‘Bangladesh will become an
international pariah
if it sells out’
Dr Asaduzzaman is the research director at the Dhaka-based Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, and a lead author of the second assessment report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He tells New Age that Bangladesh will face international isolation if it ‘sells out’ by allowing the World Bank to manage the country’s climate change adaptations fund
Interviewed by Mahtab Haider
New Age: What are some of the key goals on Bangladesh’s agenda at the UK-Bangladesh climate change summit?
Asaduzzaman: The key goal is to explore ways of how a developed country — among those mostly responsible for [greenhouse gas] emissions — and a least developed country like Bangladesh, which does not have mitigation obligations, can work together for the common goal of human survival in the face of extreme climate change. And the basis for this is how the British government and its people could cooperate with the Bangladeshi government and the Bangladeshi people to help us adapt as quickly and efficiently as possible to the impacts of climate change. We should also work together so that the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions can be lowered or at least a principled stance can be taken in the negotiations process, without jeopardising, I would stress this, the principled stance that Bangladesh has taken in the LDC group and the G77 and China group — we have to ensure this. Some people think Bangladesh may be selling out. Bangladesh cannot sell out, because if it does it will become an international pariah.
What are you apprehensive that Bangladesh will sell out on?
The Annexe 1 countries [industrialised countries that are principally held responsible for human induced global warming] have the obligation to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases. At the recent G8 meeting they have made a sort of pledge, but this is not good enough. We want that their emissions should peak early and start to decline, not 2020 as they have said, especially since we recognise that the changes of lifestyle these emissions cuts will require are slow moving. Now, I am saying that we should not sell out by individually endorsing an emissions reduction pledge by the Annexe 1 countries that may or may not be acceptable to the LDC Group and the G77 and China group. Bangladesh has an obligation to the groups that it negotiates with, and I must warn the relevant people that if we do sell out, we will not be allowed to enter the room in future negotiations; it will become a foreign policy nightmare.
Controversies are emerging over a rumoured memorandum of understanding that the External Relations Division may have signed with the World Bank, allowing it to manage the funds Bangladesh will receive to tackle the effects of climate change. Are these apprehensions reasonable?
I have also heard about this MoU and my first reaction was to ask whether the Ministry of Environment had been consulted before this alleged deal was made, there is confusion over whether it is a verbal understanding or a written one, and it turns out that it wasn’t. The problem is that the ERD does not have the mandate to make such a deal – it is just a post-box and it is up to the relevant line ministry to take such crucial decisions. There are three apprehensions of this fund being managed by the World Bank. The first is that we fear that once the money is in their hands, the Bangladesh government will lose a lot of its decision making power over how this money will be spent. Secondly, it’s likely that 10-15 per cent of the total fund will have to go to the bank as its commission. Don’t forget that it is a bank and it wants to make a profit. And if that’s the case, why can’t it be Morgan Stanley? It should depend on who gives us better terms. But most importantly, on this point too, Bangladesh will be singled out by its partners in international negotiations as the country which sold out. But the chief adviser has been told that this is the case.
How much money are we talking about? How much money does Bangladesh need to tackle the impacts of climate change?
It’s an enormous amount. Its still early days and we can’t estimate the damages in money terms to a great level of accuracy, but think about food security, agriculture, health and infrastructure. And it goes as far as research into drought or flood resistant rice, but we cannot live just on rice, so there has to be a wide spectrum of research into all kinds of food that will be able to survive climate change. The figure we have quoted in the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan is $500 million over the next two years – much of which will go to repairing our coastal polders – which does not require new knowledge, just materials. Additionally, we need to mainstream our climate change actions, and to do this we want to set up a climate change cell in each of our ministries headed by, say a joint secretary, who will be the focal point of liaisons with the ministry of environment, and ensure that climate change issues are addressed in that ministry’s decisions. For the first five years, for adaptations, we need a minimum of $5bn – that’s a ballpark figure. For mitigation measures Bangladesh adopts – that will be additional.
