Climate Services for Health Return $3.60 to $68.40 per Dollar Invested, WRI Analysis Finds

Defining climate services for health

World Resources Institute defines "climate services for health" (CSfH) as the production and application of climate knowledge to enhance health decisions and services. The category includes early warning systems, disease surveillance integrated with meteorological data, vector analysis, public awareness campaigns and climate-resilient health facilities.

In a working paper published in May 2026 and supported by The Rockefeller Foundation, WRI used cost-benefit analysis to model how these upstream investments reduce climate-related sickness, death and emergency spending. The estimated economic returns range from US$3.60 to US$68.40 per dollar invested.

The wide band reflects different assumptions about local climate-health risk, programme scale, implementation cost and effectiveness. WRI emphasises that returns remain strong even under worst-case scenarios combining the lowest intervention effectiveness, highest cost and smallest projected health impact.

Modest budgets, large avoided losses

For a low- or middle-income country with a population of about 25 million, WRI estimates that delivering a full package of climate health tools costs roughly US$18 million per year — about 72 cents per person — with individual components ranging from US$1.4 million to US$5.9 million annually.

Compared with the 2% to 4% of GDP that countries typically spend on health, the CSfH investment is a small fraction. The analysis argues that the gap between cost and benefit is driven mainly by the high value of lives saved and illnesses prevented when action is taken before outbreaks or heat emergencies peak.

Case-level returns can exceed the headline range. WRI cites resilience investments in health facilities returning US$168 per dollar in Jamaica and US$317 in St. Lucia, and urban heat-health warning systems in Indian cities averaging around US$50 per dollar.

Why uptake lags despite the economics

Despite favourable cost-benefit ratios, climate services for health remain underused and underfunded in many countries. WRI points to limited understanding of what CSfH includes, fragmented funding between meteorological and health ministries, and difficulty financing collaborative planning activities that do not fit neatly into either budget.

The May 2026 release arrived months before September's El Niño warnings, but its logic applies directly to the current moment: seasonal forecasts only protect health if ministries can act on them. WRI's analysis is intended to give finance ministries a quantified case for investments that health and weather agencies have advocated qualitatively for years.

Growing political momentum

WRI notes that climate services for health are increasingly embedded in national and global strategies, including priorities under the Belém Health Action Plan launched at COP30. Over 90% of completed National Adaptation Plans identify the health sector as vulnerable and include at least one health adaptation measure; climate-informed surveillance is a commonly listed intervention.

As extreme weather intensifies in 2026, the institute's message is that preparation is not only a moral imperative but, on the evidence of its modelling, a financially rational one — particularly for countries facing simultaneous heat, flood and disease risks linked to a strong El Niño.