United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan yesterday bestowed the First Class Order of Zayed II on several global dignitaries including late Bangladeshi Professor Saleemul Huq in recognition of their contributions to the success of the 28th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP28) hosted by the UAE late last year.

During the ceremony held in Abu Dhabi, he expressed his gratitude to all recipients for their sincere efforts that contributed to the success of COP28 and resulted in the historic UAE Consensus that has become a key framework for global climate action and sustainability.

Saleemul Huq was a member of the COP28 Presidency Advisory Committee. Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan presented the award to Huq’s wife, son, and daughter in recognition of his distinguished efforts and contributions to operationalising the Loss and Damage Fund.

Saleemul Huq, one of the most well-regarded climate scientists globally, passed away last October at his home in Bangladesh.

As a COP28 Advisory Committee member, he played an instrumental role in advising and guiding the Presidency’s work on adaptation and Loss and Damage, said a COP28 UAE release.

The news of Huq’s passing reverberated around the world, with many influential figures and organisations commemorating his legacy. COP28 President Sultan Al Jaber paid tribute to Huq in his opening plenary address at the climate conference, stating that Professor Huq had “devoted his entire career to the cause of finding a way to address loss and damage,” and adding that he had personally benefited from Huq’s counsel.

A botanist by training, Huq had long advocated that the world’s developed nations, the principal emitters of greenhouse gases, should provide funds to the victims of climate change in the Global South who suffer disproportionately from the impacts of climate change.

For him, climate change was a daily reality. He was involved in early studies on climate impacts in his home country, Bangladesh, which is a low-lying country where thousands of people in coastal areas can no longer reside due to rising sea levels.

Huq was the Founder and Director of the Dhaka-based International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD). “Every single day, over 2,000 climate-displaced people arrive by foot, cycle, boat and bus in Dhaka and disappear into the city slums,” he noted in an open letter. “No one is looking after them – but they are people being forced to move by human-induced climate change.”

A key member of the Advisory Committee for the COP28 Presidency, Huq had been instrumental in the agreement made at COP27 in Egypt to establish a loss and damage fund. For his efforts in doing so, Nature, a leading international science journal, declared that he was one of 10 people “who helped shape science” in 2022. He also received the Order of the British Empire from the UK government.

In an open letter to Al Jaber ahead of the Dubai conference, Huq described himself as a “one agenda” advisor, namely on getting an outcome on creating a new Loss and Damage Fund at COP28.

While Huq did not get to personally see that outcome, his work ahead of COP28 helped to deliver the breakthrough outcome, made on the very first day of the conference, to operationalize the Fund. A total of US$792 million has since been pledged to the Fund, including US$100 million from the UAE, the first nation to contribute.

Loss and Damage is essential even if the world meets climate mitigation goals because a “locked-in” level of warming already impacts particularly vulnerable communities being hit by extreme weather events, such as storms and floods, reduced agricultural productivity, and rising sea levels.

Huq’s desire to help the marginalized and victims of climate change — “the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet” as he described them — had led him to attend every COP since the first one in 1995. He played an active role as the adviser on adaptation, loss and damage and climate finance to the LDC (least developed countries) Group of negotiators in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Huq was also part of the author team for the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ranging from 1997 to 2014. Alongside his role as Director of the ICCCAD, Huq was a professor of Environmental Science and Management at Independent University, Bangladesh (IUB) until his death.

While Huq attended 27 COPs, in his open letter to Dr. Al Jaber he said that COP28 should be known as “‘COP1’: the first UN summit in the new era of climate loss and damage which is already upon us.”

Thanks to his work, future COPs will continue to build on Loss and Damage and ensure that we continue to make every effort to ensure the voices of those most impacted by climate change will be heard and reflected within the process.

This news was originally published by The Daily Star.

Climate finance for adaptation projects is delivered through a chain comprising actors that provide the funds, intermediaries that allocate those funds and local communities and organisations that implement projects with the money they receive. But not enough money is reaching local communities. The chain needs fixing so more climate finance gets into local hands for local adaptation priorities.

360-degree accountability scorecards examine the journey of climate finance at every stage – shining a light on how the money flows from donors through to intermediaries and down to the local level.

We talked to Afsara Binte Mirza (ABM), research officer at the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) in Bangladesh. ICCCAD has been piloting the scorecards to assess how well adaptation projects delivered through large development agencies meet the needs of local communities.

