From Global Funding to Local Action: Partnership-Based Financial and Operational Coordination for Epidemic Preparedness in Guinea

Background and Objective Epidemic preparedness requires coordination between funding, logistics, institutional responsibilities and field operations. This poster presents a descriptive review of financial and operational coordination across avian influenza (H5N1) and Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF) initiatives in Guinea, with a focus on partnership-based implementation and documented field activities. Methods A comparative descriptive review of project implementation and financial reporting was undertaken, focusing on resource management, expenditure categories, field coordination, institutional collaboration and documented activities. No causal impact assessment or cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. Results H5N1-related activities were implemented in Coyah, Forécariah and Boké. During a six-month period, 180 farms were reached. A knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) survey found that 59% of respondents reported not knowing about avian influenza. In Koundara, CCHF-related activities involved community assessment, tick surveillance and engagement with human-health and animal-health stakeholders. Implementation was ongoing at the time of reporting. The combined FEVER/H5N1 financial reporting profile documented the following expenditure categories: programme activities, supplies, missions and training (40.4%); salaries and taxes (36.5%); field team allowances (9.0%); consultant fees (7.6%); general and administrative costs (5.0%); and indirect costs and laboratory support (1.6%). These percentages describe a combined reporting scope and cannot be attributed exclusively to H5N1 or CCHF. Discussion and Limitations The initiatives illustrate the operational importance of aligning financial oversight, procurement, field logistics and institutional responsibilities across One Health partners. However, expenditure distributions do not demonstrate efficiency, cost-effectiveness or measurable improvements in epidemic preparedness. The review is descriptive, without a comparison group or formal impact evaluation. Financial reporting combines FEVER/H5N1 activities, while CCHF implementation was ongoing. Minor differences in percentage totals reflect rounding. Conclusion Coordinated financial and operational management can support the implementation of locally delivered One Health activities. Future initiatives should strengthen project-specific expenditure tracking, implementation monitoring and governance indicators to assess financial performance and operational outcomes more rigorously. Conference: Geneva Health Forum 2026. Resource type: Scientific poster.