By Smith Nwokocha As global attention turns toward Nigeria ahead of the 5th High-Level Ministerial Meeting on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), a recent media briefing offers a powerful preview of what’s at stake, and what must change. The session brought together leading voices, including Jean Pierre Nyemazi, Director of the Quadripartite Joint Secretariat on AMR, and Ayoade Alakija, Nigeria’s Ministerial Global Envoy on AMR. But beyond the formalities, the message was urgent and clear: the world is running out of time to protect life-saving medicines.
AMR: THE SILENT GLOBAL CRISIS Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) occurs when medicines, like antibiotics, stop working. What used to be treatable infections can become deadly. According to global health leaders, AMR is already among the top threats to humanity, cutting across: • Human health • Animal health • Food systems • The environment This is why institutions like the World Health Organisation and its partners are pushing a unified response.
PART 1: FROM GLOBAL COMMITMENTS TO REAL ACTION In the first part of the briefing, experts emphasised that global promises must now translate into local, measurable action. Following the United Nations General Assembly High-Level Meeting on AMR 2024, countries committed to reducing deaths from AMR by 10% by 2030. But progress depends on: • Strong national action plans • Sustainable financing • Cross-sector collaboration Dr. Nyemazi stressed that AMR is no longer just a “health issue”, it is a development, equity, and sustainability challenge. Dr. Alakija reinforced this, highlighting that solutions must work within local realities, especially in low- and middle-income countries where the burden is highest.
THE “ONE HEALTH” SHIFT A key theme of the upcoming summit is One Health, an approach that connects human, animal, and environmental health. This means: • Reducing misuse of antibiotics in livestock • Improving sanitation and hygiene • Tackling environmental pollution from pharmaceuticals It’s a shift from isolated interventions to systems thinking, and it’s central to the Abuja meeting.
PART 2: MEDIA TAKES CENTRE STAGE The second half of the briefing spotlighted an often-overlooked aspect of global health: the power of storytelling. The Global AMR Media Alliance announced the 3rd Edition of the Global AMR Media Awards 2026, recognising journalists and storytellers across four regions: • Asia Pacific • Africa • Pan America • Europe New and Notable Award Categories Several important categories were introduced: • Special AMR Reporting Award Focused on coverage of the 2026 ministerial meeting in Nigeria • #PutPeopleFirst Award In partnership with The AMR Narrative, this category highlights stories centred on AMR survivors, bringing human faces to a technical issue
Regional and National Recognition Expands 3rd Edition of Global AMR Media Awards 2026 were announced. Nigeria AMR Media Alliance (NAMA) Chairperson Ojoma Akor announced 1st Nigeria AMR Media Awards 2026. Nepal AMR Media Alliance Chairperson Kalpana Acharya announced 2nd Nepal AMR Media Awards 2026. Lata Mishra of India AMR Media Alliance announced the 2nd India AMR Media Awards 2026, and Dr Ijyaa Singh of ReAct Asia Pacific announced 1st Kerala AMR Media Awards 2026.
2 special awards categories were announced: AMR survivor Vanessa Carter (founder of The AMR Narrative and Chairperson of WHO Task Force of AMR Survivors) announced #PutPeopleFirst award category to shine a spotlight on media reporting featuring voices of AMR survivors. Likewise, a special award category is for media globally that are reporting around 5th High Level Ministerial Meeting on AMR in Nigeria. For more information, visit: http://www.tinyurl.com/mediaawards-2026
The awards also reflect growing regional ownership of the AMR conversation: • 2nd India AMR Media Awards (via GAMA India) • 2nd Nepal AMR Media Awards (via GAMA Nepal) • 1st Nigeria AMR Media Awards (a major milestone for local engagement) • 1st Kerala AMR Media Awards (with ReAct Asia Pacific) This expansion signals a shift: AMR storytelling is becoming more localised, inclusive, and impactful.
WHY MEDIA MATTERS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST AMR One of the strongest takeaways from the briefing is that the media is not just a messenger; it is a driver of change. Effective reporting: • Shape public understanding • Influence policy decisions • Encourage behaviour change • Hold governments accountable Without visibility, AMR remains invisible. And without pressure, progress stalls.
LOOKING AHEAD TO ABUJA 2026 The upcoming ministerial meeting is more than a diplomatic gathering. It is a global checkpoint, a moment to assess whether countries are truly acting on their commitments. For Nigeria, hosting this event is both an opportunity and a responsibility: • To lead from the Global South • To push for equitable solutions • To connect global ambition with local realities
Finally; AMR may be a complex scientific issue, but at its core, it is about something simple: the ability to treat infections and save lives. The world still has a window to act, but only if commitments move beyond paper and into practice. And as this briefing makes clear, that shift must start now.
Why Antimicrobial Resistance Must Be Addressed Through a Gender Lens
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the most urgent global health threats of our time. It arises largely from the misuse and overuse of medicines across human health, livestock production, agriculture, and food systems. These practices are not only undermining the effectiveness of life-saving drugs but are also contributing to environmental contamination. If the world hopes to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), eliminating the misuse and overuse of antimicrobials across all sectors is essential.
Yet AMR is not solely a biomedical challenge. A complex web of biological, social, cultural, and economic factors—many rooted in gender inequality—shapes how infections spread, how treatments are accessed, and how antibiotics are used. Gender norms, structural inequalities, and harmful stereotypes have historically normalized the neglect of women’s health and well-being. As a result, women and girls often face heightened vulnerability to infections and, consequently, to antimicrobial resistance.
Gender-Based Violence and AMR
Gender-based violence is one of the overlooked drivers of antimicrobial resistance. Violence increases women’s exposure to infections and reduces their ability to seek timely medical care.
According to Dr Soumya Swaminathan, former Chief Scientist of the World Health Organization (WHO), intimate partner violence and domestic abuse can lead to infections ranging from sexually transmitted infections to urinary and reproductive tract infections. These conditions frequently require antibiotic treatment.
However, women experiencing violence often face barriers to seeking care due to stigma, limited autonomy, or fear of further abuse. Even when treatment is sought, incomplete courses of antibiotics or incorrect dosing may occur, increasing the risk of drug-resistant infections.
Unsafe abortions, delayed treatment for injuries, and restricted access to healthcare further compound the problem. Without addressing gender-based violence, efforts to combat AMR will remain incomplete.
Stigma and Delayed Treatment
Social stigma surrounding diseases such as tuberculosis (TB) and HIV/AIDS disproportionately affects women. In many societies, a woman diagnosed with these illnesses is judged not only as a patient but also as someone who has brought shame upon her family.
Bhakti Chavan, a survivor of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis and member of the WHO Task Force of AMR Survivors, describes how stigma discourages women from seeking care.