Is it the responsibility of the industrialised states to give this money?
At the heart of this issue is morality since we are suffering the consequences of a phenomenon that has helped them prosper and is now driving countries like us into penury but it is also clear that climate change is everybody’s problem. The UK is also experiencing floods with a rising frequency and intensity, and the reason they now want to give Bangladesh money for flood protection is because they know that the world will fail its mitigation target if countries like us are not brought on board. And then, they will not be spared the effects either. Our energy demand is rising, China’s and India’s demands of energy are growing exponentially. And even China recognises, off the record, that they need to start moving towards cleaner energy and greater energy efficiency to address the problem. India however is less energy efficient per unit of GDP than it used to be a decade ago. On this topic, I also want to clarify that it is now internationally accepted that money for adaptations must come in the form of grants, not loans.
But if that is so, why does the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan, presented at the UK-Bangladesh summit on September 10, of which you are a co-author, fail to mention that Bangladesh deserves compensation from countries responsible for climate change?
We don’t say much about funding in this document — although we should have. In this case the ERD should have been on the same page as us, but what has happened is that the ERD has taken its cue from certain quarters and we had to leave it vague. In a workshop that the ERD organised in Dhaka to explore funding possibilities, despite the popular opposition to the idea of accepting loans to adapt to climate change, the ERD seems to be dancing to a different tune. Even the World Bank has been hesitant to push loans, but the ERD somehow can’t abandon the idea of taking World Bank loans. Climate change is such a multifaceted problem that it involves all ministries — not just the ministry of environment — and I think such a big decision should have been discussed in the cabinet before it was adopted. It is not the ERD or a particular ministry’s internal decision — it has national implications!
What will be the economic impacts of climate change on Bangladesh over the next two decades?
In my estimation, on an average 1- 1.5 per cent of potential GDP growth in agriculture is lost every year as a result of environmental damage. And a loss of that magnitude in agriculture alone reverberates throughout the entire economy. Which means livelihood of the people will be affected adversely, worsening our poverty situation. Already 55 million people in Bangladesh were below the poverty line before food price rises in the past two years added roughly another 10 million people to that figure. So the overall magnitude of the impact is immense. We need to embark on a study that will be the equivalent of the Stern Report on the economic impacts of climate change in Bangladesh to better estimate the losses we have incurred and will incur in the future.
Goodbye to nuclear export controls
by William C Potter
The decision early Saturday [September 6] morning by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to grant an unconditional Indian specific waiver on tough nuclear export guidelines probably was inevitable. A small group of nonproliferation stalwarts — Austria, Ireland, and New Zealand — could not by themselves withstand the onslaught of economic and political pressure brought to bear by four of the nuclear weapons states led by the United States. Ironically, complicity in ignoring non-proliferation obligations and bullying reluctant NSG members to exempt India from well-established export restraints may be one of the last areas of nuclear cooperation between the United States and Russia. To its credit, only China among the nuclear weapons states, voiced any reservations about the deal, but in the end it too lacked the power of conviction to block an artificial consensus.
What is especially disheartening about the nuclear agreement — and bodes poorly for future nonproliferation efforts — is the extent to which economic considerations and power politics overrode those involving nuclear arms control — even among states typically regarded as international nonproliferation leaders. Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, South Africa, and Sweden were largely missing in action — or worse — during the prolonged struggle to impose consensus on the deeply divided 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group.
