Food beyond survival

Bangladesh has learned to produce more food from limited land, but the next challenge is more demanding: producing food in a way that can survive climate shocks without destroying the ecological foundations of production.

Climate-resilient and environmentally friendly food-system development should therefore no longer be treated as a specialised programme.

It should become a development strategy connecting farmers, consumers, markets, water, soil, biodiversity, nutrition and public policy.

The food system begins long before food reaches a kitchen and ends long after it leaves a farm.

It includes seeds, land preparation, irrigation, fertiliser, livestock, fisheries, processing, transport, storage, wholesale and retail markets, consumption and waste. Climate change is disrupting every link.

Floods and cyclones can destroy crops and infrastructure; drought and heat can reduce yields; salinity threatens coastal agriculture; changing rainfall complicates planting decisions; and rising production costs can make farmers more vulnerable.

A 2025 review of Bangladesh’s crop sector identified temperature increases, changing precipitation, extreme weather, irrigation-water shortages, sea-level rise and biodiversity loss among the major threats to agricultural production.

This means resilience cannot simply mean distributing improved seeds after a disaster.

Resilience must be built into the system before the shock occurs. Bangladesh needs investment in climate-tolerant rice, pulses, oilseeds, vegetables and other crops suited to different agro-ecological zones.

Farmers also need better access to weather information, crop advisories, irrigation technologies, agricultural machinery, affordable finance and crop insurance or other risk-management instruments.

The World Bank’s B-STRONG programme, approved in 2025, illustrates the direction of integrated action by combining flood protection, agricultural recovery, improved irrigation and storage with climate-resilient production technologies.

Rice will remain central to national food security, but food-system resilience requires greater diversification.

Overdependence on a limited range of crops can increase vulnerability to climate and market shocks while narrowing dietary diversity.

Attention should be given to pulses, fruits, vegetables, fish, livestock and locally adapted nutritious foods.

Diversification can simultaneously strengthen farm incomes, improve diets and reduce pressure on particular ecosystems.

The environmental dimension is equally important. Agricultural productivity cannot be sustained indefinitely through greater extraction of groundwater, excessive chemical inputs and declining soil quality.

Soil organic matter, crop residues, compost, integrated nutrient management, biological pest control, agroforestry and efficient irrigation should receive institutional support.

In rice cultivation, alternate wetting and drying can reduce water use and greenhouse-gas emissions under suitable conditions.

FAO reports that such approaches can substantially reduce irrigation water use while supporting adaptation to drought.

These practices should be promoted through evidence and demonstration rather than imposed as uniform prescriptions.

Bangladesh’s coastal belt requires attention. Salinity, waterlogging, cyclones and tidal flooding are not isolated agricultural problems; they are food-system risks.

In some areas, crop calendars, freshwater management, salt-tolerant varieties, homestead production, aquaculture and livestock systems need to be planned together.

A climate-resilient food system must recognise that farmers often manage several livelihood activities simultaneously.

Policy should therefore support livelihood portfolios rather than treating crop production as a separate administrative sector.

The same principle applies to fisheries and livestock. Healthy wetlands, rivers, canals and coastal ecosystems are assets, not obstacles to development.

Pollution, indiscriminate filling of wetlands, habitat destruction and poorly regulated resource extraction can weaken food security while increasing climate vulnerability.

Restoring ecosystems can therefore be an economic investment as well as an environmental obligation.

Post-harvest losses deserve more attention. Producing additional food is not enough if substantial quantities deteriorate during harvesting, transport, storage or marketing.

Cold chains, rural roads, warehouses, drying facilities, digital market information and local processing can reduce losses while improving farmers’ bargaining position.

Food waste in urban areas also needs a policy response, including better consumer awareness, redistribution mechanisms and organic-waste management.

Markets are central to the transition. Farmers will not sustainably adopt environmentally beneficial practices if they bear the costs while traders and consumers capture most of the benefits.

Green standards, transparent pricing, producer organisations, accessible credit and incentives can make sustainable production economically rational.

Public procurement can also create demand for nutritious and sustainably produced food in schools, hospitals and social-protection programmes.

Technology can accelerate this transformation, but technology alone is not the solution.

Digital weather services, remote sensing, soil testing, precision irrigation and improved breeding can be valuable when farmers can afford and understand them.

Extension services must therefore move beyond one-way technology transfer toward continuous, local learning.

Women and young people should be treated not merely as beneficiaries but as producers and decision-makers.

Institutional coordination is a major challenge. Agriculture, food, environment, water, fisheries, livestock, health, local government and disaster-management institutions often operate through separate programmes. Yet climate risks do not respect administrative boundaries.

Bangladesh’s food-system planning therefore needs stronger coordination, shared data, resilience indicators and investment decisions based on agro-ecological realities.

Finance must follow this logic. Climate finance should not be confined to embankments or emergency recovery.

It should support soil restoration, water efficiency, resilient seeds, ecosystem conservation, storage, renewable energy, low-emission livestock practices and sustainable value chains.

The objective should be measurable resilience and environmental improvement, not merely expenditure against a project budget.

The transition must also be socially just. Small farmers, landless workers, women, fishers and climate-exposed communities have different capacities to absorb risk.

Policies that raise environmental standards without providing finance, knowledge or market access could unintentionally exclude poorer producers.

A resilient food system is therefore one that protects both ecosystems and livelihoods.

Bangladesh has already demonstrated that agricultural transformation is possible.

The next transformation must be broader: from increasing production alone to securing food, nutrition, livelihoods and ecological health together.

Climate resilience should not be an emergency label attached to agriculture after disaster strikes. It should become the organising principle of the entire food system.

The country that feeds itself in the coming decades will not simply be the country that produces enough food.

It will be the country that can produce nutritious food while protecting the soil, water, biodiversity and communities on which that production ultimately depends.

(The writer is a researcher and development professional)