Many women delay testing, avoid visiting clinics, or stop treatment early to prevent family members or communities from discovering their condition. Incomplete treatment is a major driver of drug-resistant infections.
Her experience highlights a critical reality: AMR is not gender neutral. Effective responses must consider the social realities shaping women’s health decisions.
Power Dynamics in Healthcare
Gender also shapes power relationships within healthcare systems. Dr Esmita Charani of the University of Cape Town emphasizes that women often have less power to advocate for their health needs.
In many households, women prioritize the healthcare needs of other family members before their own. Women frequently accompany relatives to hospitals as caregivers but do not seek treatment themselves.
Financial constraints further deepen the disparity. In settings where healthcare costs are paid out of pocket, families may prioritize treatment for male members over female members.
Ironically, while women make up the majority of the global healthcare workforce—particularly nurses and pharmacists—they often have limited influence over prescribing decisions or institutional policies.
These power dynamics affect infection prevention, antibiotic stewardship, and the overall quality of care.
Social Norms and Structural Barriers
Deeply rooted social norms also shape women’s vulnerability to AMR. Dr Deepshikha Bhateja of the Indian School of Business notes that cultural expectations surrounding caregiving, menstruation, pregnancy, and financial control restrict women’s access to healthcare, education, and sanitation.
Limited access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) facilities increases exposure to infections. Reduced educational opportunities lower awareness about appropriate antibiotic use. Financial dependency restricts women’s ability to seek timely care.
Together, these factors increase infection risk while reducing the likelihood of proper diagnosis and treatment—conditions that fuel antimicrobial resistance.
The Need for an Intersectional Approach
Gender does not operate in isolation. Other social determinants—such as income, ethnicity, migration status, and geography—intersect with gender to shape health outcomes.
For example, rural women engaged in agriculture often carry multiple responsibilities: farming, caring for livestock, managing households, and raising children. With limited financial autonomy and restricted access to healthcare services, infections may go untreated or be managed with inappropriate medications.
Understanding these overlapping vulnerabilities requires an intersectional approach to AMR policy and programming.
AMR as a Social Problem
Although AMR is often framed as a technical issue involving microbial evolution and pharmaceutical development, Dr Salman Khan of ReAct Asia Pacific argues that it is fundamentally a social problem.
Power structures determine whose health is prioritized, who controls resources, and whose voices shape policy decisions. Young people—especially young women—are frequently excluded from decision-making processes despite being deeply affected by the long-term consequences of antimicrobial resistance.
Addressing AMR effectively requires inclusive governance that recognizes youth, women, and marginalized groups as key stakeholders rather than passive beneficiaries.
Women as Leaders in Combating AMR
While women face disproportionate risks, they also hold enormous potential to drive solutions.
Dr Mayssam Akroush, founding president of the Pan Arab Women Physicians Association, highlights women’s central role in combating irrational antibiotic use. Women serve as caregivers, educators, healthcare professionals, and community leaders. They make crucial decisions about family health and can influence how antibiotics are used within households.
Educating and empowering women on responsible antimicrobial use can have a ripple effect across entire communities.
Strengthening Policy Responses
There is growing consensus that national AMR strategies must incorporate gender-sensitive approaches. This includes integrating gender-based violence indicators into national AMR action plans and strengthening antibiotic stewardship in sexual and reproductive health services.
In 2024, the WHO released guidance to help countries integrate gender-responsive strategies into their AMR policies. The recommendations aim to address disparities in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of drug-resistant infections.
Without such measures, existing inequalities will continue to undermine global efforts to contain antimicrobial resistance.
The Urgent Case of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis
The challenge of AMR is particularly visible in tuberculosis. Despite decades of scientific advances, the global burden of drug-resistant TB remains alarmingly high.
Estimates suggest that around 400,000 cases of drug-resistant TB were recorded in 2000—and similar numbers were reported again in 2024. The persistence of these figures reflects systemic failures in infection prevention and treatment adherence.
If the world hopes to end TB by 2030, preventing drug-resistant forms of the disease must become a priority.
A Feminist Response to AMR
AMR responses must ultimately adopt a feminist and justice-based approach—one rooted in care, solidarity, and equity.
Health policies cannot be separated from gender equality. Addressing violence against women, ensuring universal access to water and sanitation, empowering women economically, and dismantling harmful social norms are not only human rights imperatives—they are essential public health strategies.
Without confronting these structural inequalities, the world risks losing the medicines that protect us from infectious diseases.
Combating antimicrobial resistance therefore requires more than scientific innovation. It demands a transformation in how societies address gender inequality, power imbalances, and access to healthcare.
Only through such holistic action can we safeguard the effectiveness of antibiotics for future generations.
Activists March Against Oil Exploitation in Nigeria and DRC
Nigerian activists and groups which includes Quest For Growth and Development Foundation, Peace Corp of Nigeria, Community Secondary School Oroworukwo and Youths of Oroworukwo Community held a peaceful march in Port Harcourt to show solidarity with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and raise awareness about the negative impacts of oil exploitation.
Comrade Smith Nwokocha, Coordinator, Quest For Growth and Development Foundation emphasized the following during the March:
The Issue:
Oil extraction in DRC has caused significant social and environmental harm, despite bringing little benefit to local communities.
The industry has led to poverty, health risks, and ecological damage.
The Demand:
Stop oil expansion in DRC and transition to cleaner, community-driven energy alternatives.
Support local communities and advocate for a just and equitable future.
The Campaign:
The “Our Land Without Oil” campaign aims to amplify the voices of grassroots communities and promote a fossil-free future.
The campaign seeks to bring attention to the issue and mobilize public support for change.
The Commandant, Rivers State Command of Peace Corp of Nigeria also reiterated how resource conflicts have been emanating in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria and of course DRC other African countries with mineral resources like oil.
Students of Community Secondary School Oroworukwo also share their thoughts on No to Oil Expansion in the Niger Delta and DRC.
The Message:
No to oil exploitation, exploration, and extraction.
Let’s work towards a more sustainable and equitable future for all.
Africa faces a grave nutrition crisis, one that statistics alone cannot solve. In Nigeria, 40% of children under five are stunted, and over 17 million people are food insecure (UNICEF, 2023; FAO et al., 2023; DHI, 2023). Children are not just hungry; they are unprotected and invisible. With 47% of children living in income-poor households and 67% trapped in multidimensionalpoverty, the odds are stacked against them from birth. However, beyond the data, there is a crucial factor that we must urgently highlight: communication.
In addition to the availability and affordability of food, we cannot end malnutrition without addressing sensitization around behavioral changes, social norms, and misinformation related to food, health, and childcare. That’s where communication comes in, not as an afterthought, but as a strategic tool. Effective nutrition communication educates caregivers on what to feed their children and why. It helps communities understand the dangers of pap-only diets, promotes early initiation of breastfeeding, and combats cultural taboos that limit dietary diversity.