Did these states, and others, simply forget the commitments they undertook at prior Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conferences to foreswear nuclear cooperation with states lacking comprehensive safeguards? What credibility will they have now to hold the feet of the nuclear weapons states to the fire on other NPT commitments such as nuclear disarmament, the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones, and the provision of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? Having rewarded India, a nuclear weapons possessor, with nuclear trade benefits previously reserved to states in compliance with the NPT, what incentives remain for other states to join the Treaty? How can one tighten controls on nuclear exports to NPT members of sensitive uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technology having just created a giant loophole for such exports to a non-NPT state? Which countries retain the moral authority to speak credibly about other states’ nuclear disarmament and arms control shortcomings in light of the collective nonproliferation amnesia on display in Vienna this past week? Certainly, the tiny group of white knights no longer includes Canada, Germany, South Africa, and Sweden — nations who pride themselves as models of nonproliferation propriety.
Battle moves to Washington
The battle over the India deal next moves to Washington where the US Congress will need to decide if it has the time or stomach to approve a measure pronouncing the agreement to be consistent with the requirements of Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act. Unless events take an unusual turn, the political outcome in Washington will resemble that in Vienna. A few lawmakers will make a compelling case about why the deal undermines global efforts to stanch the spread of nuclear weapons, many members will entertain private doubts about the wisdom of the legislation, but in the end a large majority will subordinate principle to politics and deliver a bipartisan victory to President Bush and the Indian lobby.
The one conceivable wildcard that could still torpedo the deal, oddly enough, involves the unpredictable political impact in New Delhi of last-minute efforts in Vienna to secure the agreement. Although the NSG waiver failed to contain the provisions sought by most nonproliferation advocates, including unambiguous provisions to terminate nuclear trade if India resumes weapons tests, the final document is not the ‘clean’ and ‘unconditional’ exemption sought and promised by the Congress Party leadership. As such, the compromise text, together with tough national statements of interpretation by countries such as Austria, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, and Norway, could splinter the already frail ruling coalition in India and lead to its collapse before the US Congress has a chance to consider the legislation. Such an outcome would not restore the integrity of nonproliferation export controls, but it would be a fitting conclusion to an ill-conceived initiative.
The Hindu, September 9, 2008. Professor William Potter is Director of the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.)
Climate change under
neoliberal capitalism
There is little doubt that climate change is happening. As countries and international organisations ponder
over how resolve an impending crisis brought about by global warming, they should also stop to consider whether the prevailing market oriented economy makes enough of an allowance to arrive at sustainable and genuine measures to contain this impending crisis… writes Ahmed Swapan Mahmud
The consequences of climate change already threaten the planet and communities around the world. However, strong resistance is present among the northern as well as southern communities to change the existing system of over consumption and exploitative nature of the global transnational corporations and international financial institutions. Although it is the North that is mainly responsible for carbon emission and destruction of nature and socioeconomic condition the Southern elites cannot avoid the responsibility either. It is also clear that the southern elite show little willingness to take proper measures against pollution and destruction by corporations often backed by the international financial institutions. Rather, it is observed that these institutions and corporations undermine government policies undertake activities that cause enormous damage to the nature and people’s livelihoods.
Martin Khor of the Third World Network points out that the global reduction of 80 per cent greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, that many consider necessary, will have to translate into reductions of at least 150 to 200 per cent on the part of the global North if the two principles—‘common but differentiated responsibility’ and recognition of the right to development of the South—are to be followed. But are the governments and peoples of the North prepared to make such commitments?
Northern societies are still obsessed with over consumption while the development discourse is still predominated by the neoliberal economic school of thought promoting capitalist free market. And this dominant economic model is considered as an obstacle to dealing with climate change.
Walden Bello finds it to be the central problem. It is becoming increasingly clear that it is a mode of production whose main dynamic is the transformation of living nature into dead commodities, creating tremendous waste in the process. The driver of this process is consumption—or more appropriately overconsumption—and the motivation is profit or capital accumulation: Capitalism, in short. It has been the generalisation of this mode of production in the North and its spread from the North to the South over the last 300 years that has caused the accelerated burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil and rapid deforestation, two of the key man-made processes behind global warming.
