World Health Organization at the International Court of Justice on the Intersection of Climate Change & Global Health
Newsletter Edition #242 [The Files Brief]
Hi,
We bring you one final update in 2024.
World Health Organization participated in the recent hearings on the climate crisis at the International Court of Justice earlier this month.
In this edition, we present WHO’s statements at the hearing. We will be tracking this in the future.
Thank you for reading.
If you find our work valuable, become a paying subscriber. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive. Help us in raising important questions, and in keeping an ear to the ground. Readers paying for our work helps us meet our costs.
Our gratitude to our subscribers who ensure we stay in the game!
We wish you a great 2025! Until later!
Priti
Feel free to write to us: genevahealthfiles@gmail.com
Find us on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/genevahealthfiles.bsky.social
I. CLIMATE AND HEALTH UPDATE
World Health Organization at the International Court of Justice on the Intersection of Climate Change & Global Health
By Nishant Sirohi & Priti Patnaik
WHO delivered oral statements to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the intersection of climate change and global health, and the urgent need for global action on Friday, 13 December, 2024.
WHO Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Derek Walton, WHO Legal Counsel, addressed the Court in the context of its public hearings on the request for an advisory opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. (Further information and the schedule of hearings see this ICJ press release.)
WHO Director-General's statement at the International Court of Justice - Responding to the Climate Change Health Crisis: [December 13, 2024]
Excerpts:
“….While the climate crisis is multi-faceted, from the perspective of WHO, it is fundamentally a health crisis. It is among the most significant health challenges facing humanity today.
And it is not a hypothetical crisis in the future. It is here and now.
Climate change and extreme weather are wreaking havoc on humans and their health, disrupting societies, economies, and development.
Without immediate action, climate-related increases in disease prevalence, destruction of health infrastructure, and growing societal burdens could overwhelm already over-burdened health systems around the world.
Mr President and honourable Members of the Court, WHO has been collecting evidence on the health impacts of climate change for over 25 years.
Let me briefly illustrate some of the impacts.
Disease transmission is already changing.
Transmission of diseases like malaria, dengue, and cholera could significantly increase as weather becomes more extreme, reducing access to safe water and contributing to the expansion of disease-carrying vectors, such as mosquitoes.
Noncommunicable diseases, including cancers and cardiovascular diseases, are all associated with climate change and air pollution.
WHO estimates that seven million deaths a year are linked to air pollution.
Increasingly frequent and severe weather events linked to climate change are causing deaths and injuries, while destroying health infrastructure and overburdening health systems.
We are seeing record-breaking and often lethal temperatures; the highest record was July this year. Megafires destroying homes; deadly hurricanes affecting island and coastal states; and floods that kill thousands and displace millions.
Already, an estimated 920 million children face water scarcity. This will almost certainly worsen as climate change increases the severity and frequency of droughts, contamination of water supplies, and water salinity in coastal areas.
Extreme weather further disrupts agriculture and other food sources, increasing food insecurity and malnutrition.
Crop yields and fisheries production are disrupted; fresh water supplies are degraded and depleted; eco-systems damaged.
Displacement will be massive, with 154 million people currently living less than one meter above sea level. Remember the Tuvalu story I told you earlier.
Millions are expected to be pushed into poverty, with an estimate of extreme poverty for more than 130 million people by 2030.
This will dramatically increase health burdens and disparities.
Higher temperatures also mean increased heat-related deaths and illnesses.
Addressing climate change is a matter of equity.
The health impacts of the climate crisis do not fall evenly on all populations.
Small Island Developing States and other low-lying coastal regions are especially at risk.
These states, known as SIDS, represent 1% of the world's population and economy and emit less than 1% of greenhouse gas emissions, and yet they are disproportionately and severely affected by climate change, sea level rise, and natural disasters.
Women, children, ethnic minorities, poor communities, migrants and displaced persons, older people, and those with underlying health conditions will suffer disproportionately.
As dire as climate change is for health, the situation is not yet hopeless, but the world must act now.
In recent years, WHO has cooperated closely with its Member States and United Nations agencies to develop response measures and health protection strategies.