In Tanzania, a troubling shift is emerging: growing numbers of women feel afraid or ashamed to breastfeed in public. This stigma threatens progress in promoting optimal breastfeeding practices and, if unaddressed, could undermine efforts to improve maternal and child health across Africa. A 2025 study by Koray et al. examined exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) across 25 Sub‑Saharan countries, identifying a complex mix of individual and community-level influences. EBF was highest in Burundi (83%) and Rwanda (79%), and lowest in Gabon (19%) and Guinea (25%). The study emphasized early antenatal care (ANC), media exposure, and community support as key enablers, recommending targeted interventions rooted in culturally sensitive health communication.
In Nigeria, some mothers still discard colostrum due to outdated beliefs or conflicting advice, sometimes from poorly informed health workers. Misinformation undermines decades of nutrition advocacy, and these myths persist because communication doesn’t reach those who need it most. Mozambique’s Cyclone Idai in 2019 revealed similar issues: with over 40 languages and low Portuguese fluency, aid messages failed to reach many. A stark reminder that without tailored communication, even well-planned responses can fall short.
So, what does effective communication look like? It means planning communication as a core part of any project, not an afterthought. It means working within the broader strategy and ensuring adequate resources are dedicated to communication efforts. It means speaking in the audience’s language, using trusted local channels like community radio or influencers, and addressing cultural beliefs sensitively. As Colle advises, every project must examine communication needs during planning, integrate them fully within the strategy, and allocate resources accordingly. This approach ensures messages reach the right people, in the right way, at the right time.
Strategic communication connects policies to people and translates nutrition science into action at the household level. As communicators, we must design with empathy, speak the language of the audience, and build consistent, evidence-based messages. If we want to change Nigeria’s alarming nutrition statistics, we must first change the conversation. Over 500 languages are spoken in Nigeria, so this risk is also there (Lewis et al., 2015).
So, what does effective communication planning look like?It should entail integrating communication into nutritional policies from the beginning, involving:
• The Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, to spearhead the national communication strategy and messaging.
• State Ministries of Health, local nutrition officials, and the National Orientation Agency (NOA) to execute and adapt messaging to local conditions.
• Media partners, faith-based organisations, women’s associations, faith and traditional leaders, who possess credible platforms inside communities.
• Nutrition-focused CSOs and NGOs, such as the Nutrition Society of Nigeria, Alive & Thrive, or UNICEF, MSF, CS-SUNN, and others, to co-create and validate messaging.
Budget: What % should go to communication?
Many experts have recommended many things, but this largely depends on what is available on the ground. For some, it is allocating at least 10%, others 1% of any nutrition program budget to communication. However, currently, many programs invest less than 3%, treating messaging as a last-mile add-on. This is a false economy. Without strong communication, behavior change won’t happen, even with the best interventions in place. The Indonesian government recognized the importance of nutrition communication and allocated significant resources to support it, both directly and indirectly through broader nutrition initiatives. The Indonesian communication strategy was based on a National Nutrition Communication Campaign (NNCC), providing a compelling model.
Does Nigeria require interagency coordination?
Absolutely. Communication should be coordinated by a multi-sectoral task force involving:
Ministries of Health, Agriculture, Education, and Information
The Nigeria Governors’ Forum (to ensure state-level ownership)
ALGON to ensure local governance and grassroots ownership
NOA, CSOs, and community media networks
Nigerian Communications Commission (to leverage mobile and digital infrastructure)
Such coordination ensures consistent messaging, efficient use of channels, and inclusive language strategies tailored to rural, urban, literate, and low-literacy audiences.
Why language matters more than we admit
Language is not just a medium; it’s a gatekeeper. It determines who understands and who doesn’t. Especially with our literacy level, in a linguistically diverse country like Nigeria, failing to communicate in people’s first languages creates exclusion, levels, and misinterpretation, and ultimately, policy failure.
To tackle this, nutrition programs must:
Develop translations in at least 10 priority Nigerian languages;
Leverage community radio, which reaches millions in their mother tongues;
Train local communicators to co-create messages using local idioms and cultural references.
If we want to change Nigeria’s alarming nutrition statistics, we must first change how we speak, who we speak to, and in what language. And don’t get me wrong, the cost of food isn’t friendly either, but even within our means, informed choices can help us eat better. So, how about we feed the minds first, then the stomachs will follow?
Milliscent Nnwoka (Author)
Milliscent Nnwoka is an author, lawyer, and development journalist, and founder of Bright Byte Media Learning (BBML), a platform advancing media literacy and strategic communication in Africa. She has led major initiatives in health, politics, and development, including training women leaders and supporting different campaigns. A published researcher and PhD candidate in Mass Communication, her work explores how National Assembly TV’s social media drives legislative transparency and citizen engagement.
Afrika Vuka Day is closely tied to Africa Day and it is a powerful moment of Pan-African Solidarity to demand an end to Fossil Fuels expansion across the Continent. This year in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, precisely the 22nd of May, 2025; Young community students and youngsters, over 500 of them, were so excited to be part of the Afrika Vuka Day Celebration in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, which is tied to Africa Day. It was historic for the young champions of Niger Delta region of Nigeria, as the principal (Mrs. Jubo Thompson) and other staff and teachers including some parents that were around, expressed happiness joining the Celebration. The focus was instilled on the theme: “REPower Afrika”.
Demands were made, which emphasised the need for our leaders and policymakers in Nigeria and Africa to ensure a just and fair Renewable Energy Transition, among other demands.
Comr. Smith Nwokocha stressed the importance of the theme, using Renewable Energy to power up Africa by powering countries on the Continent. For Nigerians and the teeming youths in the Niger Delta, #REPowerNigeria, means, using RE to curb the Energy deficiency or deficit in the Country, wondering how a country with so much Oil and Gas, still faced with pathetic Electricity supply/Power shortage.
A Solar Panel that charges an Android phone and other gadgets was donated to the Community School (Community Secondary School, Oroworukwo, Port Harcourt, Nigeria) for use and, more importantly, to see the need for RE and the usefulness and efficiency of Solar Power. Again, a Solar Lamp was lighted for all to see, and they appreciated the natural flow of power source (Solar). The young champions promise to take action on RE through Advocacy ad Campaigns.
Assembling of Solar lamp
Subsequently, Nwokocha introduced a Guest who spoke to the students on “Greatness that brings out the African Strength”, Dr. David Chukwueke, he pulled the young champions through seeing their values as Africans and nothing short of greatness. They have been educated to stand out as future leaders.
