Recent events highlight the scale and persistence of this threat. The European Food Safety Authority reported exceptionally high HPAI activity in wild birds during Europe’s 2025 autumn migration, with detections quadrupling those reported in 2024 and representing the highest levels observed since 2016. Among the affected species were common cranes (Grus grus), with more than 20,000 deaths recorded in Germany alone. In North America, the virus remains widespread in wild birds and is increasingly detected in a wide range of mammalian species. In the subantarctic islands of South Georgia, new infections are being reported in southern elephant seals (Mirounga leonina), compounding losses of nearly 50% of breeding females since 2023. Similarly, in the neighbouring Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), the world’s two largest colonies of black-browed albatrosses (Thalassarche melanophris) experienced recurrent HPAI outbreaks and a marked decline in the number of breeding birds in 2024 and again in 2025. 

These mortality events have far-reaching ecological consequences. Population declines, reproductive failure, and disrupted species interactions can undermine ecosystem stability and species conservation, with potential generational impacts. Continued spillover into mammals also elevates One Health concerns, with potential implications for companion animals, livestock production and human health. 

Reducing further impacts and supporting recovery requires expanded and coordinated wildlife surveillance, rapid genomic characterization of viruses, improved data sharing, integration of broader conservation actions, and addressing other conservation threats such as habitat loss, overfishing, invasive species, pollution, and climate change. 

Innovative approaches such as Nature-based solutions that strengthen ecological resilience and maintain the natural barriers that limit pathogen spillover should be actively explored. Examples of these solutions include supporting natural scavenger populations to enhance biological removal of infected carcasses, restoring and protecting wetlands and coastal habitats to reduce crowding of migratory birds, maintaining heterogeneous freshwater–coastal landscapes that disperse foraging and roosting densities, and minimizing artificial congregation points that can serve as viral hot spots. 

HPAI has become a global conservation and One Health challenge, demanding urgent and sustained cross-sector collaboration to limit ongoing ecological damage. This scale of biodiversity loss will result in profound and unpredictable ecological disruption, including loss of ecosystem services and the breakdown of food-web dynamics. 

Veterinary authorities and wildlife health professionals are instrumental in establishing strategies and coordinating control plans for HPAI that emphasise biosecurity and biosurveillance involving both wild and domestic animals and timely sharing of up to date information on HPAI events.  

26 September 2024, New York – Drug-resistant pathogens could jeopardise the food supply of over two billion people and increase health care costs by US$ 159 billion annually by 2050, according to the most extensive modelling of the impact of AMR to date.

The analysis, produced by a global partnership of leading health and development organisations, is the first to comprehensively forecast the economic and health burdens of AMR on both humans and food-producing animals. It also found a return of US$ 28 for every US$ 1 invested if urgent action were to be taken now.

According to the UN, AMR is one of the top 10 global health threats facing humanity. It has led to the rise of “superbugs”, including bacteria no longer treatable using antibiotics.

The EcoAMR series (Health and Economic Impacts of AMR in Human and Food-Producing Animals), led by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), used the latest data from 204 countries and 621 subnational locations to forecast the impact of AMR on mortality, health care costs, food security and the global economy.

Released ahead of a High-Level Meeting on AMR at the UN General Assembly, the modelling found that, if no action is taken now, drug resistance could cause annual global GDP losses up to US$ 1.7 trillion by 2050, while the spread of resistant pathogens from livestock to humans, could cost up to US$ 5.2 trillion. It also found that AMR could result in production losses in the livestock sector equivalent to the consumption needs of 746 million people, or more than two billion people in a more severe scenario by the same year.

The analysis, published in three reports, was produced by experts at WOAH, Animal Industry Data (AID), the Center for Global Development (CGD), Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and RAND Europe, with contributions from The World Bank.

The threat of drug-resistant infections to human health is widely recognised but the impact of AMR on the health of animals, our environment and our economy cannot be overlooked. On top of the drastic human death toll, drug-resistant pathogens can also severely impact animal health and welfare. It creates huge strains on the economy as well as on our sustainable development efforts. For the first time, we have an idea of exactly what’s at stake unless the global community takes urgent action now.

Dr Emmanuelle Soubeyran, Director General, WOAH

The EcoAMR series authors have called for urgent investments to support AMR National Action Plans, of which almost 90 per cent have no funding allocated for their implementation. The human health research also showed that greater investment in new antibiotics, health care improvements, universal vaccine coverage and sanitation and hygiene could prevent more than 110 million human deaths from 2025 to 2050.

Investing in access to antibiotics and innovation for new drugs could also reduce human health costs by US$ 97 billion per year and increase the labour force by 23 million people, the rates of tourism by 1.2 per cent and hospitality by 0.6 per cent, adding US$ 960 billion to the annual GDP; and generate a further US$ 679 billion per year in health value, the human economic analysis found.

