Transcript Political Economy Perspective Climate Finance in Bangladesh M. Zakir Hossain Khan TI-Bangladesh A Global Forum on Using Country Systems to Manage Climate Change Finance 3 December.

Political Economy Perspective
Climate Finance in Bangladesh
M. Zakir Hossain Khan
TI-Bangladesh
A Global Forum on Using Country Systems to
Manage Climate Change Finance
3 December 2013, Seoul, Korea (South)
Climate Finance Governance in Bangladesh:
Policy Level Developments
• National Adaptation Action Plan 2005
• Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy & Action Plan (BCCSAP)
2009- Estimated Cost of $5 billion (FY2014-FY2018); Key pillars are•
Food security, social protection & health; Comprehensive disaster management;
Infrastructure; R&D management; Mitigation & low carbon development;
Adaptation, capacity building and institutional strengthening
• Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund (BCCTF) Act, 2010 –
Budgetary allocation from govt. for both GO and NGO/Private
• Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund (BCCRF), 2010 –
Multi-donor trust fund (Grant) – “New and Additional” Grant
• Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) – Multi-Development
Banks Fund (Grant +Loan)
• Other funds from developed countries/IFI , e.g. PPCR, GEF
2
Background: Climate Change Finance
Governance in Bangladesh
More funds higher possibility of
corruption e.g. amalgamation with
development aid
 In the 2012 Corruption Perception Index, Bangladesh scored 26 out of a
possible 100 - perceptions of a high degree of corruption in the public sector
 The Climate Governance Integrity programme was launched in six countries
including Bangladesh in 2011
3
Method-1: Process of Governance
Assessment of climate finance in Bangladesh
Mapping of key actors, their roles in climate finance governance
Funding, Coordination, Implementation and Monitoring actors
Assessment Criteria (Overall and Institutions)
Transparency (pro-active and on-demand disclosures); Accountability; Integrity and
Anti-corruption; Independence; and Capacity
Information Sources
Review acts, policies, process and practices; Applying Right to Information Act,
Key informant Interviews for verification and confirmation or report
Verification and confirmation of report by stakeholders
Mapping of Climate Finance Actors and
Accountability Map
5
Low Contribution of Annex-1 Countries
 First prepared a consolidated database on CF in Bangladesh
400
350
Approved for Implementation
284,2
300
US$ Million
Fund Pledged/Allocation
340,0
250
200
190,8
170,0
146,9
150
109,4
100
50
0,2
0,0
0
BCCTF
Fast Start
Finance
National
Bilateral
BCCRF
PPCR
20,9 16,1
GEF
9,2 3,5
LDCF
Multilateral
Funds
6
Limited Disclosures/transparency
1. Inadequate disclosures ona) Policy decisions-ToR between
BCCTF/BCCRF and PKSF/World
Bank fund approval and rejection
process, criteria etc.
b)
Coordinating, implementing
and monitoring– Financial, audit
and MRV related reports; project
info, engagement of affected
communities in fund management;
etc.
Need the
highest level of
pro-active
disclosures
2. Lack of clarity on roles/functions
of
the
World
Bank
in
selection/managing projects
7
BCCTF17,017,0
13,03,6
15,8
1,9
24,0
16,15,3
Disaster Management…
NGO Funding through…
Implementers
Women and Children…
Education
World Bank (Study)
Chittagong Hill Tracts…
Science and ICT
Health and Family Affairs
Defence
Communication
Shipping
Others
40,51
North-West Power…
PPCR 97,8
Agriculture
FSF
Environment & Forest
LDCF
Water Resources
BCCRF
Power Energy and…
GEF
LGRD & Cooperatives
Climate Funds in Bangladesh
Fragmented Prioritization-noncooperation
Implementing Organization-wise Allocation of Climate Funds
0,5
0,3
48,14
61,1
100,0
8,5
32,5
6,76
7,34,593,423,11,9 1,0 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,3 0,2
45,2
1,6
8
Accountability challenged
Absence of
effective
accountability
mechanisms and
safeguards
(fiduciary, conflict
of interest,
integrity)
Inadequate
representati
on of CSOs
in decisionmaking
bodies ;
Unprotected
whistle
blowers in
practices
Partisan
influence
in funding
decisions
9
Additional
Mortality/
Year
Additional
Economic Cost
(Million
USD/Yearly)
Additional
Person Affected
(Yearly)
Impacts
Level of
Impacts
2010
2030
2010
2030
2010
2030
Sea Level Rise
High
-
-
1250
20,000
40,000
45,000
Agriculture
Severe
650
5,500
Floods, Landslide
Acute
75
100
300
3000
600,000 900,000
Storms
Acute
1750
2500
350
1250
400000 600,000
Droughts
Severe
-
-
15
75
Labor Productivity
Acute
3,500
30,000
Hunger
Acute
10,000
15,000
9750
15,000
-
-
10
Source: Climate Vulnerability Monitor Report 2012
Mismatch: Vulnerability and Funding
Prioritization
Local Govt. Rural Development and…
31,92
Power, Energy and Mineral…
23,31
12,73
Water Resource Ministry
11,55
Environment and Forest Ministry
8,47
Agriculture Ministry
North West Power Generation…
2,81
NGOs/Think Tanks from BCCTF
2,28
Disaster and Relief Ministry
2,04
0,10
World Bank adminstered Study
Others (Shipping, communictaion,…
1,91
0,05
Women and Children Affairs Ministry
0
5
10 15 20 25 30
In Percentage (%)
35
11
Faulty Prioritization within Sector
Daily
Star,
2 June
2013
 Heightening of dyke and embankment is key adaption to Seal Level Rise
 Even after 4 years of climate change induced cyclone AILA embankments were not
reconstructed
 50,000 victims people, mostly farmers, compelled to stay on the embankment at
coastal region due to intrusion of saline water to their homes two times daily,
 Lost livelihood; damaged soil, no croplands
 Damaged surface and underground water tables – have to buy drinking water at
0.50 cents per Jar of 20 liter water capacity
Unchallenged mal-governance:
Capacity/Independence and
