to work on laboratory strengthening and early diagnosis. He also mentioned support from the Pandemic Fund to strengthen laboratories and surveillance systems and stated that AMR surveillance requires systems that can share information, connect platforms and report data in a way that can be used for decision-making. 

    The discussion therefore treated data as a governance tool. Diagnostics and laboratories help patients receive better care, but they also make AMR visible to governments. Without data, it is difficult to know whether commitments are producing results. Surveillance is therefore both a health function and an accountability function. 

    Regulation, Trade and Public Awareness

    Vice Minister Angel Eduardo Midence Ochoa linked AMR to prescription practices, access to medicines and public policy. He stated that regulation is a gradual process of building state capacity. Countries need systems that can control inappropriate use of antibiotics while still protecting access to essential medicines. This is exclusively difficult when health, agriculture and trade interests overlap. 

    The discussion also referred to the relationship between AMR regulation and economic activity. In Honduras, the issue was connected to agricultural production and export credibility. Strong traceability systems can help a country show where contamination occurred and protect both public health and legitimate trade. Regulation is can protect economic interests when it is based on evidence and clear systems. 

    Dra. Gina Beatriz Estrella Ramia raised the issue of public behaviour. She referred to the common practice of people buying antibiotics for flu-like illness because they believe antibiotics will help them recover. AMR is not only produced by weak legislation or weak laboratories. It is also produced by everyday behaviour, misinformation and easy access to antibiotics without proper guidance. 

    For this reason, education was discussed as part of AMR implementation. Public campaigns, schools, universities and community platforms can help explain when antibiotics are needed and when they are not. Regulation is necessary, but it may not be sufficient if public expectations and prescribing behaviour do not change. 

    Science, Technology and Innovation

    Martin Mueller, Executive Director Science Anticipator at GESDA, addressed the role of new technologies, including artificial intelligence, decentralised surveillance and improved diagnostics. These tools can support earlier detection and better prediction. However, they also require governance systems that can keep up with scientific change. 

    Christian Terreaux, Member of BEAM Alliance, brought attention to the role of innovation in the AMR response. Innovation is relevant because AMR requires better diagnostics, treatments and tools. However, innovation alone is not enough. New tools need financing, access pathways and regulatory systems if they are to be used in countries with different levels of capacity. 

    The point from this part of the discussion was that science can move faster than governance. This creates risks. If advanced diagnostics and prediction systems are available only to some countries, technology may widen existing inequalities. For this reason, innovation needs to be linked to access, financing and implementation. 

    Health Diplomacy and Cooperation

    Health diplomacy was treated as a practical requirement for AMR implementation. Kate Warren framed the event around what health diplomacy has to do with moving commitments into action. Dr. Ntuli Kapologwe stated this directly by arguing that diplomacy has to be present in AMR work. The reason is that AMR requires cooperation across ministries, countries and sectors. 

    Katherine Urbaez’s questions linked national experiences to regional and multilateral cooperation. She asked how Panama understood concrete risks, how Central America viewed shared responsibility, and how the discussion related to multilateral and commercial issues. This showed health diplomacy as a way of connecting technical problems to political decision-making. 

    Regional institutions were also important in the discussion. SE-COMISCA was presented as a platform for Central American coordination across health, agriculture and environment. ECSA-HC was connected to regional health cooperation and financing discussions in East, Central and Southern Africa. WHO was linked to diagnostics, surveillance and technical guidance. These institutions matter because they help translate global commitments into regional and national systems. 

    The discussion therefore showed that diplomacy is needed at several levels. At the national level, it is needed to connect health, finance, environment, agriculture, trade and foreign affairs. At the regional level, it is needed for cross-border surveillance and shared food systems. At the global level, it is needed to maintain accountability and support equitable access to technologies and financing. 

    Conclusions

    The event showed that AMR is already recognised as a major health and development challenge. The remaining difficulty is implementation. Speakers did not focus on proving the seriousness of AMR. They focused on the systems needed to respond to it. 

    Based on the discussion, the following conclusions can be drawn. 

