In the World Health Organization policy document, “Analysis of the nature and contribution of innovative health financing mechanisms in the WHO African Region,” the writers explain: “All healthcare policies, interventions and practices need funding for development and implementation. Health financing is one of the critical building blocks of every health system.”

The WHO publication educates readers on how health care is being financed currently: “Tax on sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages seems to be the biggest mechanism discussed on the African continent ... This is to reduce sugar consumption, a well-established factor linked to obesity and its associated noncommunicable diseases and diabetes in (for example) Mauritius. In South Africa ... this was done under the Health Promotion Levy (HPL) to reduce the high intake of sugar-sweetened drinks, with their associated health risks. This led to an 11% increase in the cost.” 

The writers’ analysis discovered that, while beneficial, taxes alone would not solve what they call “high-risk behaviour patterns.” “Sin taxes seem to be successful when implemented as part of a cluster of mechanisms to improve the health of the population. In addition to appropriate excise taxation policies, there is a need for complementary non-tax measures that can be effectively targeted at specific consumers and high-risk behaviour patterns. Educational programmes and regulatory interventions to discourage risky and hazardous consumption of unhealthy goods are necessary to complement the excise tax regime.” 

The creators of this policy document utilized the Taylor & Francis open access article, “Nutrition related non-communicable diseases and sugar sweetened beverage policies: a landscape analysis in Zambia,” which was produced by scholars in the Global South. 

The Taylor & Francis open access research, led by Dr. Mulenga Mukanu, explained why getting such policies in place to disincentivize consumption of unhealthy products is difficult. “Sub-Saharan African countries ... are targets for global corporate expansion by the sugar-sweetened beverages industry.” In their research, Mukanu and her team set out to "identify opportunities to strengthen policies relating to sugar-sweetened beverage taxation in Zambia.” 

Giving some background, the paper explains that reducing consumption of such beverages is a life or death matter: “In Zambia, nutrition-related non-communicable diseases (NR-NCDs) occur, in addition to, the challenges of undernutrition and micronutrient deficiency. NR-NCDs were estimated to account for 29% of all deaths in Zambia in 2018.” Evidence suggests the problem is getting worse, and one “local modeling study showed that a 25% tax on SSBs (sugar-sweetened beverages) could reduce SSB consumption and generate additional revenue for the Zambian government. The study showed that reducing SSB consumption could significantly contribute to the reduction of premature deaths especially among young women.” 

Finding that “the health sector’s commitment to regulate sugar-sweetened beverages conflicted with the manufacturing sector’s priorities for economic growth,” the researchers advise that: “opportunities exist to strengthen the existing taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages in Zambia. These include a more inclusive consultation process for policy formulation and comprehensive monitoring of risk factors.” 

Read the WHO study here, and the Taylor & Francis research here. 

“Integrating health in urban and territorial planning: a sourcebook,” created by UN-Habitat and the World Health Organization, is intended for “urban leaders, health and planning professionals,” in order to “provide the health dimension in the practice and implementation of urban and territorial planning. It is designed as a tool to assist national governments, local authorities, planning professionals, civil society organizations and health professionals, by helping to improve planning frameworks and practice through the incorporation of health considerations, at all levels of governance and across the spatial-planning continuum.”  

The authors cite the Taylor & Francis open access article, “Equity in cycle lane networks: examination of the distribution of the cycle lane network by socioeconomic index in Bogotá, Colombia,” in this paper, including the piece as a highlight of “Social and environmental justice.” This article, published in the journal “Cities and Health,” features two researchers from Colombia, Luis F. Gomez, and Jose D. Pinzon. 

The authors explain why they decided to research this topic: “There is growing recognition about the relevance for promoting physical activity in urban settings, not only for its health benefits, but also for its contribution to sustainable urban development and environments. In this sense, active transportation such as walking and cycling for commuting purposes has ideal implications for human health, personal economy, and environmental reasons, including reduction of carbon emissions, one of the main causes of global warming.” 

The study’s findings, highlighted in the UN-Habitat/WHO policy document, explain: ”Inequities in health, avoidable health inequalities, arise because of the circumstances in which people grow, live, work and age, and also result from the systems put in place to deal with illness. The physical conditions in which people live, although shaped by political, social and economic forces, are mediated by the quality, or lack of, UTP (Urban Transport Planning). Social and environmental justice is not only about protection and clean-up, but also about creating quality living environments and environmentally healthy communities … Unless care is taken, the distribution of citywide improvements can exacerbate health inequalities. For example, a study has shown that regarding the cycle lane network in Bogotá, the wealthiest urban neighbourhoods had the best access.” 

Read the WHO study here, and the Taylor & Francis research here. 

Another Taylor & Francis article that benefited from the partnership with The Conversation Africa is “Quantifying international public finance for climate change adaptation in Africa.” Featuring two contributors from South Africa, this research was compiled to fill a gap where “there has been no comprehensive quantitative mapping of adaptation-related finance flows to African countries to date.” 

Their research “show(s) how finance commitments changed over the 2014–2018 period,” comparing ”the amounts provided for adaptation relative to mitigation," and "analysing the distribution of finance among different countries (in total and per capita terms), the financial instruments used, the role of different funders, the sectors targeted, and how commitments compare with actual disbursements of finance."

"The results are useful not only to decision-makers in the African context, but also in UNFCCC negotiations on climate finance, in the global stocktake of implementation of the Paris Agreement, and in discussions of how to scale-up climate-related finance in 2025 and beyond.” 

To put their research in context, and explain the difference between climate adaptation and climate mitigation, the European Environment Agency has some excellent definitions.

“Mitigation means making the impacts of climate change less severe by preventing or reducing the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere,” and “adaptation means anticipating the adverse effects of climate change and taking appropriate action to prevent or minimise the damage they can cause, or taking advantage of opportunities that may arise.” 

The Taylor & Francis open access research paper was one of the top 10 papers for Altmetric attention score that stemmed from this partnership in 2022. It was featured in The Conversation article, “Five ways in which finance for climate adaptation in Africa falls short,” and also appeared in 17 additional news outlets, including The Washington Post. 

In addition, this open access research was utilized by three organizations for their policy documents — The Stockholm Environment Institute, The Council on Foreign Relations, and The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

In the FAO report, “Leveraging COVID-19 recovery strategies to build climate-smart agrifood systems in developing countries,” the research was cited in section 3, “Supporting other green investments in the rural economy.” 

The FAO report explains: “gaining access to climate financing requires a precise description of the specific ways in which the investments will contribute to climate-related transformational change."

"Project designers should clearly indicate whether the projects to be supported with climate financing will build on ongoing cooperation (e.g. with regional development banks) and will be reoriented them toward climate-resilient development by covering incremental costs of these changes, or advocate for new interventions, such as policy reforms, the development of new markets, and capacity building."

"This will not be easy. A recent analysis of climate financing found that funders have not been very successful at targeting climate adaptation finance to the most vulnerable countries in the developing world.” 

 Read the FAO study here, and the Taylor & Francis research here.