In May 2008, the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of WHO, adopted Resolution 61.19 calling for WHO to take action on the health impact of climate change.
Since then, and together with the wider health community, WHO has worked to promote health in national and international climate change responses, including in the Paris Agreement on climate change.
But right now, not enough is being done. In our report published last month at COP29, WHO is clear about the need for mitigation and adaptation to protect and ensure health.
Unfortunately, mitigation is not yet on pace to be effective to avoid the most catastrophic impacts related to climate change.
Last year saw CO2 emissions reach their highest levels to date.
And while adaptation is important, we cannot rely on it, given the unknowns of climatic tipping points.
Fossil fuels also still account for 80% of global primary energy, due in part to massive fossil fuel subsidies by governments, estimated at over 600 billion US dollars per year.
As we stated in our recent report to COP29, only a rapid and equitable phase out of fossil fuels can protect the health of both people and the planet from the climate crisis.
At the same time, I want to stress that in working closely with Member States to study and recommend mitigation and adaptation measures, we also see many opportunities.
At all turns, we look to capture what we call the “co-benefits” of policies that both reduce climate change and improve human health.
Take, for example, air pollution.
The IMF suggests that pricing fossil-fuels in line with their health and environmental impacts could save roughly 1.2 million people from air-pollution related deaths each year.
Similar examples can be found in relation to mitigation and adaptation measures and outcomes for agriculture, access to water, prevention of communicable and non-communicable diseases, and more.
The value of health improvements from mitigation significantly outweighs the costs.
WHO estimates that every US dollar spent on specific climate and health actions will bring an average return of 4 US dollars.
In this way, the dichotomy sometimes suggested between the costs of taking action—or not—is false.
The failure to respond to climate change is undoubtedly the most costly approach.
This leads us to the necessity for global action.
Honourable Members of the Court, WHO was founded in 1948, as the world emerged from the devastation of the Second World War.
Like the United Nations of which we are part, WHO was born of the recognition that the only way to address shared health threats is with a shared response.
This was reiterated by the World Health Assembly, which determined, as with other global health challenges, that “solutions to the health impacts of climate change should be seen as a joint responsibility of all States”.
We cannot wait to address the climate crisis.
That means robust and sustained financing is essential, both in relation to limiting greenhouse gas emissions and in preparing health systems and other adaptation measures.
While developing countries are especially in need of assistance, ultimately all of us benefit from investments in climate change mitigation and from helping those bearing its burdens.
Addressing the climate crisis is about urgently protecting people, place, and planet—for a healthier world now, and for the future we leave our children….”
WHO’s Legal Counsel, Derek Walton on the role of science and technical evidence in the Court’s deliberations and WHO’s mandate as it relates to the climate change health crisis:
“…My intervention will address two issues to supplement the intervention that you have just heard from the Director General. The first is that the science and technical evidence should be at the heart of the court's consideration of the questions before it, guiding and informing the court as it conducts its analysis of the legal issues. The second is that the role and mandate of the World Health Organisation means that it is uniquely placed to address the court on the science and technical aspects of the health dimensions of the climate crisis.
As the Director General has explained, the climate crisis is a health crisis. Other organs of the United Nations system have recognised as much in seeking this advisory opinion, for example, the General Assembly explicitly referred to the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and it invoked prior resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly, and of the Human Rights Council, regarding the health impacts of climate change.
The court has also recognised that the environment cannot be considered separately from health, as it stated nearly three decades ago in its Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons: “the environment is not an abstraction, but represents the living space, the quality of life and the very health of human beings, including generations unborn”. The court has reiterated this in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros case, where it again stressed the great significance the court attaches to the respect for the environment, not only for states, but also for the whole of mankind.
Members of the court, WHO submits that the fact that the climate crisis is a health crisis, reinforces the need to ensure that science guides the court's advisory opinion in these proceedings. Science is key to understanding both climate change and the health dimension, and it should inform and guide the court's analysis of the legal issues before it. The court has on many occasions, taken great care to give weight to the science and to the technical evidence in its judgments, its orders and its advisory opinions, and in doing so, the court has frequently relied on the technical evidence offered by WHO and other international organisations on matters falling within their competence, and we submit that the court should do so again on this occasion.
