In Southern countries, ecological social protection to address the consequences of climate change

Léo Delpy, Bruno Boidin, July 2025

The Conversation

According to the IPCC, climate change has many consequences for human health: increased mortality linked to heat waves, worsening food crises, increased difficulties in accessing water, the emergence of zoonoses, etc. The latest global report on social protection by the International Labour Organisation highlights a paradox: in the 20 countries most vulnerable to climate change, only 8.7% of the population on average benefits from social protection.

However, the launch of policies to extend social protection and universal health coverage in low-income countries since the 2010s promised real progress. Rwanda, for example, is often considered a success story following the introduction of compulsory membership of mutual health insurance schemes for workers in the informal economy (all jobs that are not regulated or protected by the state) and a strong commitment from the government. This type of policy has been introduced in almost all sub-Saharan African countries, but the results remain mixed. Given this situation, how can social protection be developed that is not only more comprehensive but also adapted to the consequences of climate change?

Existing but inadequate measures

Faced with the widespread intensification of the effects of climate change, economist Eloi Laurent argues that the private sector will not be able to cover this type of risk for several reasons. On the one hand, climate-related disasters have variable impacts, making it difficult to estimate their consequences and associated costs. In addition, these disasters affect different areas in different ways, meaning that some are not profitable for insurance companies, such as coastal regions.

Eloi Laurent proposes an ecological social protection system that would adapt social protection to ecological risks. The aim is to pool the costs associated with covering these risks and to combat inequalities linked to climate change.

In sub-Saharan Africa, a few initiatives are moving in this direction. One of the flagship schemes for extending social protection in the face of climate change is the Adaptive Social Protection Programme in the Sahel. Implemented in 2014 by the World Bank and national governments, it is still being rolled out in six countries (Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Chad).

This programme combines targeted cash transfers to vulnerable populations in the event of climate-related events with an early warning system. This mechanism is based on regularly updated indicators to anticipate the onset of a crisis, such as drought. Part of the aid is then released when the warning system indicators (rainfall in the case of drought) exceed the set thresholds.

However, the programme only covers a relatively small proportion of national risks. According to the 2024 annual report, a total of nearly 1.2 million people benefit from a crisis response mechanism. This represents a tiny fraction of the population and risks in the region. Furthermore, questions arise about the sustainability of such programmes, which are entirely funded by international organisations. Given the current cost of the programme (several tens of millions of euros per year), it seems difficult to offer long-term coverage to the entire population.

Linking adaptive social protection and the One Health approach

The One Health approach is an integrated concept that considers the interdependencies between human health, animal health and environmental health to be central. The high-level expert group One Health defines it as follows: ‘One Health […] recognises that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent.’

In Africa, several initiatives have been launched based on this approach, mainly with a view to combating infectious diseases, particularly zoonoses. A few countries are considered relatively advanced (Kenya, Tanzania), having set up a One Health platform bringing together the various stakeholders (ministries of health, environment, veterinary services, etc.). Other countries are also active but less advanced (Cameroon, Senegal, etc.).

The Thiellal project in Senegal is an interesting illustration of these initiatives. In a livestock and agricultural region, the lack of organised household waste management has a considerable impact on livestock and farming communities (plastic and chemical pollution, antimicrobial resistance caused by waste medicines, etc.).

The Thiellal project aims to mobilise local communities to address health determinants using a One Health approach. Several solutions based on a One Health approach have been implemented.

These have consisted of training community and professional actors to implement actions adapted to local contexts (waste sorting, agroecology), raising farmers’ awareness of the risks associated with the use of chemicals and finding alternative solutions, and finally supporting decisions at the community level, in addition to local and national public actors. However, this project illustrates the fact that One Health projects do not generally include social protection mechanisms, and vice versa.

Initiatives that remain compartmentalised

It can be seen that the adaptive social protection mechanisms described above continue to be implemented independently of One Health initiatives. The former are led by certain development aid actors (World Bank, UNICEF, World Food Programme), while the latter are led by other institutions (World Health Organisation, World Organisation for Animal Health, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, United Nations Environment Programme, etc.). The compartmentalisation of these two types of action results in a lack of synergy and reduced effectiveness of both systems.

Social protection includes a risk management and anticipation component that does not currently incorporate the lessons of the One Health approach. To take the Thiellal project as an example, pesticide use, intensive farming and water pollution are also factors that contribute to increasing the risk of extreme weather events. These in turn seriously endanger living conditions and human health, as they cause environmental disasters and reduce access to food (loss of livestock and agricultural production). Taking these effects into account seems essential to the success of social protection systems.

Understanding the interactions between human health, animal health and environmental health should be systematically integrated into social protection systems as measurable risk factors (to make early warning indicators more reliable) but also as levers for improving synergies between health and the environment.

For example, agroecology, by reducing the use of pesticides and other polluting products, would protect the environment and animals and have significant effects on human health. In Benin, the Songhai farm is a successful example of an agricultural training and production centre based on agroecology. The farm generates local income and produces high-quality food without harming the environment. In a way, this experiment adopts a One Health approach without knowing it.

Integrating this concept into local social protection systems would therefore make it possible to act on two fronts. On the one hand, it would recreate economically, socially and environmentally viable ecosystems. On the other hand, it would ensure that the benefits of these ecosystems are enjoyed by the populations that contribute directly to them, while being covered by social protection against climate risks.

Sources

To go further