Q: What are the scorecards designed to do?

ABM: Currently, donors channel funds to intermediaries and these intermediaries disburse finance to local communities. But very small amounts are trickling down to recipients. They are on the frontline of climate change and in most need of finance to adapt to the impacts.

It’s this top-down structure that is causing bottlenecks and allows money to leak out all the way down the chain.

The scorecards are essentially an assessment tool to build a picture of how climate finance is flowing. ICCCAD co-developed the scorecards with IIED and rolled them out with intermediaries. The information we’ve gathered has given us great insights into what’s happening with the climate finance delivery chain and what could be changed.

Q: What’s the link between the scorecards and the principles for locally led adaptation? 

ABM: The scorecards align with the principles for locally led adaptation (LLA). These eight principles have been developed to empower communities to lead sustainable and effective adaptation projects at the local level. At the heart of the principles is a commitment that climate finance should be delivered to local communities that decide how to invest in adaptation in line with their needs and priorities.

These scorecards are a tool for evaluating how well communities are involved in decision making in an adaptation intervention.

Q: What’s the format of the scorecards and how are they used?

ABM: The scorecards consist of 40 questions that link to the LLA principles and can be tailored to local contexts. You can also choose to focus on specific principles of LLA.

We often hear from local communities that there is no consistent clarity around project budgets, so we focused some of our questions on the principle of accountability and transparency. For example, we asked how transparent project budgets really are, were there opportunities to receive and provide feedback, and how that feedback is incorporated into the project.

We also hear that local communities find themselves under pressure to report back to intermediaries to very short timeframes, and that intermediaries feel the same time-pressured reporting demands from donors. So we included questions such as: what was the process of channelling funds to the local level? Who did you engage in this process? How did you incorporate flexibility into the project?

That’s a couple of ways we tailored our scorecards to the Bangladesh context.

Once finalised, the scorecards were translated to Bengali and used to assess projects on the ground. We arranged further interviews and focus group discussions with local partners and local communities implementing adaptation projects.

Q: What did the answers to the scorecards show in terms of addressing the broken elements of the climate finance delivery chain? What could different stakeholders along the chain be doing differently? 

ABM: Donors could be more proactive by getting involved from the very beginning, at the project planning stage. They could visit the research area, learn about the community’s culture and socioeconomic and political contexts. All these factors tend to influence the project’s outcomes and can determine the flexibility of funding.

Currently, there is little connection between donors and communities and there is little opportunity for building trust. Donors are hesitant to give large pots of money to local organisations because the trust is not there. To build trust, we need more dialogue, more consultation and more collaboration between donors, intermediaries and local communities.

There is no doubt that intermediaries play an important role, acting as the facilitator between donors and communities. But we saw scope for them taking a step back, to look at the finance flowing to them, and asking: could more of this money go directly to local communities?

Another key issue the scorecards highlighted was around the need for greater flexibility in budgets. We asked a question around how far budget indicators are fixed, and whether there is scope to change budgets mid-project? The responses showed there is little flexibility.

In the case of unforeseen events – from political insecurity to climate disasters such as flooding – communities need to be able to respond quickly. If there is no flexibility to redirect resources, they can’t respond.

This links back to my point about donors being connected to projects – with a clearer idea of realities on the ground, donors would be able to see why project budgets need to be more flexible.

Q: What did local communities see as the biggest benefit of the scorecards? 

ABM: The community thought this approach was useful for understanding the finance flow of the whole project. One of the interviewees shared with me that the biggest benefit was the potential to increase the level of involvement of local actors.

We had feedback that the scorecard methodology – which draws information and perspectives from the different actors along the chain, separately – addressed tricky issues around power dynamics. Local communities can sometimes be reluctant, or don’t have the means, to share project feedback with intermediaries, particularly negative feedback. Intermediaries may also be hesitant to have frank discussions with donors about how the project is progressing.

The whole scorecard approach makes the sharing of information easier, more open and more comfortable.

Piloting 360-degree accountability scorecards

IIED and partners are currently piloting the scorecards across the world.

In Bangladesh, ICCCAD is developing scorecards to assess how well adaptation projects delivered through large development agencies meet the needs of local community beneficiaries of the projects.