Integrity
Inadequate capacity of
CSOs to challenge malgovernance due to lack
of knowledge, in some
cases, disunity and
credibility deficits
Remember how to spell
honesty
Less resources and
limited focus to ensure
competency/ capacity
No practical
oversight by the
parliament; and
Sumon/Age 20
No legal obligation of engaging
affected community in funding
decision
13
Method-2: Institutional/ Key Actor Governance
Assessment
Step 1: Identify the
actors with highest fund
users
Step 3: Collection of
information
(Both Policy and
Practices) based on
above indicators thru
existing acts, polices and
other docs; and KI
Interviews
Step 2: 16 Indicators
Transparency/disclosures;
accountability, Integrity and anticorruption; Independence and
Capacity
Step 4: Report
preparation and
confirmation with
stakeholders
Step 5: Prepare policy
brief for advocacy toward
improved CFG policy,
process and practices
14
Transparency in practices by Key CF Actor
Criteria
BCCTF
BCCRF
MOEF
(1a) Are there provisions in place for
Best case Middle case Best case
public access to information regarding
scenario
scenario
scenario
the fund’s policies and procedures?
(1b) In practice, can members of the
public obtain relevant and timely Middle case Worst case Middle case
information on the institution’s scenario
scenario
scenario
policies and procedures?
(2a) Are there provisions in place for
public access to information regarding Best case Middle case
scenario
the institution’s activities, outputs and scenario
decisions?
(2b) In practice, can members of the
public obtain relevant and timely Middle case Worst case
information on the institution’s scenario
scenario
activities, outputs and decisions?
Best case
scenario
Worst case
scenario
Translating policy into practices in
disclosures should be ensured
PKSF
Middle case
scenario
Middle case
scenario
Best case
scenario
Middle case
scenario
15
Challenge:
Climate Funds Who will get
what?
16
Method-3: Tracking/Monitoring Project
Implementation
Step 1: Collect
project proposal
applying RTI Act and
review project papers
Step -5: Collection
of information
applying indicators
thru KI Interviews,
Field Visit, Focused
Group Discussion
with Community and
social accountability
tools etc.
Step 5: Report
preparation and
dissemination with
stakeholders
Step 2: Identify
all project
implementation
related
stakeholders
Step 3: Indicators: for
CF project tracking –
pro-active and ondemand disclosures;
accountability , Integrity;
Independence and
Capacity; Quality of work;
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Step 6: Prepare
policy brief based
and consultation
with stakeholders.
Areas of tracking
a) particular project
approval/rejection phase;
b) project implementation
phase
Step 4: Develop
methodology for
project monitoring
17
Method-3: Tracking/Monitoring Projects
Overall findings
Unwillingness to
disclose information
by bidders and
project staff
Low level
understanding of
local officials about
climate change
finance
Awarding bid from
political consideration
Lack of community
participation in all
stages of project
implementation’
Lack of coordination
and coherence among
project related
stakeholders
Limited focus to
ensure expected level
of integrity,
competency and
capacity of fund
users
18
Faulty fund disburse may push the vulnerable
people in the most vulnerable
US $1400 @ per structures; total 2003 Faulty Design of
cyclone resilient housing
Political
connection
in
contracting
Not have
prior
consultation
with targeted
Household
Lack of
proper
monitoring
and
evaluation
Faulty fund
disburse
may push
the
vulnerable
people in
the most
vulnerable
(Khadija Begum,
http://www.lossanddamage.net/download/7096.pdf )
Ignoring coordination of related
implementing agencies
Suspension
Approved project
Hide existence of
(US$ 2.9 million ) of
protected forest
Cross Dam without
in approved
indefinite
EIA, SI study
design
period
Project site with reserve forest
of project
works for
20
Approved design without forest
site
Integrity in Peril
• Reconstruction of dykes in coastal district
Shatkhira
Award the
contract or bid
for
reconstruction
of dykes
Unauthorized
Multiple sublease – Sale, resale of workorder
• Contract Value - $ 0.07 million
• Inflated Measurement- Shown less (7 ft) in
estimates than actual height (10 ft)
• Value in offer awarded – 41.53% less than
the original estimate
• Unauthorized multiple sub-leases engaging
BWDB staff and concerned labors leader
• Finally works awarded to a concerned labor
leader at almost 95% less (US$0.01 million)
• Identified failure of integrity in 10 issues out
of 11 suspected areas
Ensure integrity and independent watchdog role during
procurement works
21
Overall Lesson learned and way forward

Mapping of Key Actors of CF and Institutional Assessment have laid down
for integrated/multi-prone authority/mechanisms rather than stand alone
process – Integrated National Platform to handle CF comprehensively

More pro-active disclosures especially funding decisions and MRV reports

Safeguards to ensure integrity and restrict political influence, grievance
mechanisms are key to expected return to investment of climate finance

Emergence of strong coordination across fund providers as well as fund
implementing agencies

CF stakeholders should engage CSO and targeted community at all level of
fund management for effective utilization of allocated funds

Watchdog role of CSOs should be formalized within public procurement act
and climate financing mechanism

Need to build capacity of state/non-stake actors for effective watchdog role

Immediate evidence-based prioritization of funding
(Corruption)
Thank you
[email protected]
www.ti-bangladesh.org
23