Climate change is creating different health risks for women and men across regions and stages of life but global monitoring systems are failing to capture these differences adequately. A new analysis has warned that combining gender disaggregated health data into single figures is concealing inequalities and weakening climate policies and healthcare responses.
The analysis highlights how exposure to extreme heat, household air pollution and other climate related hazards can affect women and men differently. Despite these variations, international climate and health assessments frequently present combined statistics making it difficult for policymakers to identify which groups face the greatest risks.
The researchers audited four major monitoring frameworks: the Belém Adaptation Indicators agreed at the previous UN climate summit, the World Health Organization’s survey of health ministries, a scorecard assessing countries’ climate plans on health, and the Lancet Countdown’s annual climate and health assessment.
Their review found that among 45 indicators measuring people’s lives across these four frameworks only one presented results separately for women and men.
The study emphasised that climate related health risks are shaped by biological differences as well as social roles, working conditions and access to healthcare.
For example, women are generally more exposed to household air pollution from cooking with solid fuels. However, men can face a higher risk of death from this exposure during much of adulthood because of existing heart and lung damage linked to smoking and occupational exposure to dust, fumes and diesel exhaust.
Heat related health risks also vary across regions. Research from Europe has found women to face higher risks of heat related deaths during certain heatwaves. In contrast, in Latin America and the Caribbean, men die from heat related causes at nearly twice the rate of women according to estimates from the Global Burden of Disease study.
These differences demonstrate why climate related health assessments must consider not only exposure to environmental hazards but also existing health conditions, occupations and access to essential services.
The researchers noted that health data is often initially collected separately by sex but later combined when transferred into international monitoring systems.
This practice creates an incomplete picture of how climate change affects different populations. It can also influence decisions about government spending, healthcare priorities and international climate adaptation funding.
The audit examined 211 indicators across the four monitoring systems to determine whether they captured differences between women and men. Of these, only the Lancet Countdown’s indicator measuring outdoor workers reflected such differences.
Among the remaining 166 indicators assessing policies, systems and environmental conditions only five mentioned sex or gender in some form.
The researchers argued that the issue is not simply a lack of information but also a failure to publish and use existing data in a more detailed format.
According to the analysis, several monitoring frameworks already rely on household surveys, death registers and workforce records that routinely collect information separately for women and men.
The Lancet Countdown’s own methodological documentation also shows that some indicators use sex-disaggregated data before combining the figures for publication.
Making this information publicly available separately could therefore improve monitoring without requiring extensive new data collection.
However, where information is genuinely missing or scattered, additional investment will be necessary. The researchers highlighted the important role climate and health funders could play in supporting better data collection and reporting.
COP31 Offers an Opportunity to Address the Gap
The ongoing COP31 climate summit in Antalya, Turkey, presents an opportunity to improve how the international community measures the health impacts of climate change.
The Belém Adaptation Indicators are intended to provide a global framework for assessing countries’ progress in adapting to climate change. However, their detailed definitions including the data sources and reporting methods are still being developed.
These technical specifications are expected to be agreed upon in November 2027.
The researchers also pointed out that gender representation in earlier proposals has been limited. Of the 16 expert proposals for health indicators circulated in May 2025, only three requested sex disaggregated results. By September 2025, that number had fallen to one. None of the eight health indicators adopted at COP30 included such reporting.
The technical working group responsible for developing the indicators was originally expected to be established in June 2026, but disagreements among governments delayed the decision until COP31.
The researchers called for experts with experience in gender sensitive statistics to be included in the process and recommended making sex disaggregated reporting the standard wherever the original data allows it.
The findings underline that effective climate adaptation must go beyond measuring overall progress. Understanding who is most affected, why certain groups face greater risks and whether resources are reaching those who need them is essential to building fairer and more effective climate and public health policies.