In Ecuador, Fundación Futuro Latinoamericano (FFLA) is developing scorecards to assess a project targeted at Afro and Indigenous communities. There is a strong focus on understanding provider perspectives in the finance delivery chain.

In Costa Rica and Indonesia Fundación Avina is testing scorecards with grantees in the delivery chain of the ‘Building Approaches to fund local Solutions with climate Evidence (BASE)’ initiative that is supporting communities develop climate rationales.

In Nicaragua Centro para la Autonomía y Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas (CADPI) is socialising the LLA principles with their Indigenous coalition members and using the scorecards to assess a development project in the Indigenous Territories of the North Caribbean Coast Autonomous Region (RACCN).

Q: How could the scorecard approach be improved? 

ABM: Feedback from one of the respondents of the scorecards – an intermediary ─ was that the scorecard questions seemed superficial and that responses would be based on the subjective experiences. To make this exercise more fruitful there needs to be further investigation into the specific mechanisms within the delivery chain and ways to consider the context of the respondent: a UN organisation for example will be bound by different structures than would an NGO or a think tank. The scorecards could also have questions related to policy landscape and institutional barriers.

Subjectivity could also compromise the quality of responses. It’s possible that responses from actors within the delivery chain could be influenced by thinking about what the overall score might be – for example, responding with ‘high’ or ‘medium’ rather than ‘low’ to protect the image of donors, intermediaries and local NGOs accordingly.

Going forward the scorecards can be framed to assess governance mechanisms within the delivery chain. This will encourage reflection on the challenges and bottlenecks of involving the communities in every step of the project.

Q: What’s next for the scorecards?

ABM: The information gathered in the scorecards brings rich opportunity to share and exchange knowledge for different adaptation projects in different geographical locations, and across different sectors.

There are lots of adaptation projects happening all over Bangladesh but there are few synergies and lots of duplication. The scorecards can be an instrumental tool to draw lessons from projects that are working well. There is so much scope to learn from failures and avoid replicating mistakes.

Additionally, quantitative methodologies could be added to qualitative scorecards to make the process more robust. A valuable next step would be a dialogue across the different organisations that are developing scorecards to learn from each other’s experiences.

It would also be useful to collate and crystalise all the scorecards’ findings into a guiding document. Donors, intermediaries and implementing NGOs could use this guidance to be more accountable to local communities in their own contexts going forward.

Originally published by  IIED.

Authors:

Afsara Binte Mirza is a research officer at the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) in Bangladesh

Overview

The impact of human-induced climate change is one of the greatest challenges of today’s time, affecting the communities living on the frontline across different geographic boundaries. Local communities have faced challenges in adapting to the changes with their traditional knowledge and strategies which should be considered, recognized, and mainstreamed in any development interventions. To reach the local community and to bring them to the heart of decision-making processes, we find that ‘empathy’ is a key enabler. The workshop organized by EWC was exemplary in building bridges within and across different communities to withstand the global crisis of climate change.

Ensuring Local Participation and Easing Language Barriers

We strongly believe this was an enlightening and different workshop compared to traditional ones. It was inspiring to witness how the participants from the six different countries (India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Indonesia) had the liberty to speak in their native tongues, with their peers acting as facilitators and translators simultaneously.

This changed the whole dynamic of the room, as we got the chance to connect and reflect on similar existing challenges (such as water scarcity, the disconnect between grassroots level contexts and climate change policies, weak local governance systems, existing social, political, and economic bottlenecks) and locally driven solutions (such as water management strategies, evidence-based advocacy, women’s leadership, capacity-building).

For instance, a female community leader and mobilizer from India expressed in Hindi how boulder check dams were established through the collective work of her community amid hill forests. She also emphasized that this community-driven local action enhanced the water bodies of the springs in the forests and ameliorated the biodiversity of that area. This drew the attention of the participants and we could witness everyone in the room being good listeners and nodding their heads contentedly. Without the true representation of the local voice, this energy at the workshop would not be possible.

Interactive Games Promoting Empathetic Thinking

Two new participatory games were introduced during the workshop and seemed interesting to us, the General Systems Theory conceptualized by Joanna Macy and the Groundwater Governance game.

