From groundwater depletion in India to drought in Afghanistan and food-import vulnerability in the Maldives, the region needs country-specific adaptation backed by stronger public institutions and regional cooperation.South Asia’s agricultural problem  is increasingly a crisis of preparedness. Climate change is intensifying the risks associated with erratic rainfall, extreme heat, floods and droughts, but the damage depends on how effectively countries prepare farmers, manage water and distribute the costs of adaptation. Agricultural policies, investment incentives and risk-management systems have often failed to keep pace with these changing conditions. The consequences extend beyond farm production to rural employment, household incomes, food prices and public finances. 

The central challenge is not simply to produce more food under a changing climate, but to reform the institutions that determine how food is produced, how risks are shared and who bears the cost of adaptation. Markets can encourage innovation and investment, but they cannot, on their own, guarantee equitable access to resilient technologies, reliable water or affordable food.

The scale of the challenge is regional, although its effects differ across countries. The World Bank reported in June 2025 that natural disasters had affected an average of about 67 million people annually in South Asia since 2010. By 2030, nearly 90% of the region’s population could be exposed to extreme heat and almost a quarter to severe flooding. These projections underline the importance of preparedness. Climate shocks do not remain confined to farms: crop losses can raise food prices, weaken rural demand, increase pressure on government budgets and push vulnerable households into debt. For smallholders with limited savings, one failed season can undermine their ability to purchase seeds, fertiliser and other inputs for the next.

Eight Countries, Different Vulnerabilities

The eight countries of South Asian  illustrate why climate resilience cannot be built around a single agricultural model. Each faces a different combination of environmental exposure, economic constraints and institutional capacity.

India’s challenge is to reconcile food production with water sustainability. Intensive groundwater extraction in several agricultural regions, rising temperatures and variable rainfall threaten the long-term viability of existing production patterns. Public procurement and minimum support prices have helped secure supplies of rice and wheat, but can also reinforce crop choices that are poorly suited to local water conditions. Resilience requires better groundwater governance, more efficient irrigation and stronger incentives to diversify towards less water-intensive crops where agronomically appropriate. Climate-resilient seeds and weather advisories will matter, but their impact depends on whether smallholders can afford and access them.

Pakistan demonstrates the economic consequences of extreme floods and inadequate preparedness. The 2022 floods affected around 33 million people. A joint post-disaster assessment estimated damage exceeding US$14.9 billion and economic losses of about US$15.2 billion. Agriculture, food, livestock and fisheries alone sustained an estimated US$3.7 billion in damage. Flood management, drainage, watershed protection and resilient irrigation are therefore essential, alongside support for farmers rebuilding their livelihoods. Insurance can help spread risk, but it cannot substitute for public investment in infrastructure or protection against hazards affecting entire regions.

Bangladesh shows that food security depends on purchasing power as well as production. Floods, cyclones and coastal salinity threaten farming in exposed areas, while dense settlement and limited land constrain adaptation choices. Yet a country can produce substantial quantities of rice and still face serious food insecurity when households cannot afford adequate food. The FAO’s September 2026 country brief estimated that 18.1 million people could face acute food insecurity between September and December 2026, despite forecasting above-average paddy production that year. 

The projected deterioration was mainly associated with constrained household purchasing power and elevated living costs, with floods adding pressure in some areas. This distinction matters: food insecurity need not indicate a collapse in agricultural output. Climate-resilient production must therefore be combined with targeted social protection, storage, transport and reliable access to affordable food.

Nepal faces the challenge of farming across fragile and varied terrain. Drought at critical stages of cultivation and excessive rainfall around harvest can damage crops within the same production cycle. The World Bank reported that Nepal’s agricultural growth slowed to 1.6% in fiscal year 2025–26, from 3% a year earlier, partly because paddy production contracted by 4.2%. Drought during transplantation in Madhesh and excessive rainfall during the October 2025 harvest contributed to the decline. Mountain agriculture also faces landslides, difficult market access and limited opportunities to expand cultivated land. Investment must extend beyond seeds and irrigation to watershed management, rural roads, local storage and early-warning systems.

Sri Lanka illustrates the importance of translating climate forecasts into timely decisions. The prospect of an El Niño episode, potentially interacting with a positive Indian Ocean Dipole, has raised concerns about the 2026–27 Maha paddy season. A September 2026 Daily FT article cited a worst-case possibility of a harvest decline exceeding 30%. This is a risk scenario, not a confirmed outcome. The debate over planting dates, water availability and short-duration seed varieties highlights a wider institutional problem: farmers need consistent, location-specific advice before planting decisions become difficult to reverse. Better-managed irrigation, reliable seed supplies and credible contingency plans are essential.

