Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Op-Ed «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

IT IS indeed disquieting that the World Bank will take away a little over eight per cent of funds pledged to the people of Bangladesh. According to a report published in New Age on Wednesday, the World Bank, as secretariat and administrator, has been allocated $8 million of the $98 million pledged to Bangladesh for addressing the adverse impacts of climate change. The report, citing a draft concept note detailing the modalities, framework and governance of the Multi Donor Trust Fund, states that this global lending agency will be entitled to fees for housing the secretariat to the trust and expenditures as administrator amounting to about $5 million. The lending agency would also be allowed certain other expenditure, with the approval of different stakeholders including the government, to spend another $3 million.
   Although those favourable to the World Bank point out that as the secretariat it would ensure an accountable and transparent expenditure of funds and furthermore that the lending agency would only be in charge of housing the secretariat while the real decisions would come from the government, it is quite understandable that it is not really that simple. As the report quotes an eminent economist of the country, who has also been closely linked with the climate change discourse and in preparation of national and international documents on climate change, the lending agency would not merely be awaiting the Bangladesh government’s directives to sign away cheques.
   Even fund allocation under different heads for the lending agency shows that there will be stringent and restrictive procedure to secure funds from this trust. As for accountability and transparency, there is little doubt that the government of Bangladesh is not a champion in that field. But neither is the World Bank. Allegations of corruption, nepotism and pilferage against this global lender abound too. Instead, the national government, far more aware and well-versed with the problems of the people should be pressured to become more accountable and transparent.
   That this lending agency and some other foreign development agencies are allegedly influencing potential contributors to channel their funds into this trust fund and refrain from providing direct budgetary support to the government is also objectionable as there are still strong reservations among the more aware sections of the citizenry over establishment of the trust fund itself.
   It transpires from the report that the World Bank regards handling this trust with a ‘business as usual’ attitude. It appears to escape this lending agency that these funds are not charity but compensation for causing climate change and global warming from which the people of Bangladesh are suffering although they had no role to play there. The global discourse centring all kinds of climate change finance is one of compensation for misdeeds from the polluters to the sufferers. But the lending agency’s business as usual attitude appears to be utterly incongruent with that spirit. Allowing this global lender to manage funds that are essentially for the people of Bangladesh is also contrary to the spirit with which developing countries protested against the World Bank managing the Global Environment Facility because of their bitter experience with the lenders stringent requirements and complex bureaucratic processes.
   Since the government has not yet entered into a final agreement with the World Bank, it would be prudent for the current government to form such a mechanism of financing that would be managed by a nationally owned and credible body comprising of all stakeholders from the grassroots to politicians.

Water-logging reflects failure
on several fronts

THE frailty of the capital Dhaka’s drainage system was, once again, cruelly exposed on Tuesday when heavy downpour overnight submerged most parts of the city, including the administrative and commercial hubs. Hours after the rain subsided, many areas remained waterlogged. Indeed, it was the highest single-day rainfall in 53 years; however, we have seen in the past rainfall of a much lesser degree overwhelm the drainage system all the same. It would, therefore, be foolhardy to blame it on the nature alone. Thankfully, according to the Met Office, rainfall would mark a gradual decline, as if to spare the so-called mega city further embarrassment.
   The prime minister, as reported in the media on Wednesday, has directed the Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority, the Dhaka City Corporation and all other agencies concerned to take immediate steps to prevent water-logging in the city during the rainy season. Needless to say, it is easier said than done. While there is little doubt that the city’s drainage system is decidedly inadequate and ineffective, it may not be the only factor contributing to water-logging.
   Over the years, unplanned and unregulated urbanisation has translated into random reclamation of a good number of natural water bodies in and around the city, which used to work as water retention points during monsoon. In the absence of these water bodies, which would work as a natural drainage system, the burden falls squarely on the WASA drainage network, which, as indicated before, is neither adequate nor effective. Consequently, even during moderate rainfall, some parts of the city get submerged.