The General Systems game began by making participants form a full circle in the event room, following some rules about moving in relation to one another. In the end, the game signified how much everyone (meaning human beings and other species) in an ecosystem matters and inevitably strives to maintain a functioning relationship with each other.

On the contrary, the water governance game demonstrated the importance of collective action, local governance dynamics, social cohesion, and community-centered management techniques.

In our opinion, both games were played to embed a sense of empathy and perseverance in the face of tackling the adverse effects of climate change.

Bottom-up Approach for Better Policy Making

We particularly want to reflect on the expression “Policy- does it mean local disconnect?”, a phrase which arose from one of the workshop facilitators. This expression signified the urgency to segue from top-down to bottom-up approaches when it comes to localized policy making targeted at ameliorating the livelihoods and resilience of local actors.

This means that establishing a climate change adaptation/mitigation policy without consulting the local community can be ineffective and maladaptive. Similarly, it is prime time we acknowledge marginalized communities as the ‘agents of change’ rather than being beneficiaries as they hold valuable local and traditional knowledge; are cognizant about their existing resources’ vulnerabilities; and are the innovators of their own localized solutions.

Throughout the four days of the workshop, we also acknowledged that language barriers can deliberately reinforce top-down approaches to policymaking. Therefore, accessible communication in local languages is key with the local actors. Above all, it is vital that the local government bodies are aware and have good capacity to address any existing or upcoming policies on climate change.

Learning and Reflecting through Field Visits

The workshop also accommodated a day-long field visit at the Mae Kuang Dam. The dam is an essential infrastructure of Northern Thailand, storing and supplying water to urban areas and for completing agricultural and irrigation activities in rural and peri-urban areas.

We found it interesting how the Joint Management Committee (JMC) of the dam functions and meets with the farming community twice a year to decide on the usage of water and quantity required per harvesting season. The committee also informs the farmers in advance when the water level in the dam reservoir is low to maintain transparency in their operations.

During the field visit, we also had the opportunity to meet a few local farmers. Coincidentally, while having a focus group discussion with the farmers, we realized how the farmers in Thailand and Bangladesh are facing similar challenges due to the impacts of climate change and existing social, economic, and political challenges.

The farmers expressed how they have minimal agency to voice their opinions to the government bodies; that the costs of fertilizers are rising; erratic rainfall; children of farmers moving away from farming and less interested in taking forward intergenerational agriculture.

Prioritizing Local Contexts for Harnessing Locally-led Adaptation Solutions

This workshop was instrumental in rooting community-driven adaptation solutions in empathy and active listening as two key enablers for doing so. The moment we start prioritizing local contexts alongside the economic, social, cultural, and political dynamics of an area while designing an adaptation intervention, the real climate change heroes who are at the frontlines of tackling the crisis will be incentivized to implement and maintain adaptation interventions. Therefore, working alongside the local actors as well as building their capacity is a must going forward.

Originally published by East-West Center.

Authors:

Afsara Binte Mirza is a Research Officer in the Locally Led Adaptation Program, International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD). Email: afsara.mirza@icccad.org

Savio Rousseau Rozario is a Program Coordinator in the Locally Led Adaptation Program, International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD). Email: savio.rozario@icccad.org

Prof Saleemul Huq died on 28 October, in Dhaka, Bangladesh. He was 71. This is his final piece of writing

Prof Saleemul Huq OBE and I wrote and submitted this article before his untimely death on Saturday 28 October, in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Huq was a visionary and steadfast leader on climate justice, a champion of developing countries at climate negotiations, an advocate for the global poor, and a source of inspiration to thousands worldwide. He continually pushed for “loss and damage” measures, whereby the nations that emit the bulk of greenhouse gasses help address the needs of lower-emitting nations who nonetheless bear the brunt of the climate crisis. A loss and damage fund was finally achieved at Cop27, but it needs strong advocates to ensure it is followed and expanded.

His sudden death is a blow to the global south, and to all those who work towards climate justice. Here, we touch on our concerns for the upcoming Cop28 summit, and the future of the loss and damage project, and call for greater concerted efforts on climate accountability. —-Farhana Sultana

After recent historic floods and wildfires, the staggering toll of climate change is becoming increasingly evident. Yet despite these intensifying disasters, there is little hope for accountable action to tackle the climate crisis as the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or Cop28, approaches. Leaders of high-emitting countries, including the US, Canada, UK and now China, are particularly responsible for climate change, and must change course if we are to avoid the worst and address the disparity and unevenness evident in current climate policy.