In the advisory opinion context, the technical and scientific information offered by the specialised agencies of the United Nations on issues within their competence takes on yet another dimension, fostering alignment within the United Nations system and ensuring that states receive consistent guidance.
Members of the court, the World Health Organisation, is uniquely placed to address the court on the health aspects of climate change. WHO is a specialised agency of the United Nations, and it is the agency that is charged with acting as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work. It is also expressly mandated in its constitution to provide information, counsel and assistance in the field of health. Over the last decades, WHO has developed extensive technical and scientific expertise in the health impacts of climate change. Based on its close collaboration with its member states and health communities around the world, WHO has served as a repository for the best available scientific and technical evidence on these matters, and it has prepared technical assessments and practical guidance for states and other stakeholders on how to respond to the crisis.
If I can give you an example in 2016 in response to a request from the Human Rights Council to conduct a detailed analytical study on the relationship between climate change and the human right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, WHO prepared a submission to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, that submission highlighted three key points:
Firstly, as early as 1992, the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change recognised that negative health impacts to be one of the three main adverse effects of climate change. Specifically, Article 1 of that treaty defined the adverse effects of climate change as including those changes that have significant deleterious effects on human health and well-being.
Secondly, the submission explained that health can be protected against climate change by investing in adaptation funds and improving social and environment and environmental determinants of health, investments that are proven to save lives now, and that can also strengthen long-term resilience to climate change.
Thirdly, WHO’s submission underscored that mitigating climate change through policies to reduce carbon emissions can yield substantial health and economic gains.
Similarly, in 2021, WHO contributed to a joint statement of 15 United Nations entities on the right to a healthy environment, which was submitted to the 46th session of the Human Rights Council. The joint statement acknowledged the climate change crisis and reaffirmed that the rights of present and future generations depend on a healthy environment.
And in addition, as a repository of the scientific and technical evidence on these issues, WHO concurs with the overwhelming agreement among states international tribunals and other international organisations. But the IPCC reports represent the best available science on the causes and severe effects of climate change. For example, WHO refers extensively to the IPCC’s evidence in its written statement, and the Director General has today cited IPCC evidence on the health impacts of climate change and the pace of rising greenhouse gasses and temperatures.
Members of the court, as you consider the legal issues in this matter, we respectfully ask you to allow the science and the technical evidence to guide your analysis in particular, and as the Director General has just said, WHO respectfully requests the call to place health at the centre of its advisory opinion, and in this regard, to give full effect to the fundamental right of every human being to the highest attainable standard of health – as enshrined in the constitution of the World Health Organisation.”
II. PODCAST CORNER
Mpox's Lessons on Pandemic Preparedness
For years, Africa grappled with a steady rise in mpox cases and recurring outbreaks, yet the disease remained largely overlooked by the global community. It was only when the virus reached Northern countries that mpox began to garner international attention. This long-standing neglect is evident in the sparse data on the disease, the minimal investment in research and development of medical countermeasures, delayed regulatory approvals, and stark inequities in access to these measures.
In this Health Equity in Focus episode, Chetali Rao, a senior researcher at the Third World Network and an expert in biotechnology, intellectual property, and global health, discusses the pressing ethical, legal, and equity issues raised by the global mpox response and the role the Pandemic Instrument, an agreement currently under negotiation at the WHO, could play.
Chetali provides an in-depth analysis of the current landscape of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics, highlighting the stark inequities faced by developing countries in accessing these critical resources. She also examines the challenges of affordability, the monopolistic practices of manufacturers, and the consequences of relying on a few producers for lifesaving medical countermeasures. Finally, she addresses what could be a potential response to these issues, the Pathogens Access and Benefit Sharing System being negotiated at the WHO.
Listen here
This podcast promotion is sponsored by the Third World Network.
If you wish to promote relevant information for readers of Geneva Health Files, for a modest fee, get in touch with us at genevahealthfiles@gmail.com.
Did a colleague forward this edition to you? Sign up to receive our newsletters & support Geneva Health Files!
Global health is everybody’s business. Help us probe the dynamics where science and politics interface with interests. Support investigative global health journalism.