   Also, as the chief engineer of the city corporation was quoted in the New Age report as saying, Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha’s sustained failure to enforce building codes has meant that ‘most of the buildings did not keep open space for absorption of rainwater increasing the amount of runoff water putting pressure on the surface drains.’
   While encroachment of water bodies and violation of building codes have featured in news reports, editorial comments and different seminars and symposia, sustained actions from the government and its relevant agencies against these ills have been hardly forthcoming. Sporadically, the authorities launch drives to remove encroachment and demolish non-compliant concrete structures. However, as soon as these drives draw to a close, it is business as usual.
   It is not to say, however, that water supply and sewerage authorities can be absolved for its inefficiency; it should not be. Year after year, despite repeated incidents of drainage failure in the wake of heavy to moderate rainfall, they have never addressed the issue in earnest. Over the years, there has hardly been any comprehensive effort to upgrade and expand the drainage network.
   That said, the government needs to realise that water-logging in the city is a result of multiple failures on multiple fronts. Hopefully, the authorities would treat the latest instance of water-logging as an eye-opener and work on a comprehensive strategy to prevent its recurrence in the future.

THE announcement that Bangladesh made in September 2008 was surprising, all the more so because, less than a year ago, least developed countries and small island developing countries as well as a number of advanced developing countries across the world had opposed the World Bank’s involvement in the management of climate change funds. There was also a tacit agreement that these countries would prevent and oppose the bank’s involvement in the management and administration of their national climate change funds.
   Thus, when the then finance adviser to the interim government, Mirza Azizul Islam, declared that the World Bank would house the secretariat of Bangladesh’s Multi Donor Trust Fund, it surprised many. The announcement probably embarrassed a few as well, especially those who had been vocal at the UN climate change conference in Bali opposing the bank’s involvement. This trust fund was apparently set up to collect bilateral assistance for Bangladesh to address its climate change impacts.
   The idea of a trust fund was first broached at a Bangladesh-UK climate change conference in Dhaka in March 2008 where developed country representatives mentioned the idea of a trust fund for Bangladesh. Incidentally, the World Bank made a presentation about its successful management of trust funds for different countries and drew examples from its experience in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
   A month later, in April, the Campaign for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, a coalition of over 100 non-governmental and citizens’ organisations held a discussion that included politicians from almost all major parties in Bangladesh besides economists, environmentalists, activists and government officials. In a rare convergence of opinion, the diverse group criticised multilateral lending agencies and developed countries for not providing enough financial assistance to address climate challenges for developing countries for adaptation or mitigation.
   Regarding the management of the funds, speakers at this discussion suggested establishment of financial mechanism managed by a nationally owned and credible body, governed by appropriate laws and regulatory guidelines, comprising the government, local governments, non-governmental organisations, business sector, scientists, marginal people, ethnic minorities, women and international agencies to address climate change and handle financing. The discussants also delivered a unanimous opinion on what they don’t want. Referring to numerous examples of misdirected projects and funding, the discussants made it clear that multilateral lending agencies such as the World Bank, which are essentially profit-motive institutions serving the interests of the developed world, should not be in control of such funding.
   Later that year, in September 2008, during another UK-Bangladesh joint conference on climate change, Mirza Azizul Islam announced that the World Bank would be given the responsibility to house the secretariat of the climate trust funds – the Multi Donor Trust Fund. Incidentally, or perhaps – with the benefit of hindsight – may be not so, the British Department for International Development pledged 60 million pound sterling for the trust fund to assist Bangladesh in facing climate change. It was also here that the national climate change strategy and action plan was launched even before it had been made available to the relevant stakeholders at home in Bangladesh.
   Although the government had not made any concrete decision regarding the management of the trust fund officially, the finance adviser’s announcement perhaps betrayed what had already been decided behind the scenes. It was only after the London conference that the military-controlled interim government sent a formal proposal to the World Bank to act as the secretariat for the trust, to which the World Bank agreed. However, the matter has still not been finalised, pending a formal agreement between the government and the lending agency.