Thankfully, via the Paris Agreement, many countries have pledged and released finances to support climate mitigation (preventing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and transitioning to renewable energy) and climate adaptation (actions needed to adapt to current and expected climate impacts and reduce their harm). There is now regular monitoring of the progress of these payments, checks on how commitments are being upheld and tracking of what outcomes are being achieved – and these are positive steps. However, high-emitting countries failed to reach the pledged target of giving $100bn a year to developing countries by 2020.

Unfortunately, in many cases the damage has already been done. In increasing numbers of places, adaptation is no longer possible – for instance, where displacement, ecosystem damage and loss of homeland to sea-level rise has already occurred. This is “loss and damage” in real time. For three decades, small island states and vulnerable countries have campaigned for recognition of loss and damage in international negotiations, to no avail. Millions of people’s futures hinge on initiatives such as the UN’s transition committee on loss and damage, aiming to channel climate finance to the most-affected regions. However, the committee failed to reach an agreement ahead of Cop28.

Former first minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon was an early champion of loss and damage measures from rich countries at Cop26 and Cop27. While pledging £2m initially, and then another £5m, she urged powerful industrialised countries to commit to meeting the gap in financing for meaningful climate justice. Scotland was also one of the first countries to talk about climate reparations, recognising that historical accountability was important.

Unfortunately, the US and the UK, among others, have categorically ruled out climate reparations. Whether this is out of concern about the phrasing of their accountability, and the possibility that they could be vulnerable to litigation, remains unclear. The US in particular disagreeing to pay climate reparations, despite being the largest greenhouse gas polluter cumulatively, and thereby the biggest climate change contributor historically, is a blatant abdication of responsibility. The same can be said of other colonial and imperial powers in Europe. Increasingly, attention is being placed on China and its growing emissions of recent years – but we must not forget our history.

Without doubt, beyond any commitments made at Cop28, the need for greater corporate accountability and local action remain critical. The fossil fuel industry continues to produce, maintain and benefit from greenhouse gas emissions, and must fundamentally change their business model. Meanwhile, greater efforts by local governments, civic groups and nonprofits remain crucial to tackling ongoing and increasing climate injustices on the ground.

Climate accountability is a shared duty. It’s an intricate web of actions, decisions and commitments. Rather than a buzzword, it’s the bedrock of our fight against the climate crisis.

As the world prepares for Cop28, the onus is on global leaders, corporations and individuals to rise to the occasion and champion the cause of climate justice. Wealthy nations must start putting real funding towards loss and damage, while ramping up their mitigation and adaptation efforts, and reining in the influence of the fossil fuel industry in climate policies.

The future of our planet depends on it.

About the Authors:

• Farhana Sultana is a professor at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in New York

• Saleemul Huq was the director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development at the Independent University, Bangladesh

Originally this article was published on November 01, 2023 at The Guardian.

Being recognised and honoured as a global climate change expert was far more challenging than a similar recognition in a comparable discipline. There were thousands of scholars and researchers, from every nook and cranny of the world, with backing from institutions of international repute, not to mention substantial budget support and global connection who competed  for the distinction that Prof Saleemul was able to earn. His own brilliance and capacity for hard work placed him, in 2019, among the 20 influencers on global climate change. In 2022, the influential international science journal, Nature, named him  as one of the 10 top scientists of the year. In 2023, he was appointed adviser by the UN to the Scientific Advisory Board for Advice on Breakthroughs in Science and Technology.

His role within the UN system, especially in giving an edge to the developing countries demands, was salutary. He had two-pronged task – on the one hand to convince the developing countries to take the climate crisis seriously and on the other, to persuade the developed world to listen to the voices of the suffering countries, victimised for no fault of their own as their carbon emission was almost nothing compared to the developed world.

He worked tirelessly to convince the developing countries’ leaders to build their own scientific expertise to face the challenges emanating from the changing weather patterns. One of his constant message was that the crisis though very challenging, was manageable, that they should not get overwhelmed by it, that there was enough scientific knowledge available within their own countries to tackle the issue. All they needed to do was to come together, exchange knowledge and make whatever investment they could for this purpose. Cooperation was the only way forward, he would say.