    • AMR should be treated as a health security issue because it weakens routine care and emergency preparedness. 
    • One Health needs institutions, budgets and responsibilities. It cannot remain only a technical framework. 
    • Regional cooperation is necessary because migration, trade, livestock, agriculture, water systems and food products cross borders. 
    • Health ministries cannot implement AMR commitments alone. Finance, environment, agriculture, trade and foreign affairs ministries need to be involved from the start. 
    • Laboratory capacity, diagnostics and surveillance are central because they make AMR visible and allow progress to be monitored. 
    • Water, sanitation and environmental systems need greater attention in AMR strategies. 
    • Antibiotic regulation must be linked to public awareness, prescription control and trade realities. 
    • New technologies can support AMR response, but only if access, financing and governance are addressed at the same time. 
    • Health diplomacy is necessary to keep AMR on the political agenda and to connect evidence with financing and implementation. 
    •  

    Panelists

    H.E. Fernando Boyd Galindo

    Minister of Health of Panama

    H.E. Dra. Gina Beatriz Estrella Ramia

    Deputy Ministry for Risk Management and Environmental Health of the Dominican Republic

    Dr. Ntuli Angyelile Kapologwe


    The East, Central, and Southern Africa Health Community (ECSA-HC), Director General 

     

    H.E. Dr. Angel Eduardo Midence Ochoa

    Vice Minister of the Republic of Honduras

    Professor Dame Sally Davies

    UK Special Envoy on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)

    Christian Terreaux

    Member of BEAM Alliance

    Dr. Martin Müller

    Executive Director Science Anticipator, GESDA

    Dr Silvia Bertagnolio

    Unit Head, Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance & Laboratory (ASL), WHO 

    Sr. José Renán De León Cáceres

    Executive Secretary at SE-COMISCA

    Katherine Urbáez

    Founder & Executive Director, Health Diplomacy Alliance

    Moderator

    Kate Warren

    Executive Vice President, Devex

  • WHO Launches Civil Society Task Force on AMR

    WHO Launches Civil Society Task Force on AMR

     In a significant step to strengthen global action against antimicrobial resistance (AMR), the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the Civil Society Task Force on AMR during World Antimicrobial Awareness Week (WAAW) 2025. The initiative brings together nongovernmental organizations and civil society groups from around the world to coordinate efforts, provide evidence, identify gaps, and promote engagement between governments, communities, and stakeholders.

    The Task Force aims to amplify the voices of affected communities and ensure that civil society organizations can contribute meaningfully to global strategies to combat AMR. Its objectives include fostering collaboration across sectors, supporting capacity building, promoting advocacy, and advancing WHO’s GPW14.

    The Health Diplomacy Alliance (HDA) will be co-sharing the Steering Committee of the Task Force, bringing expertise in health diplomacy and cooperation. HDA’s involvement strengthens efforts to highlight the impact of AMR at global, regional, and national levels, while supporting civil society to engage in advocacy, strengthen regulatory systems, increase access to quality-assured antimicrobials, and integrate the One Health Approach into planning.

    AMR continues to pose a severe global health threat. In 2019, drug-resistant infections were associated with approximately 4.95 million deaths, and by 2021, an estimated 1.14 million deaths were directly attributable to AMR. Without effective measures, healthcare costs could rise by $1 trillion by 2050.

    By including civil society voices alongside technical expertise, the Task Force ensures that AMR responses are locally grounded, equitable, and evidence-based, helping governments and communities implement effective, sustainable solutions.

    HDA’s participation in the Task Force underscores its commitment to promoting long-term, political system-level solutions to address the growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance.

  • Invisible Emergencies: Climate Change, Mental Health, and Health Diplomacy

    Invisible Emergencies: Climate Change, Mental Health, and Health Diplomacy

    As climate impacts intensify, exacerbating trauma, food insecurity, displacement, and health inequities, mental health continues to be overlooked in climate strategies, underscoring the need for integrated action. Held in the wake of the Health Day deliberations at COP30, the webinar organized by the Health Diplomacy Youth Network responded to growing recognition of the psychological toll of climate change on vulnerable and climate-affected communities. With participation from youth leaders, environmental psychology experts, and community mental health practitioners, the session brought mental health to the forefront of climate diplomacy.

    Ayesha Ali, Coordinator of the Commonwealth Youth Health Network, opened the session by highlighting the gap between policy commitments and real-world access to mental health services in climate-vulnerable regions, especially for women, rural populations, and young people.

