Search

Since 2015 there has been a surge of international agendas to address a range of global challenges: climate change (Paris Agreement), sustainable development (Agenda 2030), disaster risk reduction (Sendai Framework) and sustainable urban transformation (New Urban Agenda). Health is relevant to all of these agendas. Policymakers must now translate these global agendas into national level policies to implement the agreed goals in a coherent manner. However, approaches to synergise health activities within and across these agendas are needed, in order to achieve better coherence and maximise national level implementation. This research evaluated the framing of human health within these agendas. A content analysis of the agendas was conducted. Findings indicate (i) the importance of increased awareness of health systems strengthening as a helpful framework to guide the integration of health issues across the agendas, (ii) only two health themes had synergies across the agendas, (iii) the lack of a governance mechanism to support the integration of these four agendas to enable national (and sub-national) governments to more feasibly implement their ambitions, and (iv) the vital component of health leadership. Finally, planetary health is a relevant and timely concept that can support the urgent shift to a healthy planet and people.

Changing mobility patterns combined with changes in the climate present challenges and opportunities for global health, requiring effective, relevant, and humane policy responses. This study used data from a systematic literature review that examined the intersection between climate change, migration, and health. The study aimed to synthesize policy recommendations in the peer-reviewed literature, regarding this type of environmental migration with respect to health, to strengthen the evidence-base. Systematic searches were conducted in four academic databases (PubMed, Ovid Medline, Global Health and Scopus) and Google Scholar for empirical studies published between 1990-2020 that used any study design to investigate migration and health in the context of climate change. Studies underwent a two-stage protocol-based screening process and eligible studies were appraised for quality using a standardized mixed-methods tool. From the initial 2425 hits, 68 articles were appraised for quality and included in the synthesis. Among the policy recommendations, six themes were discernible: (1) avoid the universal promotion of migration as an adaptive response to climate risk; (2) preserve cultural and social ties of mobile populations; (3) enable the participation of migrants in decision-making in sites of relocation and resettlement; (4) strengthen health systems and reduce barriers for migrant access to health care; (5) support and promote optimization of social determinants of migrant health; (6) integrate health into loss and damage assessments related to climate change, and consider immobile and trapped populations. The results call for transformative policies that support the health and wellbeing of people engaging in or affected by mobility responses, including those whose migration decisions and experiences are influenced by climate change, and to establish and develop inclusive migrant healthcare.

Climate change poses a range of current and future health risks that health professionals need to understand, track, and manage. However, conventional monitoring and evaluation (M&E) as practiced in the health sector, including the use of indicators, does not adequately serve this purpose. Improved indicators are needed in three broad categories: (1) vulnerability and exposure to climate-related hazards; (2) current impacts and projected risks; and (3) adaptation processes and health system resilience. These indicators are needed at the population level and at the health systems level (including clinical care and public health). Selected indicators must be sensitive, valid, and useful. And they must account for uncertainties about the magnitude and pattern of climate change; the broad range of upstream drivers of climate-sensitive health outcomes; and the complexities of adaptation itself, including institutional learning and knowledge management to inform iterative risk management. Barriers and constraints to implementing such indicators must be addressed, and lessons learned need to be added to the evidence base. This paper describes an approach to climate and health indicators, including characteristics of the indicators, implementation, and research needs.

A complex, whole-of-economy issue such as climate change demands an interdisciplinary, multi-sectoral response. However, evidence suggests that human health has remained elusive in its influence on the development of ambitious climate change mitigation policies for many national governments, despite a recognition that the combustion of fossil fuels results in pervasive short- and long-term health consequences. We use insights from literature on the political economy of health and climate change, the science–policy interface and power in policy-making, to identify additional barriers to the meaningful incorporation of health co-benefits into climate change mitigation policy development. Specifically, we identify four key interrelated areas where barriers may exist in relation to health co-benefits: discourse, efficiency, vested interests and structural challenges. With these insights in mind, we argue that the current politico-economic paradigm in which climate change is situated and the processes used to develop climate change mitigation policies do not adequately support accounting for health co-benefits. We present approaches for enhancing the role of health co-benefits in the development of climate change mitigation policies to ensure that health is embedded in the broader climate change agenda.

Climate change adaptation in the health sector requires decisions across sectors, levels of government, and organisations. The networks that link these different institutions, and the relationships among people within these networks, are therefore critical influences on the nature of adaptive responses to climate change in the health sector. This study uses social network research to identify key organisational players engaged in developing health-related adaptation activities in Cambodia. It finds that strong partnerships are reported as developing across sectors and different types of organisations in relation to the health risks from climate change. Government ministries are influential organisations, whereas donors, development banks and non-government organisations do not appear to be as influential in the development of adaptation policy in the health sector. Finally, the study highlights the importance of informal partnerships (or 'shadow networks') in the context of climate change adaptation policy and activities. The health governance 'map' in relation to health and climate change adaptation that is developed in this paper is a novel way of identifying organisations that are perceived as key agents in the decision-making process, and it holds substantial benefits for both understanding and intervening in a broad range of climate change-related policy problems where collaboration is paramount for successful outcomes.

Enhancing the adaptive capacity of individuals, communities, institutions and nations is pivotal to protecting and improving human health and well-being in the face of systemic social inequity plus dangerous climate change. However, research on the determinants of adaptive capacity in relation to health, particularly concerning the role of governance, is in its infancy. This paper highlights the intersections between global health, climate change and governance. It presents an overview of these key concerns, their relation to each other, and the potential that a greater understanding of governance may present opportunities to strengthen policy and action responses to the health effects of climate change. Important parallels between addressing health inequities and sustainable development practices in the face of global environmental change are also highlighted. We propose that governance can be investigated through two key lenses within the earth system governance theoretical framework; agency and architecture. These two governance concepts can be evaluated using methods of social network research and policy analysis using case studies and is the subject of further research.