Lastly, Smith Nwokocha, the Coordinator, Quest For Growth and Development Foundation, appreciates Afrika Vuka Network for being a network of “Green Hope” (Repowering Africa through Renewable Energy) for the African Continent.
Shell will retain legal liability and moral responsibility for the clean up of historic pollution in the Niger Delta if the buyer of its Nigerian subsidy SPDC cannot pay, warn impacted community members and international supporters as investors meet for the Shell plc Annual General Meeting (AGM). These liabilities, from 70 years of oil exploration and extraction, could total tens of billions of dollars.
Shell claims that under the terms of the sale to the Renaissance Group – a consortium of five firms comprising four Nigerian exploration and production companies and an international energy group – it has passed these liabilities to the buyer. However, under Nigerian, English and International law, there may be historic and residual liability that remains with Shell plc.
In addition, as part of the sale, Shell provided $2.5 billion USD in loan facilities to Renaissance. The terms of this loan deal remain opaque, Niger Delta groups and civil society organisations say, raising questions about whether Renaissance will be able to repay. Such opacity is also completely inconsistent with transparency obligations Shell signed up to as a board member of the EITI.
Nigerian authorities have raised concerns about the ability of Renaissance to pay for clean up and remediation liabilities. The Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) originally rejected Shell plc’s divestment application in October 2024, citing Renaissance’s lack of financial and technical ability to manage the assets, following concerns raised by international consultants S&P Global in a report, which remains secret. While this ruling was overturned by the Nigerian presidency, SPDC, Renaissance and the Federal Republic of Nigeria are now facing a lawsuit over the oil license transfer in Nigeria courts, on the grounds of failure to comply with Nigerian law, including failing to provide a required study on the state of the environment. A session of that court case is scheduled for May 26, 2025.
Repairing the human and environmental damage caused to local communities is likely to cost at least $12 billion in just one of the 9 Niger Delta states where Shell has been active, according to a comprehensive 4-year study by international researchers for the Bayelsa State Oil and Environmental Commission. In addition, Shell and its subsidiaries and associates are parties to a
number of legal disputes in Nigeria, the USA, and England calling for compensation to impacted communities. Shell management itself acknowledges in its 2024 annual report that these are “material” in scale.
In addition to the suit over the Renaissance sale, Shell is also facing two lawsuits in the UK. One by the Ogale and Bille communities alleges that Shell contaminated their land and waterways, and another by the Bodo community claiming cleanup costs of at least $660 million USD.
This pollution is directly harming the livelihoods and health of communities in the Niger Delta. One recent study by the Kebetkache Women Development & Resource Centre found women in the community of Otuabagi had 8000 times WHO permissible limits of hydrocarbon levels in their blood. Chronic exposure to these chemicals can lead to cancer, cardiovascular diseases, neurological illnesses, respiratory disorders, visual and gastrointestinal ailments, and skin conditions. Other studies have documented the impact of spills on the local fishing industry.
Nigerian civil society groups and international allies will attend the Shell AGM on May 20 to ask Shell management to provide assurances that oil pollution in the Niger Delta will be fully cleaned up and communities compensated.
Dr. Emem Okon, Executive Director of Kebetkache Women Development & Resource Centre, (Nigeria): “When will Shell stop prioritising profit over public health? Our findings from the blood tests of 80 women in Otuabagi, show hydrocarbon levels more than 8000 times above World Health Organization permissible limits. The Bayelsa Oil and Environment Commission tested the blood of 1600 persons and all had hydrocarbons in their blood too. Women are suffering from respiratory diseases, fertility problems, breast cancer, eyesight impairment, among many others! Shell cannot divest without clean-up and remediation!”
Nick Hildyard, Founder and Director of The Corner House (UK): “Why should investors have any confidence that the pollution for which Shell is responsible will be cleaned up when Shell itself has reportedly acknowledged to the UK Government it had ‘encountered difficulties persuading NNPC and the wider Nigerian authorities to agree to permit sale’ and that ‘NNOC said there is no one able to buy and run the assets’; and that, ultimately, ‘We just have to trust that they [Renaissance] can handle the cleanup’?
Ana Xambre Pereira, Advocacy Officer, Both ENDS (Netherlands): “A just energy transition is critical and it is about time Shell takes part in it. Shell’s current exit is not a responsible divestment nor an energy transition, it’s an offloading of toxic assets and liabilities onto the local communities, while Shell continues its offshore fossil fuel operations and walks away with the profits. A just energy transition means enforcing clear standards for responsible divestment now, before more communities are sacrificed.”
Cindy Coltman, Co-director of Hawkmoth (Netherlands): “We stand in solidarity with the people of the Niger Delta calling for justice and accountability of Shell plc. There is no mention of a clean-up fund in Shell’s Annual Report regarding the sale of SPDC. This deal is unfair to the people affected by decades of unabated oil pollution and Shell seems poised to develop, trade
and benefit from Nigerian offshore oil and gas without taking responsibility for cleaning up and decommissioning aging infrastructure onshore. This cannot stand.”
This press release is being issued by Hawkmoth on behalf of a coalition of ten international and Nigerian-based non-governmental organisations and civil society organisations working on issues related to oil and gas industry operations in Nigeria. Members in Nigeria include Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA) and Kebetkache Women Development & Resource Centre; international members include Hawkmoth, Both ENDS and The Corner House. On Shell’s Capital Markets Day, on behalf of 195 civil society organisations, this Letter to Shell plc was sent to the Executive Committee.
Joint Statement by African and European Civil Society Organizations
On the Occasion of the AU–EU Foreign Ministers Meeting, 21 May 2025
Summary for decision-makers
African and European civil society organizations urge the AU-EU Foreign Ministers Meeting to deliver a bold, equitable roadmap for climate justice, energy transition, and green industrialisation. Ministers must commit to enhanced 1.5°C-aligned NDCs, scaled-up adaptation and loss and damage support, and accelerated implementation of SDG7 and the COP28 global energy targets—tripling renewables, doubling energy efficiency, and transitioning away from fossil fuels.
We call on the AU and EU to:
commit to delivering on the Paris Agreement, SDG7, and global energy goals by scaling up renewables, doubling energy efficiency, phasing out fossil fuels, and advancing just, inclusive, and locally driven energy transitions aligned with national priorities;
commit to urgently reforming the global financial and economic systems, prioritizing fair access to funding and debt justice for African countries, implementing recommendations for debt relief, and unlocking affordable financing for clean energy projects;
commit to a fossil-free future by ending public support for fossil fuel investments, redirecting funds toward renewable energy, regulating the private sector to align with the Paris Agreement, and halting the promotion of fossil gas, including LNG as a transition fuel;
commit to significantly increasing support for adaptation and loss and damage in Africa by boosting grant-based funding for climate resilience sectors, aligning initiatives with African priorities, and ensuring predictable funding for the Loss and Damage Fund;
commit to transforming African economies through green industrialization by promoting local manufacturing, skills development, technology transfer, and fair value chain participation, ensuring Africa benefits from its natural resources, drives green jobs, and leads the global energy transition.
