Cost of inaction: The price we pay for silence

 Bangladesh emits less than one-half of 1% of the world's greenhouse gases, as acknowledged in NDC 3.0. Despite a negligible contribution, the IPCC has repeatedly identified this country as the frontliner of the climate crisis, facing intensifying threats from rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, floods, droughts, cyclones, and sea-level rising are already affecting economic growth, particularly the production of the agriculture sector, which is more nature-dependent. 

For Bangladesh, where agriculture generates nearly 70% of rural employment as well as a dominant supplier of wage goods, the consequences of climate inaction are becoming increasingly visible. 

Climatic variability generated a 2.75%-2.91% reduction in crop yields during 1970–2017, while floods and cyclones caused an estimated 10.83% of total loss in crop production. 

In coastal areas, 53% of land is affected by salinity and may reduce rice yields by 15.6% by 2050. 

Whereas drought-prone northern districts are increasingly experiencing water stress and rainfall variability that threaten agricultural productivity and smallholder farmers. So, the price of silence is not merely ecological degradation only it is measured in loss of harvests, declining farmer incomes, hiking food prices, and increasing public expenditure. 

The question is no longer how much climate change impacts on agriculture, but how much it will cost us if we fail to act.

Recent parameters provide clear evidence of the climate-agriculture nexus. In 2024, severe floods destroyed approximately 1.1 million tonnes of rice and caused agricultural losses estimated at around Tk45 billion. 

Similarly, heavy pre-monsoon rains in 2026 damaged thousands of hectares of Boro rice fields in northeastern haor regions, threatening food supplies and farmer incomes. 

Cyclone Remal in 2024, damaged approximately 62,783 hectares of agricultural land, causing crop losses estimated at Tk1100 crore, while nearly 46.6% of standing crops in affected coastal regions were damaged by flooding and saline water intrusion. 

The fisheries and livestock sectors incurred losses exceeding Tk900 crore, with thousands of fish farms, shrimp enclosures, and aquaculture facilities damaged. The record-breaking 2024 heatwave delivered a stark warning: temperatures exceeding 40°C put nearly one-fifth of the country's Boro crop at risk, while projected losses include 6%-16% of Boro output and 30% of mango buds. 

Livestock productivity fell by around 25%, and fisheries suffered as warmer waters reduced BOD level. The devastation caused by cyclones SIDR, Aila to Remal illustrates a troubling pattern of escalating climate shocks. So, climate change is not a distant concern but a current crisis with tangible economic costs.

Recognising these challenges, Bangladesh has adopted several policy frameworks, strengthening climate-resilient agriculture. The BCCSAP, NAP 2023–2050, and Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100 prioritise climate-resilient agriculture, adaptation investment, and improved water resource management system. 

At the field level, the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) promotes climate-smart practices such as alternate wetting and drying (AWD) irrigation. 

Meanwhile, BRRI and BARI have developed stress-tolerant rice varieties, including BRRI dhan67 and BRRI dhan97 for saline-prone areas, BRRI dhan56 and BRRI dhan71 for drought-prone regions, and BRRI dhan51 and BRRI dhan52 for flood-prone areas. 

These innovations demonstrate how science-based adaptation can enhance agricultural resilience and food security in a changing climate. 

However, policy implementation remains uneven due to resource constraints, institutional fragmentation, and limited access to technology among marginal farmers. 

Bridging the gap between policy design and field-level implementation remains a critical challenge.

The cost of inaction is substantial. Climate-induced declines in agricultural productivity could reduce farmer incomes, increase food prices, deepen rural poverty, and strain public resources. 

Lower crop production would also disrupt agro-industries, weaken supply chains, and accelerate rural-to-urban migration. Ultimately, the economic and social costs of climate inaction are likely to far exceed the investments required for adaptation and resilience-building. 

By contrast, the cost of action is relatively low compared to the losses associated with climate inaction. Evidence from World Bank-supported projects shows that improved flood control and drainage systems can reduce crop damage by up to 60% in climate-sensitive areas. 

Moreover, climate-smart agriculture, weather forecasting, and sustainable land management not only enhances resilience but also ensures sustainable development, making adaptation a cost-effective investment rather than an expenditure. 

Every dollar invested in adaptation today can save multiple dollars in future disaster recovery and economic losses. 

Moving forward, strengthening both local and national adaptation efforts is essential. Farmers need greater access to climate information, resilient crop varieties, and sustainable farming practices, while community-based water management can enhance local resilience. 

Nationally, increased investment in agricultural research, climate finance, digital weather services, and resilient rural infrastructure is crucial to safeguard food security and agricultural productivity. Policymakers must also ensure that climate adaptation measures reach marginal farmers, who bear the greatest burden of climate risks.

The choice before Bangladesh is loud and clear. Silence and delayed action will deepen food insecurity, increase poverty, and escalate economic losses. 

Proactive investment in climate resilience may require substantial resources today, but the price of inaction will be far greater for Bangladesh in near future. 

Jishan Ara Mitu is a lecturer at the Dhaka School of Economics

She can be reached at  Jishan.mitu@dsce.edu.bd 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard