A Latin American rural family. Credit: Santiago Billy / FAO

By Marco Knowles
ROME, Sep 3 2024 (IPS)

Last July, we were confronted with alarming statistics: 733 million people experienced hunger in 2023, equivalent to one in eleven people globally. In Africa it was even higher, with one in five people going hungry. Climate change is a significant driver of this crisis.

Paradoxically, well intentioned policies to combat global warming may also be a cause of hunger, particularly for small-scale farmers in poorer countries, unless these policies are accompanied by measures to curtail their socio-economic downsides.

Gradual changes in temperatures and rainfall patterns reduce returns to farming, on which poor people largely depend, and sudden events like floods and droughts devastate their crops and livestock. According to the World Bank, climate change could push as many as 135 million more people into poverty by 2030. Urgent action to curb climate change is therefore essential to the fight against poverty and hunger.

Paradoxically, well intentioned policies to combat global warming may also be a cause of hunger, particularly for small-scale farmers in poorer countries, unless these policies are accompanied by measures to curtail their socio-economic downsides

However, if we are not careful, climate mitigation efforts can undermine progress on eradicating poverty and hunger. A recent example is the European Union´s Regulation on Deforestation-free products that was introduced in June 2023. This regulation is intended to ensure that products bought and consumed in Europe do not contribute to deforestation through the expansion of agricultural land for the production of cattle, wood, cocoa, soy, palm oil or coffee.

On the one hand, reducing deforestation is essential to combating climate change and can benefit many of the 1 to 2 billion people who depend on forests for their livelihoods.

But on the other hand, the costs of these policies fall disproportionately on rural poor people that do not have the resources and capacities to comply, including those that currently rely on clearing new lands for their livelihoods – estimated to account for about a third of deforestation.

As governments of 17 countries across Latin America, Africa and Asia had forewarned, the EU’s Regulation is already having severe negative impacts among poorer people in poorer countries, in particular small-scale farmers.

Without support, they face huge challenges in complying with the complex, new procedures, and at the same time they often lack the capacities and resources to maintain or increase their agricultural production without expanding the land area under cultivation – this is even more true in a context of a changing climate change that reduces farming yields.

While progress on the climate agenda must continue at pace, the socio-economic trade-offs of climate policies for different population groups – especially the most vulnerable – need to be considered from the outset. Countries, especially those in which poverty and hunger are concentrated, need to be supported and encouraged to couple green policies with measures that enable smallholder farmers to meet new conditions or to transition to new and dignified livelihoods.

Social protection – which includes policies and programmes aimed at addressing poverty and vulnerability – can play a key role in easing these transitions. In the short-term, by providing regular cash income in compensation for any adverse social impacts of climate policies and, in the longer-term, by combining these payments with technical support, skills training and livelihood interventions that can help people to adjust to and thrive under new policy regimes.

This approach is already being implemented in several countries.

In China, a forest protection act affected approximately one million public forestry workers and 120 million rural households by reducing access to forest resources. To mitigate these impacts, public employees received assistance, such as job placement services, unemployment benefits and pension plans. As a result, two-thirds of the affected employees were either transferred to alternative jobs or retired, while 124 million households benefited from an income transfer.

In Brazil and Paraguay, social protection and complementary agricultural programmes are supporting rural households to adopt more sustainable and profitable farming practices. Paraguay’s Poverty, Reforestation, Energy and Climate Change (PROEZA) programme, provides households participating in the country’s flagship social protection scheme, Tekoporã, with technical support and additional cash. Thanks to this, small-scale farmers are adapting their agricultural practices to be more resilient to ever more frequent droughts while also increasing their production of native crops such as yerba mate.

Similarly, in Brazil, the Bolsa Verde programme provides cash payments to beneficiaries of the national social cash transfer programme, Bolsa Familia, in exchange for maintaining or restoring forests, protecting water sources, and promoting sustainable agriculture.

Governments should be encouraged and supported in introducing and scaling-up social protection measures to ensure the poorest and most vulnerable do not bear the burden of addressing the climate crisis and greening the consumption of people in wealthier parts of the world.

We must therefore prioritize an approach that pays close attention to the social as well as the environmental consequences of policies to address climate change. Social protection programmes have a critical role to play building a future that is mutually beneficial to People and Planet.

Marco Knowles leads the FAO´s Social Protection Team. His areas of expertise include increasing access to social protection in rural areas and in leveraging on social protection for climate action. He also has substantive experience in providing evidence-based food security policy assistance and capacity development support.

Excerpt:

Marco Knowles leads the FAO’s Social Protection Team