Written by:
Clodagh McLoughlin, Programme Manager, World Vision Ireland
Sarah McIvor, Senior Researcher, Climate Change, IIED
Climate change is increasingly recognised as one of the greatest threats to food security. Around the world, droughts, floods, cyclones, changing rainfall patterns and rising temperatures are affecting how food is grown, harvested, accessed and consumed. Yet while climate adaptation efforts often focus on protecting agricultural production, far less attention has been paid to what these changes mean for nutrition.
This is a significant gap. A community may continue producing enough staple foods to avoid hunger, while still experiencing declining dietary diversity, reduced access to nutritious foods and worsening nutritional outcomes among vulnerable groups. Historically, nutrition and dietary diversity have received less attention within climate adaptation than agricultural productivity, particularly the production of staple crops. Yet resilience is about more than ensuring sufficient calories. It is about ensuring people can continue to access diverse, nutritious and culturally appropriate foods in the face of a changing climate.
Over the past three years, World Vision Ireland and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) have been working together with communities in Tanzania and Solomon Islands, through the Irish Aid-funded NOURISH programme, to better understand how climate change is affecting food security, nutrition and resilience. One outcome of this collaboration is the new Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment for Food Security and Nutrition: A Step-by-Step Guide, a practical methodology for understanding climate risks through a food security and nutrition lens and for supporting communities to identify their own adaptation solutions and priorities.
At its heart is a simple premise: climate change does not affect agriculture, nutrition, gender equality, disaster risk and livelihoods separately. Communities experience these issues simultaneously and as interconnected realities. A drought does not simply reduce crop yields. It affects household income, dietary choices, access to food, nutrition outcomes and coping strategies. A cyclone may damage gardens and fishing grounds while also disrupting markets, transport links and access to essential services. To build meaningful resilience, adaptation efforts must recognise these connections and respond to them in a more integrated way.
This became clear during the testing of the assessment in communities in Tanzania and in Solomon Islands. The process brought together women, men, young people and children to explore how climate change was affecting the foods they consume, the risks they face and the actions they believe are needed to strengthen resilience. The findings demonstrated not only the complexity of climate impacts but also the value of creating space for communities to analyse these challenges themselves and agree on appropriate solutions.
In Tanzania, participants identified drought and flooding as the most significant climate hazards affecting food security and nutrition. These hazards impacted many of the foods on which households depend, including maize, vegetables, fruits, legumes and livestock. Discussions revealed how climate shocks influenced not only food production but also household consumption patterns and nutritional outcomes. Community members described periods when food choices became increasingly limited, and children identified skipping meals as a coping strategy during times of food scarcity. This was a particularly striking finding, highlighting how climate impacts can translate directly into nutrition risks, especially for children.
In Solomon Islands, communities described a different but equally complex set of challenges. Cyclones, rough seas, landslides and flooding affected crops, fishing, transport and market access. Strong winds damaged bananas, cassava and coconut, while landslides destroyed food gardens and, in some cases, homes. Rough seas could isolate communities for weeks, limiting access to fish, markets and supplies brought from larger towns. Community members also highlighted limited access to communication systems and weather information, making it more difficult to anticipate and prepare for hazards before they occur.
These experiences reinforced another important lesson: climate risks are not experienced equally. Women, men, young people and children often experience different impacts, have different vulnerabilities and different perspectives on potential solutions. Processes need to appreciate the unique challenges facing different groups, particularly those that are marginalised, vulnerable or experience intersecting disadvantage. Yet traditional climate assessments frequently treat communities as though they are homogeneous groups with the same experiences and priorities.
The guidance takes a different approach. Through separate focus groups, it creates safe spaces where different groups can discuss their experiences openly before coming together to identify common priorities. This approach helped reveal perspectives that might otherwise have been overlooked. In Tanzania, older women highlighted concerns relating to hunger, poverty and influence over decisions regarding food sales. Younger men identified exclusion from decision-making around food production and preparation. In Solomon Islands, women highlighted barriers relating to land ownership and decision-making power, while young people emphasised the need for greater access to information, training and climate adaptation support.
Importantly, the process demonstrated that these groups should not simply be viewed as vulnerable populations. They also possess valuable knowledge, experience and ideas for addressing the challenges they face. Children brought forward insights that adults had not identified. Women highlighted practical nutrition and food security concerns. Young people proposed solutions relating to information access, communication and adaptation knowledge. By creating opportunities for these perspectives to be heard, communities developed a richer and more comprehensive understanding of risk and resilience, and of each other.
The assessment also highlighted the distinction between coping and adaptation. Across both countries, communities described a range of strategies they currently use to respond to climate shocks and stresses. These included replanting crops, changing planting times, relying on support from relatives, seeking casual labour, shifting consumption patterns and harvesting what could be salvaged after climate-related losses. While many of these actions help households manage immediate challenges, they often do little to address the underlying drivers of vulnerability. Some coping mechanisms can even have negative long-term consequences and lead to maladaptation. Skipping meals or reducing dietary diversity may help families survive today but can undermine nutrition, health and wellbeing tomorrow.
The value of the assessment lies in helping communities move beyond coping towards longer-term adaptation and preparedness. Across the pilot communities, participants proposed a wide range of solutions, including drought-tolerant crop varieties, improved food storage, irrigation, afforestation, crop diversification, savings groups, fishponds, nutrition awareness activities and improved access to climate information.
In Solomon Islands, communities also highlighted the importance of reliable communications systems and access to weather and early warning information. Both communities built on what they could do themselves to build resilience from resources at their disposal, including sharing existing knowledge on nutrition with the wider community, strengthening savings groups, sharing resilient seed cuttings and providing labour and land for fishponds, as well as what support they require from others. These priorities demonstrate that resilience is not only about agricultural practices. It is also about access to knowledge, services, information and systems that help communities prepare for future shocks before they occur.
Too often, adaptation planning remains a technical process led by external actors. Yet communities possess deep knowledge of their local environments, food systems and vulnerabilities. The assessment was specifically designed to build on this knowledge rather than replace it. Through a series of simple, participatory exercises, communities analyse risks, identify adaptation actions and develop nutrition-sensitive adaptation plans that reflect their own priorities and realities.
As climate impacts become more severe and unpredictable, there is a growing need for approaches that bring together climate adaptation, food security, nutrition, gender equality, social inclusion and preparedness planning. The Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment for Food Security and Nutrition was developed to help fill that gap. By providing a practical framework that is accessible, community-led and nutrition-sensitive, it offers a new way of understanding and responding to climate risk.
Ultimately, adaptation is not just about protecting what people grow. It is about protecting what people eat, how they live and their ability to thrive in a changing climate. We hope this guidance helps communities, practitioners and decision-makers place nutrition, inclusion and local leadership at the centre of climate resilience efforts.