    Matteo Consiglio, Lead, Food and Water Systems, Swiss Youth for Climate, underscored how climate-driven food insecurity contributes to anxiety, stress, and psychosocial instability, calling for stronger links between food systems, environment, and public health.

    Dr. Jakub S. Bil, Universal Health Coverage Working Group Co-Chair, Global Mental Health Action Network, emphasized community-based and rights-based mental health approaches, noting that climate impacts frequently compound pre-existing trauma and inequities, and stressed co-design of solutions with affected communities as central to sustainable implementation.

    Dr. Harshita Umesh, Focal Point, Health Working Group, YOUNGO, highlighted the limited integration of mental health within UNFCCC processes and called for mental health to be embedded across adaptation and disaster response mechanisms, while Dion Ras, Executive Committee Member, International Association for Youth Mental Health, brought a grassroots lens, emphasizing peer support, lived experience, and the need for accessible, youth-informed systems of care in the face of climate stressors.

    During the panel discussion, Ebunoluwa Ayinmode steered a conversation that underscored the gap between policy ambition and implementation, the invisibility of cumulative climate-related trauma in formal frameworks, and the need for health diplomacy to align institutions, communities, and youth constituencies around shared priorities

    This event marks an important step in elevating the climate–mental health objectives enshrined in the Belem Health Action Plan by mobilizing diverse expertise, amplifying youth and community voices, and identifying practical pathways for integrated, equity-focused action. The Health Diplomacy Youth Network remains committed to advancing diplomatic engagement, intergenerational collaboration, and evidence-based advocacy to ensure that mental health becomes a central pillar of climate resilience.

  • From Evidence to Policy: The Establishment of the Independent Panel on Evidence for Action against AMR

    From Evidence to Policy: The Establishment of the Independent Panel on Evidence for Action against AMR

    HDA_From Evidence to Policy
  • One Health and CO2 Mitigation

    One Health and CO2 Mitigation

    The 7-7-7 Campaign, was our flagship initiative for our World Antimicrobial Resistance Awareness Week (18–24 November 2025), engaging during 7 days, 7 actions and 7 group of stakeholders. Key events included flag displays on Pont du Mont-Blanc from 17 to 19 November, an awareness booth at Geneva Cornavin Main Train Station on 18 November, and the blue illumination of Geneva’s Jet d’Eau on 23 November. 

    Throughout the week, an online social media campaign ran with partners from various sectors and participants who amplified the campaign’s reach and highlighted their work related to AMR. 

    As a conclusion to WAAW 2025, the 2025 Global Intergenerational Dialogue on AMR took place on 24 November in collaboration with the Geneva Environment Network, underscoring the critical need for cross-sectoral collaboration to sustainably address AMR. 

    Pont -Du-Mont Blanc

    One of the most noticeable aspects of our 777 campaign was the deployment of the Alliance’s and the AMR campaign’s flags during November 17–19, 2025.

    On average, 55,000 cars, 14,500 pedestrians, and 6,500 cyclists pass through the Pont du Mont Blanc each day.

    This exceptionally high circulation, which included pedestrian traffic, private automobiles, public transportation, and active mobility users, made it the perfect setting for educating the Canton of Geneva’s citizens and passersby about AMR.

    Thousands of extremely diverse and energetic travelers saw the flags throughout the course of the three days, raising awareness of AMR and highlighting the importance of health diplomacy in public spaces.

    Train Station Booth

    A full-day AMR awareness stand at Gare Cornavin, the largest and busiest train station in Geneva, with more than 170,000 passengers passing through daily. Our objective was to engage directly with the people and raise awareness about antimicrobial resistance in an accessible way.  

    The stand featured: 

    • A large projection screen showing educational and informative content produced by us and the organizations that joined our 777 campaign
    • Distribution of educational and informative materials, including flyers, infographics, and factsheets.
    • An interview corner for short recordings with passersby and partners. 

     

     Throughout the day: 

    • We interacted with individuals of all ages in multiple languages to make our outreach inclusive (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese)
    • Many visitors learned about AMR for the first time 

    Social Media Campaign

    Over 7 days, we convened a social media campaign across our platforms to highlight 7 key actions from 7 stakeholder groups to reduce the global AMR burden.

