Africa is taking a stand against antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The recent launch of the African Union Framework for Antimicrobial Resistance Control 2026–2030 gives the continent a common direction for tackling a major public health and development threat facing the world today. But perhaps the most important question is not whether Africa has a good framework. It is whether we can put it into action. We have learned from the last framework. African countries made big strides in developing policies and National Action Plans to tackle AMR. But there is still a major gap between promises on paper and real action. Data presented in August of 2026 during the development of the said roadmap highlights this gap. While 97.8% of African Union Member States have developed National Action Plans on AMR using a One Health approach, only 32.6% of these plans are funded, budgeted and tracked. That gap tells an important story. Africa does not necessarily have an AMR policy problem anymore, but it has an implementation problem. AMR occurs when bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites stop responding to medicines, making infections harder to treat and increasing the risk of severe illness and death. In 2021, bacterial antimicrobial resistance alone was directly responsible for an estimated 1.14 million deaths globally and was associated with 4.71 million deaths. More recent surveillance shows that one in six laboratory-confirmed bacterial infections is resistant to antibiotics, with sub-Saharan Africa continuing to carry the highest AMR mortality rates. One of the main drivers of antimicrobial resistance is the misuse and overuse of antimicrobial medicines in humans, animals, and agriculture Turning Plans into Real Action These statistics show why the AU Framework for AMR Control 2026–2030 is important. The previous framework helped countries establish AMR structures and develop national plans. But progress was uneven due to challenges in implementation, sustainable financing, multisectoral coordination, equitable access to services and accountability. The new Framework therefore needs to help the continent move from commitment to implementation and accountability. This matters because AMR is not a challenge that can be addressed by the health sector alone. The misuse and overuse of antimicrobials can occur in hospitals and communities, but also in livestock production, agriculture and food systems. Resistant organisms and antimicrobial residues can move between humans, animals and the environment. Addressing AMR therefore requires coordinated action across the entire One Health spectrum. The new Framework recognises this reality and provides direction across five strategic areas, covering surveillance; antimicrobial stewardship and access; prevention of transmission; governance, leadership and capacity; and education, advocacy and awareness. The challenge now is translating these priorities into action at country level. One of the most important shifts needed over the next five years is how we define and measure progress. While tracking efforts towards AMR control remains important, the real measure of progress is the change these efforts produce. Success must increasingly be measured by the change these activities produce. We must start asking different questions. Did prescribing practices change? Did governments allocate resources to AMR control? Did surveillance data influence policy and practice? Ultimately, the focus must move beyond what was done to what changed as a result. The AU Framework will be supported by an implementation roadmap that translates its priorities into clear outcomes, outputs, activities, indicators, annual targets, responsibilities and resource needs. This will provide Member States and continental institutions with a practical way to guide implementation, track progress and demonstrate results over the next five years. But a clear roadmap alone will not be enough. Implementation without financing will remain an ambition. National Action Plans may clearly identify what countries need to do, but without adequate financing, many of those priorities risk remaining on paper. This is particularly important given that while most African Union Member States have developed National Action Plans on AMR, few have plans that are costed, budgeted and monitored. AMR must therefore receive greater attention in national planning and budgeting. This requires making the case for AMR not only as a health issue, but also as a development, food systems and economic issue. It also requires stronger domestic ownership, with countries increasingly committing their own resources to implementing and sustaining their AMR priorities. This is why sustainable financing and accountability are central to the new Framework. Without them, the gap between ambition and implementation will remain External partners will remain important to Africa's AMR response, but sustainable implementation cannot depend entirely on donor-funded projects. Countries will increasingly need to integrate AMR priorities into national planning and budgeting processes. By 2030, one measure of progress should therefore be whether more countries have moved from having AMR plans to having funded, implemented and monitored AMR plans. Communication must also be part of implementation There is another gap that deserves greater attention: the distance between what AMR experts know and what policymakers, professionals and communities understand and act upon. A farmer deciding how to use an antimicrobial is part of the AMR response. So is a health worker deciding whether an antibiotic is necessary. A policymaker deciding whether AMR receives funding is part of the response, as is a journalist helping the public understand drug resistance. Communities, civil society organisations and young people also have a role in changing behaviour and holding institutions accountable. This is why including education, advocacy and awareness as a strategic goal in the AU Framework is important. Communication should not sit at the end of an AMR programme simply to announce what has already happened. It should be part of implementation from the beginning. Different audiences need different information. Policymakers need evidence that helps them understand the scale, economic consequences and development implications of AMR. Health professionals need continuous education and training. Farmers and food producers need practical information relevant to their work. Communities need simple, culturally appropriate information that helps them make better decisions. The media also have an important role in taking AMR beyond technical conversations and helping citizens understand why resistance matters to their everyday lives. The Framework itself recognises the need for wider engagement. The challenge is ensuring that education, advocacy and awareness receive the investment required to move people from awareness to understanding, and from understanding to action. Accountability will determine whether this Framework is different The AU Framework runs until 2030. Five years can pass very quickly. When we reach the end of this period, success should not simply be measured by how many countries still have National Action Plans, or how many AMR activities were reported. We should be able to demonstrate progress. More National Action Plans should be costed and funded. Countries should have stronger surveillance systems generating data that inform decisions. Healthcare workers should have better access to diagnostics and appropriate antimicrobials. Antimicrobial stewardship should be stronger, alongside infection prevention, WASH and biosecurity systems. From framework to action The launch of the AU Framework is not the end of a policy-development process. It is the beginning of a much harder phase. The next five years are about closing the distance between what we have committed to do and what actually happens on the ground. The Framework gives Africa another opportunity to do that. Its legacy will not be determined by how comprehensive the document is, but by whether its commitments translate into better systems, stronger financing, changed practices, informed communities and ultimately a stronger continental response to antimicrobial resistance. By 2030, we should therefore be able to answer one simple question: What changed? The writer is an award-winning public health communication specialist who contributed to the continental review and validation of the AU Framework for AMR control (2026–2030), as well as the development of its implementation roadmap and accountability mechanisms.