“AMR carries a significant economic burden, but taking prudent action now will see a significant return on investment through a reduction in health care costs, improvements in the economy, and a healthier society at large,” commented Anthony McDonnell, Policy Fellow at the Center for Global Development (CGD). “It is in high-income countries’ interests to ensure that those in poorer parts of the world have access to high-quality treatment.” 

The animal health analysis showed that achieving a global 30 per cent reduction in livestock antimicrobial use within five year-time-period can lead to a cumulative increase in global GDP by US$ 120 billion from 2025 to 2050.

“These data highlight the need to accelerate comprehensive solutions to tackle AMR,” said Dr Christopher J.L. Murray, Director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). “A ‘One Health’ approach, which spans the human, plant and animal sectors, is needed, as well as bringing the private and public sectors together to collaborate at the national and global levels. Only global will and investment, guided by evidence, can contain this growing health threat.”

The EcoAMR series estimates that about 39 million people could die due to AMR by 2050, especially among older people and those in low- and middle-income countries. This study is consistent with the results from the Global Research on Antimicrobial Resistance (GRAM) project recently published. Together, these findings provide a complete picture of the critical global threat posed by AMR.

Notes to editors:

To arrange any interviews/briefings, please contact:

Communication Department, World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), [email protected]

About the EcoAMR consortium of international partners:

The Center for Global Development (CGD) and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in partnership with the Global Research on Antimicrobial Resistance (GRAM) addressed the human health components, while RAND Europe and World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) in partnership with Animal Industry Data (AID) covered the animal heath aspect of this cross-sector initiative.

Dr Soubeyran, a veterinarian by profession, has vast experience and an illustrious career in veterinary public health and animal health. Once the dean of the National Veterinary School of Lyon (VetAgro Sup), from 2016 to 2021, she is also the former Deputy Director General for Food within the French Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, the Head of French Veterinary Services as well as the French National Delegate to WOAH. With over fifteen years of leadership in national and regional positions, Dr Soubeyran is well poised to lead WOAH towards attaining its objectives and furthering its mission in the global arena.

It is an honour for me and a great responsibility to have been elected by the WOAH Members as its Director General. WOAH is a 183 Member strong organisation recognised for its expertise in the field of animal health and welfare, and like all people who cherish WOAH, I want to see it continue to evolve and adapt to the challenges ahead.

Dr Emmanuelle Soubeyran, WOAH Director General

Dr Soubeyran’s five-year tenure will focus on three pillars:

  1. Increase visibility of WOAH: Animal Health plays a pivotal role in global issues such as food security, economy, trade, public health, biodiversity, and climate change mitigation. With a view to garner financial, technical, and public support, Dr Soubeyran will strategically mobilise significant resources by amplifying WOAH’s voice. She will convince decision makers that the cost of inaction far exceeds the cost of prevention. 
  2. Strengthen Veterinary Services: The capacity of Veterinary Services is limited, with only 7% of WOAH Members having optimal capacities. Dr Soubeyran proposes to strengthen this workforce considering that it is critical for safe and sustainable food production.
  3. Modernise WOAH: In our fast-changing world, WOAH must adapt to remain agile, inclusive, and innovative. Dr Soubeyran will support increased inclusivity, digitalisation, and data-driven approaches, including big data processing and new technologies for disease surveillance.

As WOAH builds on its century of unwavering commitment to global animal health, Dr Soubeyran is uniquely positioned to usher a new era and spearhead the Organisation in charting a sustainable future. The road ahead comes with major animal health and welfare challenges where WOAH’s leadership with its partners will be critical in finding solutions. The new Director General anticipates with great enthusiasm, the opportunity to achieve the Organisation’s objectives through close collaboration with Members and their Delegates, the Council and the Regional Commissions, WOAH staff, other international organisations and all stakeholders across sectors. Because animal health is our health. It’s everyone’s health.

Follow @WOAH_DG on social media

The Competencies for One Health Field Epidemiology (COHFE) Framework establishes a standardized approach to training frontline responders in the interconnected fields of human, animal, and environmental health. This critical workforce plays a vital role in detecting, investigating, and responding to disease outbreaks at the source, thus protecting health across all sectors using a One Health approach.

“A well-trained One Health field epidemiology workforce is essential for tackling today’s complex health challenges,” said Julio Pinto, Animal Production and Health Division at FAO. “The new guidance provide a roadmap for building a global network of skilled professionals who can effectively collaborate to prevent and respond to endemic and emerging diseases with zoonotic potential.”

The COHFE Framework outlines core competencies for frontline, intermediate, and advanced levels of field epidemiology training. It emphasizes the importance of a One Health approach, equipping trainees with the skills to investigate outbreaks across the human-animal-environment interface.

