House of Commons - International Development Committee

DFID's Programme in Bangladesh - International Development Committee Contents

Written evidence submitted by Christian Aid

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Christian Aid welcomes this opportunity to provide evidence to the International Development Committee on DFID's programme in Bangladesh. Christian Aid has a long history of working through partners in Bangladesh to tackle the causes and consequences of poverty and injustice. This work has focused mainly on the economic and social inclusion of socially excluded groups, promoting and advocating women's empowerment and women's rights, enhancing livelihood security, emergency response and disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA). We have focused this submission on issues where we and our partners have expertise and have provided specific ideas and recommendations for action for DFID's programme in Bangladesh.

1.2 We are concerned by how little information about DFID's projects in Bangladesh is publicly available. In view of the size of the UK's aid programme, we believe that DFID should be much more proactive in communicating details of its programme to the UK public. This would help encourage a healthy debate about the use of UK aid money in Bangladesh and be useful for other development actors.

2. REDUCING POVERTY AND INEQUALITY THROUGH ADDRESSING GENDER INEQUALITY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION

2.1 DFID's "women and girls first" approach in Bangladesh is extremely welcome where gender inequality is one of the biggest barriers to poverty eradication. Despite progress on key social and economic development indicators over the last two decades, considerable gender disparities exist in sectors such as employment, health, education and in access to resources in Bangladesh. Some improvements have been noted with an increasing number of women becoming involved in local governance. However, even then many women face significant challenges and resistance from their male counterparts. In general, women remain largely marginal to key decision-making processes and are poorly represented in political structures at both national and local level.

2.2 Gender equality is a cross cutting objective for the DFID Bangladesh programme as a whole however there is still more that DFID can do to translate policy level commitments into stronger results.

2.3 Global trends saw DFID's spotlight on the Millennium Development Goals narrow the focus of their gender equality policy to social sectors such as girl's education and maternal health in the past, with less attention given to gender in areas such as economic opportunities and decision-making.[3] A large majority of current DFID funded projects in Bangladesh remain focused on social sectors with significant funding given to maternal and neonatal and urban primary health, education and sustainable livelihoods programmes amongst others. This has been seen alongside a more recent focus on safety and justice with large programmes due to begin in 2010. Christian Aid sees the focus on social sectors as a valid one and welcomes the new focus on safety and justice; however it is vital that DFID more consistently address gender in other areas such as political empowerment. DFID should do more to promote women's involvement in decision-making processes and support all efforts to strengthen the position of locally elected women. In addition, DFID could support new approaches such as sponsoring women in management roles in NGOs, in the private sector and in Government.

2.4 DFID's programme focuses on gender however there is very little reference to women from marginalised communities in this and little recognition of the way in which gender discrimination intersects with other forms of discrimination, such as ethnicity and caste to further compound their inequality of access, opportunity and empowerment which can lead to multiple discrimination. Social exclusion is a useful and important framework for examining gender inequality as well as other forms of discrimination. DFID should significantly increase funding for research and programmes (such as the 2007 DFID-funded campaign on the rights of the Bihari[4] community) which increase understanding of which groups are poor and excluded and the form that exclusion takes in Bangladesh.

2.5 A strengthened DFID programme portfolio on social exclusion is particularly important in Bangladesh where social exclusion is a massive challenge to development.[5] Our experience and that of other NGOs has seen that groups marginalised on the basis of their identity, for instance their ethnicity, caste or gender; tend to be amongst the poorest of the poor. Poverty is highest in the areas in which indigenous populations are concentrated, invariably in rural areas and in particular the Chittagong Hill Tracts. It is also estimated that caste based discrimination affects between 3.5 and 5.5 million Dalits,[6] approximately three to four percent of the total population.[7]

2.6 Despite this, there is very little public information and awareness amongst civil society in Bangladesh on DFID's approach to tackling social exclusion. Considering the challenges of social exclusion in Bangladesh and DFID's strong commitment to tackling social exclusion globally[8] it should be far more visible in DFID's approach in Bangladesh. DFID should play a stronger role in addressing the particular challenges faced by excluded groups by more explicitly targeting groups such as ethnic minorities and Dalits. DFID should mainstream social exclusion more strongly throughout its policies and programmes and should ensure greater learning within the South Asia region, for instance from DFID India's IPAP and PACS plus programmes on gender and social exclusion.

2.7 As DFID aims to further mainstream gender and social exclusion throughout its various programmes it should ensure gender indicators, outcomes and gender and poverty disaggregated data are included throughout. For instance DFID should increase use of sex-disaggregated statistics in their programmes and improve data so that at least 50% of indicators across the DFID programmes portfolio in Bangladesh are either disaggregated by sex or gender sensitive. DFID should ensure their team in Bangladesh is as far as possible ethnically diverse and gender balanced.

