DISCUSSION: WHAT KIND OF JUSTICE DO THOSE MOST AFFECTED BY CLIMATE CHANGE NEED AND PREFER? (ERASMUS+ TEACHING)

On Thursday, 12 February, the research meeting on 'Climate Change and Health' was held at the Centre for Legal and Social Research of the Faculty of Law of the National University of Córdoba (UNC), organised by the Climate Ethics and Development Foundation in a hybrid format.

The meeting provided a space for dialogue and exchange with territorial organisations and collectives, academic institutions, and public management actors working on issues related to the environment, health, and socio-environmental justice.

The conversation was facilitated by Dr Romina Rekers, coordinator of the Bioethics and Climate Change area of the Climate Ethics and Development Foundation, within the framework of the Erasmus+ Teaching programme, through academic cooperation between the University of Graz (Austria) and the National University of Córdoba.

This line of work promotes research aimed at analysing the ethical challenges of the climate crisis in relation to public health, human rights and public policy, including:

- Climate and health adaptation strategies in South America.

- Women's participation in policies on climate-sensitive diseases.

- The right to health in the context of the climate emergency before international bodies.

This research is supported by the Oxford–Johns Hopkins Global Infectious Disease Ethics Collaborative (GLIDE), funded by the Wellcome Humanities and Social Science Award.

The main objective of the meeting was to open a space for listening and dialogue with territorial actors to learn about their perspectives, exchange experiences and explore cooperation strategies around four guiding questions:

1. How can mechanisms for effective participation in the development of public climate and health policies be formulated?

2. What conceptions of justice hold up in the face of the climate crisis?

3. What does a fair and adequate response to the climate emergency entail from situated experiences?

4. To what extent is it appropriate to interpret climate resistance as an expression of climate justice, and to what extent as an active response to processes of socio-environmental destruction? What ethical and political implications derive from these frameworks?

One of the cross-cutting consensuses of the exchange was that participation cannot be reduced to merely formal or consultative instances. Several interventions pointed out that, in many institutional processes, existing participatory mechanisms operate as administrative procedures without any real capacity to influence decision-making.

In this regard, persistent obstacles to substantive participation were discussed, such as:

- The lack of adequate mechanisms for dissemination and access to information.

- Institutional and territorial inequalities in advocacy capacities.

- Limitations of non-binding public hearings.

- Connectivity gaps that reproduce exclusions.

- Tensions between technical, legal and community languages.

The importance of having specific institutional capacities to sustain robust participatory processes was also highlighted, including facilitation roles, transdisciplinary moderation and prior information instances that allow for the clarification of expectations and scope.

The legitimacy of climate and health policies depends largely on their social roots and their ability to incorporate local knowledge and territorial experiences.

The participating organisations stressed that the climate crisis is expressed in a profoundly unequal manner across territories, and that it is not possible to devise adequate responses without considering the specific conditions in which socio-environmental struggles unfold.

In particular, discussions emerged related to so-called sacrifice zones, where environmental degradation is linked to direct impacts on the health, well-being and rights of communities.

It was emphasised that climate justice is not only a global regulatory framework, but also a process built on community organisation, territorial resistance and coordination between social actors, local networks and academic institutions.

Another important theme of the meeting was the reflection on the tensions between the production of international concepts and frameworks—such as the Sustainable Development Goals or certain global adaptation metrics—and the real possibilities for implementation in local contexts.

Several interventions pointed out that climate policies often face a persistent gap between technocracy and everyday experience: measurement tools, statistical forms, and technological solutions do not always capture the social and cultural complexity of territories.

Within this framework, participants discussed the need to democratise climate information, strengthen public communication strategies and prevent environmental governance from being restricted to specialised language that excludes affected communities.

From the health sector, it was noted that the impacts of climate change on health are already evident in multiple dimensions, although they remain fragmented or insufficiently integrated into professional training.

Specific examples of environmentally-related pathologies were shared, and the urgency of comprehensive approaches that articulate health, environment, justice, and human rights was underscored.

Likewise, the value of building sustained educational and community spaces—including popular training experiences and interdisciplinary networks—that allow for a more adequate response to the emerging challenges of the climate crisis was highlighted.

The meeting reaffirmed the value of transdisciplinary spaces as fundamental areas for building guiding ethical principles and strengthening public policies on climate and health that are legitimate, inclusive and socially situated.

In a context of growing socio-environmental complexity, it was noted that fair responses require not only technical instruments, but also robust participatory processes, strengthened institutional capacities and active social organisation.

At the Climate Ethics and Development Foundation, we will continue to promote opportunities for dialogue with organisations and local actors, with the aim of planning future lines of academic, institutional and community cooperation during 2026.

Participating organisations and institutions

The meeting was attended by a wide range of socio-environmental organisations, academic institutions, public bodies and community networks, including:

- International Network of SDG Promoters (Córdoba)

- Foundation for the Development of Sustainable Policies (FUNDEPS)

- Mothers of the Ituzaingó Anexo Neighbourhood

- Córdoba Environmental Forum

- Youth for Climate

- Córdoba Multisectoral Environmental Group

- Córdoba Green Movement

- AC Mendiolaza Viva

- V.U.D.A.S. (Neighbours United in Defence of a Healthy Environment)

- Villa de Soto Beekeeping and Agricultural Cooperative

- Fondo Plurales

- Adelaida Foundation

- Alto Alberdi Neighbourhood Centre

- Interra

Representatives from different levels of public administration also participated, including:

- Municipality of Villa Carlos Paz (Environment Department)

- Salsipuedes Environment Department

- General Secretariat for the Environment, Circular Economy and Bio-citizenship

- Villa Ciudad Parque Commune (Environment and Health)

- Bioethics Department of the Ministry of Health of Córdoba

On the academic level, members of the following institutions were present:

- National University of Córdoba (UNC)

- Catholic University of Córdoba (UCC)

- National University of Villa María (UNVM)

- Free University of the Environment

- University of Graz / Goethe University Frankfurt

- CONICET – National University of Córdoba

The diversity of perspectives significantly enriched the exchange and allowed us to identify common challenges for strengthening public policies on climate and health.

The Climate Ethics and Development Foundation would like to thank all the organisations, institutions and individuals who took part in this dialogue. Their contributions are essential for continuing to build climate and health agendas that are ethically oriented, socially situated and democratically legitimate.