    The actions included Infection Prevention and Control, Water Sanitation and Hygiene, stewardship, surveillance, innovation, R&D, manufacture, equitable access, One Health approach, evidence-based policy, financing, and health diplomacy.  

    The 7 stakeholder groups represented a whole-of-society approach to curbing the global health threat and included AMR Survivors, Health workers, Governments and Policy Makers, Civil society, philanthropy, academia, International Organizations, Private Sector, Media.

    The content spanned languages such as Maltese, English, Spanish, French, Hindi, Portuguese, Italian, and Malayalam

    The social media outreach from over 20 global organizations who participated in the campaign totalled 15,231 impressions, likes, reactions, and reposts.

    Jet d’Eau Ilumination

     

    The illumination of the Jet d’Eau in blue on 23 November was one of the key activities carried out as part of our 777 campaign.

    Lighting of the Jet d’Eau supports awareness of key issues, humanitarian emergencies, or highlights events organized in international Geneva. For WAAW2025, the Jet adorned itself in brilliant blue to illuminate the AMR challenge at the heart of the harbor.  

    This symbolic icon of the city of Geneva, lighting it in blue, raised visibility, strengthened public awareness, and encouraged collective action in support of the campaign’s goals to reduce the global burden on AMR. 

     

    2025 Intergenerational Dialogue on AMR

     

    Co-hosted by the Health Diplomacy Alliance and Geneva Environment Network, the 2025 Global Intergenerational Dialogue on AMR brought together speakers from Quadripartite and Youth led organizations and built on global momentum, amplified youth perspectives through dedicated surveys, fostered inter-generational exchanges of cross sectoral and cross regional success stories and highlighted actionable recommendations to embed inclusive One Health approach in global AMR governance. 

  • Against the Odds: The Pandemic Agreement’s Path to Consensus

    Against the Odds: The Pandemic Agreement’s Path to Consensus

    Introduction 

    After more than three years of intense negotiations, WHO Member States reached a historic milestone on April 16, 2025, by finalising the pandemic agreement. As WHO member states prepare for the adoption of the “greened” or agreed legal text at the 78th World Health Assembly, it’s worth reflecting on how governments and non-state actors such as civil society organisations and academia have worked to enable success. While entire books can be written to illustrate what it took for the pandemic agreement to be finalized and serve as a foundation for preventing, preparing for and responding to pandemics, in this blogpost I will share highlights, from FOUR PAWS’ perspective as one of the many “relevant stakeholders” in the negotiation process. 

     

    The Challenges   

    Finishing a treaty in record time 

    The challenge was to finalise an international multi-issue pandemic agreement in record time during an ongoing global health crisis, amid geopolitical tensions and in a UN body that is not a common ecosystem for international treaty negotiations. Member States set the goals of strengthening the international health regulations on the one hand, while also introducing a complementary legal framework to address gaps in pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. WHO member states took this decision out of necessity, not only to fill the gaps in the global health architecture but to set themselves on a better path than the one they experienced during the pandemic. 

    Expanding the scope of what prevention means   

    While FOUR PAWS was active in several international policy processes, the World Health Organisation was not yet a typical space within which we, as an animal welfare organisation, were present before the pandemic. However, the pandemic made one thing clear: governments cannot fulfil their promise to effectively prevent pandemics without addressing human activities that drive pandemics at the human-animal-environment interface. This realisation, echoed by many non-governmental organisations, experts and institutions, led FOUR PAWS and others from the animal welfare and conservation sector to engage. The scope we considered necessary was not part of the standard measures which public health policies tied to pandemics typically addressed. Traditionally, the focus of the public health sector was on emergencies and the stage after the outbreak. However, when WHO Member States decided to negotiate the pandemic agreement, they added “prevention” and a whole of government and whole of society approach to the scope of the agreement.   

    This was a welcome move. Interventions had to take place at the earliest stage of disease emergence, before communities suffered deadly outbreaks and before public health institutions were confronted with an emergency. Addressing and integrating that policy gap into an international public health debate – within a pandemic agreement that also needed to prioritise health system capacities, pandemic-related health products, and support for implementation and financing, while simultaneously updating the International Health Regulations – was, to put it mildly, very ambitious.  