Afghanistan’s central challenge is recurrent drought combined with fragile rural livelihoods. Water scarcity, dependence on rainfall in many farming areas and limited resources for adaptation make prolonged dry spells particularly damaging. Yet the country’s 2025 experience also shows the potential of targeted interventions. The World Bank’s November 2025 Afghanistan Development Update, drawing on evidence from the World Bank and FAO, reported a record irrigated wheat harvest of an estimated 4.9 million tonnes despite severe drought. Improved seed quality, irrigation and support reaching smallholder farmers contributed to this outcome. However, rainfed production remained vulnerable. The lesson is that technology and targeted assistance can improve resilience, but sustained gains require reliable water systems, seed networks, agricultural extension and support for rural livelihoods.

Bhutan must protect agriculture within a mountainous and environmentally sensitive landscape. The World Bank’s climate-risk profile notes that around 31% of agricultural activity takes place on slopes, exposing production to landslides and soil erosion. Monsoon dependence, changing rainfall patterns and the interaction between water resources, agriculture and hydropower compound the challenge. Resilience requires soil conservation, watershed protection, climate information, resilient local crops and better market access. 

The World Bank’s 2025 Country Climate and Development Report also stresses the need for adaptation and economic diversification. Bhutan’s objective should not be to replicate intensive farming on the plains, but to strengthen a smaller agricultural sector with limited room for expansion.

The Maldives faces a different food-security problem. Its limited cultivable land and dependence on imported food make it vulnerable not only to saltwater intrusion and freshwater stress, but also to disruptions in international transport and supply chains. The FAO reports that the country has only about 27 square kilometres of cultivable land and imports approximately 90% of its food items. 

Agricultural resilience must therefore include protected cultivation where feasible, efficient freshwater use, improved storage and distribution across dispersed islands, and diversified import sources. Fisheries also need protection from pressures on marine ecosystems. This case broadens the regional debate: climate-related food insecurity can arise from disrupted access to food even where domestic crop production is not the principal source of supply.

Markets are Necessary, not Sufficient

These experiences challenge the idea that climate resilience can be achieved through markets alone or through government control alone. Private firms can develop improved seeds, irrigation technologies, digital forecasting services, storage facilities and insurance products. Competition can reduce costs and encourage innovation. Farmers also need price signals that reward efficient water use and climate-appropriate crop choices.

But markets respond to purchasing power, not need alone. Poor farmers may be unable to pay for improved seeds, insurance or efficient irrigation even when these investments would benefit the wider economy. Private insurers may hesitate to cover risks affecting large numbers of farmers simultaneously, while unreliable weather data and weak local institutions can make insurance expensive or ineffective. Index-based insurance, for example, can pay out when rainfall or temperature crosses a specified threshold, but a farmer may suffer losses without triggering payment if the index does not accurately reflect local conditions.

The public sector must provide the foundations on which markets can function: reliable climate information, agricultural research, water governance, rural infrastructure, transparent regulation and targeted support for vulnerable farmers. Public investment should not displace private initiative; it should enable it. Subsidies also need scrutiny. Support that encourages excessive groundwater use or locks farmers into unsuitable crops may provide short-term income security while increasing future climate risks.

Regional Agenda for Resilience

South Asia needs stronger regional cooperation because weather shocks, food prices and agricultural trade do not stop at national borders. Governments should share seasonal forecasts, river-basin information and climate-risk data, while strengthening coordination on flood warnings and drought preparedness. Joint research into heat-tolerant, flood-tolerant and short-duration crop varieties could lower adaptation costs, particularly for countries with limited research capacity.

Regional trade can help stabilise food supplies when harvests fail. But export restrictions introduced during domestic shortages can transmit price shocks to neighbouring importers. Governments need transparent rules, timely communication and contingency arrangements that protect domestic consumers without unnecessarily destabilising regional markets. Cooperation should extend to emergency food stocks, transport corridors and mechanisms for assisting vulnerable households when prices rise.

Climate-Resilience Agriculture

 Climate resilience must be measured not merely by agricultural output, but by whether farmers can sustain their livelihoods and consumers can afford nutritious food. That requires better local data, regular assessment of adaptation programmes and investment directed towards communities facing the greatest risks. It also requires governments to distinguish between temporary relief after a disaster and investment that reduces the likelihood and cost of future losses.

South Asia cannot eliminate droughts, floods or heatwaves. It can, however, reduce the damage they cause. The priority is to move from emergency relief after each disaster towards a system that anticipates risk, rewards sustainable production and shares the costs of adaptation. Markets can help deliver climate-resilient agriculture, but capable public institutions must ensure that resilience is accessible to small farmers and translates into food security for the wider population. Climate resilience must become a guiding principle of agricultural policy, not an emergency response after each disaster.

(The writer is a retired Special Secretary, Government of India, and a commentator on financial, geoeconomic and regional issues. The views expressed are personal. He can be reached at ppmitra56@gmail.com.)