Global health and climate policies often fail to account for significant differences in health risks faced by men and women. This oversight can lead to ineffective strategies that don’t fully address these disparities across different regions and stages of life.
Consider the health impact of cooking fires: women are more frequently affected, yet men experience higher mortality rates from smoke inhalation during their adult years. Similarly, heatwaves pose greater risks to women in Europe, while in Latin America and the Caribbean, men are nearly twice as likely to succumb to heat-related causes, as reported by the Global Burden of Disease study.
However, the systems that monitor climate change and health effects often merge gender-specific data into a single figure, losing critical insights. An audit of four major systems, including the Belém Adaptation Indicators and the WHO’s health ministry survey, found that out of 45 indicators measuring human impact, only one distinguishes between men and women.
These reports often rely on sex-separated data from surveys and death registers, yet publish only consolidated totals. This simplification affects decisions on climate policy and funding, influencing everything from philanthropic investments to government strategies assessed through adaptation scorecards.
At the ongoing UN climate summit, Cop31 in Turkey, there’s a chance to redefine future reporting on gender-specific climate health impacts.
Understanding Misleading Data
Climate risk is influenced by sex and gender. Biological factors, like physiological responses to heat and smoke, differ between sexes. Social roles also play a part, affecting who is exposed to certain risks, such as working in extreme heat or cooking over open fires.
While women often face greater overall risks, only detailed data can reveal true disparities. For instance, although cooking smoke more severely affects women’s health, it results in higher mortality for men because of existing health conditions from other exposures.
Mohammad Rakibul Hasan
It’s crucial to understand these differences to determine where interventions are needed. While a single statistic may seem comprehensive, it obscures vital details that could guide effective policies.
Our assessment of 211 indicators found that only the Lancet Countdown’s record of outdoor workers recognizes gender differences. In the 166 indicators on plans and systems, merely five incorporate sex or gender.
A Matter of Publication, Not Data Deficiency
The data necessary to address these gaps is often available. For instance, some indicators in the Lancet Countdown are initially separated by sex but later merged for publication. The Belém indicators rely on standard data that can easily be disaggregated by sex in future reports.
Where data is genuinely lacking, funds from climate and health organizations could help fill these gaps. The Belém indicators will soon become a benchmark for climate adaptation, and the specifics of these indicators are yet to be finalized.
Decisions about what these indicators will measure and whether they will be broken down by gender are pending. These decisions are expected in November 2027, and countries will adapt their reporting systems accordingly. Past records show limited gender-specific considerations in proposed and adopted health indicators.
The upcoming formation of a technical group at Cop31 will determine if sex-specific reporting becomes a norm. With proper representation, future climate adaptation efforts can better serve both men and women.
Original Story at theconversation.com