Why the climate change narrative is problematic
Focusing solely on climate change conceals the failures of our elected leaders and policymakers in improving food security.
Starvation, or “kere” as it is called in the south of Madagascar, is not a new problem. Every year, the southern part of the island is stricken by severe droughts, sandstorms and other weather disasters that destroy crops and deplete the food supply. Some of the earliest recorded widespread food shortages in the south date back to the early 1900s when the country was still a French colony. Back then, colonial officials believed that the land was made less productive by an invasive species and ordered the destruction of prickly pears, a cactus species native in the region, which was believed to be the culprit.
This policy contributed to destabilizing the local ecosystem which further worsened soil conditions. Ever since, the populations of the south, especially those living in the most remote villages have suffered from malnourishment, chronic hunger and, occasionally, starvation. Every year, funds are raised to help the south make it through another season. But this year, the region was hit by the worst drought in 40 years and the situation has gained the attention of international media, with headlines declaring “the first climate-change famine in the world”.
As someone who is involved in the field of humanitarian and development assistance, the strategic framing of the issue around climate change did not strike me as particularly problematic at first. I was not oblivious to the benefits of taking advantage of the current momentum around the climate crisis to encourage fundraising. This was not the first and certainly not the last time that such strategies have been used in the aid and humanitarian industry, and without condoning this practice, I assumed that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. What I did not understand was that this narrative was not just incomplete, it was in fact misleading and even detrimental to finding long-term solutions to the problem. Here is why.
Millions of dollars worth of international donations have poured in the “big south” to provide relief to the local populations but despite legions of experts and government officials flocking to the afflicted villages, no sustainable solution has been implemented and the problem is persisting. This situation poses a question on whether it is, in fact, a food supply issue resulting from climate variations alone or if there are deeper problems of bad governance coupled with vested interests in keeping the status quo that hinder efforts to fix the situation once and for all. By declaring the food crisis as a purely climate-induced phenomenon, aren’t we turning a blind eye to the significant structural, political, cultural, and institutional dimensions of the problem? Aren’t we releasing the country’s leaders and the aid community from any form of accountability?
First, framing the food security crisis as entirely climate change-induced disregards the consequences of a long history of systematic neglect that this region has been the victim of. From a lack of investments in infrastructure and basic social services to little representation in the country’s institutional structures, the south has long been perceived as a wild, distant and isolated region. This partly explains why some long-standing issues such as the disastrous road conditions or the lack of access to water and irrigation have never been addressed except on rare occasions where presidential candidates would fix portions of the national road as part of their campaigns.There remains extended stretches of roads which connect small villages between them that have been completely left behind, impeding economic activities in the region and making livelihood diversification away from farming nearly impossible.
Blaming starvation entirely on climate change is also ignoring that systemic corruption is barely concealed in Madagascar and that the country’s public service has been plagued with it since the early days of independence. Indeed, the country only ranks 149 out of 180 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2020. To make matters worse, the aid and humanitarian industries contribute to creating a conducive environment for corruption, misappropriation of funds and rent-seeking. It is but an open secret that significant portions of the money that is flowing from western aid agencies are either diverted from the intended beneficiaries or unevenly distributed to a few selected people or communities. And sometimes, donations are simply not distributed at all. It is not uncommon to find entire rooms full of unused donations inside public offices.
Additionally, aid has also fueled a culture of dependency amongst its beneficiaries. Local elites and power holders are not the only ones benefiting from the “free money”. The aid industry provides a living for thousands of people, including local businesses, middlemen, local organizations and even experts from the capital city. In the absence of alternative income-generating activities, the region’s economy is dependent on aid money. It is not surprising that among the members of the local populations themselves, there is not much appetite for sustainable solutions to solve widespread hunger.
To be clear, the argument here is not that climate change has no bearing on the current food insecurity crisis. Extreme weather conditions have been more severe and more frequent in many parts of the globe. It would be hard to deny that climate degradation accounts for the deterioration of farming conditions which aggravates food insecurity in the south. However, focusing solely on the climate component of the issue contributes to concealing the failures of our elected leaders and policymakers to improve food security and overall alleviate poverty through sound policies and political will. Supply-side policies focused on small farmers aimed at supporting crop diversification, improving farming systems and increasing access to inputs, capital and markets for example can help improve resiliency. To support these measures, an increase in national budget allocation to agriculture will be necessary. On the demand side, facilitating mobility and intra-regional trade by addressing the lack of infrastructure could support livelihood diversification and increase income. However, the best planning does not make up for poor implementation and that’s where transparency and accountability come into play. Cracking down on corruption and funds diversion would go a long way in making sure that public funds and international assistance are being properly utilized.
To answer the question posed in the title of this article, the climate-focused narrative is problematic because it is likely to hinder rather than promote a culture of accountability and transparency in governance and humanitarian aid management, therefore encouraging short-lived commitments and band-aid solutions to a complex problem that can’t be attributed to one single cause.