Full Statement
As civil society organizations from Africa and Europe, we welcome the upcoming AU-EU Foreign Ministers Meeting as a crucial opportunity to reaffirm a just and transformative partnership between our continents. We urge ministers to clearly commit to strengthening multilateralism through ambitious climate action — including enhanced efforts to achieve the 1.5°C limit of the Paris Agreement. This must involve the development and timely submission of ambitious third-generation Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) before the UN Summit of the Future in September, alongside scaled-up adaptation efforts, meaningful progress on addressing loss and damage, and the delivery of SDG 7: ensuring universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable energy by 2030. Ministers must also commit to implementing the global energy targets agreed at COP28: tripling renewable energy capacity, doubling energy efficiency by 2030, and transitioning away from fossil fuels by 2050. An equitable approach to the fossil fuel phase out demands that the EU phase out coal by 2030, gas by 2035, and oil by 2040, reflecting its greater historical responsibility and capacity, while recognizing and supporting the leadership of African countries, whose energy systems already feature significant shares of renewables and who require international support to expand clean energy access without replicating fossil-dependent pathways.
We acknowledge the EU’s stated ambitions—particularly those outlined in the Global Gateway strategy—to support Africa’s green transition. However, we are concerned that this partnership is becoming overly eurocentric and export-oriented, and does not respond sufficiently to climate impacts. Africa must not remain a mere supplier of resources for Europe’s energy transition. Local value creation, resilient infrastructure, transformation of local economies, and energy access for all must be at the heart of all energy investments. Support for adaptation, particularly locally led approaches, and to address loss and damage must also be scaled up.
The AU-EU Foreign Ministers Meeting, including its roundtables on “multilateralism” and on “prosperity” are a vital opportunity to reflect on how the AU and EU can defend and strengthen international climate cooperation, and accelerate the socio-economic benefits in the intersections between energy, infrastructure, climate, and digital transformation. We call for meaningful dialogue during this session around the implementation of SDG 7 and the global energy goals, with a strong emphasis on justice, inclusion, resilience and sustainability. It is essential that these discussions move beyond extractive investment models and embrace approaches that foster African ownership, skills development, and technology transfer.
Our Expectations for the Meeting’s Communiqué:
The AU and EU must commit to delivering on the Paris Agreement, Agenda 2030/SDG7 and Global Energy Goals:
Member states of both blocks are critical signatories to the Paris Agreement, and have committed to put 1.5°C aligned NDCs on the table. Committing to deliver enhanced NDCs integrated with economy wide just transition policies and plans can ensure that decarbonization strategies create decent work, protect labour and Indigenous rights, promote gender justice, and address social and environmental impacts. The communiqué must explicitly endorse the global goals of tripling renewable energy capacity, doubling energy efficiency, and transitioning away from fossil fuels, while ensuring alignment with national and regional development priorities in Africa. The EU and AU must jointly prioritize the rapid and ambitious scaling-up of renewable energy to enable a swift transition away from fossil fuels and tackle the devastating energy poverty that continues to affect much of the African continent. This must be done in full alignment with the SDGs and the principle of a just transition. Furthermore, both the EU and AU must prioritize decentralized, community-based energy solutions that build local capacity and resilience within African societies. At the same time, energy efficiency must be recognized as a critical enabler of this transition, with the EU reducing existing energy demand: the greater the efficiency gains, the lower the demand for new energy, and the faster the phase-out of fossil fuels.
The AU and EU must highlight the importance of an urgent reform of global financial and economic systems to ensure equitable and effective climate action, prioritizing fair access to funding and debt justice for African countries:
A key precondition for the necessary investments in sustainable development and clean energy is coordinated debt relief by all creditors, especially for highly vulnerable economies. This is essential for enabling Global South countries to meet the 2030 Agenda, uphold the Paris Agreement, and fulfil human rights obligations. The EU and AU should commit to supporting and implementing recommendations from expert bodies such as the Expert Review on Debt, Nature and Climate (co-led by Kenya), the Debt Jubilee Commission, and the African Expert Panel on Cost of Capital (led by South Africa). These recommendations—though still being consolidated—already offer valuable proposals for delivering short-term debt relief. Structural reform must include a UN Framework Convention on Sovereign Debt to fix persistent flaws in the global debt architecture and ensure timely, fair crisis resolution.
Simultaneously, access to finance and renewable energy technologies remains a major barrier—particularly for African communities and small enterprises. The distorted cost of capital, with much higher interest rates in developing countries, and concentration of renewable energy technologies in developed countries hinders a just energy transition. Funding and technology transfer mechanisms must enable direct, affordable access, especially for small- and medium-scale projects. This requires more grants and concessional finance, better risk mitigation, and the removal of non-tariff trade barriers, geopolitical or commercial conditionalities. Crucially, this also requires comprehensive regulatory reforms on the ground to reduce investment risk and build investor confidence. The financial power of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the technological capacity of the EU member states should be strategically deployed to support these reforms and to unlock greater investment in Africa’s clean energy future.
The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) adopted at COP29 calls for the scaling up of financing to developing country Parties to at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035 with developed countries leading on a goal of at least USD 300 billion per year. A linear pathway from the current USD 100 billion implies contributions must double by 2030 and triple by 2035. EU budget contributions should be scaled up, through a bigger external action budget governed by a 50% climate and environment spending target. Global Gateway initiatives would benefit from greater transparency, should support country and community ownership, target high risk and hard to decarbonise sectors of the economy and deliver positive development impacts to ensure additionality.
To further mobilize resources, innovative financing mechanisms must be explored—such as taxes on aviation and shipping, taxing ultra-high-net-worth individuals, and repurposing fossil fuel subsidies. The EU and AU must jointly commit to structural financial reforms, progressive taxation, and strengthening the UN’s role in global tax governance.
The EU and AU must take a clear, united stance against fossil fuel investments:
The EU must urgently end public support for fossil fuels, including support provided through development banks and export credit agencies (ECAs), and redirect them toward renewable energy, aligning with just transition principles and avoiding socially regressive impacts. Public spending, including subsidies and investments, must be explicitly prohibited from supporting fossil fuel infrastructure, including production, processing, distribution, storage, and combustion of fossil fuels. Additionally, the EU and AU should adequately regulate the private financial sector to align with the goals of the Paris Agreement. This means not only offering “green incentives” but also introducing stringent safeguards and penalties for climate-damaging activities. The EU and AU must commit to a fossil-free future, ensuring that all investments support a just and sustainable energy transition.