    Civil society’s access to the negotiations 

    Compared to other international processes, the pandemic agreement negotiations generally offered limited access to CSOs, which made effective engagement a challenge. In other international negotiations, observers have access to the actual negotiation sessions and several spaces to engage with member states. This makes advocacy efforts more effective, as it gives civil society real-time insights into member states’ priorities and concerns, the reasoning behind their positions and an idea on areas where evidence or analysis is needed – ultimately leading to the best use of member states’ and civil society’s time.  

     

    The ingredients  

    Jenga diplomacy: balancing evidence, dialogue and compromise  

    During the first rounds of the pandemic agreement negotiations, early participation was restricted to online statements during opening and closing sessions. Thanks to persistent advocacy by a few member states and civil society champions, our access to the process gradually increased.  

    Before the 7th Intergovernmental Negotiating Body Session in October 2023, which was the first session when “Relevant Stakeholders” were granted in-person access to the WHO building during the negotiations, our engagement with member states was through policy briefs, bilateral meetings with diplomats and events which member states co-hosted with us. In those interactions, member states shared their challenges, challenged our assumptions, flagged gaps and obstacles, asked for expertise, and guided us on how to be more effective.  

    Throughout the process, despite their differences, we noticed a collective unwavering commitment among diplomats to unlock obstacles. Bridge-building countries, experts and civil society organisations all took the initiative to convene a dialogue, which was conducive to trust-building. This mutual exchange gave us much-needed reality checks, helped us identify academic institutions and allies who were also ready to work with member states to advance the process.  

    Access to the WHO building during the negotiations in late 2023 brought with it a new layer of valuable insights. After several rounds of negotiations, the Bureau’s draft evolved into a member-state-owned text. Just observing which groupings were convening jointly or alone at the building showed us a progression in the interregional dynamics. While in the earlier stages, only a few member states engaged in informal dialogue with member states from other regions, with time, we saw an encouraging increase in outreach and a growing number of interregional huddles as the process advanced. 

    While relevant stakeholders were not allowed to observe the actual negotiations, even after we had access to the building, opportunities including meetings with the Bureau, daily statements in the mornings in plenary, and the possibility in the final negotiation sessions, of hosting side events inside the WHO at a meeting room that was made available for non-state actors were spaces where we could also share our observations and concerns in real time. Interestingly, our participation at the margins of the negotiations and member states’ willingness to engage with relevant stakeholders often gave us a more complete understanding of the positions and flexibilities than what member states shared in the formal negotiation sessions.  

    The Bureau and member states called on CSOs to be constructive and support in advancing the process, which we were increasingly better positioned to do. Stakeholders, including academia, think tanks, CSOs, and member states, all did their parts in bridge-building by hosting workshops, synthesising evidence, and promoting dialogue. 

    The negotiation process often felt like a collective game of Jenga. Each block— regional priorities, expert insights, myth-busting, interregional dialogue—had to be carefully informed by what member states were collectively able to agree to. To avoid collapse, all sides had to make sure every move was agreeable, all sides made concessions. Towards the end, it felt like we all became one global community working together towards a common purpose. 

     

    Conclusion: A Foundation for the Future 

    The final agreement is not without its flaws. It reflects the compromises of a politically complex time. Yet, it represents a monumental step forward. It not only offers a future-ready foundation that must be further developed to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response —it’s a testament of global solidarity for health equity, and the recognition that no country can face future health threats alone. 

    The world, despite its many differences, stayed together. The pandemic agreement is more than a legal document—it’s a symbol of our collective commitment to achieve health for all. Health diplomats from every region brought constructive proposals to the table, showing that even in a divided world, unity is achievable. FOUR PAWS is proud to have contributed to this process as one of many stakeholders, and we remain committed to ensuring that prevention and One Health remain central to the future of global health governance. 

    About the Author

    Nina Jamal has been engaged in the WHO Pandemic Agreement Negotiations in her capacity as the International Head on Pandemics & Campaign Strategies at FOUR PAWS International, a global animal welfare organisation for animals under direct human influence. Before taking on that role and since 2013, Nina led the International Campaigns on Farm Animals and Nutrition at FOUR PAWS. Nina also spent several years in the field of climate campaigns and international policy within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations. She worked in the private sector on sustainability and at the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation on the implementation of international multilateral environmental agreements. Her academic background is in Environmental Health Sciences, Public Health and International Environmental Policy.