“This new guidance represents a major milestone in strengthening One Health capacity worldwide,” said Dr Marion Muehlen, Head of the Field Epidemiology Strengthening Unit of WHO. “By ensuring field epidemiologists are trained with a One Health lens, we can foster a more collaborative and effective approach to outbreak preparedness and response.”

The COHFE Framework is a comprehensive resource for governments, training institutions, and health agencies. It includes guidance on curriculum development, mentorship, learning evaluation and certification, and continuing education, ensuring a holistic approach to building a skilled One Health field epidemiology workforce. Their application at country level will assure harmonised competencies while enhancing mutual recognition and stronger integration of professionals.

Effective disease prevention and control require a unified approach across sectors. The COHFE Framework promotes collaboration among animal, human, and environment health workforce, strengthening our collective ability to safeguard global health.

Barbara Alessandrini, Head of the Capacity-Building Department of WOAH

The role of the environment sector in One Health is emphasized throughout the COHFE Framework and an expert from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) contributed to the work of the technical advisory group that reviewed guidance. UNEP will join FAO, WHO and WOAH as the COHFE initiative moves into an implementation phase.

“Field epidemiologists need to take a systems-based approach to their work and consider environmental factors that drive disease risk,” said Julian Blanc, lead of the One Health Team at UNEP. “The health of people, animals and ecosystems are interlinked and interdependent. Training field epidemiologists to effectively integrate environmental considerations is essential for ensuring the health of our planet.”

The release of the COHFE framework and guidance marks a significant step towards a more collaborative and effective approach to global health security. By equipping field epidemiologists with the necessary One Health competencies and skills, we can prevent potential epidemics, pandemics and build a more resilient future for all.

Sweden – Latest data reveals a concerning 2% increase in antimicrobial use in animals at global level between 2019 and 2021, after several consecutive years of significant decrease. The data is part of the latest report on antimicrobial use in animals released today at the 9th Meeting of the Global Leaders Group on Antimicrobial Resistance (GLG on AMR) held in Sweden.

The need for urgent action has never been more evident. Robust surveillance systems are critical to support informed decision-making that will enable the implementation of cost-effective AMR interventions under a One Health approach.

Mr. Jakob Forssmed, GLG Member and Minister for Social Affairs and Public Health, Sweden

Antimicrobials are critical medicines whose effectiveness must be preserved for the treatment, control and, where appropriate, for the prevention of infectious diseases in animals, humans and plants. Resistance to these medicines has become a major concern, as it endangers everyone’s health. Economic reports already project a potential loss of 1.8 years of life expectancy worldwide by 2035 due to AMR1.

Although AMR is a natural phenomenon, it can be greatly accelerated by the misuse and overuse of antimicrobials across sectors. Efficient monitoring systems are essential to inform decisions targeting the responsible use of antimicrobials.

Since 2015, WOAH has been monitoring the use of antimicrobials in animals, as a key component of its strategy to limit the emergence of AMR. ANIMUSE, the global database on ANImal antiMicrobial USE, facilitates access to this crucial and growing set of information. This initiative has contributed to triple the number of countries with a surveillance system in place over the last decade.

Today, the Organisation released the latest groundbreaking data, highlighting both progress and challenges in the global fight against AMR in the animal health sector.

The animal health sector plays a pivotal role in the efforts to curb AMR by promoting a more responsible use of antimicrobials. Therefore, it has to be adequately supported to help accelerate the response to this still growing threat.

Dr Monique Eloit, WOAH Director General

Among the four key actions identified to effectively address AMR in animals, preventive measures should be prioritised. When available, vaccines can be robust allies to prevent diseases that could otherwise lead to the use of antimicrobials. Yet only six cents for every 10 USD were allocated to R&D in animal health vaccines from 2017 to 20242, highlighting the need to enhance research, development and implementation of innovative tools in animal health.

A focus on the use of antimicrobials for growth promotion

Growth promotion means using antimicrobials in healthy animals to boost productivity. While significant progress has been made in phasing out this practice, data showcases that it is still reported by almost 20% of WOAH’s Members. More worryingly, at least 11% still use one or more of the highest priority critically important antimicrobials for human medicine, such as colistin, as growth promoters. 

WOAH continues to encourage its Members to restrict the use of antimicrobials solely to veterinary medical use and to actively engage in dialogue with the concerned parties to achieve a total ban on the use of antimicrobials as growth promoters, starting with those that are critically important for human health.

In light of the recent data, collective efforts must be redoubled to safeguard the health and well-being of current and future generations by preserving the efficacy of antimicrobials. Everyone’s health is at stake.

1GLG report:  Towards specific commitments and action in the response to antimicrobial resistance

2 AMR R&D Hub: A global partnership currently consisting of 17 countries, the European Commission and two philanthropic foundations, launched in May 2018 following a call from G20 leaders

Results from an economic study confirm that the already staggering human toll
of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) will be compounded by a catastrophic hit to the global economy unless bolder and more urgent action is taken, the Global Leaders Group (GLG) on AMR said today.