2.8 DFID should work more closely with the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) to mainstream gender and social exclusion into wider policies and programmes and make gender inequality and social exclusion a routine part of dialogue with the GoB. This should include requiring and supporting the GoB to secure disaggregated poverty analysis to see whether the benefits of social and economic development are being increasingly equitably enjoyed. Moreover, DFID should ensure that the GoB is able to introduce policies that positively discriminate if evidence shows they could work.

2. MANAGING CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN BANGLADESH

3.1 Scale of impacts in Bangladesh

3.1.1 A range of factors make Bangladesh particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including its high population density, low development status and position on a tropical mega-delta (which increases its exposure to climatic and hydrological phenomena, such as cyclones, sea-level rise and monsoonal flooding). Some of the key predicted impacts are:

— Heavier rainfall and more extensive flooding during the monsoon season, and drier winters (when water shortages will become more common);

— Steady rises in average temperatures and sea-level—the latter will result in coastal areas being inundated and worsen the problem of the creeping salinisation of groundwater.

3.1.2 Many of these effects are already visible: for instance, the GoB reports that "Average monsoon time maximum and minimum temperatures show an increasing trend annually at the rate of 0.05°C and 0.03°C, respectively.[10]" For the maximum temperature, this is equivalent to an increase of one degree every 20 years. Severe floods, long dry spells and heavy rainfall episodes all appear to have become more frequent.

3.1.3 The socio-economic impacts of these changes could be devastating for the country, with the most severe effects occurring in the sectors of agriculture, health, water and infrastructure and due to population displacement (as land becomes inundated by the sea). The IPCC reports that yields in agriculture may decline by as much as 30% in the next four decades in South Asia due to climate change.[11] Development efforts will be undermined by the increased damage to public infrastructure resulting from more frequent natural disasters and a greater share of government spending will get diverted for post-disaster rehabilitation.[12]

3.2 The UK's response

3.2.1 The UK's credibility on this issue in Bangladesh will be determined not only by the level and quality of support it gives on adaptation but also by evidence that it is taking real steps to cut its own greenhouse gas emissions. It is vital that the UK signs up to a deal in Copenhagen that commits it—along with other developed economies—to a 40% cut in domestic emissions by 2020—the scale of cuts required to keep global warming to below 2°C.

3.4 Adaptation funding shortfall

3.4.1 Developing countries such as Bangladesh urgently require financial assistance to tackle the consequences of climate change. It is very difficult to calculate the total sum needed due to uncertainty about the scale of future impacts, a lack of solid information at the country level and differing opinions on what constitutes adaptation. However, initial estimates are suggesting tens of billions of pounds per annum. The UK, as a developed country and major contributor to global warming, has a legal responsibility under Article 4.4 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to assist developing countries in meeting the costs of adaptation. However, despite 17 years elapsing since the signing of the Convention, developing countries such as Bangladesh are still waiting for this financial support to be provided. (Up to mid-2007, just $26 million had been disbursed to developing countries under the three operational UN funds for adaptation, roughly equivalent to the UK's weekly spending on flood defence[13]). We consider this unacceptable.

3.4.2 Two major government plans have been drawn up in Bangladesh on adaptation (with the encouragement of donors): the 2005 National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) and last year's Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (CCSAP). Although the priorities for adaptation work have been clearly identified in these documents,[14] to date no significant funds have been provided by the international community—and hence very few of the measures outlined in the NAPA and CCSAP have been implemented. The 15 priority activities spelt out in the NAPA carry a relatively cheap price tag of $74 million; the CCSAP, which is a 10-year plan and contains many of the same project ideas as the NAPA, needs $500 million in the first two years.[15]

3.4.3 The UK Government is to be commended for being the first government to commit a significant sum of money to help Bangladesh meet the costs of adaptation—with its decision to allocate £60 million over five years in support of the CCSAP. However, we would argue that it now needs to do the following:

— Scale up even further in the period up to 2012 (when a new climate treaty will take effect): £60 million equates to only £12 million per annum. This is a good start but is not enough to implement properly the NAPA and CCSAP. The UK should double this amount immediately and call on other developed countries to make similar commitments.

— Recognise that money for tackling climate change is qualitatively different to aid—we believe it is a matter of compensation—and Bangladesh's aid budget needs safeguarding; therefore any new funds should be additional to existing ODA.

— Avoid channelling its funds through the World Bank—see 3.6.

