COP29 SIDELINES: Bangladesh ready to chart sustainable, climate resilient trajectory

Md Shamsuddoha, Chief Executive of the Center for Participatory Research and Development (CPRD), engages in a vital dialogue with Nayoka Martinez Bäckström, First Secretary for Environment and Climate Change at the Swedish Embassy, during COP29 in Baku, addressing climate adaptation, loss and damage, and funding mechanisms for Bangladesh’s vulnerable communities.

Nayoka also represents the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). This exchange of views took place on the sidelines of COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan.

Shamsuddoha: Thank you very much. I am Shamsuddoha, and I work for CPRD – the Center for Participatory Research and Development.

We do various kinds of activities. Particularly, we conduct research on climate change impact and policies, influence the planning process at national level, and engage in international negotiations with a local perspective.

Our intention is to ensure justice in climate change negotiations and when a plan is developed at the national level. So, we do lots of activities in terms of advocacy, capacity building and research.

And you, Nayoka – the first secretary of Environment and Climate Change at the Swedish Embassy in Bangladesh. You joined in many of our events, and fortunately, I got you here finally to discuss other issues.

How could we help Bangladesh, and implement measures, advocacy, and make positive changes? So, this is my 8th, or maybe 9th COP event.

Nayoka: Wow. You are a veteran.

Shamsuddoha: I am. I have been attending COP for many years, since 2009 actively. And we develop a kind of policy narrative around COP discussion, decision making, and negotiation. So, it is great to be here and great to meet you here.

Nayoka: Yes. And then you were also in the first part of the government negotiations, and now you are with civil society.

Shamsuddoha: I began my negotiations at an early age as a government delegate, and I served in the government delegation for around 5-6 years. The [process] is very methodological and procedural.

And I need to follow the agenda. I mean, what the other party says. It is exceedingly difficult to, I mean, include some distinct aspects to build a sort of demand. For instance, we are talking about displacement and migration.

And when you come to say that this is not on the agenda.

This time, we are trying to promote transboundary issues of adaptation because climate change impacts are spreading, particularly in the South Asian Delta.

So, while we talk about this while discussing radical issues or civil society issues, then sometimes the government’s narrative, I mean, the agenda denies accepting those.

Because of this I thought it is better to work with civil society so that we can communicate civil society biases to the global agenda. As you know, the entire discourse of loss and damage and initially, the entire discourse of adaptation, is also being promoted by civil societies.

Civil societies are promoting compensation demand. So being with civil society, I found it more powerful in communicating people’s points to the global policy discourses.

Nayoka: It is interesting. You said we have met in Bangladesh, we have so many collaborations there because I work with the embassy of Sweden, supporting the environment and climate partnerships that the Swedish government has in Bangladesh.

However, for this COP, my first COP, so I am very excited.

For this COP, I am part of the Swedish delegation, and I am currently the only one representing Sweden, and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) here because my colleagues were here the first week. Now it is my turn to cover the partnership.

My perspective will now be global, following the different partnership collaborations Sweden has. And I mean as you said, we as Sweden, we rely so much on civil society and the expertise that you bring to the table.

The fact that you can connect between what is happening on the ground and the policies that are being formulated, but seem to get stuck at the you know, at the policy documentary level.

So, I think for us, the challenge right now here in the COP is how to sit with the documents that are part of the Paris agreement. You know, like the National Adaptation Plans, for instance. The nationally determined contributions.

These are not just documents, but the framework for accelerated collaboration between Sweden and other development partners, the government of Bangladesh, and civil society.

Shamsuddoha: That is amazing. And I follow your work in Bangladesh. You are immensely popular in Bangladesh for many varied reasons because you hold Bangladesh close.

Bangladesh is one of the most climate vulnerable countries due to exposure to the climate change induced events and fragility, because most of the communities who live in the climate exposed areas, are not well prepared to adapt.

There is a vicious capacity constraint. Given all the adversities Bangladesh is struggling to adapt to the impacts of climate change. But again, when we come to the COP, I mean conference of the parties, there are huge expectations around COP.

And expectations are around having money [compensation]. And this COP is also about money [compensation]. This COP is mandated to set a new collective, quantified goal for long term activities, and that activities would include adaptation, mitigation, and technology transfer.

We are going to include loss and damage under the NCQC.

But this is unlikely, because many countries did not come here, and multilateralism is declining, the spirit of multilateralism, and countries are talking bilaterally, they are supporting one country, and another country for adaptation, mitigation, and others.

And as I understand, as I know that, the Swedish government is not stepping back. And they came forward with a new climate package. I understand that the package would include all the elements of climate adaptation that have been defined under the various agreements.

Could you please briefly elaborate about the package? What is mandated, the funding amount, and how Bangladesh could benefit from this new package?

Nayoka: I was feeling quite inspired, but also very focused, when I was asked to be part of the Swedish delegation now covering a bit more of the global discussions, because it is truly clear what the Swedish government wants to push here at COP.

One, it is the urgency. We know that we are so close to overstepping, overreaching the 1.5 global warning threshold that will spell disaster for so many parts of the world. So, the urgency is still there, and there is science behind this urgency.