AMR is already a leading cause of death globally, directly responsible for 1.27 million deaths annually, one in five of which occur in children under the age of five, mainly in low- and middle-income countries.

Uncontrolled AMR is expected to lower life expectancy and lead to unprecedented health expenditure and economic losses

The economic study shows that without a stronger response there would be an average loss of 1.8 years of life expectancy globally by 2035. The study also estimates that AMR would cost the world US$ 412 billion a year in additional healthcare costs and US$ 443 billion per year in lost workforce productivity.

The tools to tackle AMR exist, but must be dramatically scaled up

The economic study shows that if implemented globally, a package of cross-sectoral AMR interventions is expected to cost an average of US$ 46 billion per year but will bring a return of up to US$13 for every US$1 spent by 2050.

We have the tools to mitigate the AMR crisis and these data point to a devastating future if we do not
take bolder action now. That is why the Global Leaders Group is making recommendations and proposing targets to drive a robust
global response to AMR and save millions of lives.

Mia Amor Mottley, Chair of the GLG on AMR, Prime Minister of Barbados.

The Global Leaders Group calls on UN Member States to act boldly

In a new report released today, the GLG calls on political leaders to make specific commitments at the high-level meeting on AMR to be held at the United Nations General Assembly on 26 September. The GLG report, “Towards specific commitments and action in the response to antimicrobial resistance” urges UN Member States to ensure that adequate, predictable, and sustainable financing is available from domestic and external sources to address AMR, including to tackle the dwindling research and development pipeline for new antibiotics. The GLG proposes that existing financing instruments expand their scope to include AMR and increase investments to support implementation of multisectoral National Action Plans, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

The report notes how accountable, effective and functional multisectoral governance is critical to coordinate a global response to AMR and successfully implement interventions. To achieve this, the GLG proposes an independent panel be established to monitor and report on science and evidence related to AMR to inform advocacy and action and formalising the Quadripartite Joint Secretariat to facilitate collaborative and coordinated action against AMR.

The GLG stresses the need for improved quality of data on antimicrobial resistance and use through surveillance and monitoring and recommends that countries strengthen human resources and crucial infrastructure capacity. The report highlights the need for sustainable, sector-specific, and integrated surveillance systems and the use of data for action.

Because prevention is a cornerstone of the response to AMR, the GLG recommends that countries should implement strategies to prevent infections across human and animal health and food, plant and environmental ecosystems to reduce the need for antimicrobials.

Global targets are needed to drive further action on AMR

To drive global and national action on AMR, the GLG report proposes several outcome-oriented targets to accelerate progress:

  • By 2030, reduce global human deaths due to AMR by 10%.
  • By 2030, ACCESS1 group antibiotics comprise at least 80% of overall human antibiotic consumption.
  • By 2030, reduce the quantity of antimicrobials used in the agri-food system globally by at least 30 – 50% from the current level;
  • By 2030, eliminate the use of medically important antimicrobials for human medicine in animals for non-veterinary medical purposes, or in crop production and agri-food systems for non-phytosanitary purposes.

The GLG calls for urgent consideration of these recommendations by UN Member States. World leaders have a unique opportunity at the High-level Meeting on AMR on 26 September 2024 to save lives, livelihoods and economies by taking action to address AMR across sectors.

For inquiries, please contact the Global Leaders Group secretariat at [email protected]

1 Access group antibiotics have activity against a wide range of commonly encountered susceptible pathogens while also showing lower resistance potential than antibiotics in the other groups: WHO AwARE classification of
antibiotics for evaluation and monitoring of use, 2023.

Background

The Global Leaders Group (GLG) on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) was established in 2020 following the recommendation of the Interagency Coordination Group on AMR (IACG) with the mission to advise on and advocate for political action for the mitigation of drug-resistant infections through responsible and sustainable access to and use of antimicrobials. Secretariat support for the GLG is provided by the Quadripartite Joint Secretariat (QJS) on Antimicrobial Resistance, a joint effort by the Quadripartite organisations, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH).

The GLG is chaired by Her Excellency the Prime Minister of Barbados, Ms Mia Amor Mottley; the Vice Chair is the Honourable Dr Chris Fearne, Deputy Prime Minister of Malta. GLG members include government ministers, academics, and influential figures from the private sector and civil society, as well as the principals of the Quadripartite organizations.

