Resilience

Uncovering the climate vulnerability of China’s poverty alleviation frontiers

Strengthening Myanmar’s agrifood system: Evidence and pathways for resilience

Myanmar’s agrifood system is central to the country’s economy and to the livelihoods of most of its population, having historically accounted for roughly almost half of GDP and two-thirds of employment. Since 2021, the political crisis, intensifying conflict and insecurity, climate shocks, and a major earthquake have placed the system under sustained and compounding stress. Drawing on evidence collected between 2021 and 2025, this paper provides a snapshot of where the system stands following this period of crisis and identifies opportunities for strengthening its resilience going forward. Private sector actors have been central to sustaining the agrifood system’s resilience since 2021. Input retailers have maintained the physical availability of fertilizer, seeds, and agro-chemicals, even in insecure areas, while mechanization service providers have continued to supply labor-saving services through flexible payment arrangements. Private agribusinesses have absorbed the contraction in formal credit, now accounting for roughly three-quarters of fertilizer credit sources, and have become the dominant providers of extension, both in-person and digital. These actors are operating under significant financial stress, but they have sustained farmers’ access to inputs, services, credit, and advice during a period when these would otherwise have likely collapsed. Input costs have risen significantly since 2022, with agricultural wages, mechanization costs, and fertilizer prices all rising substantially. Farmers have responded by partially shifting toward lower-cost production practices, including direct seeding, which carries an estimated yield penalty of approximately 15 percent compared to transplanted rice. Promoting appropriate agricultural technologies in conflict- and climate-affected areas requires targeted attention, particularly for smallholders and more remote households. Sustaining and expanding development assistance alongside humanitarian assistance will be important to support the transition toward more productive and sustainable farming systems, with scaling domestic production of organic soil amendments and expanding mechanization services. Agricultural extension use rebounded to 38 percent in the 2025 dry season, with the private sector now the dominant provider and digital channels expanding rapidly. Given persistently low and unequal access to extension services, more inclusive outreach combining targeted in-person support in underserved areas with strengthened digital delivery is needed, with particular attention to women, less educated, remote, and conflict-affected farmers. As agrochemical distributors dominate both in-person and digital advisory services, promoting high-quality agronomic content and ensuring clear separation between technical advice and product promotion is important. The rapid expansion of digital platforms creates opportunities but requires investments in digital literacy, content quality, and monitoring systems to assess impact. Partnerships between digital platforms and large firms could also support traceability and quality requirements for export markets.

Cost–benefit analysis of WFP’s integrated resilience programme in Chad (2018–2023)

1. Integrated resilience programming (IRP) works. The IRP significantly improved household food security, with participating households recording an average 6.6 point increase in Food Consumption Scores (FCS) and reduced reliance on negative coping strategies, and increased resilience capacities, compared with nonparticipants, underscoring the value of multisectoral, layered interventions. 2. High economic returns are achievable in fragile contexts. Overall, the IRP delivered a benefitcost ratio (BCR) of 3.98, meaning every US$1 invested generated nearly US$4 in measurable benefits. 3. Nutrition interventions (treatment of acute malnutrition and blanket supplementary feeding) yield the strongest returns. Treatment of acute malnutrition and preventive nutrition support for women and children produced BCRs ranging from 6:1 to 9:1, validating global evidence on the cost-effectiveness of nutrition investments. 4. Knowledge-based and community-led interventions are transformative. Training and sensitization activities achieved the highest BCR (20:1) for resilience outcomes, highlighting the long-term payoffs of behavior change, empowerment, and knowledge transfer activities. 5. Cereal banks, particularly when combined with Food Assistance for Assets (FFA) through cash transfers, contributed to improved food security and resilience outcomes. The Cereal Bank + FFA Cash Transfers combination achieved balanced gains across key indicators (FCS +9.2, rCSI –3.4, RCS +10.4), highlighting its role in stabilizing seasonal food availability and access. However, despite these outcome improvements, the cost-effectiveness was modest, with BCRs ranging from 0.4 to 0.6—suggesting that while the intervention supports resilience, its financial return per dollar invested may be limited under current implementation models. 6. Bundled interventions outperform stand-alone ones. Layered approaches—particularly FFA Cash Transfers combined with School Feeding—produced the largest FCS gains (+5.7 points; BCR = 2.85), reinforcing WFP’s integrated “three-pronged approach” to resilience-building. 7. Short-term transfers remain essential but less cost-efficient. Lean season food and cash distributions provided vital relief but yielded lower long-term returns (BCR < 1), emphasizing the need to balance immediate humanitarian needs with investments in sustainability. 8. Strategic scaling of high-return interventions is crucial. Scaling nutrition, training, and cereal bank programs, while optimizing the design and sequencing of combined packages, could maximize impact per dollar spent and strengthen resilience dividends. 9. Resilience is a smart investment. The findings demonstrate that resilience programming is not only a humanitarian necessity but also a financially sound strategy—reducing long-term aid dependency, improving livelihoods, and fostering local self-reliance across fragile environments in Chad. 10. Short-term coping behavior responds more slowly than food security and resilience capacity outcomes, highlighting the need for sustained and sequenced support. While IRP interventions generated significant improvements in food consumption and resilience capacity, reductions in severe coping strategies were not observed in the short term. This underscores that behavioral change lags behind stabilization and capacity-building gains, and that resilience impacts should be assessed over longer horizons rather than through immediate reductions in negative coping alone.