The second one is the opportunity of course. Because when we are just filled with all this gloom and doom messaging, how will people know how to act right?

But there are a lot of opportunities now to change the economic growth trajectories of countries into much greener, sustainable, and climate resilient trajectory.

There are a lot of opportunities in terms of technology, new skills, new employment, and new types of funding when you blend various sources together.

But this is just Sweden because here at COP, Sweden is part of the EU. And the EU is also stepping up its action.

I mean you know in Bangladesh we are putting a lot of investments in renewable energy for instance, supporting a just and green transition for Bangladesh. And that is one of the things on which we must work.

But since you mentioned some of the new things announced by Sweden, I am immensely proud that Sweden has committed new funds to the loss and damage funds. So, we have committed $19 million to that one just for this year.

We have also committed very substantial funding to GCF, the Green Climate Fund.

Over the next four years, we have huge commitments there. We are providing new funding to the Adaptation Fund, the Global Environment Facility, the NDC Partnership Fund, the UN Disaster Risk Reduction Fund, Early Warning Systems for All, the LDC Countries Fund, etc.

And all these are new additional funding that is on top of this bilateral, regional, and global funding. Because we believe that the climate crisis must be a multilateral approach.

There are no boundaries. No political, no geographical boundaries for climate change, the impacts, and actions.

Shamsuddoha: What you said about the Swedish government and the EU is very encouraging.

From my experience with COP, I found the European Union progressive than the other countries because I have some reservations about other countries who blocked negotiation, loss and delays, mitigation, and others.

But I found the European Union progressive, and which is not that far from the position of LDCs.

But my concern is that when we talk about climate finance, countries prefer bilateral engagement rather than providing funds under UNEP mechanisms.

For instance, this time the adaptation fund has a target to mobilize $200 billion to $300 billion, but we are not getting that kind of commitment even only for mobilizing $300 billion.

Countries are also committed to double their adaptation fund from the level of 2019 by 2025, but there is still no roadmap. The UNEP mechanism is not getting enough funds that could be directly accessed by the countries.

On the other hand, there are funds, if there is a bilateral mechanism or under the other mechanism.

So do you think that it will? I mean, yes, it is strengthening the bilateral engagement and support, but on the other hand, it is also enchaining the multilateral funding channels and mechanisms.

So, what is your opinion about this?

Nayoka: I mean there are many dimensions to this because one we are talking about public funding primarily coming from the governments, coming from the taxes that a person like me pays, and then this is part of the bilateral commitments of the Swedish government.

But then there is also other funding that must be tapped into, and these kinds of funding need mechanisms to be channeled from global all the way down.

Because at the end of the day, our interest is that in the household level, in coastal areas, or the riverine areas of Bangladesh. But there needs to be a lot of this governance, accountability, and monitoring systems at so many levels.

Now the multilateral, the IFIs, have established systems for channeling these things down. And then the expectation is that national governments also set up their equivalent systems, right?

So, this is where let us say if you give an example of the loss and damage fund, which is hot as well. A hot topic here. There must be agreement, a standardized way for countries to one access the global fund according to prioritization and need.

And then have the system in place nationally so that the resources are distributed where they are needed the most.

But we are only talking about a small part of the financing, right? We still have not established it or it is happening in many other countries.

Shamsuddoha: That is right. Great discussion because I also often do lots of critique about governance. I mean Yes. In Bangladesh, and in other countries, governance is a challenge for adaptation.

There are many stresses on adaptation, development stress, governance gap, and to some extent people – who deserve this – are not getting enough money.

Most of the money, I mean, funds are eroded in between or maybe for other activities, property rent, capacity, meaning in others. So real benefit to the communities is not that much.

Given this context, I think bilateral mechanisms also should support countries so that they can develop their governance structure, institutional framework, capacity building, to be more sustainable.

I mean by ignoring the governance challenges and the other challenges, we will not be able to ensure proper utilization of money, and we cannot ensure the benefits of climate change funds.

You know this better than me. I think we should also work with the government so that they can also develop their governance skills, and accountability to the communities.

And there is a strong gap in terms of accountability and transparency. Accountability, transparency from the delivery end, and accountability in the user end.

There is another problem for mitigation, we can calculate the benefit. That is how much of the emission is being reduced through certain amounts of investment.

But adaptation benefits cannot be measured. We should also have a strong indicator of measuring adaptation outcomes. If we fail to do this and if we fail to assign adaptation indicators to the funding, then the fund may not provide benefit to the community.

I think we can rearrange funding mechanisms in that way.

Nayoka: I agree with you. In addition to the governance aspects for the fund, there is also the capacity building.

Because when the fund flows, the capacity to utilize this well must be built into the systems, and through the different actors deciding on what to prioritize.

And in Bangladesh, we have good examples of programming that utilizes the government, and the Bangladesh government allocation system, and then supplements it with external funding. So, Sweden, the EU and Denmark for instance, we support the logic.

Which you evaluate. You were part of an evaluation that was once at the early stage.

Shamsuddoha: Part of global affairs concept.

