Bangladesh – UK framework agreement on Climate Change
Response Statement from UK and Bangladeshi civil society groups
In the context of the urgency of the climate change challenge, and the uniquely vulnerable situation of Bangladesh, we recognise the efforts of the Bangladeshi government in creating the national Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan and in creating the Climate Change Fund of $45 million/annum to support the implementation of the plan. We also recognise the steps taken by the UK government to support the Plan through a commitment of £75 million as an initial contribution to the Multi Donor Trust Fund. Whilst insufficient in themselves these are positive steps in the right direction.
UK and Bangladeshi civil society appreciative of the steps taken would wish to make the following comments and statement of principles with regard to the creation of the plan and funds following the interaction we had in London after the official UK Bangladesh Climate Change Conference.
We believe that responding to climate change is in principle a matter of compensation and rights and all language used in agreements such as the ‘Framework’ launched on 10th September 2008 should reflect this fact. The commitments made under the Kyoto Protocol are not being sufficiently enforced. It is therefore critical that language used in all current and future negotiations and emerging agreements supports rigorous enforcement, of these commitments, exploring legal means if necessary
Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and a considerable portion of financing will have to go to adaptation. Whilst funding of adaptation actions is critical, adaptation has its limits. Meeting responsibilities for adaptation funding in no way reduces the responsibilities on Annex 1 countries to reduce their emissions. Keeping the status quo in terms of mitigation increases vulnerability of countries such as Bangladesh which would require in the medium term more financing than any amount pledged for adaptation alone. To date, the response from Annex 1 countries to reduce emissions has been entirely insufficient and it is vulnerable communities and individuals in Bangladesh that are already paying the price. The right of survival takes precedent to any unsustainable economic growth and maintenance of lifestyles. The efforts made by the Bangladeshi government to allocate special funds for climate change should not come at a price of affecting the achievement of the MDGs in this country. Therefore we call on the UK Government to ensure that their recent commitment to cut emissions by 80% by 2050 (Climate Change Bill) is supported by clear decisions and real actions to guarantee its achievement in addition to new and additional adaptation finance.
With regards to action on adaptation at national and sub-national levels, it is critical that the design, planning and implementation of activities has a long-term vision and seeks to address the structural causes of poverty and inequality which are at the core in determining and increasing vulnerability. As such, while recognising the need for new and additional funds for climate related actions, we also believe that tackling issues such as food security, reorienting current agricultural practices, housing, land rights, access and control over essential natural resources, indigenous peoples’ rights and gender inequities are a legitimate and important component of any ‘adaptation package’ proposed.
Climate change, its causes, implications and impacts, are not well understood at community level. Developing systems to increase information flows to the community level and empower people at community level to be heard and to influence plans and processes are also a critical part of adaptation programmes and need priority support.
Any research funded through the climate funds should be designed to increase local capacity and expertise in Bangladesh and to ensure that the knowledge generated stays in, and primarily benefits, Bangladesh and its people.
The poor, their organisations, agendas and processes must be put at the heart of all decisions, activities, and research proposed. The main measure of success will be whether the funded activities would have truly helped poor communities adjust to the various effects of a worsening climate. Only then the intended efforts will be legitimate and add value to the efforts of addressing climate injustice.
We recognise that the commitment of £75 million from the UK government is offered as a ‘pilot’ and with the expectation that other contributions from other friendly donors will be forthcoming in time. It is also clear that the costs of meeting the climate challenge in Bangladesh will exceed this figure by a factor of several 100s and the responsibility to provide the required funding remains outstanding. However extreme care is needed in defining the mechanisms through which this pilot scheme will be implemented to avoid negatively influencing future climate change finance discussions on how Annex –I countries can apportion the amount they are due to pay in compensation through bilateral funds targeted to vulnerable countries.
Framework agreements such as that launched on 10th September 2008 should include not just funding commitments but also agreements on other climate relevant issues such as technology access and transfer and climate forced migration among others.
A global fair deal in the context of the UNFCCC process (such as that outlined by a ‘greenhouse development rights framework’ is critical to ensure that future adaptation funding is provided against requirements. However the way in which such funds are governed is critical with regard to how they are utilised at the national and local level. Any governance system needs to reflect the understanding (as above) that this finance needs to be viewed as ‘compensation’ and an obligation rather than Aid.
With regard to point (7) above, it is inappropriate to place funding provided by the UK government under a separate administration system from the existing Climate Change Fund already created by the Bangladeshi government. If a multi-lateral donor trust fund is established, as the UK-Bangladesh joint communiqué stated would happen, then a way must be found to ensure these funds are not managed separately from the Government’s own fund. In particular the proposed role of the World Bank in administering the fund is inappropriate. Bangladesh’s poor experience of multilateral financing mechanism indicates that single handed management of any fund is not productive and therefore the intended role for the WB raises well founded concerns on single agency domination. Moreover, the WB is mistrusted by many development actors in Bangladesh due to its history of attaching economic conditions to aid. Administration and management of climate funding should be the primary responsibility of the government of Bangladesh, with support and monitoring from an independent national board on climate change to include a relevant range of stakeholders, including local community representatives. Bangladesh should develop its own management mechanism and be supported to do so by the international community.
There is no doubt that key lessons will be learnt from this bilateral voluntary approach, we would like to call upon the UK and Bangladesh governments to ensure that this initiative does not pose any risk to wider efforts to secure a global, compensatory framework for financing.
In regard to point (8) above, we recognise that the Government of Bangladesh holds responsibility for managing climate funds well and using them appropriately and effectively, especially taking into account points (3), (4), (5) and (6) above. It is the challenge of the government to ensure political leadership and broad national ownership. Global and Bangladeshi Civil Society groups need to take on responsibility for holding the Government of Bangladesh accountable in this regard and provide its technical assistance as and when needed.
The following UK and Bangladeshi civil society organisations endorse this statement:
CARITAS, Bangladesh
CASEED, Bangladesh
Centre for Global Change, Bangladesh
Center for Natural Resource Studies, Bangladesh
Christian Aid, UK
Drishtipat, UK
Nijera Kori, Bangladesh
One World Action, UK
Practical Action, UK
Tearfund, UK
1