Wealth or Poverty Gap? Climate Change and Food Insecurity

Delso Khossa"

The sinkhole is a danger to human coexistence. It is seen as a trap for social life, but also as an opportunity for economic prosperity. The sinkhole arises due to natural issues, but also due to human actions. The human sinkhole is more dangerous, because neither the owners themselves nor others can avoid the danger and the negative impacts generated for society and its surroundings. Therefore, the sinkhole can be a mine or a place to dump non-biodegradable material. This waste is the result of the (ir)rational actions of Man. For communities, the mine generates a low quality of life, affecting the ecosystem, but for the business class the sinkhole is an opportunity to generate wealth. This is where the dilemma of responsibility for actions that cause Greenhouse Gases (GHG) begins. Although, apparently, the dilemma has been overcome in relation to activities that cause GHG, scientifically proven, the individualization of participation in actions that can minimize the severe impacts of climate change still reigns. The uncertainty of losing markets or competition poses challenges and fears for the technological implementation of clean energy.

Climate change has a severe impact on quality of life, human rights, GDP, education, health, sanitation, food security, nutrition and housing, according to data from the Country Climate and Development Report (CCDR) (2023). GHGs result from agri-food activities linked to the irrational use of water resources, which are responsible for 1/3 of emissions worldwide and could increase by 50% by 2050. Agriculture is responsible for between 15 and 23% of GHGs, livestock farming for 19%, and food waste for 8% worldwide. Global deforestation accounts for 90% due to the contamination of water resources, in addition to the extinction of some biodiversity species, it significantly increases global warming, contributing to the occurrence of food insecurity and malnutrition. In response, the global strategic instrument called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was approved, whose implementation will last until 2030.

In the Mozambican case, the country is frequently vulnerable to climate change such as cyclones and irregular rainfall, accelerating poverty in the social and economic conditions of communities. Agriculture in the Mozambican context is the source of income for the rural population. The practice of subsistence/rainfed agricultural activity expands the micronutrient chain, especially during the harvest period. According to Abbas (2022), rural areas have an index of over 50% and 27% of food insecurity. The high dependence on production, marketing and livestock activities generates vulnerability in rural communities in the face of limitations in adapting to climate change; water shocks impact GDP by an order of 5.5% between 1980–2004 and by 2050 GDP will suffer a reduction of between 4 and 14% according to data from the World Bank (2023). Thus, according toCCDR (2023),Climate projections by 2050 will increase by 5%, pushing an additional 1.6 million people into poverty. If no significant structural change occurs, inequality rates will hardly change by 2050, in all climate scenarios analyzed. These data reveal the magnitude of the challenge we face: climate change not only exacerbates existing problems, but also creates new obstacles to achieving the SDG Goals.

 The study by Abbas (2022) notes the existence of a significant relationship between food security and the ways of obtaining income; food scarcity and irregular rainfall; climate and farmers' behavior; use of inputs and the production system. While poverty and hunger condition the purchase of other food supplements to alleviate food insecurity, livestock activity contributes to food insecurity through the sale of animals. These factors show a growing trend, that is, the public policies implemented have a negative balance in ensuring or improving food insecurity. Abbas (2024) also states that in 2023 the country occupied the 113th position out of 125 countries analyzed by the Global Hunger Index, present at the level of severe hunger with a score of 30.5. While the SETSAN report (2024) points out that 24% of households are in a situation of chronic food insecurity. Projections between May and September show that 48% of the population in the districts were affected by acute food insecurity, and in the period from October 2023 to March 2024 there was a 58% increase in the population, with 37% at a moderate level.

The complexity of resolving the effects of climate change suggests joint and individual actions. Individual actions can generate multiple impacts to influence behavior change in the group, family, community and media. The issue of wealth for actors is a task more likely to take advantage of the weaknesses of international and national mechanisms that regulate the ecological system. However, acting collectively is the best alternative, but individual or group benefits tend to be above the collective, so the weaknesses of environmental public policies leave an opportunity for actors to disrespect and individualize the natural benefits of the collective.

Regarding the logic of nutrition, this works from two perspectives: a social class with purchasing power can avoid food insecurity and hunger, but suffers from malnutrition and generates food waste, indirectly contributing to the increase in GHG (occurrence of climate change); the other vulnerable class, in this case in rural areas, has less maneuver to escape food insecurity and even with all types of natural food supplements faces malnutrition, however, the situation worsens when the implications of climate change occur. Malnutrition, undernutrition and obesity are endemic and more frequent in both classes, which means there is a need to expand risk communication strategies, in order to shape behavior, attitudes, habits and customs that are crucial factors for quality of life. 

The two studies mentioned above concisely demonstrate the vulnerability of Mozambican society to the implications of climate change, which is worsening the poverty of rural communities. Mitigating the effects of climate change requires a joint effort from stakeholders including producers, researchers, consumers, retailers, legislators, businesspeople, communicators and civil society actors, to discuss, make inclusive decisions and design concrete actions that have a positive impact on the quality of life chain. Minimizing the impact on water resources, land use and biodiversity preservation generates social and economic equity, a healthy diet and promotes ecosystem sustainability. Resilience refers to the ability to withstand extreme climate events.

The driving factors of food (in)security are, in particular, agrarian, economic, environmental, technological and cultural policies. The structuring of these factors can boost the food supplement production chain. For example, the low level of food production means that families do not have enough income to buy food in the markets, but it also results in dependence on climate factors. With a well-planned production system, even in the event of cyclones and drought, the situation is regulated. Therefore, the precariousness of agricultural production techniques tends to accelerate better when natural resources are extracted, where alternative means such as wildlife resources, water resources, roads and disconnections with the anthropological spaces of communities are disregarded by the interested parties. The historical trend of exploitation of natural resources in this context demonstrates a significant relationship between the increase in the level of poverty and the occurrence of climate change phenomena.

2025/12/3