Report Launch ｜ Take Root in Rural Areas Rather Than Fear Climate Change
Foodthink Says
Over the past two decades, the work of civil society organisations in poverty alleviation, rural development, ecological agriculture, disaster prevention, energy transition, care for marginalised groups, and gender equality has provided a wealth of experience for rural climate adaptation. However, it is not only the climate that is shifting; the countryside itself is transforming. Rapid, large-scale urbanisation and the industrialisation of agriculture have profoundly altered rural landscapes and demographic structures. As smallholder farmers face growing marginalisation by policy and market forces, and see diminishing returns from the land, the transition from peasant to migrant worker has become an inevitable, if reluctant, reality. It is therefore no surprise that the “389961” demographic (women, children and the elderly) left behind in rural areas has emerged as the most vulnerable to climate risks.
Only by understanding these rural transformations can we grasp the underlying logic of climate action. So how do civil society organisations define the challenges and shape their interventions at the intersection of rural life and climate change? What lessons have been drawn from their successes and setbacks? To answer these questions, and with the support of Oxfam Hong Kong’s Beijing Office, Foodthink conducted interviews over the past year with 29 civil society organisations, 11 academics, and non-profit practitioners. These insights were combined with 58 valid survey responses from institutions currently undertaking or planning climate work in rural areas, culminating in the *Research on Action Pathways for Rural Civil Society Organisations Responding to Climate Change* (click “Read Original” to download). At the recent report launch in Beijing, Foodthink invited representatives from civil society, foundation practitioners, academics, and the media to discuss: What is the most effective role for civil society organisations in building climate resilience in rural communities? And how should we understand and address the misalignment between climate funding and non-profit action, as well as the tensions between policy and practice?
I. Compounding Hardships: When Rural Areas Confront Climate Change
This serves as a case study in the report. Lead author Kong Lingyu uses it to illustrate the foremost dilemma social organisations encounter when implementing climate change projects in rural areas — increasingly, organisations arrive in villages equipped with climate-focused charitable funds, only to find that the root of the crisis is not climate change itself, but rather long-standing local rural challenges concerning livelihoods, infrastructure, healthcare, and an ageing population.
During the report commentary session, Wang Xiaoyi, a researcher at the Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, voiced a similar dilemma: when a village decides whether to construct water management facilities or dig new ponds, does it take climate change into account? “Probably not at all,” he said, pointing out that factors such as whether farmers remain in the countryside, retain their connection to the land, or secure government investment are far more decisive.
Another panellist, Huang Yajun, represents the Shengeng Social Work Service Centre in Conghua District, Guangzhou (hereafter ‘Shengeng’). Having put down roots in the mountainous areas of Conghua for a decade, Shengeng has witnessed rural transformation firsthand: local industries have vanished, populations have drained away in mass exodus, and addressing demographic ageing has become imperative. Following more than four years of Shengeng’s work on climate change initiatives, Huang believes the report strikes at the real issues encountered in grassroots practice: “Take the past few years, for example: everyone has been swept up in a flurry of climate risk assessments, but once the assessment is finished, what then?”
This is also the primary question that emerges when civil society organisations introduce climate agendas into rural communities: when climate change becomes intertwined with the countryside’s entrenched structural challenges, where does one even begin to find a ‘solution’? That this poses such a significant hurdle is largely attributable to the constraints that climate-focused philanthropy places on how problems are framed.
Lu Dequan, an expert at the Lianxin Community Care Service Centre in Yunnan Province, is a veteran charity professional who was among the first to mobilise domestic civil society organisations to tackle climate change. In 2005, he left his academic post at Hong Kong Baptist University to join Oxfam Hong Kong in setting up a research and development centre in Beijing, where he helped fund grassroots Chinese organisations collaborating with international partners to produce the “Climate Change and Chinese Civil Society Perspectives/Actions Series Reports” (2007–2010). Those early publications already astutely identified the intricate link between climate change and unequal rights to development. Yet Lu laments that, even now, research into climate justice remains scant: how can we assist smallholder farmers in building diversified livelihoods? How do we effectively prepare for disasters? Which communities face the steepest risks and pressures from a changing climate?
