ASEAN Food Security: Climate Adaptation as Urgent as Mitigation

The landmark Paris Agreement of 2015 reflected the global ambition “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial level” by the end of the century. Except for the Philippines, all ASEAN Member States (AMS) have subsequently introduced their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and proclaimed net-zero emission targets for their agrifood sectors mostly by the mid-21^st Century. The focus of the NDCs has been mitigation, that is, emission reductions. Such efforts are worthwhile, but adaptation might be more appropriate in the context of food security.

The impact of global mitigation is demonstrably inadequate. 2024 was the hottest year on record and the first year the global average temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. More recently, Washington’s announcement to withdraw from the Paris Agreement puts into question whether mitigation goals can still be achieved with the reduced participation by the world’s second biggest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter (after China). Will the efforts of smaller emitters in the ASEAN region make any difference? Arguably not. Southeast Asia accounted for only 5.73 per cent of global GHG emissions in 2023 (see Table 1), while the five biggest GHG emitters (China, USA, India, EU27 and Russia) accounted for 60.28 per cent of emissions.

ASEAN Countries: Minnows in Carbon Emissions

Table 1: AMS total GHG emissions and percentage of global emissions, 2023

While AMS are relatively minor GHG contributors, they have suffered disproportionately from the effects of climate change through droughts, unseasonally high temperatures and precipitation, severe weather, delayed onset of monsoon, flooding, and sea-level rise. This has affected agriculture production and crop yields, for example, most recently in rice and oil palm. It has also contributed to high temperatures, which has affected farm labour, and led to the degradation of natural resources such as coral bleaching and higher mortality of marine-farmed fish. Furthermore, climate change has affected the food value chain, including processing, transport and food safety. As GHG rises, agri-food impacts are expected to worsen.

While mitigation measures are worthwhile, they might not be adequate to safeguard food security in Southeast Asia. The more appropriate and urgent climate action should be towards policies which support adaptation, particularly in regard to food security and resilience.

Clearly, adaptation measures require time to mature and permeate. Hence their implementation must take place alongside mitigation, and not just if (or when) climate targets are breached.

The link between climate resilience and food security is complex and often a “wicked” one, in which climate policies to safeguard food security may even have counter-productive effects.

One recurrent climate action is to diversify to more heat, drought or flood tolerant crops. Laos, Myanmar and Thailand have, within their climate action plans, announced intentions to diversify into crops like millet, pulses and vegetables to ensure food security. The Philippines is actively promoting “adlai rice” (a type of millet grain) which thrives in arid conditions. 

However, crop diversification cannot fully make up for the demand in traditional staples such as rice. With shrinking rice fields, countries like the Philippines may have to continue being major rice importers, thereby running counter to self-sufficiency or resilience goals. Furthermore, changing consumer diet preferences, such as eating rice alternatives, is difficult even in the best of times. Food import diversification policies are vulnerable to global shortages in staples unless measures such as adequate stockpiling and supply chain connectivity agreements are also in place in any AMS.

Another recommended measure is “climate-smart agriculture”, especially through the deployment of crop varieties which have high tolerance to extreme weather. In practice, many AMS are unable to deploy these varieties at scale either because the seeds are not available or yield expectations are not met. Collective action is needed by AMS to collaborate, develop and deliver such varieties to farmers in timeframes that are meaningful.

Expanding production areas for self-sufficiency is another climate action which is sometimes counter, however, to the conservation of high carbon sequestration sites. These include forests, mangroves or peatlands, which are also crucial for biodiversity and fishery health. For example, Indonesia is expanding food estates for this goal. AMS can instead focus on intensifying production through more efficient irrigation, higher-yielding seeds, and precision input management.

Several AMS — notably Indonesia, Laos, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam — have climate policies which advocate a move towards renewable energy. While this may improve resilience in other sectors (such as transport), its application at the farm level by smallholder farmers — who produce 60 per cent of Southeast Asia’s food — is limited. Efforts should be focused instead on finding ways to improve the efficiency and efficacy of current carbon-based fuel and its derived products used in agriculture.

Clearly, adaptation measures require time to mature and permeate. Hence their implementation must take place alongside mitigation, and not just if (or when) climate targets are breached. The forthcoming 46^th and 47^th ASEAN Summits under Malaysia’s ASEAN Chairmanship have the theme “inclusivity and sustainability”. This should be viewed as an opportunity for the bloc to show leadership in food security, which should be demonstrated by the presentation of plans for climate adaptation in agriculture. A good example would be ASEAN’s new Strategic Plan for Food, Agriculture and Forestry, 2026-2030, which is anticipated to be unveiled by the end of 2025.  The upcoming COP30 in Brazil in November 2025, too, is an opportunity for ASEAN to lead by pushing for increased action to finance, research, and implement climate adaptation, while concurrently stressing the importance of mitigation goals.”

2025/107