The GLG is implementing its rolling action plan across six priority areas: 1) Sustained political action on AMR; 2) Transforming human health, animal health, food, plant and environmental ecosystems with a focus on infection prevention and control and responsible use; 3) Advocacy for improved surveillance and monitoring of antimicrobial use and resistance across sectors, including to guide target-setting and interventions and assess their impacts; 4) Increased mobilization of internal and external fiancial resources, especially for national action plan implementation in low and middle-income countries (LMICs); 5) Innovation across sectors to secure a sustainable pipeline of antimicrobials (particularly antibiotics), vaccines, diagnostics, waste management tools, and safe and effective alternatives to antimicrobials, and ensure equitable access to these products; and 6) Advocating for evidence-based action to address environmental apsects of AMR.

Since 2005, avian influenza has had a staggering toll, with over 500 million birds lost to the disease worldwide [1]. Its devastating impact extends beyond domestic and wild birds, threatening livelihoods, food security and public health. The recent shift in the disease’s ecology and epidemiology has heightened global concern as it has spread to new geographical regions. It has also caused unusual die-offs in wild birds and led to an alarming increase in mammalian cases. The rapidly evolving nature of avian influenza and changes in its patterns of spread [2] require a review of existing prevention and control strategies. To effectively contain the disease, protect the economic sustainability of the poultry sector and reduce potential pandemic risks, all available tools must be reconsidered including vaccination.

The current spread of avian influenza is a major concern for the poultry industry, public health and biodiversity. Given recent developments in its epidemiology, and the increasing circulation of high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI) in wild animals, stricter biosecurity measures and mass culling of poultry may no longer be sufficient to control the disease. With the seasonal north-south migration of wild birds, countries must be prepared for an increase in outbreaks and should consider complementary approaches, such as vaccination, in line with existing international animal health and welfare standards [3]. 

Key facts

  •  The epidemiology of avian influenza is evolving: the disease is gradually losing its seasonal nature, and high pathogenicity strains are circulating in wild birds. 
  • This intensified circulation increases the likelihood of virus evolution and spillover to new species, including mammals, posing a risk to human health. 
  • All available science-based disease control tools must be considered. In certain epidemiological contexts, vaccination can be an effective complement to other control strategies. 
  • If properly implemented, vaccination should not be a barrier to safe trade. 
  • Wider use of vaccination stimulates research innovation, improving the quality of available vaccines. 

Considering vaccination as part of available avian influenza control measures 

Traditionally, HPAI has been of concern mainly in domestic birds, with its control envisaged at farm level. Current transmission patterns show it is now circulating in wild bird populations, driving its spread not only across different farms, but also within farms. In practice, this has made it more and more difficult to protect a farm from disease introduction, due to increased exposure, both from neighbouring poultry farms and wild birds. 

There has been a global rise in HPAI outbreaks [4] and an increase in the genetic diversity of circulating virus strains. Thus, the use of sanitary control measures alone may no longer be a sustainable solution to effectively contain the disease. One such measure is the systematic mass culling of poultry, which results in heavy economic losses for farmers, has a lasting impact on their livelihoods and raises social, animal welfare and environmental concerns. Due to its negative impact on the sustainability of production practices and the image of the poultry industry to consumers, its acceptability must be scrutinised. 

Measures such as surveillance for early detection and monitoring of avian influenza viruses, preventive health measures (biosecurity) and disease control measures (culling, movement controls, quarantine) remain at the core of any avian influenza control strategy. 

However, poultry vaccination can no longer be excluded from the available alternatives and should be considered a complementary tool. When scientifically justified, it offers several advantages: 

  • Prevention and control of outbreaks in vaccinated domestic bird populations resulting in reduced virus circulation within and between flocks and lower risk of spillover to wildlife. 
  • Reduced economic losses, both direct (e.g. bird deaths) and indirect (e.g. mass culling and trade disruption). When properly implemented, avian influenza vaccination is compatible with safe trade, according to WOAH international standards. 
  • Lower risk of human exposure to avian influenza viruses, and thus of a potential pandemic, in line with the One Health approach [5] . 
  • Minimised environmental impact by reducing the risk of spill over to wild animals. 
  • Incentives for innovative research to maintain the efficacy of vaccines over time, thanks to the experience gained. This encourages manufacturers to develop and improve access to effective and up-to-date vaccines. 

In certain socioeconomic contexts, vaccination against avian influenza can contribute to the overall sustainability of the poultry industry and to the preservation of outdoor production systems. These are often a cultural heritage, even though such systems are not optimal in their biosecurity. It helps to maintain the health of domestic and wild birds, ensuring a stable supply of poultry products for consumers and preserving biodiversity. In addition, vaccination programmes with pre-established risk-based protocols enhance a country’s outbreak preparedness, both in the speed of response and preparation for the increased risk. 