To the developed countries, he would never tire of stating, that it was the industrialised world that was largely responsible for the carbon emission that caused the climate crisis and bore the maximum responsibility and as such should fund the mitigation and adaptation efforts. He pleaded for more resources for the disadvantaged.

He was the lead author of the third, fourth and fifth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) which was awarded the Nobel Prize for its work in 2007. He worked as an advisor to the UN’s LDC Group and was the co-chair of the UN Food system summit, Action Track 5 that focused on resilience building for vulnerable countries.

His service to Bangladesh was unmatched. He worked with the government and advised them on every aspect of the climate change struggle – from the forest preservation, to the protection of the coastal areas and the highly riverine  zones to the highest level of policy formulations. His was a constant presence. Prof Saleem’s work in climate adaptation were creative, based on locally available resources, cost effective and most importantly sustainable. He advised almost all delegations of Bangladesh to every major world and regional conference and worked tirelessly to sharpen and strengthen our arguments in global fora. He understood the complexity of challenges that lay ahead for Bangladesh and would be deeply hurt at the corruption in many projects that became exposed from time to time.

For us he was one of our most valued columnists for the climate crisis for many years. Through his column he tried to create the much needed public awareness and also reach the  politicians, parliamentarians, academics, bureaucrats, etc. whose collective efforts were needed to take the urgent actions we needed to take.

With his passing the UN system lost one of its most insightful experts, the world a passionate fighter for its survival, the developing world an effective advocate for its cause and Bangladesh a patriotic voice who loved his country, felt enormously for the downtrodden people and was its most effective fighter at the global level.

May his soul rest in peace.

Originally this article was published on October 30, 2023 at Daily Star. The author of this article is Mahfuz Anam, Editor and Publisher of The Daily Star

In a momentous ceremony held on 31st July, 2023, the Climate Smart Rain Water Harvesting System project was officially inaugurated in Mongla, bringing hope in the form of inclusive urban infrastructure for an informal settlement named Signal Tower Colony. The event witnessed the handover of the project structure to local authorities and marked the commencement of the system’s operational phase.

Attended by representatives from ICCCAD, Shushilan Ltd., Mongla Port Pourashava, and esteemed local leaders, the inauguration ceremony celebrated the successful completion of the project. The Mayor of Mongla, Mr. Abdur Rahman, expressed his appreciation for the project’s objectives and acknowledged its potential to benefit the community significantly.

The implementation of this pioneering project was made possible through funding provided by ICCCAD, while the on-ground efforts were diligently carried out by Shushilan Ltd. The concerted efforts of all stakeholders and community members were crucial in bringing this transformative initiative to fruition.

The Climate Smart Rain Water Harvesting System aims to address the pressing challenges of drinking water in the region and bolster the community’s resilience to climate change impacts. By harnessing rainwater through innovative and sustainable methods, the system promises to provide a reliable water source for the area while reducing dependence on traditional water supply systems.

During the ceremony, Mayor Abdur Rahman handed over the structure’s key to the chairperson of the operation and maintenance committee, marking the commencement of the system’s operational phase. The committee’s responsibility will be to ensure the smooth functioning and maintenance of the rainwater harvesting system to maximize its benefits in the long run.

The inauguration event served as a symbol of hope and progress for the Signal Tower Community in Mongla, as they strive to combat water scarcity and adapt to the changing climate conditions. The project is expected to enhance water availability, promote sustainable urban development, and create a positive impact on the overall well-being of the residents.

The success of the Climate Smart Rain Water Harvesting System stands as a testament to the power of collaboration and community-driven initiatives. As the project takes its course, stakeholders and partners are optimistic about witnessing the lasting, positive effects it will have on the lives of the people of Signal Tower Colony, Mongla.

The project’s implementation would not have been possible without the support and active involvement of the local community, government authorities, and dedicated organizations. As the system begins its operation, all stakeholders are eager to monitor its progress and celebrate the long-term benefits it will bring to the region’s sustainable development.

With the Climate Smart Rain Water Harvesting System now operational, the community sets its sights on a more resilient and water-secure future. This momentous occasion marks a significant step towards building a sustainable and climate-resilient urban landscape in Mongla.