The continued promotion of fossil gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), as “transition fuels” is particularly concerning. This misrepresents gas as a path to energy security while displacing cleaner solutions and exposing countries to long-term economic and environmental harm. Large, export-oriented LNG projects in African countries—often backed by European actors—are primarily designed to serve foreign markets, while failing to expand access to affordable and reliable energy for local populations and contradicting global climate commitments. Critically, to align with their climate commitments the EU must phase out gas by 2035, meaning it will no longer import African LNG in the near future. This makes new LNG investments economically unviable, risking stranded assets and wasted resources.
The EU must significantly increase its support for adaptation and loss and damage in Africa—both within its current budget cycle and in the upcoming 2028–2035 financial framework:
This includes substantial increases in grant-based funding for critical sectors that underpin climate resilience in low- and lower-middle-income countries (LICs and LMICs), such as water, climate-resilient infrastructure, health, sanitation and hygiene, agroecology, equitable food systems, and nature-based solutions that protect and restore ecosystems.
All adaptation investments must be grounded in the Principles for Locally Led Adaptation (LLA) to ensure that resources reach the most affected communities and reflect their knowledge systems and priorities. EU-supported initiatives—such as the Global Gateway—must strengthen mainstreaming of adaptation and disaster risk reduction by aligning with African countries’ National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), NDCs, and wider development strategies. The EU must also provide increased support to African-owned and -led initiatives at local, national, and continental levels.
On the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), the EU must play a constructive role at COP30 by pushing for an operational framework backed by clear and equitable Means of Implementation—including finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building—so that GGA targets are not only aspirational but achievable for vulnerable countries.
In terms of loss and damage, the EU should commit new and additional resources to the Loss and Damage Fund, ensure predictable and ongoing funding, and promote direct access for affected communities. Furthermore, the EU and AU should jointly advocate for strong L&D finance in the Baku–Belém roadmap, support the establishment of a permanent L&D agenda item at COPs, and promote the launch of a UNEP-hosted Loss and Damage Gap Report as part of the WIM review process.
The EU-AU communiqué must chart a bold course for Africa’s economic transformation through green industrialization, ensuring the continent fully benefits from its natural resources and plays a central role in the global energy transition:
Africa holds many of the critical minerals needed for clean technologies, yet these are often exported unprocessed, limiting local economic development and job creation. In 2020, Africa had an export worth of $457 billion—mainly raw materials—while importing $627 billion worth of high-value goods, reinforcing a persistent trade deficit. To even out this imbalance, the EU and AU must commit to local manufacturing, skills development, technology transfer, and fair participation across the green industrial value chain. This is vital for industrial resilience, climate and economic justice, and reducing global inequality.
The development of green value chain components for the energy transition, combined with regional integration, provides promising opportunities for African green industrialisation. Partnerships like the Clean Trade and Investment Partnership (CTIP) can support these goals—but must not become tools for securing Europe’s access to raw materials at the cost of African communities. CTIP should instead advance local value creation, green jobs, and technology transfer, while prioritizing Africa’s energy and development needs.
Particular caution is needed around the growing emphasis on hydrogen. Terms like “low-carbon hydrogen,” as seen in the South Africa-EU CTIP, risk enabling fossil-based hydrogen under a misleading label. This undermines Africa’s transition and risks locking in fossil infrastructure. Hydrogen initiatives must be grounded in energy additionality, ensuring renewable power used is new and surplus, not diverted from essential local use.
All EU-AU trade and industrial initiatives must be guided by equity, sustainability, and sovereignty, enabling Africa to lead in clean energy, green manufacturing, and climate-resilient growth on its own terms.
As civil society organizations from both continents, we reaffirm our commitment to being active partners in shaping a just transition. Our voices must be heard and included in decision-making processes to ensure that the outcomes of this partnership serve people and the planet—not profit.
Signed and supported by:
Wafa Misrar, Campaigns and Policy Lead, Climate Action Network Africa
Sven Harmeling, Head of Climate, Climate Action Network Europe
Sherpard Zvigadza, Coordinator, Climate Action Network Southern African Region
Dr. Christiane Averbeck, Executive Director, Klima-Allianz Deutschland
Christoph Bals, Chief Policy Officer, Germanwatch
Dean Bhebhe, Senior Just Transitions Advisor, Power Shift Africa
Toni Hancox, Director, Legal Assistance Centre
Carin Karl Atondé, Directeur Exécutif, ONG JVE Bénin
Carin Karl Atondé, Coordonnateur, RODER Bénin
Magda Stoczkiewicz, Programme Director, Greenpeace European Unit
Malam Issa Rabiou, Coordinateur National, CONDER – NIGER
Smith Nwokocha, Coordinator, Quest For Growth and Development Foundation
Laetitia Hema, Project Manager, Centre d’études et d’expérimentations économiques et sociales de l’Afrique de l’Ouest-Association
Sena Alouka, Directeur Exécutif, ONG Jeunes Volontaires pour l’Environnement
Thousands join global rallies to demand climate finance, fossil fuel phase out during COP29
More than 150 actions held in 24 countries.
Thousands of people joined protest actions around the world today urging world leaders at the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan to deliver a new climate finance goal and a rapid phase out of fossil fuels. Over 150 coordinated mass actions took place in more than 30 cities and provinces in 26 countries across the world, including a mobilisation in Baku.
We will be having a rally at Ogbunabali Community today, championed by Quest For Growth and Development Foundation with support from Asian people’s Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) , as well as Climate Action Network International (CAN Int’l) and we will mobilize youths, Community members, Women and students and also engage major Financial Institutions in the Community to ensure they stop financing Fossil Fuels Projects and ensure the Phaseout of Fossil Fuels and embrace Renewable Energy Transition Plus ensuring Climate Finance!
The rallies called on COP29 to strike a deal on a climate finance goal that would unlock trillions of funding for developing countries’ adaptation and mitigation actions and be able to transition to renewable energy systems. They specifically called for the delivery of climate finance of at least $5 trillion annually and reparations for climate debt, emphasising that the new climate finance goal should be based on the actual needs of developing countries for climate action and the just transition of communities dependent on fossil fuels.
The rallies further called for a rapid and equitable phaseout of fossil fuels and a direct transition to 100 percent renewable energy, stating that developed countries, those with the biggest historical emissions, have the responsibility to deliver a fair and funded phase out of fossil fuels, stating that developed countries have the means to mobilise trillions of dollars for urgent climate action domestically and internationally by ending fossil fuel subsidies, making big polluters pay, taxing the mega-rich, and stopping funding for war and militarism.
At COP28, governments have committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems with developed countries taking the lead. COP29 is considered as crucial in unlocking the climate finance needed to enable a just transition away from fossil fuels. So far, most climate finance that has been delivered were loans, not grants, blocking climate action and exacerbating debt distress in many developing countries. Almost 70 percent of the $91 billion in public climate finance provided in 2022 was in the form of loans.