Responsibilities of countries opting for poultry vaccination 

Avian influenza vaccination should be considered as part of a broader disease prevention and control strategy. This must include other provisions, such as biosecurity measures, disease surveillance for early detection, rapid response to outbreaks and a well-planned exit strategy. Vaccination can be a temporary measure to better control the disease situation. National Veterinary Authorities [6] are charged with the decision to vaccinate based on a risk-evaluation, which depends on several factors and involves varied responsibilities, including: 

  • The availability of high quality and reliable registered vaccines that meet WOAH international standards [7] and remain effective against circulating strains. Vaccine composition must be under constant review to respond to changing circumstances and epidemiology. 
  • Sufficient surveillance capacity to demonstrate that vaccination does not interfere with virus monitoring and early detection of outbreaks in vaccinated and unvaccinated bird populations. Robust surveillance systems are essential to monitor the potential presence of avian influenza viruses in domestic and wild birds, as well as in mammals. This determines which strains are circulating and ensures that immunisation targets are met, and appropriate control measures are implemented. However, building and maintaining this capacity is resource-intensive and not possible in all countries. 
  • The commitment of poultry producers to adhere to the disease control strategy in place. 
  • Data collection from producers and veterinarians on the duration of protection provided by vaccination and the time of virus shedding after vaccination if live vaccines are used. Such data will help to better define vaccination strategies. 
  • The capacity to ensure the traceability of the entire process, from vaccine production to on-farm administration and post-vaccination monitoring, including the traceability of vaccinated animals and their products. 

Vaccine selection, vaccination protocols and monitoring are critical components of a successful vaccination programme. The level of flock immunity required to prevent transmission hinges on several factors. Depending on the disease epidemiology, Veterinary Authorities – in consultation with the poultry sector – may decide to vaccinate only certain species in a selection of production systems [8].

Vaccination is compatible with the pursuit of safe trade in poultry and poultry products 

To date, despite the global crisis, vaccination has been used only in a limited number of countries as a preventive, emergency or systematic measure to protect poultry or other captive bird populations from HPAI. Concerns about international trade restrictions hamper its use, although the inclusion of vaccination as a control tool has been endorsed by international standards adopted by the World Assembly of WOAH national Delegates. 

Unjustified trade restrictions on poultry and poultry products from vaccinated flocks have a huge impact on a sector that contributes significantly to global food security and the economy. In fact, poultry meat exports account for 11% of total production, while egg exports account for 3% of production [9]. Imports of commercial genetic stocks of poultry are also essential to support meat and egg production systems of all countries. In addition, poultry meat and eggs are a low-cost, high-quality, low-fat protein food source, providing commodity redistribution and economic benefits and supporting the livelihoods of small-scale farmers. It is vital to maintain their international trade while ensuring the safety of these exchanges. This can be guaranteed in two ways: 

  • Countries that vaccinate will need to provide appropriate certification to their trading partners to ensure that their measures comply with WOAH science-based international standards. They must also demonstrate their plans to carry out necessary surveillance of circulating strains once vaccination is in place, and their capacity to prove the absence of virus circulation. 
  • Importing countries should make risk-based decisions and implement science-informed measures that allow for safe trade while preventing the spread of avian influenza. This is critical to avoid the closure of trade borders and the subsequent economic consequences for the poultry industry, farmers and consumers. 

In accordance with WOAH international standards, the use of vaccination does not affect the status of a country or zone as being HPAI-free if surveillance supports the absence of infection. Trade in poultry and poultry products can be conducted safely alongside vaccination. 

81% of WOAH Members (107/133 answers) did not use any sort of avian influenza vaccination in the past five years [10], whereas 112 countries and territories reported disease presence over this period [1].

Policy recommendations 

The use of vaccination in poultry against HPAI remains the decision of each national Veterinary Authority in consultation with poultry producers. It should be tailored to the specific epidemiological and socioeconomic context, and the needs and capacities of each country or region. 

Flexibility and adaptability are essential to effectively address the dynamic nature of the disease and its potential threat to domestic and wild bird populations, and to public health. Some key considerations for national policies are outlined hereafter. 

Decision-making 

As described in WOAH standards [6], the decision to vaccinate poultry must be: 

  • part of a broader avian influenza control strategy with an exit plan; 
  • accompanied by an solid monitoring and surveillance system for domestic and wild bird populations to guide the selection of appropriate vaccine strains; 
  • based on the availability of sufficient financial, technical and human resources for disease surveillance and the maintenance of effective vaccination campaigns; 
  • combined with the enforcement of relevant regulations, including licensing, quality control, and safety standards for vaccines. 

Monitoring and evaluation 

The maintenance of vaccinations should rely on the regular evaluation of vaccination programmes to gather evidence on their effectiveness and adjust them as necessary, based on surveillance data and scientific developments. 

International cooperation, including trade 

The implementation of avian influenza vaccination programmes requires a careful balance between disease control and maintenance of safe international trade. Prior to exchange, trading partners should: 

  • establish mechanisms to ensure cooperation and transparent communication between relevant stakeholders, including ministries, Veterinary Authorities and producers; 
  • engage in bilateral discussions to agree on certification requirements and trade protocols, and to address trade concerns, so mutual recognition can be ensured in peacetime. 

