The health of the planet has a deep impact on human health. Our health relies on the fundamentals of nature: clean air, fresh water, natural food sources and contact with the natural world. But nature and biodiversity are declining at an alarming rate; global wildlife populations plummeted by 69 per cent on average from 1970 to 2022, according to the WWF.
“There are countless, multiple ways in which ecological destruction can affect human health,” says Peninah Murage, an Assistant Professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “The health benefits [of the natural world] are phenomenal.” One example from her own research: in London, temperatures and deaths related to heat exposure over a nine-year period were highest in the areas with the lowest levels of urban vegetation. Nature loss has also been linked to the increased transmission of infectious diseases including malaria, Lyme disease and West Nile fever, either because it increases the abundance of hosts or vectors, or changes their behaviours.
Nature is also an important source of many raw materials for life-saving drugs and vaccines. For example, a molecule sourced from the soapbark tree is used as a key ingredient in vaccines. And the blood of the horseshoe crab is used during the manufacture of many drugs because it contains an agent that helps to detect bacterial contamination.
The role of healthcare organisations
Health leaders are beginning to recognise the urgency of dealing with nature loss. Some 200 health journals have called on the UN, political leaders and health professionals to recognise that climate change and nature loss are part of the same environmental crisis, and must be tackled together to protect human health.
Yet, as things stand, health systems are almost entirely focused on carbon emission targets. While 75 health systems around the world have committed to lowering their carbon footprints, no similar targets exist for reversing nature loss. “Climate and nature are two sides of the same coin,” says Eva Zabey, Chief Executive of Business for Nature, a coalition of businesses and conservation organisations calling for action to reverse nature loss. “We need nature to tackle climate change and we can’t halt and reverse nature loss without a stable climate.”
More than 115 nations have agreed to designate 30 per cent of the Earth’s land and ocean area as protected areas by 2030, and the business world is catching up, too: 320 organisations have committed to disclose their nature-related dependencies, risks and opportunities, and a pilot group of 17 global companies has committed to setting science-based targets for nature. “It’s a strategic blind spot if a company doesn’t understand how it both impacts and depends on nature,” says Zabey.
So healthcare companies must also address the impacts they have on nature. Drug manufacture, for example, often depends on nature for raw materials, and can put pressure on water supplies in water-stressed regions and produce waste materials that could pollute the local water.
Among the companies committed to action on nature is GSK, which has set twin climate and nature goals for 2030. Its nature-positive goal means it is seeking to avoid or reduce its impact on nature and to protect and restore ecosystems where its operations take a toll. Those measures include sustainably sourcing natural materials used in drug production, ensuring that all of its sites have a positive impact on biodiversity, reducing waste from its products, supply chains and operations, and prioritising water usage and quality near manufacturing sites.
Multidimensional goals
Unlike the well-defined metric of carbon emissions in relation to climate goals, assessing progress against nature goals is multidimensional, with no single unit of measurement. But Claire Lund, Vice President for Sustainability at GSK, says the urgent need to protect nature has spurred the company to take action in parallel with its work on defining specific science-based targets. “This isn’t about getting it perfectly right. It’s about getting on with taking action on nature or it could be a big foe in climate adaptation and mitigation and business resilience,” she says.
One of the company’s first projects involved working to replenish the local water supply and improve local access to water near its manufacturing site in the Indian state of Maharashtra. “On top of helping to meet our water targets, that one project aims to also support climate mitigation, biodiversity improvements and the health of local people and communities,” says Lund. “To protect human health and to get ahead of human disease, we must protect nature,” she adds.
Although companies such as GSK, as well as H&M Group, Nestlé, LVMH and Tesco, are making progress in this area, they are still in a minority. While 83 per cent of Fortune 500 companies have set targets relating to climate change, only 25 per cent are taking action on freshwater consumption, 20 per cent on chemical and plastic pollution, and 5 per cent on biodiversity loss, according to McKinsey research.
Setting science-based targets for nature is complex compared with measuring carbon emissions, but that must not stop health systems and companies from trying. “If companies and financial institutions [can put] nature higher up on the agenda, that is absolutely going to trigger a shift in the whole system, economic and regulatory, that we operate in,” says Zabey.
Human health and the global economy depend on services that nature provides for free. Reversing the loss of those services is as urgent as acting on climate change for the future of the planet and human health.