Climate catastrophe is a major component of today’s global scene. The leaders of developed countries, international financial institutions and corporations are mainly responsible this crisis for having damaged environment and ecology, destroying people’s livelihoods. Those very quarters are raising the issue of mitigation and adaptation. The communities of the developing countries are also feel pressured about how they will generate enough resources for adaptation and mitigation.
The adverse effect of climate change is increasingly growing with a higher frequency and intensity of weather events like floods, droughts, cyclones and hurricanes globally which affect people’s livelihood causing substantial damage to agriculture, environment and the communities in general. The rise of sea level will inundate low lying coastal areas which will cause a fourth of Bangladesh to disappear according to one report. Also extreme heat and warmer waters will cause even further damage to the communities concerned.
As profit driven mode of production by corporate agencies, over extraction of natural resources and over consumption hasten global warming, poor communities of the developing countries continue to suffer from poverty and malnutrition without any effective access to public services.
There have been attempts to intervene into climate change and avert the impending crisis. The Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol were adopted but substantial progress was not made. Rather the Kyoto deal does not intervene into the root causes—corporate globalisation and the mad pursuit of profit by global conglomerates. The destructive process is continuing in the South through carbon trading and reallocating quota for further extraction of natural resources for profit of companies through energy extensive operations. The Kyoto Protocol overlooks the damage caused by climate change and avoids the principle of ‘right to development and human rights’ including people’s authority over their own natural resources.
The Bangladesh paper on climate change was prepared without substantive participation of communities, the poor and the vulnerable and civil society actors. It does not highlight the root causes of climate change and also does not undertake proper measures based on human rights and justice framework. Limited participation is the fundamental flaw of the paper. Among many, major concerns include, for instance, regarding food security, poverty and health, the government counts on increased food production but based on commercialisation and industrialisation that will threaten people’s food sovereignty and farmers’ rights. Even on the health issue, proper measures are not considered regarding how to ensure people’s right to health while climate change has a serious impact on food production and health.
Support based programmes do not necessarily help people in the long run if natural disasters frequently hit those areas. Community based programmes should be undertaken with community management. As climate defence, physical infrastructure is prioritised over what should have been a ‘reorientation and integration’ approach from a human rights perspective.
Considering low carbon technology, as it would compel the country to thwart its process of industrialisation, Bangladesh should assert its right to development and adopt appropriate measures towards the proven path of industrialisation, economic growth and poverty alleviation.
It should be noted that per capita carbon emission per year in Bangaldesh is only 0.02 tonnes while in the US it is 20 tonnes, literally a thousands times more, and in China and India it is around 10 tonnes.
As decided at the Bali Conference, an adaptation fund will be created under the UN as there was and continues to be strong opposition against separate initiative under any lending agencies. But the World Bank has already taken such an initiative at the G8 Summit in Japan that parties present there lauded and agreed to support. These lending agencies are equally responsible for climate injustice, having imposed their policy conditions undermining the right and policy sovereignty of different countries and thereby undermining core democratic values. This initiative must be opposed.
Greater cooperation and collective effort including the vulnerable communities need to be taken to mitigate the problem. The fundamental principles should adhere to policies so as to overcome the damaging factors sustaining people’s sovereignty over food and natural resources. Global responsibility must be considered for immediate and long term strategies with due consideration for the poor and vulnerable.
Climate change is not only an environmental issue. It must be understood how under the ‘free market’—the neo-liberal economic order and capitalist globalization—the transnational agencies, backed by lenders, pursue profit through over exploitation of nature causing excessive carbon emissions. The neoliberal package is also behind defining the nature of investment, through myriad different means including multilateral and bilateral agreements and aid conditionalities. The root causes of climate crisis must be addressed appropriately that guarantees social justice and democracy.
The role of social movement groups, civil society, political actors, indigenous people, coastal communities, farmers, fisherfolk, poor and vulnerable when considering measures to address climate change for it must be inclusive and fully owned by the people that must adopt these measures. Market driven mechanisms must not be the central pillar to climate mitigation but it should hinge upon eco-sufficiency and sustainability. The People’s Protocol on Climate Change has already brought these issues to the forefront for building alternative mechanisms to resolve climate crisis.