Ultimately, multilateral dialogue and adherence to WOAH standards are key to ensuring that if a country decides to introduce vaccination against avian influenza, it will be carried out appropriately, without sanitary risks and will not form an unnecessary barrier to safe trade. Efforts should be made to maintain open lines of communication, thus minimising trade disruption while protecting animal health and welfare, as well as human and environmental health. 

Download pdf version

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) threatens the health of humans, animals, plants and our shared environment. Too often, antimicrobials are misused or overused across sectors, creating the conditions for this phenomenon to emerge. While the majority of WOAH Members have taken strong action in recent years to reduce their use in animals, further efforts are needed as these drugs are still being inappropriately used as growth promoters in some countries.

Taking stock of the use of antimicrobials for growth promotion

In 2016, all WOAH Members committed to definitively ban the use of highest priority antimicrobials for humans, and to phase out the use of antimicrobials in animals for growth promotion purposes in the absence of a risk analysis. How has this commitment been put into practice so far?

  • Almost 20% of Members still report using antimicrobials for growth promotion. Of these, it is estimated that 76% have not carried out any preliminary risk analysis.
  • More worringly, no less than 11% of WOAH Members still use as growth promoters at least one of the highest priority critically important antimicrobials for human medicine such as colistin.
  • At least 50% of the Members using antimicrobials as growth promoters have no regulatory framework in place.
  • In some countries, the labelling of certain feed additives intended to increase productivity does not mention the presence of low doses of antimicrobials, which are then unknowingly administered to animals by veterinarians and farmers.

Such practices are not in compliance with WOAH international standards or the Global Action Plan on AMR.

Competent authorities and the livestock industry must fulfil their responsibilities to phase out the use of antimicrobials for growth promotion in animals

WOAH standards make a clear distinction between veterinary medical use of antimicrobials – which is limited to the treatment, control and, where appropriate, prevention of infectious diseases – and non-veterinary medical use. The administration of antimicrobials for growth promotion in animals is a non-veterinary medical use, and it must not be assimilated to disease prevention use, which requires animals to be at proven risk of disease if the medicine is not administered.

WOAH calls on its Members to restrict the use of antimicrobials solely to veterinary medical use and to actively engage in dialogue with the concerned parties to achieve a total ban on the use of antimicrobials as growth promoters, starting with those that are critically important for human health.

Competent authorities must enact relevant legislation in this regard and are invited to explore and promote alternatives to improve animal productivity, as relevant. These can include, among others, animal health programmes that focus on disease prevention (e.g., deworming and vaccination), biosecurity and good animal husbandry practices.

The misuse of antimicrobials in different sectors accelerates antimicrobial resistance. The animal health sector must play its part in curbing this global scourge that threatens animal, human and plant health and adopt sustainable practices.

Download pdf version

Rome – The first Plenary Assembly of the Antimicrobial Resistance Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Platform opened today at the Rome headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 

The two-day meeting, which is being held ahead of 2023 World AMR Awareness Week, brings together more than 150 stakeholders from around the globe, encompassing governments, civil society, research, academia, the private sector, financial institutions, intergovernmental organizations and specialized UN agencies. Its overarching aim is to collectively address ways of preserving antimicrobials as lifesaving medicines for humans, animals, plants and ecosystems using the One Health approach.  

This is the first time that the Plenary Assembly is meeting since the AMR Partnership Platform was launched in 2022 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), collectively known as the Quadripartite. 

The Plenary started with opening remarks by the leaders of the four organizations, followed by a series of panel discussions focusing on the Platform’s collective governance and proposals for the action groups. The second and final day of the Plenary will see participants discuss preparations for a crucial UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting on AMR, scheduled to take place in 2024, and a joint way forward within the Platform. 

Seeking solutions 

Antimicrobials are agents used to control and treat infectious diseases in humans, animals and plants. They include antibiotics, fungicides, antiviral agents and parasiticides. Disinfectants, antiseptics, other pharmaceuticals, as well as some natural products, may also have antimicrobial properties. 

AMR occurs when bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites no longer respond to antimicrobial agents. As a result of drug resistance, antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents become ineffective and infections become difficult or impossible to treat, increasing the risk of disease spread, severe illness and death. 

The issue poses an increasingly visible, urgent and complex threat to global health and development, animal health, food safety and food security, as well as ecosystems. 

In 2019, 5 million human deaths worldwide were associated with bacterial AMR, of which 1.3 million human deaths were directly attributable to bacterial AMR. Up to 28 million could be pushed into extreme poverty if AMR is not addressed. Moreover, approximately 75 percent of antibiotics are not absorbed by the animals and are released into water and soil, which can directly contaminate and harm the surrounding environment. In humans, antimicrobial resistance takes place as a result of the misuse of antibiotics. 

