Evaluating Existing Independent and Intergovernmental Panels in Animal Health

Independent and intergovernmental expert panels play an important role in shaping international responses to animal health and related global health challenges. In 2024, the United Nations High-Level Meeting on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) mandated the establishment of an Independent Panel on Evidence for Action (IPEA). To inform its development, this paper evaluates seven existing panels with mandates in animal health or related domains, excluding AMR focused panels: OFFLU, the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), the WOAH Aquatic Animal Health Standards Commission, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB), the Global Framework for the Progressive Control of Transboundary Animal Diseases (GF-TADs), the One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CODEX). The evaluation applied a qualitative framework based on international standards from the OECD, the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG), the World Bank, and UNDP. Governance dimensions assessed included clarity of mandate, autonomy, accountability, transparency, diversity, responsiveness, evidence-based processes, and multidisciplinary composition. Findings indicate that most panels demonstrate strengths in scientific rigor, clearly defined mandates, and responsiveness to emerging risks. CODEX and GPMB also show strong transparency and inclusiveness, while OHHLEP reflects a multidisciplinary One Health orientation. Common limitations were identified across panels, including limited structural autonomy from parent organizations, uneven inclusion of low- and middle-income country representatives, underrepresentation of social sciences and gender perspectives, and the absence of formal monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. The analysis concludes that while existing panels provide useful models, no single structure is sufficient on its own. The IPEA will need to combine features such as clear mandates, structural independence, transparent membership processes, inclusive representation, and robust evidence frameworks, while also considering trade-offs between agility, accountability, and inclusiveness.