II. Mitigation or Adaptation?
Climate philanthropy typically begins in the mitigation sphere, which seeks to slow climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. For example, as methane reduction has gained traction, several rural-focused social organisations have capitalised on the momentum to launch initiatives such as climate-friendly rice farming. (Editor’s note: Emissions are reduced by carefully managing field drainage to limit the time plants spend submerged, thereby curbing anaerobic decomposition.)
In preparing this report, Foodthink also found that social organisations operating in rural areas have widely struggled with how to prioritise mitigation versus adaptation. To begin with, they have encountered concrete technical hurdles in carbon accounting. Among the organisations Foodthink interviewed, 72.5 per cent (42 out of the total) stated they were either unclear on the process or had not yet undertaken emission accounting for their projects. Of those spoken to, only Yunnan Sili Ecological Alternatives Technology Centre (“Sili”) and Shengeng had attempted accounting, but both faced setbacks: Shengeng initiated its mitigation work in 2021 by targeting reduced pesticide and fertiliser use. However, the accounting templates provided by technical experts required figures on nitrogen fertiliser application, whereas farmers were using organic fertilisers that could not be readily converted into standard metrics. Pesticide data proved equally difficult to gather. Furthermore, carbon accounting methods are poorly suited to the context of smallholder farmers practising diversified cropping.
Yet funders who prioritise mitigation efforts expect social organisations to provide carbon emission data to substantiate project effectiveness. Beyond methodological hurdles, social organisations typically operate in fairly impoverished villages. What is the purpose of asking these communities to cut emissions and reduce ‘subsistence emissions’? Does it not simply become a form of ‘robbing the poor to enrich the rich’? Kong Lingyu asked.
After exploring carbon accounting methodologies, Siling found that an approach ‘centred on adaptation, with added mitigation co-benefits’ proved to be the best path forward. As droughts in Yunnan continue to intensify, farmers are keen to plant water-saving, drought-resistant rice varieties regardless of methane reduction targets, simply because water is scarce. Climate change has turned Siling Centre’s once-struggling mitigation initiative—climate-friendly rice cultivation—into a viable market opportunity.
At a policy level, China has similarly evolved from prioritising mitigation to placing equal emphasis on both mitigation and adaptation. Reviewing the report, Xu Yinlong, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and a committee member of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Climate Change Adaptation, noted that the 2017 National Climate Change Programme for China already included language calling for climate mitigation and climate adaptation to be given equal weight. He recalled that by the time China released its *National Strategy on Climate Change Adaptation 2035* in 2022, experts were once again making their position unequivocally clear: adaptation must be significantly strengthened, as it outweighs mitigation in importance.
Furthermore, Xu argues that climate adaptation entails a workload many times, even tens of times, greater than that of mitigation. Tackling climate adaptation in rural areas demands sustained, long-term commitment.
III. Responding to Climate Change in Rural Areas: Foundations Are Also Paving the Way
During a roundtable discussion themed “Are social organisations and funders on the same wavelength?”, Liu Yiwei of the Xianfeng Foundation reflected on her team’s process of surveying rural challenges. She spoke candidly about the difficulty of identifying an entry point for rural work: even after six months, they still felt they needed more time to “see things clearly.” Rural development encompasses village infrastructure, urban–rural population mobility, employment, and so much more… There are simply too many threads of social change, deeply intertwined with policy and ground reality, that must be carefully untangled. It is precisely why, following half a year of research, the team refrained from rushing into funding decisions and frequently experienced a sense of disconnection, feeling that they were simply “not speaking the same language” across different levels.
The Fujian Zhengrong Public Welfare Foundation, which focuses on rural and community wellbeing, has recently begun to engage with climate issues. Programme officer Liu Yiyue explained that when selecting partners, the foundation first considers whether the partner’s work addresses genuine social problems and whether the organisation has a track record of long-term, deep engagement. They also assess the partner’s influence, both locally and nationally, among peers working on similar issues.
Xiao Kaiteng, an advisor at the Gingko Foundation, noted that the foundation’s climate-related funding began in 2023 and has continued for three years, with projects in agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fisheries accounting for 30 per cent of the portfolio. Explaining the rationale behind this focus, she said: “Gingko does not position itself as a climate funder. However, recognising our partners’ sensitivity to social issues and their need to experiment, we aim to provide ongoing support and absorb the costs of trial and error. The inherent complexity of climate challenges aligns perfectly with their diverse approaches, marking this as our next area of concentration.” In Xiao’s view, individual organisations should prioritise shifting from “Climate+” to “Me+Climate”, reflecting on what “I” actually am. Engaging with climate issues does not require a complete change of track; rather, it means factoring in the impacts of climate change on the communities they serve.