About the Authors:
Md. Lutfor Rahman, Farhin Rahman Reeda & Md. Juel Mahmud are working on the Inclusive Urban Infrastructure project, at the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD).

Read More

Originally this announcement was published on April, 2023 at Innovative Finance Foundation.

Bangladeshi scientist Professor Saleemul Huq has made it to the coveted list of people who helped shape the biggest science stories of 2022.

Saleemul Huq, a climate researcher, has been recognised for his role in forcing wealthy countries to pay for the losses and damages from climate change.

The list prepared by Nature – one of the world’s top science journals – was revealed on Wednesday (14 December).

A conversation from COP27 on inclusive locally led adaptation.
When it comes to climate change adaptation in affected communities, top-down approaches where international- and national-level decision-makers drive interventions do not work. In recognition of this, efforts to promote locally led adaptation (LLA) have been growing steadily and in August 2022, over 100 organisations endorsed eight core principles to strengthen the movement. Local actors and communities must have a say in how, when, and where to adapt to ensure relevant, fair, and sustainable solutions. But communities are not monocultures, and not everyone is treated equally. Even the most well-meaning attempts at locally led programming can exclude the needs and demands of marginalised communities, especially women, girls, and sexual and gender minorities. Last month, we sat down in the LLA Pavilion at COP27 with theInternational Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD), the MenEngage Alliance and YouthNet for Climate Justice to discuss ways to turn the theory of local leadership into practice.

This is what the panellists had to say:

Meg Sattler: There is clearly a lot of will to make LLA work. What is the state of play, and why do you think it’s important?

Prof. Saleemul Huq: One of the positive outcomes of the Glasgow summit was a pledge from developed countries to double adaptation funding to 40% and most of them are reaching their targets. But it is not just about the quantity of money, it is also about the quality of the use of that money. The 6th Assessment Report of the IPCC found that many adaptation projects did not result in benefits for the intended beneficiaries and sometimes, even made things worse. One of the reasons for this was that projects were designed and delivered in a top-down manner with global funders and experts flying in and telling people what to do. Local people could’ve told them that the projects weren’t going to work but they weren’t consulted. This led to a collaborative movement within the adaptation arena to work on LLA that champions the need to consult local people and bring them into the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the projects that impact them.

Meg Sattler: Some of the LLA principles are difficult. Making sure to address structural inequalities and getting down to the lowest level of decision-making is probably easier in some communities than others. From the youth and gender perspective, how is this going and what still needs to be done?

Sohanur Rahman: Our solution to the climate crisis is localisation and decolonisation. The climate crisis is rooted in colonialism and destructive masculinity so we should focus on transforming masculinity and promoting allyship. We cannot achieve climate justice without gender justice, and we cannot achieve either without the allyship of men and boys. We have some demands at COP to ensure LLA. We need intersectional approaches and accountability. Day by day, COP is becoming more corporate, and people are losing their access to this process. Women and girls need to be included, not as tokens, but as active partners.

Meg Sattler: Given the shortfalls with COP, do you think that some of the change will come from the community level – and then there won’t be as much pressure on events like this to make the big decisions?

Prof. Saleemul Huq: We need to be deploying our efforts at all levels. The UNFCCC and COP process have evolved significantly. The negotiators that are sitting behind closed doors going over unintelligible text- I call that the talking COP. But then we also have the action COP, in places like the LLA pavilion where the people who are doing things are. Those who can come here have a responsibility to network and build alliances with like-minded constituencies. That is the real COP and the reason we are here: to galvanize action and combine forces with other people. We are not winning- we are still losing. But we must not give up.

Meg Sattler: One thing we’ve learned in the humanitarian space, is that most reporting is incorrect. A year ago, we had a conversation with Prof. Saleem to conduct a reality check on LLA and community engagement in adaptation programs. We’ve now finished that work. What were some of the findings and what were your reflections?

Elisa Schmidt: We spoke to over 2,000 people in 3 districts in Bangladesh and the sentiment was quite similar across the board. More than half of the people we spoke to do not feel sufficiently involved, do not feel like the process is very fair and there is a lack of clarity about who can access support and participate in adaptation programs. People don’t feel like they can provide feedback and even if they can, they don’t feel like their opinion matters. We did this exercise to collect evidence to bring to sessions like these and say to organizations that we need to do better because this is what communities are thinking. We are talking a lot about accountability to the communities we work with and understanding the relationship between communities and project implementers is critical for this.