However, there are limitations to this bilateral approach to climate change funding. A system based on voluntary contributions is simply not going to deliver the scale of funds required for adaptation.

We therefore also recommend that the UK should also:

— Prioritise the operationalising of the UNFCCC Adaptation Fund.

— Strive for an international agreement at Copenhagen in December that, amongst other things, establishes an effective post-2012 mechanism for funding adaptation in developing countries, involving the scale of funds mentioned above.

3.5 Importance of integration

3.5.1 We welcome DFID's initiative to map the likely effects of climate change on its various programmes in Bangladesh, with a view to "climate proofing" them in future (the Orchid climate risk screening project). The recommendations of this review should be fully implemented, especially in relation to DFID projects involving the construction of roads and schools and, under the Chars Livelihoods Programme, the raising of houses to protect against flooding.

3.5.2 We do not believe adaptation should be treated as a stand-alone issue; instead it must be fully integrated into existing development policies, for instance the country's Poverty Reduction Strategy and its water, agriculture and disaster risk reduction policies. This is because climate change is only one "stress factor" amongst many affecting people's lives and causing poverty—for instance, in the water sector, seasonal water shortages caused by climate change will merely add to the existing problems of over-extraction and the pollution of surface and groundwater. Therefore, holistic, demand management approaches are needed, if more people are to be guaranteed access to clean drinking water. DFID should work with GoB and other development actors to promote this type of integration (or climate-proofing) within different sectors in Bangladesh.

3.6 Multi-Donor Trust Fund

3.6.1 The UK Government is currently championing a proposal to establish a Multi-donor Trust Fund (MDTF) to handle funds coming to Bangladesh from overseas for climate change adaptation and low-carbon development. It sees it as the best vehicle for spending the £60 million it committed last autumn in support of the CCSAP. It is working to get other countries, such as Denmark, to make similar contributions. The most controversial aspect of the proposal is the idea that the World Bank should act as the secretariat of the MDTF.

3.6.2 The World Bank has a poor reputation in Bangladesh and many civil society groups there and even some sections of the Government are opposed to the Bank being given such a critical role in the management of the country's adaptation funds. The Bank's reputation has been damaged by its record on structural adjustment, its "top-down" approach and also its support for projects which have caused environmental degradation: for example, the leasing of thousands of hectares of land for shrimp farming in Chokoria Sundarban (South-east Bangladesh)—a project financed by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank in the 1980s and 90s, which resulted in the loss of the country's second largest mangrove forest (one side effect was that it removed as well an important natural buffer against cyclones[16]).

3.6.3 We believe DFID should revise its current approach and increase the level of country ownership of its adaptation funding by: Establishing a National Board to manage the funds, housed in and managed by the Government but with representation, and oversight from donors, NGOs, the private sector, independent experts and affected communities. This would avoid the duplication that is likely to occur if a donor trust fund gets established alongside GoB's own fund. This would be a more cost-effective solution (under the MDTF plan, the Bank would charge an administration fee of at least $5 million), it would put the Government and communities at the heart of decision-making, and it would be more popular than an arrangement where the Bank is the central player.

4. CHARS LIVELIHOODS PROGRAMME

4.1 In general, we welcome the outcomes of this programme, which is giving valuable assistance to thousands of poor households living on island chars in the North-west of the country. We are impressed by the evidence that household incomes have been raised by 100%, mainly as a result of the asset transfer scheme, by the plinth construction and by the improvements in household nutrition. However, we are concerned that only limited attention appears to have been given to advocacy vis-à-vis the local government to address important questions such as land rights, employment and public services on the chars. The causes of poverty on the chars must be addressed more directly: for much of the year, there is no work available on the chars; there are very few health clinics; most of the children living there do not go to school (education services are either non-existent or of a low quality); and very few households own land. Approximately 60% of the island chars are stable, so it is feasible to make these investments. We recommend that in next phase of the CLP, more attention is given to advocacy with local and national authorities, so the benefits of the programme are sustained after UK funding ends.

5. SUPPORTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN BANGLADESH

5.1 A low-lying country with more than 230 waterways, Bangladesh is one of the most disaster-prone nations in the world. DFID states that its approach to disaster management in Bangladesh is primarily guided by the overriding objective of reducing poverty and targeting the most vulnerable and poor. We commend that DFID has been at the forefront of developing the concept and practice of DRR globally. This has resulted in a significant and welcome shift of DFID policy and programmes from focusing on hazards and disaster management to a more differentiated analysis of vulnerability and resilience. However, the current Country Plan for DFID Bangladesh highlights a focus on physical infrastructure, with the only DRR-related indicator in the country plan referring to the improvement of flood defenses and cyclone shelters.[17]

5.2 Lessons from decades of community-based disaster management and risk reduction show that such infrastructure investments are wasted if they are not complemented by strong non-structural components, in particular awareness raising and capacity building at all levels. For example, detailed reviews of cyclone shelters in Bangladesh and other cyclone-prone countries have highlighted that shelters are often not used by young, pregnant or sickly women as they are difficult to reach and provide limited privacy and sanitary equipment.

