The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the University of Edinburgh’s Global Health Academy collaborated to publish a guide to support health experts as they engage in global environmental policymaking processes. The “insider’s landscape view” focuses on policy processes and events beginning in 2022 related to biodiversity, climate change, pollution, and food systems.

The authors explain that environmental changes bring health impacts, noting that nearly 25% of global deaths are attributed to economic decisions affecting the environment. However, they highlight that environmental treaties do not typically contain health provisions, and suggest there is a need to help incorporate the expertise of the health community into environmental negotiations and agreements. This action can ensure decisions do not compete with public health objectives, negatively impact health, or widen health inequities.

The report finds that little institutional capacity exists to address the environmental determinants of health outcomes and health inequities. Among the findings: only 12% of UNFCCC parties sent a health ministry representative to COP 26, even though many health ministries have a focal point on climate change. Only 16% of reviewed countries have assessed the health benefits of national climate mitigation policies. Only eight low- and middle-income countries reported receiving training on climate change and health for vulnerability and adaptation assessments. Only three health ministries reported receiving training on climate-resilient water safety plans. Only 26% of parties have pledged to reform their national health sector to be climate-resilient, sustainable, and/or low carbon.

Key recommendations emerging from this report include:

  • A convention on pandemics should include and align with multilateral agreements on biodiversity;
  • The Stockholm Convention and the Plastic Waste Partnership should pay increased attention to pollution from medical waste and its incineration;
  • When setting thresholds for chemical exposure, include all consumers by gender, age, or diet (currently some thresholds are based on “a middle-aged adult male”);
  • The draft global action plan on biodiversity and health should reference the health of children;
  • The post-2020 global biodiversity framework should contain robust and relevant health targets;
  • Governments should adopt the draft global action plan on biodiversity and health;
  • The health sector should have more input on biosafety and biotechnology, especially Digital Sequence Information (DSI) and synthetic biology;
  • Agreements that address malnutrition should use nutrition terminology that maximizes health outcomes, such as “nutritional security”;
  • Health actors should lobby during the lead up to climate negotiations, in addition to making statements during COPs and submitting statements to the UNFCCC Secretariat; and
  • Health indicators should be included in the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero’s (GFANZ) decision-making rubric.

The report seeks to identify possible entry points for health sector engagement in seven multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). For each MEA, the report identifies public health issues influenced by policies on the topic, which ministries negotiate, whether health ministers attend, key focal areas for health issues in 2022-2023, and any global health guidelines related to the MEA.

The guide was written by Liz Willetts, Jennifer Bansard, Pia Kohler, Paola Bettelli, Tanya Rosen, Mika Schröder, and Liz Grant, who emphasize that “a microphone within the negotiations is more powerful than a megaphone at its margins.” [Publication: Health in the Global Environmental Agenda: A policy guide | International Institute for Sustainable Development] [Executive Summary]