The 29th UNFCCC’s Conference of Parties or COP29 is taking place from November 11 – 22 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Nations negotiating at COP29 are expected to agree on a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance from the goal of $100 billion per year by 2020, a deadline which developed countries missed.
Under the Paris Agreement, governments agreed to set an ambitious new climate finance goal by 2025. The scale of finance needed is significant, according to global models from $1.55 trillion to $5.8 trillion to $13.6 trillion annually by 2030.
Climate finance is also seen as key to unlocking more ambition from countries. Early next year, countries will submit their updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline climate actions to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Instead of phasing out fossil fuels, governments, in aggregate, still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than what would be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
The 2024 Global Coal Exit List (GCEL) shows that 40% of coal companies worldwide are still developing new power plants, thermal coal mines, or coal infrastructure and that 95% of the coal industry has not set a date for ending the coal business. Meanwhile, new oil and gas exploration licences issued this year in 2024 threaten to generate the highest level of emissions since those issued in 2018. The US and the UK lead wealthy countries planning fossil fuel expansion in spite of their climate commitments. Fossil fuel firms are also investing more money into developing new oil and gas sites than at any time since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015.
NOTES:
In Asia, mobilizations were held in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Japan
In Africa, mobilizations were held in Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Benin Republic, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, and Rwanda
In Europe, mobilizations were held in Greece, UK, Italy
We will end the week with Climate Finance actions. We urge groups and people’s movements to flood the streets and declare the need for Climate Finance as dire and immediate. Governments of the Global North must heed the people rising, demanding at least $5 trillion per year. The constant denial of obligations is unacceptable. Adequate, public and non-debt-creating climate finance is urgently needed for mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage and a just energy transition.
OUR COMMON DEMANDS
1. Global
North governments provide at least US$5 trillion per year to the Global South
in public finance. This amount must be revised upwards regularly as needed and
be considered as merely an initial payment toward the much larger total climate
debt owed by the Global North. 2. Adequate climate finance that covers needs for
mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage and just transition 3. Climate Finance must be public and should not be
driven by profit intrinsic to private investments and corporations 4. New and additional climate finance contributions on
top of the existing financial commitments of the Global North such as ODAs,
multilateral and bilateral aids, etc. 5. Non-debt creating climate finance that will not
lead to further exacerbation of the existing debt burden of the Global South 6. Predictable climate finance that will ensure that
resources are available when and where they are needed most and avoid further
delays in implementing urgent actio 7. Climate Finance that is channelled through
democratic, transparent and accountable mechanisms and NOT via the existing or
new structures where the Global North dominates governance and designs policies
favouring their geopolitical and economic interests. 8. Global North governments to tax the polluters and profiteers and end public subsidies for fossil fuels in
orderto mobilise adequate climate finance
CLIMATE FINANCE ESCALATION CAMPAIGN 2024
BACKGROUND PAPER
for consideration of various CSO constituencies in the climate justice arena and of the wider social movement.
Why must we escalate our efforts this year?
The frequency and intensity of climate catastrophes are
skyrocketing, causing devastating economic and social impacts, especially in
the most vulnerable regions. Decades of inaction and broken promises by the
governments of the Global North have not only compounded these losses but have
also deepened the gross inequalities and injustices endured by communities,
economies, and ecosystems.
This year is a pivotal year for Climate Finance. At COP29 in
Baku, critical decisions will be made to address the soaring costs of urgent
climate action. This year presents crucial political moments that will either
propel us toward the radical transformation needed in our social, economic, and
political systems or doom us to further climate chaos. Delay is no longer an
option— we need to unite and increase pressure on all fronts to ensure decisive
action.
What is the climate debt the Global North owes to the Global South?
The Global North has an incalculable climate debt owed to
the Global South, stemming from their historical and ongoing greenhouse gas
emissions that have caused and will continue to cause massive losses and
damages. There is a historical, ethical and legal responsibility of
the Global North to repay this debt with urgency based on their fair shares, as
part of a larger historical and continuing social, economic, and ecological
debt owed to the Global South, arising from centuries of exploitation and
inequity.
What do we want?
To begin addressing this climate debt, we demand the governments of the Global North to provide at least US$5 trillion per year to the
Global South in public finance. The said amount must be revised upwards
regularly as needed, and be considered as merely an initial payment, toward the
much larger total climate debt that continues to accrue. It is important to
emphasize that the current climate debt is immense and incalculable. This payment
provides a realistic, attainable figure for governments of the Global North to
deliver as a starting point in addressing the urgent and rising climate needs
of the Global South.
What is the basis for the US$5 trillion/year ask?
Several studies suggest that the annual finance needed ranges from US$2.3 – US$10 trillion. For example, using the figure of $192 Trillion until 2050, the annual average from 2023 (when the study was released) to 2025 is over US$6.85 Trillion a year. Recognizing that the amounts are all underestimated, we forward the demand that the Global North collectively deliver US$5 trillion annually as climate debt. This figure does not include the necessary and
appropriate investments that the private sector must provide as part of their responsibility.
Is US$5 trillion per year attainable?
The Global North’s claim of insufficient resources for
development and climate finance is fundamentally flawed and disingenuous. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these governments mobilized an astounding US$16 trillion in fiscal stimulus to support their economies. Additionally, the
G7 spent over US$1 trillion annually funding wars and conflicts globally. This clearly demonstrates that the resources exist—they are just being allocated based on political will and priorities. If trillions can be found for pandemic relief and military expenditures, the same financial commitment must be made to
address the existential threat of climate change.
Is the US$5 trillion the number we demand for New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG)?
No. The US$5 trillion per year is an initial payment towards
the climate debt owed to the Global South and serves as a critical barometer for discussions on the scale of the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on
climate finance. The climate debt is the moral framing for the new climate
finance goal, which has to be needs-based, with a core of public grant-based finance.
What kind of Climate Finance do we need?
In light of the NCQG discussions, it is important to
emphasize that the delivery of Climate Finance, as part of the payment for
climate debt, must be:
✅PUBLIC and should not be driven by profit intrinsic to private investments and corporations
✅NEW & ADDITIONAL to existing financial commitments of the Global North such as ODAs, multilateral and bilateral aids, etc
✅NON-DEBT CREATING and must not lead to the further exacerbation of the existing debt burden of the Global South
✅ADEQUATE & PREDICTABLE to ensure that resources are available when and where they are needed most and avoid further delays in implementing urgent action
✅COVERS NEEDS FOR MITIGATION, ADAPTATION, LOSS & DAMAGE, AND JUST TRANSITION
✅CHANNELED THROUGH DEMOCRATIC, TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE MECHANISMS and NOT via the existing or new structures where the Global North dominates governance and designs policies favouring their geopolitical and economic interests.