5.3 Moreover, many non-governmental and DFID-funded cyclone shelters in Bangladesh are not maintained since they had to be handed over to under-resourced local government departments several years ago. Decentralising responsibilities without devolving decision-making powers and adequate resources has—in many cases—resulted in defunct physical infrastructure and disaster management systems.

5.4 A significant proportion of DFID's long term funding support for disaster risk and climate change adaption in Bangladesh goes to the Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP) which is the main donor vehicle for promoting DRR in Bangladesh today. It aims to reform the GoB's approach to disaster management through refocusing the government towards greater emphasis on preparedness and risk reduction rather than traditional relief and rehabilitation. This is fully in line with DFID's global policy on DRR[18] and falls within their "climate and life" programme which includes broader support to climate change adaptation. The CDMP emphasises local planning by involving local government authorities and communities in developing community risk assessment guidelines. This process has created interest and raised awareness however local authorities lack the resources, skills and authority to implement local action plans effectively.

5.5 The second phase of CDMP is due to start in 2010 with plans to scale up across Bangladesh. DFID should continue to strengthen the CDMP and support the Ministry of Food and Disaster Management[19] to take the lead in a whole of government approach. However, if the programme is to achieve impact at scale more attention needs to be paid to building capacity at district, sub-district and union levels. This next phase should increase efforts to strengthen links between different groups in communities and local government to support local level mainstreaming of DRR. At a national level it should to do more to accelerate the progress of mainstreaming this concept across other government ministries in the GoB.

5.6 Our experience and that of other NGO's in Bangladesh have shown that livelihoods options can contribute to the sustainability of DRR initiatives. In this context stronger links should be made to other DFID funded projects in Bangladesh such as the Chars livelihood programme and BRAC's challenging the Frontiers of Poverty programme. In it's support to the CDMP and through its wider programme portfolio including its livelihoods programmes DFID should aim for as much DRR coverage across the country as possible and should continue to ensure the uptake of a more comprehensive DRR approach in partnership with the GoB and CSOs.

5.7 Our experience, particularly in Southeastern Bangladesh, has shown that local governments are under resourced and that district and national government departments are often reluctant to cooperate directly with NGOs. This has resulted in very few genuinely successful partnerships where civil society works alongside and in support of government efforts. Instead, NGOs and other organisations tend to set up separate service delivery systems, which is precisely what the government seeks to reduce. Alongside this, lessons from Cyclone Sidr and other disasters have shown that a high number of assistance programmes in Bangladesh are implemented by local communities and CSOs who are often the first to respond to disasters. Not enough has been invested in strengthening these frontline responses in disaster-prone areas.[20] More efforts are needed to build institutional capacity at this level, to ensure community involvement in disaster preparedness strategies at all levels and to build links between CSOs and local government authorities. DFID should increase its direct support to CSOs working on DRR locally and should use its bilateral support in a way that builds capacity and encourages more effective partnerships.

September 2009

3 F Watkins, Evaluation of DFID Development Assistance: Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment, DFID Evaluation Development, 2004. Back

4 The Bihari community in Bangladesh is a community of non-Bengali citizens from Pakistan living in Bangladesh since its independence in 1971. Back

5 Christian Aid sees social exclusion as the process through which a group is wholly or partially excluded by majority and/or dominant groups from full participation in the society in which they live. Back

6 In the Hindu varna system of caste hierarchy dalits sit outside of the caste system and are believed to be impure resulting in practices of untouchability. Back

7 Regional Information and Research Project on Caste-based Discrimination in South Asia, Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, 2008. Back

8 Reducing poverty by tackling social exclusion, A DFID policy paper, DFID, 2005. Back

9 Orchid: Piloting Climate Risk Screening in DFID Bangladesh, Detailed Research Report, Institute of Development Studies, 2007 p 18. Back

10 NAPA, Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2005, p 8. Back

11 Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC, 4th Assessment Report, Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, 2007, p 479. Back

12 Ahmed A.U., 2005, cited in Orchid report, p 18. Back

13 Human Development Report 2007-08, UNDP, p 189. Back