   There were, and still remain, a few voices of opposition to the World Bank managing these funds meant for the people of Bangladesh facing the adverse impacts of climate change. Similar to the discussions among poor countries suffering from climate change, those voices quite credibly point to the bitter experience of the poorest countries at securing funds through the Global Environment Facility, established in 1991 to help developing countries in addressing global warming and climate change.
   It only transpired later that the World Bank, being the secretariat, would also exact a sizeable chunk, as fees for administration and a number of other activities, from those funds that are meant for the people of Bangladesh. According to a draft concept note, prepared by the interim government in September 2008, detailing the modalities and governance of the trust fund, the World Bank would be entitled to $8 million of the $98 million pledged to Bangladesh by development agencies.
   Some quarters, however, point out that the World Bank would actually charge only about $5 million as administration fees, overhead, staffing and secretariat fees. An additional $3 million would only be spent if, and only if, the government, development agencies and other stakeholders approve them. And this $3 million would be spent for project/proposal preparation, appraisal and supervision and analytical work, and capacity building activities related to climate change. Essentially then, they point out, this is not really part of the World Bank’s fees. They also point out that the funds should go through an accountable and transparent process.
   There are two points of grave reservation here. First, the developing countries have always complained about the complex process fulfilling eligibility criteria from the Global Environment Fund that was also managed by the World Bank. The chunk of funds dedicated for preparation, appraisal and supervision of projects and proposals indicates that they would have to conform to certain guidelines set by the World Bank and there should be little doubt that these would be so stringent so as to virtually prevent local governments or excluded communities, presumably those without the resources to possess sophistication, from succeeding in securing much of these funds. The stringent criteria and complex bureaucratic process would still remain.
   Second, the fact that capacity building – one presumes of the government – has been included suggests a perception that the government currently does not have the capacity to handle such funds. It should be pointed out that the national budget compared to the trust fund (equivalent to about Tk 700 crore) is over 150 times larger than amount pledged so far.
   There is still, however, the question of accountability, transparency and efficiency in expenditure of these. There is little doubt that the government machinery is riddled with corruption and highly inefficient in absorbing funds. It is also true though that the World Bank itself is not immune to corruption. In fact, recent internal evaluation of the World Bank stated that the agency still remains vulnerable to corruption. Before that, in a series of oversight hearings of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee in May 2004, witnesses testified that as much as $100 billion may have been lost to corruption in World Bank projects.
   Opponents to the World Bank playing such a crucial role in Bangladesh’s climate agenda point out that if the government is not accountable or transparent, then it should be pressured to become so. They also point out that the money is pledged for the people of this country and lending agencies if anything would not be able to reach down to the most marginalised and excluded groups who are likely to be the worst sufferers of climate change. But such arguments do not seem to sit well with the development agencies and potential donors.
   Although officials of such development agencies are quite comfortable with the World Bank’s responsibility, instead of the government receiving the funds directly, they put on a different public face and proclaim that they are willing to cooperate with the government fully and will certainly go with whatever the government decides. However, they are so comfortable with the World Bank’s role that those close to the process say major contributors to the trust fund as well the World Bank have been trying to influence potential donors to refrain from providing direct budgetary support to the government for climate change and rather contribute to the trust fund. That would, on the surface, serve two purposes. It increases the World Bank’s commission and it provides the lending agency with the ability to claim that it is better at mobilising funds than the government of Bangladesh.
   The scenario does not bode well for either Bangladesh or other poor countries around the world. Bangladesh has been identified as one of the most vulnerable countries from climate change impacts and an advanced least developed country, and a number of other smaller countries look towards its measures and steps to take cue from. While there may not be vocal opposition regarding this trust fund arrangement with Bangladesh in other countries, it would nonetheless be very clear to them that Bangladesh has succumbed, for right or wrong reasons, to pressure and consequently broken the silent compact. It would become all the more difficult for the smaller countries to resist similar pressure if Bangladesh sets the precedent and they would not be wrong in blaming us for allowing this to happen.
   The only good thing in all this is perhaps that the deed has not been done yet. There might still be time.