HESO 449: Ecohealth SDS

The health impacts of climate change will be substantially different in Canada versus developing countries, as Canada has more autonomy and economic means to address climate change issues compared to developing countries.

However, the question concerning how Canada fares compared to other developed countries in an interesting question. If Kyoto can be used as an indicator of climate change acceptance and readiness to make changes, consider this: the EU was on board well before Canada, yet the US has still made no intentions of signing. Keeping in mind that Canada is home to some of the world’s richest natural resources, including water, where will Canada stand relative to other developed countries in leading initiatives to address climate change?

Through reading the Lebel & Forget article, it seems that the first step was changing health issues from only looking at treatment of diseases to increasing the overall health of the individual. Then throughout the 20th century there was increased knowledge and development of models that connected environmental health with public health, although the explanations were dominated by classical biomedical methods.

The reports that Lebel & Forget discussed were very interesting. The Lalonde report introduced factors such as the genetics, lifestyle, the environmental factors, and organization of health care that all are a part of and affect public heath.

The Rochon report included sociology and economics in order to assess public health and not only biological factors. Thus, not only the physical environment but the social and cultural environments and the economic environment. Also, the Rochon report addresses the human as an integral part of the environment. So, this report went beyond the biomedical approach stating that individuals are not soley responsible for their health as lalonde stated.

Whereas the Epp report had greater emphasis on a social support network and recommended that public health authorities should focus more on promoting health. Then Lebel & Forget go on to talk about the WHO, which proposed the Ottawa Charter for the Promotion of Health. This emphasized the importance of ecology and taking a holistic approach including the equal participation of men and women.

I think the shift between all these reports ultimately led to the ecohealth approach. There is at least a small chunk of the ecohealth approach in each of the reports that were discussed, which led to the WHO introducing a full take on the concept of ecohealth. I don’t think that these changing trends led to the acceptance of climate change as a public health concern. I think it started with just recognizing that the environment was linked to public health even if biomedical strategies were still being used. This recognition led to the ecohealth approach, which directly addresses climate change as a public health issue and takes into account social and economic factors that we have been discussing so far in the course.

Now the question is how is the ecohealth approach is continuing to evolve as Ben Brisbois mentioned that he wasn’t sure where the approach stood as of 2011?

What intrigued me about Lebel & Forget’s article were the two stances that were recognized in our society as “Human being as an integral part of the environment” rather than “human beings being in conflict with the environment”. I think that the only way we can be a ‘necessary component’ to the environment is the mend the detrimental effects that we have done thusfar. At the same time, the term ‘conflict’ seems a little harsh, considering that there EcoHealth approach as a prime example is a collaborative one that takes caring for the environment into account as one if its main pillars. A clash between nature’s course and our modifying the environment does certainly exist, as the effects of climate change are directly affecting our health. Policies in Quebec that were brought up in the article point to a strong move toward taking the environment into equal consideration with the community’s involvement in health proactivity.

Joseph LaDou, the author of the beginning excerpt of the journal, shared his interesting take from his readings on globalization as a reality; no one can stop it from happening, and the only way to evade some if its negative consequences is to learn how to cope with it so as to not be harmed by it’s drawbacks. To me it was not clear in this excerpt what is meant by these drawbacks but I can only assume that it is not leading in the direction of sustainable development. So the question comes to be How can we ‘cope’ with globalization, and it coping the key to making sustainable development a reality for all?

In thoughts of April’s question, I think that because Canada has such diverse and rich resources, there is all the more reason to protect them from what LaDou believes are the uncontrollable effects of globalization. There is so much political weight to issues such as the Kyoto that I believe the EcoHealth approach cannot fully begin to encompass; the resources we have are sought after by private sectors (both within Canada and internationally; lumbar, for instance) and I can see how it would seem natural for policy makers to want the most effective economic advancement for the country. Once we see a change in the attitudes of policy makers (like the example in Quebec) we will begin to integrate environmental policies that inherently involve communities nationwide, perhaps taking a stance that, I daresay, is not one of “conflict” but rather of harmony.

