India needs early investments in climate resilience

A new study warns that a single major disaster could result in damages worth $11 billion for India, but proactive investments in resilience can reduce these losses more than post-disaster aid, as highlighted by a Mongabay-India (MI) report. These losses are the highest among eight countries assessed by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in its analysis.

The MI report adds that India is especially in need for adaptation measures that will adequately cover the costs of escalating disasters. The IIED study analysed four types of interventions to gauge the costs and benefits of each when it comes to disaster management, finding that more than humanitarian aid, early investments in resilience (such as employment schemes and direct benefit transfers) had the biggest impact in reducing the extent of losses from disasters. Every $1 invested in early resilience yields $5.17 in avoided losses and development gains, the study states. According to the study, for a one-in-twenty-year event leading to losses and damages worth $11 billion, it would cost $48.5 billion to cover this through existing social programmes. By comparison, investments in anticipatory direct benefit transfers can cover the cost in $5.4 billion, and early resilience investments can cover the cost for $2.2 billion.

The study examined the disaster risk infrastructure in eight middle and low income countries across Asia and Africa, which have high vulnerability to disaster events. These were Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Malawi, Pakistan, Senegal and Uganda. To assess gaps and areas for improvement in resilience, the IIED study used an index tool called Anticipatory Social Protection Index for Resilience (ASPIRE), which compared each country’s existing policies, systems, and social programmes with 69 indicators to assess their disaster resilience preparedness.

The Summary of the IIED study says climate change is no longer a distant risk but a systemic development crisis. In 2024, the world witnessed 58 ‘billion-dollar disasters’ that collectively resulted in more than $400 billion of damage. These impacts are particularly devastating for the least developed countries and small island developing states, where repeated shocks are eroding hard-won development gains and driving households deeper into poverty. In this context, social protection programmes, which are primarily designed to reduce poverty and vulnerability, have emerged as critical tools for building climate resilience. When well-designed and timely, they can help people prepare for, cope with and recover from shocks.

As the Summary explains, the study analyses the importance, examples and relative cost of two key early action methods for strengthening resilience through social protection: anticipatory direct benefit transfers (DBTs), which take the form of cash, food aid or in-kind support delivered before a shock occurs; and early investment in resilience, such as public works, asset transfers and employment schemes. Triggered by early warning systems or climate forecasts, DBTs can help households take preventive action before damage occurs. Investment in resilience can reduce long-term vulnerability by building infrastructure, conserving ecosystems and enhancing livelihoods. Together, these approaches build absorptive capacity to buffer shocks, adaptive capacity to adjust to changing risks, and transformative capacity to shift systems and reduce structural vulnerability. But most of the above countries lack the financing, coordination and delivery systems to scale early action, leaving millions exposed to preventable losses. According to the study, diagnosing readiness to support countries in delivering early action, the ASPIRE tool provides a structured framework to assess the ‘system readiness’ of countries and communities to potential climate shocks. By pinpointing strengths and gaps, ASPIRE helps governments, donors and implementing partners identify where reforms, financing or technical support are most needed. It therefore serves as both a roadmap for national action and a framework for learning between countries. The MI report highlights that the study says India’s MGNREGA scheme, which guarantees employment in rural areas for 100 days of the year, emerged as an example of social programmes that integrate climate risks and help avert losses.

However, the absence of a formal finance mechanism that links disaster relief with social protection has limited India’s adaptive capacity. Though MGNREGA makes for a good example of how social protection programmes can include climate adaptation goals, the study points out that other social protection programmes do not take the same approach.