Nayoka: And this logic is in a pilot. Still after 6 years, we are still on the pilot stage. It is in nine districts, right?

And the way it works is that you allocate the development funding, the annual development programming of Bangladesh, to the local government system based on climate vulnerability indicators.

So already there, we have an established way of deciding where, who, and what are the most vulnerable, you know, indicators to allocate the funding to.

And that is the challenge we have in Bangladesh because we have all these splendid examples, and they work in these districts where we are experimenting, or where we are evaluating this model.

But then the act of national scale up, we are still not there. How do you know we can work together with civil society to get all this, this national scale up of good examples is going to be what we need to do for the next months.

And I have to say, when we say government, we are thinking homogeneously. But there are various parts of the government.

You have the national system, but then the local government system from district level to union level, which is also deciding and prioritizing, and all that, and has distinct levels of capacity of understanding about climate change vulnerability.

They must be addressed too. This is where civil society is the actor that will push for this, having the right capacity, evidence, expertise at the local levels to be able to use the resources effectively.

Shamsuddoha: The other concern. Yes, I know about logic, and most of the cases adaptation projects are risk focused. I mean, reducing risk and developing alternative livelihood options or resilient livelihood options for the climate change exposed communities.

The residual impact of climate change, of slow onset – for instance salinity in the coastal areas, or residual impact of sudden onset events – for instance riverbank erosion.

These are onset events, but they cause a lot of impact through the impact change, for instance displacement and migration, dropout from school, inclusive child labor, child marriage.

But we are ignoring all this because there is a distant relationship with climate change and those secondary and tertiary risks of climate change. They are very much linked to the human rights foundation.

So given the context, I recommend that we should change our funding narrative.

You should not only focus on the primary risk, but also how to address the secondary and tertiary impacts of climate change that are forcing people to compromise their human rights, which are putting women under more stress, disproportionate vulnerabilities.

There is a gender lens of climate change impact, and our adaptation project also should include those.

Nayoka: This is where your center is doing so much excellent work that we must utilize and optimize. Because you are not just forming the alliances needed to bring up these emerging issues, and the climate impacts on health are so evident now in Bangladesh and its coastal areas.

But the partnerships that we are building with the media for instance. So, we have an educated and well-informed media that is making all these quite complex, you know, interconnected issues on climate well-known publicly as well.

So that the demand towards the government and, you know, accountability of government response, will continue, will be sustained.

So, there are so many ways to work at this.

Shamsuddoha: All right. Going back to my prior discussion. I mean, as I said that I am now part of civil society, and that is also another concern. I am part of civil society because I thought that a broader civil society platform with knowledge and capacity is important.

Yes. Not only for advocacy or activism, but also implementing work at the local level. And just so when you establish a platform where around forty national and international organizations are part of this platform. This is very flexible.

And we do lots of work. I mean, a series of work throughout the year for their capacity building, developing our common position towards COP, and how to bring grassroot evidence of climate change impact into the national policy discussion.

That is why I love to work with civil societies, media, and with people like you so that we can communicate our critical feedback that we observe from the ground for policy sensitizing and influence the plan.

I think with support from everyone, you, the media, and other stakeholders in Bangladesh, we can do better, and we can really make Bangladesh a climate resilient country.

Nayoka: We are learning a lot from this kind of alliance building and platform building that civil society is leading in Bangladesh. A good example for climate communicators as well.

Yes, we have a lot of media, our climate media experts are part of that community. So, we do not need this formalized structure, and you know, negotiate, you know, things that we must do together.

People will come when they see that they can contribute to a common cause. And on this platform of climate communicators, we know that we need to collaborate with academics. We need to work with the government.

We have government members. We have academic members, but the focus is on youth.

The agency of youth and the agency of media in the whole climate discourse because they are the ones that can push this urgent message, the urgent need for action, for countries like Bangladesh.

Shamsuddoha: And the urgency of women too. Because in Bangladesh, we have many women-led organizations, but the representation of women in policy discourses is not that common.

So, we are also providing a separate emphasis on how to develop more professionals from the female populace, and we provide internship, training, and partnering with women-led organisations.

And this is important because when you talk about gender justice in the context of climate change, women’s vulnerability and rules are different, but they are ignored within the community, even within her household too.

That is why there is a diverse set of capacity building, resilience building, and expediting the rule for operations.

Also, because we may strengthen a significant role in households for making them more resilient in terms of informal businesses, asset mobilizing, or networking and communicating. We need to put women at the center of resilience when we talk about household resilience.

Nayoka: I was just in this discussion in Dhaka before coming here where we had the Bangladesh Bank, the SME, local government ministry, cooperatives. They are now looking at the kind of policy changes or regulatory changes so that we could support, you know, women led cooperatives in the coastal areas.

The Bangladesh Bank is willing to sign a memorandum of understanding so that we – the development partners – can come in with several types of de-risking mechanisms so that women-led businesses can access the commercial market.

But like you said, there is so much we can do, so many things.

Shamsuddoha: Thank you, thank you very much.

Nayoka: Thank you to you as well.