Policy-making depends on global paradigms. In one of my classes, we’re talking about whether our world is focused more on national security or human security. Something like Ecohealth, which is in essence a more horizontal, bottom-up approach falls more towards human security because it respects individual rights and through its trans-disciplinary stance, it includes all stakeholders, regardless of their power status. Unfortunately, over the past decade, global events and the resulting politics have not really allowed the paradigm shift to occur. An example brought up in my class was the effects of Sept.11th. Global health politics before these events were shifting towards a more ecological and holistic perspective, but with the threat of “terrorism,” human security approaches all but vanished, as national security came back under the spotlight.

The economic crisis has also had an inhibitory effect on the shift towards more holistic approaches. As Ben mentioned, there was some doubt as to whether enough funding could be provided for ecohealth projects, but to answer Alcina’s question: I just received an update that the IDRC is still going strong with ecohealth. The document is uploaded under “Resources.” It’s exciting to see approaches such as ecohealth thrive because it means that the global political climate is slowly becoming more receptive of the importance of an ecological perspective.

Some studies have been conducted regarding the effects of framing climate change as a public health issue. The results have shown that even people who self-identify as climate skeptics/ disengaged from the topic tend to become more interested in climate research when it’s framed as affecting human health. It’s important for advocates of ecohealth to be aware of how the framing of issues will affect the degree to which the public is engaged. Don’t forget to check out the IDRC announcement!

It’s interesting to bring up the question of ‘Is Climate Change a Public Health Issue’ because as of now, it only seems sensible to me that they go hand in hand: we affect the environment and the environment in turn affects us. Actually, if you talked to me last summer, I would have considered human health and the environment to be two separate issues altogether. A friend of mine – who has a passion for environmental science – always would bicker about what came first: the environment or humans. We never considered them together back then.

It’s this kind of mentality – that disciplines seemingly don’t mix – that has inhibited the Ecohealth approach (and any other holistic approach) from being used more often in practice. Going back to the case study presented last class on the marine reserve in Mnazi Bay (created to preserve the natural environment) and the food security crisis over fish that the local people faced due to this marine park, it’s easy to see how the environment and human health can seem like two opposing entities (at least in the short run). On one end, people need to eat. On the other hand, the fish populations will eventually die out along with the surrounding environment and kill the entire food supply for the locals.

At least in my case, my paradigm was broadened when I took LFS 250 last term, where I learned about where my food comes from, and the importance of the land & environment in sustaining our food and ultimately our lives. It was after I acquired this knowledge that I was able to fully grasp the big picture and link the environment and human health together. The key to understanding any sort of holistic approach like ecohealth is knowledge, I think. If you gain the knowledge from all sorts of paradigms shared by other people, then it is easier to stand on more of a middle ground instead of being strictly anthropocentric (human health focused) or eco-centric (environment focused).

So yes, I do believe that climate change is a public health issue. I just don’t think that everyone else sees it.

Compared to the climate impacts on the health and well-being of individuals and populations in developing regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa, the climate-related impacts in Canada is simpler and less severe to deal with. To start off, as mentioned in the Ecohealth journal article, “Climate change and Health in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Case-Based Perspective,” individuals in this region have to deal with multiple stresses from climate change along with other non-climate stressors. Some of the long existing problems in given in the article include undernutrition, water stress, cholera, malaria, and human migration. The long existing pressures of poverty and HIV/AIDS make this region exceptionally challenging to adapt to the negative health impacts of climate change. Vulnerability of the region to climate change is further intensified by other factors including poor public health, poor health care services, poor governance, high debt, economic globalization, unequal terms of trade, disrupted ecosystems, and changing disease patterns. This complex relationship between different stressors suggests that the solutions must be based on a broader, multi-sectoral ecosystem approach to analyze the climate change.

Many developing countries suffer from climate change substantially despite the fact that they produce so little carbon footprints relative to developed countries. Perhaps the most simple and practical way for us to indirectly aid the suffering before we take part in finding development solutions to the climate change is to lower our individual carbon footprints and be mindful of our daily activities that could possibly add burdens to people who are innocent.

Climate change is definitely a public health issue. From the effects on the atmosphere and entrance of harmful rays to the disaster it makes out of weather, it is an issue that affects us more than people think. As far as climate change in Canada, I found it interesting that over the past like 10 years Canada has changed and adopted new climate change laws just about every year, failing to reach any goals or make any progress or be fully accepted by the administration. I think the effects in Canada are a lot harder to see then in more rural, poor countries like Africa, where climate change is like kicking someone when they’re already down and affects them more since they live off/make jobs off the land