Aligning Climate and Food Security Policies in ASEAN
Published
ASEAN countries vary in their ability to address food security. More can be done at sub-regional levels.
Food security is an important developmental issue in Southeast Asia. Food security comprises four main dimensions, namely availability, access, utilisation and stability (See Table 1). Each dimension is driven by external factors, such as supply chain disruptions, and internal factors, such as price hikes. The Global Food Security Index (GFSI) shows only Singapore (28th) and Malaysia (41st) placing in the top 50 per cent of food-secure countries out of 113 countries in 2022. The findings show that ASEAN Member States (AMS) vary in their ability to address the four food security dimensions. Climate change affects all four dimensions, and AMS have responded with climate action appropriate to each dimension. More, however, needs to be done at the regional level.
In the near term, geopolitical factors such as US tariffs have created trade disruptions of food and feed commodities, but AMS appear to have adjusted well by switching to alternate markets, especially with respect to soybean and corn. In the longer term, however, AMS will have to reduce their dependency on imports of key inputs like fertiliser or food (wheat) and feed (soybean and corn). Additionally, there is a need to address structural issues, such as a smaller and ageing rural workforce. Reducing food security asymmetry in AMS, especially with respect to the Stability dimension (Table 1), will require improving policies, infrastructure, manpower and technologies that enable food security.
In October 2025, ASEAN endorsed a new five-year ASEAN Food, Agriculture & Forestry Sectoral Plan, 2026-2030, to guide regional cooperation and policy alignment. The plan tackles food security directly through six focus areas, of which two are directly linked to climate change — Sustainable and Regenerative Measures and Decarbonisation and Climate Resilience in Agriculture. These are important differentiators from the old 2016-2025 plan and offer hope that more attention will be paid to the climate-food security nexus.
Given climate change’s anticipated increasing impact on food security, how aligned are the region’s climate policies with its food policies to ensure food security?
Key climate action themes resonate across AMS to forestall food security threats. These include a mix of national policy tools and practical instruments to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change on food security (see Tables 1 and 2). These measures aim to build resilient and adaptive food systems while safeguarding farmers, stabilising production, and protecting natural resources.
Four Dimensions of Food Security
Table 1: Dimensions, Climate Change and Actions
| Food Security Dimension | Factors influencing dimensions | Climate Change Phenomena affecting dimensions | Key Climate Actions |
| Availability (production, imports, stockpiles) | Unexpected severe weather events, trade embargoes/ tariffs, input shortages, pest outbreaks, storage losses | Drought, heat, floods, sea-level rise | Climate-smart agriculture (CSA), resilient seeds, storage & logistics infrastructure, reserves, import diversification |
| Access (physical: supply chains; economic: prices, purchasing power ) | Supply chain disruptions leading to physical shortages and price hikes, inadequate or unavailability of social safety nets | Extreme weather events causing income loss, price volatility | Climate-induced food quality, food contamination, and inequities on purchasing power |
| Utilisation (nutrition, health, safety) | Unexpected policies to ban or limit exports, “Black swan” events, and natural catastrophes | Heat, water contamination, nutrient loss | Cold chains, nutrition & sanitation programmes |
| Stability | Policy frameworks, diversified value chains, and climate finance | Climate variability, repeated shocks | Policy frameworks, diversified value chains, climate finance |
As food security is influenced by many factors apart from climate change, AMS have put in place policies which seek to ensure a more holistic approach to food security (see Table 2). While all AMS have their own climate policies, their food security policies vary widely in their specific recommendations for climate action, and conversely, the climate policies vary in their emphasis on food security.
Different Policies, Varying Abilities
Table 2: A compilation of policies in ASEAN member states on food security and food-related climate action
ASEAN has also developed regional initiatives that address the impact of climate on food security to address shared climate impact risks across ASEAN. Lessons can be gleaned from successful collaboration frameworks like the ASEAN Climate Resilience Network (ASEAN-CRN), an exchange platform on climate-smart land use. There are also collective food emergency preparedness initiatives, such as the ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve (APTERR), and regional crop disaster monitoring processes, such as the ASEAN Food Security Information System (AFSIS). All AMS actively participate in these three frameworks by contributing information and in-kind resources like manpower.
Overall, there is a plethora of policies within AMS and at the ASEAN level, which in principle can provide a common framework for action.
ASEAN cooperation on climate change and food security has enabled AMS to share knowledge, technology, and resources. But translating this into effective national climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience outcomes remains uneven because of different levels of understanding and priorities given to climate action. AMS’ participation in regional climate-food policies is voluntary and unequal, and differences in resources, capacity and infrastructure limit the overall impact of regional strategies, resulting in asymmetric implementation among AMS.
As regional collaboration involving all AMS is difficult to achieve due to structural asymmetries, collective action at a sub-regional level, such as the Mekong sub-region, may be preferable to increase response effectiveness through existing sub-regional entities like the Mekong River Commission.
ASEAN can do even better to increase its impact at a regional level and smooth out asymmetries. It should move from soft “guidelines” to implementation support, improve monitoring and data collection, strengthen coordination on export restrictions and link climate action more closely with nutrition. The ASEAN Food Security Information System (AFSIS) is an example of action to improve monitoring and data sharing at the regional level.
ASEAN’s most effective value-add to addressing the challenges of the climate-food security nexus lies in its ability to encourage regional coordination between AMS. This can help to reduce asymmetries between AMS through the sharing of knowledge and technologies, and scaling solutions beyond pilot projects and stabilising markets during climate shocks. Additionally, ASEAN can be an effective platform to mobilise external donors from Dialogue Partner countries to protect food systems that underpin food security in regional staples such as rice. Fragmented national climate responses can, through effective coordination and efficient mobilisation of resources, transform the regional food system into a more resilient one.
2026/49
Paul Teng is a Visiting Senior Fellow in the Climate Change in Southeast Asia Programme of ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. He is also Senior Consultant of NIE International, Nanyang Technological University Singapore.
