Attachments
Ritu Bharadwaj, N Karthikeyan and Tom Mitchell
Summary
In many communities, climate change severely hampers the four pillars of food security.
• Disrupted weather patterns and frequent extreme weather hamper agriculture, making food less available.
• Rising food prices, social inequalities and poor infrastructure worsen food accessibility.
• Climate-induced health issues and food safety concerns (for example escalating illness, difficulties storing food and increased pesticide use) compromise how people and countries can utilise food.
• Fluctuating incomes and harvests, and disrupted supply chains, make food systems less stable.
Ensuring food security amid escalating climate impacts requires immediate and concerted efforts. The solutions are known, but least developed countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) need comprehensive support from the global community.
Brazil’s 2024 G20 presidency could mobilise resources and cooperation.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2023 Synthesis Report warns that climate impacts are already more widespread and severe than expected, and risks are escalating. By 2030, climate change may drive 100 million more people into extreme poverty, and could cost 72 million full-time jobs globally. Water scarcity could affect 3.2 billion people. By 2050, with a 2°C global temperature rise, 80 million additional people could be facing hunger.
Climate shocks often force households into harmful coping strategies like skipping meals, pulling children out of school and selling productive assets. In contrast, social protection programmes improve health, nutrition and livelihoods. For instance, households in Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Programme (PSNP) maintained or improved their living standards between 2004 and 2010 despite droughts, with 62% avoiding asset sales and 36% not using savings for food. Similarly, Kenya’s Hunger Safety Net beneficiaries maintained living standards during the 2008–2011 droughts, while those not covered cut spending by 10%. In Bangladesh, the Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction Programme increased per capita income by 42% and doubled household assets over three years.
Globally, social protection programmes are integral to development. Nearly 45% of people benefit from at least one social protection programme, but social assistance reaches only about 25% of vulnerable populations.
Importantly, providing anticipatory social protection before climate shocks strike offers cost-effective resilience. A study in Ethiopia and Kenya found building resilience is more economical than post-crisis humanitarian responses. Similarly, a broad-based global World Bank study highlighted that every US$1 invested in resilient infrastructure yields US$4 in benefits, and a UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction study indicated that every US$1 invested in risk reduction saves up to US$15 in post-disaster recovery.
This paper discusses social protection programmes, and their readiness and effectiveness in delivering food security, in eight countries with diverse climate risks.
It draws on analysis carried out using the Anticipatory Social Protection Index for Resilience (ASPIRE) toolkit for Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Malawi, Pakistan, Senegal and Uganda. Within each country, social protection policies, systems and three social protection programmes were evaluated. ASPIRE food security indices were developed representing the four pillars of food security.
Ethiopia had consistently high scores, particularly in utilisation (78) and availability (67). This is attributed to effective targeting mechanisms, comprehensive policies, and significant investments in infrastructure and early warning systems. Senegal excelled in utilisation (78), thanks to strong health and nutrition programmes.
However, it faces challenges in extending healthcare coverage and supporting migrant communities. India scored relatively well in availability (55) and stability (64) despite difficulties with financial preparedness and identifying eligible beneficiaries.
In contrast, Malawi scored 33 for stability, hindered by resource limitations and heavy reliance on external donors. Bangladesh and Pakistan scored poorly on availability and stability, largely due to ineffective targeting and resource limitations. Uganda and Ghana showed moderate scores across all domains. Notably, Uganda’s anticipatory health interventions reduced malaria during rainy seasons. However, both countries need better implementation and inter-agency coordination.
LDCs and SIDS often have underdeveloped early warning systems for climate hazards. Inefficient decision making and poorly coordinated delivery slows support during crises. Financial constraints pose significant barriers. Countries face varying climate risks and have widely differing social protection systems. Therefore, each will need customised strategies, addressing the following areas, which are discussed in Section 3.