Oxfam began addressing climate change within China as early as 2007, and its poverty alleviation and rural development programmes in the country now span more than two decades. Hu Wei, a programme officer at Oxfam Hong Kong’s Beijing office, explained that this evolution occurred partly because working in rural areas naturally brought the intensifying impacts of climate change into sharp relief. On another front, Oxfam used the 2007 UN Climate Conference to launch initiatives tackling climate poverty and advancing climate justice, urging greater attention to the disproportionate effects of climate change on vulnerable nations and communities. Guided by these principles of justice, Oxfam’s work in the region follows two primary strategies. First, it assists vulnerable populations in mitigating climate threats and strengthening rural community resilience, championing farmer-centred development approaches across China. For instance, since 2019, the organisation has supported local communities in Wangjinzhuang Village, Shexian County, Hebei, to establish rural self-organisations, conserve traditional local crop varieties within dryland terracing systems, and develop new drought-resistant strains. Second, Oxfam focuses on securing climate loss and damage finance, advocating for developed nations to honour their climate finance pledges and pushing for the effective deployment of climate adaptation funding across Asia.
Given that most funders prioritise climate mitigation over adaptation, a participant working for an international foundation noted that while global bodies do fund adaptation, their current domestic focus remains primarily on mitigation through policy advocacy. Against this backdrop, delivering direct adaptation services is not a strategic priority. Meanwhile, most domestic foundations have yet to formulate long-term climate strategies, making cross-ecosystem collaboration—such as weaving climate resilience into rural development plans—all but impossible. This explains why frontline community organisations so often struggle to find common ground with funders.
She also pointed out that discussing whether a foundation and an organisation are ‘in sync’ or not only makes sense if there is a shared baseline to begin with. This means foundations must first grasp the realities of climate-informed rural development and commit to a long-term strategy. Only then can a genuine conversation about alignment take place.
He Jinhao from the Foundation for the Coexistence of Humanity and Nature, however, argued that maintaining differing perspectives between funders and partner organisations is equally important. “Too much alignment can lead to homogenisation, causing organisations to lose their unique understanding of the issues.”
4. Leapfrogging at the rural ‘last mile’
Yet, precisely this issue of care and settlement for rural older adults has been a particular focus of Chen Jingjing, a researcher in agriculture, rural development, and farming, over the past few years.
Chen Jingjing firmly believes that social organisations should work to improve people’s concrete, everyday lives rather than engage in abstract debates, and that modernisation must not be treated as an ultimate goal. Whether addressing the modernisation of agriculture and rural areas, rural revitalisation, or climate change, we must grapple with a fundamental question: Across the decades currently defined as a period of transitional development, what kind of lives should, and could, those remaining in rural areas and those who have left to work elsewhere actually lead?
Pastoral areas are similarly undergoing urbanisation and rural hollowing. Under the combined impact of climate change, pastoral development, property rights systems, and grazing policies, Shi Xiangying, Executive Director of the Mountains Rivers & Forests Conservation Centre, observed that when tackling the complex challenge of grassland degradation in pastoral regions, simply mobilising and urging herders to reduce their livestock numbers is insufficient. At such a juncture, how the government and local communities position themselves is crucial: should the priority lie with fiscal transfer payments to advance ecological conservation, or with safeguarding livelihoods through the development of pastoral and tourism industries? Meanwhile, as traditional pastoral cultures continue to erode, civil society organisations must also approach their interventions from a community-centred standpoint.
Zuo Zhi, Director of the Sili Ecological Alternatives Centre in Yunnan, strongly concurs: “The further down you go to the grassroots, the more you need to focus on foundational issues.” His team maintains close collaboration with county and township agricultural technology service centres. As the grassroots core of the agricultural extension system, these bodies are typically preoccupied with practical concerns that directly affect farmers: How do we secure rice yields amid erratic weather? How do we manage outbreaks of pests and diseases? Or, for example, how can targeted training ensure that government-distributed organic fertilisers, biological pesticides, and ripening agents are applied correctly and efficiently by farmers? “These are precisely the spheres where civil society organisations can step in and make a real impact.”