When do we want to raise this?
We suggest (digitally) launching this piece of the global #PayUp campaign around the Heads of Delegation retreat happening in Baku, from July 25 to 28. We see this as a good opportunity to raise the bar of ambition high and enshrine the negotiations around the future climate finance goal in this moral framing and reflect the responsibility of the Global North to pay its climate debt to the Global South. This milestone of the Finance Escalation
is aimed to be complemented by various other moments of action and campaigns, including a Global Day of Action in September during the period of the UNGA and the Summit of the Future.
In Nigeria, Smith Nwokocha, Coordinator, of Quest For Growth
and Development Foundation will be hosting an in-person Community Event (Townhall Engagement) at Oroworukwu Community Phalga LGA Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Niger Delta, Nigeria on Friday the 20th of September, 2024.
One Health is an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems.
It recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent.
While health, food, water, energy and environment are all wider topics with sector-specific concerns, the collaboration across sectors and disciplines contribute to protecting health, addressing health challenges such as the emergence of infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and food safety and promoting the health and integrity of our ecosystems.
By linking humans, animals and the environment, One Health can help to address the full spectrum of disease control – from prevention to detection, preparedness, response and management – and contribute to global health security.
The approach can be applied at the community, subnational, national, regional and global levels, and relies on shared and effective governance, communication, collaboration and coordination. Having the One Health approach in place makes it easier for people to better understand the co-benefits, risks, trade-offs and opportunities to advance equitable and holistic solutions…..World Health Organization
Key facts
The health of humans, animals, and ecosystems are closely interlinked. Changes in these relationships can increase the risk of new human and animal diseases developing and spreading.
The close links between human, animal and environmental health demand close collaboration, communication and coordination between the relevant sectors.
One Health is an approach to optimize the health of humans, animals and ecosystems by integrating these fields, rather than keeping them separate.
Some 60% of emerging infectious diseases that are reported globally come from animals, both wild and domestic. Over 30 new human pathogens have been detected in the last 3 decades, 75% of which have originated in animals.
Human activities and stressed ecosystems have created new opportunities for diseases to emerge and spread.
These stressors include animal trade, agriculture, livestock farming, urbanization, extractive industries, climate change, habitat fragmentation and encroachment into wild areas.
Overview
One Health is an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems. It uses the close, interdependent links among these fields to create new surveillance and disease control methods.
For example, the way land is used can impact the number of malaria cases. Weather patterns and human-built water controls can affect diseases like dengue. Trade in live, wild animals can increase the likelihood of infectious diseases jumping over to people (called disease spillover).
The COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on the need for a global framework for improved surveillance and a more holistic, integrated system. Gaps in One Health knowledge, prevention and integrated approaches were seen as key drivers of the pandemic. By addressing the linkages between human, animal and environmental health, One Health is seen as a transformative approach to improved global health.
One Health applies to a range of issues, including:
antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which happens when germs like bacteria and parasites develop the ability to defeat the drugs designed to kill them and continue growing and spreading;
zoonotic diseases, which are infectious diseases that are caused by germs that spread between animals and people, such as Ebola, avian influenza, rabies, etc.;
vector-borne diseases, which affect people who get bitten by a vector (mosquitoes, ticks, lice and fleas) and include dengue fever, West Nile virus, Lyme disease and malaria;
food safety and foodborne diseases, caused by contamination of food and occur at any stage of the food production, delivery and consumption chain, such as norovirus, salmonella, listeria, etc.; and
environmental health, such as water pollution, air pollution and climate change.
According to the World Bank, the expected benefit of One Health to the global community was estimated in 2022 to be at least US$ 37 billion per year. The estimated annual need for expenditure on prevention is less than 10% of these benefits.
Since 2003, the world has seen over 15 million human deaths and US$ 4 trillion in economic losses due to disease and pandemics, as well as immense losses from food and water safety hazards, which are one health-related health threat.
Collaboration across sectors and disciplines through a One Health approach is a vital solution for addressing the complex health challenges facing our society. To prevent, detect and respond to emerging health challenges, all relevant sectors must collaborate in an integrated manner to achieve together what no sector can achieve alone.
Scope of the problem
The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that caused COVID-19 has underlined the need to strengthen the One Health approach, with a greater emphasis on connections to animal health and the environment (see the WHO Manifesto for a healthy recovery from COVID-19). Attempting to save money by neglecting environmental protection, emergency preparedness, health systems, water and sanitation infrastructure, and social safety nets has proven to be a false economy, and the bill is now being paid many times over.
We now have an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen collaboration and policies across these many areas and reduce the risk of future pandemics and epidemics while also addressing the ongoing burden of endemic and non-communicable diseases.
Surveillance that monitors risks and helps identify patterns across these many areas is needed. In addition, new research should integrate the impact of these different fields, particularly on the drivers that leads to crises.
Challenges
To implement One Health, major structural changes are required to integrate the human, animal and environmental health fields and support multi-sectoral communication, collaboration, coordination, and capacity strengthening.
Critical gaps in One Health implementation include:
databases and resources to support information sharing and action in line with a One Health approach;
identification and showcasing of best practice examples for One Health implementation;
mapping of existing initiatives and capacities for One Health research and building the next-generation One Health workforce;
a model for an integrated One Health surveillance system;
mechanisms for routine and emergency coordination with relevant stakeholders;
a more complete understanding of the drivers of spillover of zoonotic diseases (transmitted between animals and humans). This includes animal trade, agriculture, livestock farming, urbanization and habitat fragmentation;
a standardized approach for assessing risks of spillover of pathogens between different animal populations and humans, and the emergence of zoonotic diseases, including those arising in food systems; and
methods for identifying and reducing spillover risks and spread of zoonotic diseases in ways that minimize trade-offs and maximize co-benefits with other health and sustainable development objectives.
WHO response
WHO is integrating One Health across its units and offices, providing strategic advice relating to policy, and conducting training at the local, national and regional levels. The goal is stronger programmes that are led and owned by countries.
WHO is a member of the One Health Quadripartite with the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Organisation for Animal Health and the United Nations Environment Programme. Together, they have developed a One Health Joint Plan of Action that includes a set of activities that the 4 organizations can do together, including working with political leaders to establish the needed infrastructure and funding.
WHO is the secretariat for the One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), which provides scientific advice to the Quadripartite partners on One Health priority setting, policies and strategies. This includes recommendations on good practice guidelines, a model One Health Surveillance System, a comprehensive list of upstream drivers of zoonotic disease spillover and recommendations to mitigate these risks.
By Smith Nwokocha 
PHwakawaka 