Assessing policy linkages and collaboration in response to climate change extreme weather events in Malawi. A case of the agriculture, environment, and health sectors

Climate change is not just a story of rising temperatures; it is a force that reshapes the very foundations of human well-being. When the weather turns extreme, it does not stop at the edge of a farm field or a forest line. It spills over into the water we drink, the food we eat, and the air we breathe, creating a chain reaction that touches every part of life. In many places, the systems designed to protect people—growing crops, managing land, and treating illness—operate in separate silos, each with its own rules and leaders. Yet, when a flood washes away a clinic or a drought withers a harvest, these separate worlds collide. The challenge for modern governance is to weave these distinct threads together, ensuring that a policy written for farmers also protects the health of their families, and that a plan for the environment supports the doctors treating the sick. This is the complex puzzle of policy linkage: the effort to make different government departments work as a single, coordinated unit rather than as isolated islands.

In Malawi, a country in southeastern Africa where the rhythm of life is dictated by the seasons, this puzzle has become urgent. The nation has faced devastating weather events in recent years, including the catastrophic Cyclone Freddy in 2023 and severe droughts that have left children malnourished. These events have exposed a critical question: do the country's plans for agriculture, the environment, and health actually talk to one another? To find out, researchers Chancy Skenard Chimatiro and Martina Lembani from the University of the Western Cape set out to examine the official documents and the people who carry them out. They wanted to see if the government had successfully stitched together a safety net that covers all three sectors, or if gaps remained where people could fall through.

The researchers began by looking at the written record. They gathered forty-four different policy documents from the ministries of agriculture, environment, and health, covering the period from 2015 to 2025. This decade was chosen because it marked when Malawi first made serious commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to a changing climate. From this large pile, they carefully selected seven key documents that specifically addressed climate change, floods, droughts, or cyclones. They read these texts repeatedly, searching for signs of connection. They looked for places where one policy mentioned another, where a plan for farming included a goal for public health, or where environmental rules supported medical needs. This process, known as a systematic review, allowed them to map out the official intentions of the government.

To understand how these plans worked in the real world, the team then spoke with thirteen people who were directly involved in making and carrying out these policies. They interviewed officials at the national headquarters in Lilongwe, where the big decisions are made, and also spoke with implementers in the districts of Blantyre and Phalombe, areas that had been hit hardest by recent storms. These conversations were designed to reveal the gap between the written word and the daily reality. The researchers asked the national leaders if they knew how their policies linked to other sectors, and they asked the local workers if they had clear instructions on how to collaborate with their neighbors in different ministries.

The findings revealed a landscape of mixed success. On the surface, the government's written plans showed a strong commitment to the idea of working together. The analysis of the seven documents showed that climate change themes had been woven into the policies of all three sectors. Whether the document was about growing crops, managing natural resources, or treating patients, it included strategies to deal with extreme weather. Furthermore, almost every policy included health-related goals. For instance, the agricultural policy mentioned improving nutrition for families, and the environmental policy discussed reducing air pollution to prevent respiratory diseases. This suggested that the national leaders understood that a healthy population depends on healthy land and food.

However, the story changed when the researchers looked at how these policies actually connected to one another. While the agriculture and health sectors had clearly referenced each other, and agriculture had linked with the environment, the environmental policies did not explicitly connect back to health. This created a one-way street where health benefits were mentioned in other plans, but the environment sector did not formally acknowledge its role in protecting public health. More importantly, the interviews with the people on the ground revealed a significant disconnect. The national policymakers were very aware of these links; they knew which departments were supposed to work together. But the local implementers, the people tasked with executing the plans during a crisis, often did not know about these connections.

When the researchers asked the district-level workers about collaboration, the answers were hesitant. Many implementers admitted they were unsure if their work was linked to other sectors. They described working alongside health or agriculture teams during disasters like Cyclone Freddy, but they noted that there were no clear guidelines to tell them how to coordinate. Without a shared rulebook, everyone simply did what they thought was best, leading to a chaotic response rather than a unified one. One implementer noted that while they worked together, the lack of direction meant that each person was just "doing what he or she knew best," rather than following a coordinated strategy. The study found that while the national government had written a script for collaboration, the local actors had not been given the lines to speak.

The researchers concluded that Malawi has made a positive start in recognizing the threat of climate change and has integrated health concerns into its various sectoral plans. The country has moved beyond ignoring the problem and has begun to write policies that acknowledge the interdependence of food, land, and health. Yet, the study highlighted that writing a plan is not the same as making it work. The current system suffers from partial linkages and a lack of coordination at the local level. The gap between the national leaders who design the policies and the district workers who must execute them remains a barrier to effective action. For the country to truly protect its people from future storms, the study suggests that the government must do more than just write cross-references in its documents. It must ensure that the people on the ground understand how their work fits into the larger picture and provide them with clear, shared guidelines to follow when the next extreme weather event arrives.