Zuo Zhi draws a clear line between policy-making departments and policy implementation bodies. Agricultural technology extension stations at the municipal and county levels, alongside township agricultural centres, largely function as the latter. They can sit down with civil society organisations to discuss on-the-ground execution. “They (the agricultural extension departments) are actually doing their utmost, even when working with limited resources.”
Chen Jingjing says that in recent years, the central government’s total investment in agriculture, rural areas, and farmers has reached the scale of 1.5 to 1.7 trillion yuan. These projects span numerous sectors and involve a wide array of stakeholders. Take a high-standard basic farmland project as an example: it would already be considered a best-case scenario if 50 to 60 percent of the funding actually made it to the villages.
Xiao Yunsheng, head of the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market, has also noted that applying for agricultural project funding is hardly straightforward for smallholder farmers. One ecological farming associate in Yunnan enthusiastically applied for a 30,000 yuan subsidy, only to find that costs for printing, transport, and navigating bureaucratic departments ultimately consumed nearly the full amount of the grant. The government clearly prefers to direct funding towards larger-scale operations.
Village documentary filmmaker and Bilibili creator “Yuzhen Jishi” observed a clear bias in subsidy allocation during field visits: “the more you cultivate, the more you are subsidised.” For smallholders, the annual paddy subsidy typically amounts to around 100 yuan per mu. Yet, according to local reports and villagers, large-scale operators or agricultural companies can secure subsidies of 200 to 300 yuan per mu*. Bolstered by these incentives, some growers even forgo raising seedlings, opting instead for direct seeding**, thereby saving on transplanting costs and roughly a month of nursery time.
In pastoral regions, Shi Xiangying has also encountered numerous subsidy programmes for artificial grass planting aimed at countering pasture degradation and sandstorms. Most of these projects are outsourced to third-party firms via tendering. On occasion, the grass withers within a year, allowing for replanting and another round of subsidies. She observes that, from the government’s perspective, the pressing priority is simply how to expend such vast sums efficiently. Under these circumstances, conducting one-on-one consultations with hundreds of farming households is impractical. Yet social organisations are precisely positioned to fill this gap, mobilising local residents and fostering collaboration among village collectives, grassland stations, and agricultural extension services. Shi Xiangying argues that this represents a key function of social organisations in rural grassroots governance: bridging the “last mile”.
Huang Yajun similarly suggests that, despite the prevailing uncertainties, the climate change agenda may well offer social organisations a chance to rediscover their relevance. Entering through the climate change lens, these groups could opt for a narrower focus, addressing specific disasters and risks, or they could and should adopt a broader, more holistic approach, weaving together the threads of grassroots governance, community mobilisation, and industrial development. For instance, by establishing deep roots in eldercare work in Conghua, Guangdong, one organisation earned recognition and attention from the local civil affairs bureau, which subsequently opened the door to collaborating with the town’s flood, drought, and typhoon defence office on climate-related initiatives.
In the view of Li Dajun, director of the sector support programme at Beijing Heyi Green Philanthropy Foundation, this comprehensive or holistic perspective is precisely the competitive edge that rural social organisations in China hold over charities operating in other niche sectors. Because they are not “disconnected from the ground”, with both their staff and methodologies deeply rooted in local communities, they possess a strong capacity for systemic thinking, enabling them to tackle concrete problems more effectively.
Grounded in rural realities yet equipped with a macro-level outlook on issues such as climate change, this ability to “bridge the gap between policy and practice” forms the bedrock upon which social organisations can achieve sustained growth. Chang Tianle, founding editor at Foodthink, uses the metaphor of “overtaking on a bend” — Chinese grassroots organisations once championed many forward-looking causes in environmental protection, food and agriculture, and women’s rights, but over the past decade, their initial momentum has been gradually worn down.Does the climate change debate offer a new opportunity, whether for rethinking rural development or for social organisations to take the lead in shaping the agenda?
**While dry direct seeding is indeed a climate-friendly rice cultivation method that reduces methane emissions and conserves water, the participant’s remark here was intended to underscore the lack of careful management by conventional farmers.
Edited by: Ling Yu