There are no simple solutions. Developing a new antibiotic, for instance, can take 10-15 years and cost more than $1 billion.  

That is why all sectors across the One Health spectrum spanning human, animal, plant, and the environment must work together to ensure the responsible use of antimicrobials while taking preventive measures to decrease the incidence of infections. 

The following actions have been identified as helping reduce the need for antimicrobials and minimize the emergence of AMR: 

  • strengthen infection prevention and control in health facilities, farms and food industry premises 
  • ensure access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene, and vaccines 
  • minimize pollution and ensure proper waste and sanitation management 
  • ensure access to quality-assured healthcare for all 
  • ensure access to advice from experts during animal, food and agricultural production 

What the Quadripartite leaders said: 

“Today’s Inaugural Plenary Assembly brings together the pioneers and champions of AMR, who share common concerns and shoulder collective responsibilities. The success of the Platform will depend on clear goals, an effective governance structure, visionary leadership, trust, transparency, and the sustained engagement of Members to drive change,” said FAO Director-General QU Dongyu. 

“The environment plays a key role in the development, and the transmission and spread of AMR,” said UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen. “The global response to AMR clearly requires a close collaboration between sectors so that we can tackle AMR from the pharmaceuticals sector, from the agriculture and food sector, aquaculture, the healthcare and hospital waste management sector, and municipal wastewater management, and of course from farming waste.” 

“AMR is not a future crisis. It’s here and now. We need urgent action, based on a shared global vision and narrative, and ambitious targets to which we hold ourselves accountable. We can succeed, but only with concerted and coordinated action,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. 

We are in a race against time. Urgency is the watchword. It is crucial that we mobilise our collective efforts now to address AMR comprehensively for the health of people, animals, plants and our planet, leaving no one behind.

WOAH Director General, Dr Monique Eloit 

Paris (France), 7 September 2023 – Global antimicrobial use in animals has declined by 13% in 3 years1, marking again a significant shift in the continuous efforts to preserve the efficacy of these critical medicines.  

Antimicrobial drugs, such as antibiotics, paved the way for better living conditions for humans and animals. Prior to the discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928, infections due to minor cuts could lead to bloodstream infections or death. Yet, today, these life-saving drugs are losing their efficacy due to their misuse and overuse in different sectors. The phenomenon is known as ‘antimicrobial resistance’. It can originate in animal, human or plant populations, and then pose a threat to all the other species. 

In this context, monitoring how, when and which antimicrobials are used becomes critical to identify patterns and trends. Ultimately, this can facilitate decision-making and support the implementation of measures to ensure an optimal and sustainable use of these key medicines.  

As the global authority on animal health, WOAH has been collecting information on the use of antimicrobials in animals since 2015. A report has been published every year to provide access to this crucial and growing set of information and has highlighted steady efforts in the animal health sector worldwide. For instance, the latest report, which has been recently released, also showcases a decline in the use of antimicrobials considered to be of critical importance for human health.  

Less than 20% of antimicrobials used in animals in 2019 were of highest priority and critical importance for human health2 .Collective efforts towards responsible use across all sectors are of utmost importance considering that these medicines are the sole therapy or one of few alternatives to treat life-threatening human diseases. It is important to highlight that, in the same year, an estimated 4 million human deaths were linked to antimicrobial resistance3.

Dr Javier Yugueros-Marcos, Head of the Antimicrobial Resistance and Veterinary Products Department, WOAH.

Going further in the fight against this threat to global health, WOAH has recently fully digitalised its global database into an online platform: ANIMUSE. This new system facilitates open access to global and regional data in an interactive way, while also featuring easier reporting, error checks, and data visualisation tools for Members providing the information.  

A key strength of ANIMUSE is its flexibility. Countries at any level of their surveillance programme can report on the platform. Even if a country’s insight on amounts of antimicrobials used in animals is limited, being able to join the platform fosters discussion and improvement over time.

Dr Carolee Carlson, veterinarian and epidemiologist for the Public Health Agency of Canada

In a world where the development of a new antibiotic demands over a decade of dedicated effort and an investment of 1 billion dollars, it becomes everyone’s responsibility to make sure that our current antibiotic arsenal remains effective for generations to come. The global health community must continue to champion this cause to safeguard tomorrow’s health.  

1 According to data reported to WOAH by the 80 participating countries that consistently provided antimicrobial quantities in animals from 2017 to 2019. 

2 According to data on antimicrobial classes reported for use in animals by 110 participating countries in 2019. 

3 Murray CJL et al. The Lancet 2022, Vol. 399, Issue 10325. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02724-0. 

About WOAH

WOAH works across borders to foster a One Health approach to global health. We recognise that the health of animals and the environment strongly depend on human activities. Their health determines our health, it’s everyone’s health.