However, the fundamental question is whether neo-liberal capitalism as a system in the current economic order will create the space to resolve climate change. And moreover, does the capitalist mode of development led by the global North can properly deal with climate change.
Ahmed Swapan Mahmud is a writer and activist and can be reached at ahmed.swapan@gmail.com
ACC deluged with wealth statements
of 12 lakh public servants
The ACC must have a data/computer programme to manage the information; not a difficult task if one knows what he wants.
Imtiyaz Husain
Gulshan, Dhaka
* * *
Let the ACC employ some honest secret service men for handling the 12 lakh cases of public servants’ wealth statements.
M T Hussain
Dhaka
Nonsense!
Ezajur Rahman (‘CEC sorry for past dealings with BNP’, September 9) once again puts the blame for his country’s misery on politicians.
The final responsibility, in a democracy, rests only with the electorate. In Bangladesh, corruption is tolerated and encouraged by the individual, as long as it works in his/her favour. It is only when decisions go against an individual that he suddenly adopts a moral stance, and decries ‘corruption’.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too, Ezajur…
RJM
Via e-mail
‘Religion and state’
I wholeheartedly support the views of Engineer Shafi Ahmed (Quick Comments, September 10).
In this connection may I suggest that we do not use the Bengali word ‘dhormo niropekhkhota’
for the English word ‘secular’, because the interested people misinterpret this Bengali word. Instead we should use Bengali words like ‘jagotik’ or ‘parthibo’.
George Jacob Holyoake, the British writer who coined the term ‘secularism’, clearly said the secular philosophy has no conflict with religion.
We as Muslims should feel proud that the idea of secular philosophy came from the great Spanish Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd.
Waheed Nabi
England
Dhaka seeking $5b climate fund
It is up to us to make sure Bangladeshis learn the facts about the fund seeking policy. Bangladeshis need to know that our Green Shift does not discriminate: no Bangladeshis will be left behind, and no area will bear a disproportionate burden.
Our policy has to be designed to bring about necessary changes by re-orienting the incentives in our tax system. By decreasing taxes on things we want to encourage (income, investment, innovation), and by increasing taxes on things we want to see less of (pollution, waste) we will begin to see the changes that will put us on the track to reducing emissions and combating climate change. At its core, the Green Shift encourages all of us to form greener habits.
Gopal Sengupta
Canada
Fund for IT development
India says nuclear deal will ensure its economic future. And here in Bangladesh we are not serious even in IT, leaving aside the nuclear technology. It is not that we cannot afford the development in IT sector. We are misusing whatever fund we have. We should immediately dismantle the madrassah education system and the madrassah board and divert all the fund that is getting misused in an unproductive and destructive system.
We do not need a parallel British system for religious teachings. In the Middle Eastern Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman there is only one education system. They call it school in English and in Arabic they call it madrassah. We have to be decisive and take decisions boldly. If we still show hesitation for petty personal political gains, we will be left behind and the future generations will never forgive us for this cowardliness.
MH Khan
Via e-mail
|
Next on Quick Comments
| |
a. Lawyer asks Hasina and Khaleda to stop vendetta (New Age, September 10)
b. Bangladesh has record number of child brides: report (New Age, September 10)
c. 75 per cent pass HSC exams
d. ‘Big Bang’ experiment under way: Three decades after it was conceived, the world’s most powerful physics experiment has begun (http ://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/ nature/7604293.stm)
|
‘Quick Comments’, (01713-065-354, letters@newagebd.com, quickcomments@gmail.com ) seeks the readers’ instant reaction ondifferent national and international issues. Comments should be brief, not exceeding 150 words. Submissions should mention ‘Quick Comments’ and will be subject to editing for quality and clarity..
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