Fahad Hossain: In Satkhira, there are people who feel included and people who don’t. The Munda community mentioned that many of the interventions in their area were not what they wanted. For instance, the cash they received to build stronger houses was not enough, so the houses keep getting damaged. There is also an idea that people next to the river or the sea are the most vulnerable but the Munda community, even though they are a bit inland, are vulnerable too because of structural issues. They don’t have their own land and the area they live in is so congested that they cannot plant trees to protect their homes from cyclones.

In another area, we heard that one organization engaged with the community from the beginning, asked them what they needed and provided support in a way that was useful to them. They ensured that the capacity of the community was built so they could run interventions themselves. When we asked what this organization could’ve done better, they said ‘nothing’. This project was successful because they involved the community from the beginning and their opinions were considered.

Meg Sattler: So our work pointed to things that clearly weren’t working and things that were. What other things seem to have been working from the local perspective?

Elisa Schmidt: Something that people mentioned a lot was the Cyclone Preparedness Program in Bangladesh, which saved many lives. We asked people whether the organizations working in their communities helped, and most people said yes. But they want to be more involved so they can do the work themselves. They don’t want to rely on external actors. Through our qualitative interviews, we learned how involved people want to be and how important it is to ensure that organizations promoting LLA are held accountable for their actions. Are they practicing what they preach? Are they doing what they write and present at sessions like these? We should be able to admit when approaches didn’t work, when we thought we were being participatory or inclusive, but people didn’t agree.

Meg Sattler: I think this sense of wanting to participate is something that we really see coming from young people here at COP27. Is that reflected in your work in Bangladesh and what do you think can be done to help facilitate this movement?

Sohanur Rahman: Sometimes, we might feel like young people are just saying they want climate justice, they want their future, but they are also really supporting vulnerable communities. They are in this crisis, and they are involved, they volunteer. For instance, in Bangladesh they work with the parliamentarians’ group to ensure climate finance governance and fundraise to help communities get clean water and embankments. We must shift power from the powerholders to the powerless. Youth and women are powerless, but they are not voiceless- they are just missing from the decision-making table. Youth participation in the COP process is growing but we must ensure to break down systematic barriers to ensure that youth-led, women-led, and community-based organizations can participate.

Elisa Schmidt: The second principle of addressing structural barriers is so important. Something that people said a lot to us in our project was that they didn’t feel free to talk about the actual power structures in place that were preventing them from increasing their resilience. There needs to be more thought into how people can be provided with a safe space to be honest about the problems they are facing without a fear of reprisal or concern that they will no longer receive the support that they need. We need to be comfortable having difficult conversations and call out people and institutions in a meaningful way.

Meg Sattler: If you think about the way that a single person in a community experiences and understands climate change and adaptation, it’s not the same way as it’s being discussed here. We don’t ask people for definitions of adaptation, humanitarian aid, anticipatory action but everything here is siloed, so removed from people’s lives. There are so many conflicting interests and where all the money comes from is so confusing. Uneven power dynamics are on full display. What are a couple of things that could shift some of that dynamic back to the local level so that these siloes can break down? What is looking promising?

Prof. Saleemul Huq: It is not easy, but one cannot give up. When we started the UNFCCC 30 years ago, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) were identified as the most vulnerable, but they were not a formal group until COP6. Ever since then, I’ve been helping them become more effective in the negotiations, which are very complex. The agenda item that we got on Loss and Damage is not new, we have been fighting for this for 30 years. We got it because we successfully advocated for it, we brought allies together and we persuaded the blockers not to block it. To get the agenda item, we had to agree on a footnote that said that it could not be used for liability and compensation. We accepted it because that is not what we were invoking. Now, we are hoping to get a financing facility. There is a lot of pushback on setting it up here- there are a lot of questions about who will pay, who will get and who will manage the money. All those questions don’t need to be resolved here- we will set it up and come to COP28 to work out the details. Progress is incremental. These are very powerful countries that we convinced to do something against their judgment and will. So sometimes, we get small wins.

Originally this article was published by the Ground Truth Solutions.

A big thank you to the United Nations Capital Development Fund LoCAL Facility and ICCCAD for hosting us at the LLA pavilion and all the panellists.