Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Health: a case study of the Philippines

Abstract

Climate change and climate-sensitive disasters pose significant risks to human health. As climate change continues to intensify, the frequency and severity of various climatesensitive hazards is expected to increase. Increasing climate-sensitive hazards such as floods, typhoons and outbreaks of climate-sensitive diseases, present pertinent and growing risks that impact health. These rising health risks from climate change and climate-sensitive disasters are fast becoming a critical concern for global health. To address these risks, there is increasing need for health actors to engage in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA). DRR and CCA work towards common aims of reducing health impacts of climate change and climate-sensitive disasters. A large body of research recommends linking DRR and CCA to ensure coherent, effective, and efficient responses to current and future risks. Much remains to be gained from strengthening joint DRR and CCA action, and effectively linking the two approaches. Linking these approaches in health is particularly pertinent as health is a vital end-point of disasters and climate change, and important cross cutting issue in DRR and CCA. Currently there is a significant knowledge gap surrounding how DRR and CCA can be linked in health. There is limited published research empirically examining how these approaches can be linked in real-world contexts. Furthermore, linking DRR and CCA in health has been identified as a key challenge in managing health risks in resource-constrained countries, such as the Philippines. Therefore, this research empirically investigated how DRR and CCA can be linked in health in the Philippines. This research applied qualitative methods through a Case Study of the Philippines. Data collection methods used include: observations; policy analysis; 33 national, 13 regional and 10 local key informant interviews; and a national expert workshop. To supplement the Case Study seven global informant interviews were conducted. To understand how DRR and CCA could be linked in health, the research first investigated the overarching priorities and gaps for these approaches in the Philippines. Strengthening community implementation was the priority for DRR in health. Comparatively, strengthening the national programme was the priority for CCA in health. Identified gaps in DRR in health included inter- and intra-sectoral collaboration, and little involvement of the whole health sector in reducing disaster risk. Key gaps within CCA in health included limited governance and national leadership, and limited research to advocate for and inform CCA in health. These differing priorities present potential challenges for linking DRR and CCA in health. Additional challenges for linking these approaches highlighted in the Case Study included: the differing different status of implementation, and limited collaboration and coordination between DRR and CCA in health. Resilience was explored as a conceptual synergy for strengthening joint DRR and CCA action in health. The concept represents a possible uniting goal for the two approaches. However, stakeholders noted significant challenges in using resilience as the basis for a shared framework. To strengthen DRR and CCA links in health, resilience needs greater clarity, a shared operational definition among stakeholders and measurable indicators. Technical and operational synergies were identified as areas for linking DRR and CCA in health. These were categorised into no-regrets and climate-sensitive links. No-regrets links referred to those with net benefits for improving health, and reducing both disaster and climate change risks. These were particularly recognised as linked DRR and CCA by stakeholders at the local level. Climate-sensitive links represent specific activities which would require engagement of both DRR and CCA stakeholders; and explicit inclusion of both climate change and disaster risk data, as well as both DRR and CCA expertise. Finally, to enhance DRR and CCA links in health key recommendations from this research include: (1) strengthen no-regrets options as a starting point for linked DRR and CCA in health; (2) develop guidelines and a formal mechanism for linking; (3) prioritise local-level linkages; and (4) strengthen the empirical evidence base of how DRR and CCA in health can be linked. This research has contributed to the understanding of how DRR and CCA in health can be linked through examination of a country-level example. It provides concrete examples of application of, and challenges with, DRR and CCA links in health. Further, it lays the groundwork for future research and action towards linking these approaches.