Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Responding to Climate-Induced Displacement in Bangladesh:
A Governance Perspective
Chakma Kisinger 1, * and Kenichi Matsui 2
Citation: Kisinger, C.; Matsui, K.
Responding to Climate-Induced
Displacement in Bangladesh: A
Governance Perspective.
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13147788
Academic Editors: Ortwin Renn and
Pia-Johanna Schweizer
Received: 7 May 2021
Accepted: 8 July 2021
Published: 12 July 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Doctoral Program in Sustainable Environmental Studies, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan
2Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan;
matsui.kenichi.gt@u.tsukuba.ac.jp
*Correspondence: kisingerchakma@yahoo.com
Abstract:
Population displacement by extreme weather events have long plagued Bangladesh, a
low-lying disaster-prone river delta. The country experiences yearly displacement of approximately
one million people and losses of about 1% of its gross domestic product due to cyclones, floods,
and riverbank erosion. This study examines how the Bangladesh government has managed climate-
induced displacement with a particular focus on socioeconomic development policies. We analyzed
the country’s 1984 Land Reform Ordinance, the 2009 climate change strategy and action plan, the
1997 agricultural Khasland settlement policy, perspective plan for 2010–2021, poverty reduction
strategy paper, and five-year plans to understand governance changes for displaced communities.
We found that, overall, the central government implemented four main strategies. In the first strategy,
Bangladesh resettled displaced people in cluster villages on public lands. Then, it provided life skills
training (e.g., leadership, disaster preparedness, income generation) to rehabilitate the residents. The
third strategy was to align resettlement efforts with local-level climate change adaptation and poverty
reduction activities. Here, the central government and its seventeen departments collaborated with
local councils to support resettled households under the social safety program. The fourth strategy
was to diversify financial resources by obtaining more fund from donors and establishing its own
financial mechanism. However, we also found that the decision-making and implementation process
remained top-down without need assessment and community participation. This paper intends to
offer insights on how similar challenged countries and regions may respond to climate displacement
in the future.
Keywords: climate-induced displacement; rehabilitation; resettlement; cluster village; Bangladesh
1. Introduction
Disaster displacement occurs when natural hazards, such as storms and floods, com-
pel people to leave their homes that were rendered at least temporarily uninhabitable [
1
,
2
].
Climate-induced displacement has been felt severely in least developed countries or regions
due to poor infrastructure, poverty and social constraints, such as gender discrimination [
3
].
The 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showed a tra-
jectory of increased displacement of people by extreme weather events [
1
]. The Hyogo
Framework for Action 2005–2015 urged countries to place high priority on building com-
munity resilience and preparedness. This international policy statement established a
certain framework for many developing countries to follow in formulating policies for
climate-induced displaced people (CIDP).
There is a consensus among international communities that climate-induced displace-
ment worsens pre-existing stressors, such as poverty, underdevelopment, and gender
inequality [
3
,
4
]. In recent decades, developing countries that are vulnerable to climate
change impacts have focused on averting, minimizing, and adapting to climatic chal-
lenges [
2
,
5
]. Some countries with deltas and small islands adopted resettlement schemes
for flood victims [4,6–8].
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147788 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788 2 of 12
Within this context, Bangladesh received global attention for its high vulnerability
to climate change impacts and its actions for displaced people. It is essentially a low-
lying river delta with two thirds of its land under 5 m above sea level, and 61% of the
population face flood risks [
9
]. Floods, cyclones and riverbank erosion have already
displaced approximately 1.6 million people in the last four decades [
10
]. Additionally,
6 to 8 million people in coastal areas could potentially be displaced due to riverbank
erosion [
11
]. According to the 2015 Climate Change Vulnerability Index, Bangladesh’s
economy is more at risk to climate change than any other countries. The economic loss
from natural hazards reduces Bangladesh’s gross domestic product (GDP) annually by
0.5% to 1% [12].
Having faced these challenges, Bangladesh has played a leading role in global climate
dialogues and adaptation actions. It served as the president of the Climate Vulnerable
Forum (CVF) in 2020 [
13
]. Since 1971, it has improved the early warning system and
constructed 6000 km of embankment and polders, 2000 multipurpose cyclone shelters, and
200 flood shelters. All these resulted in reducing cyclone-induced death significantly in the
last 40 years [
14
]. Bangladesh has also introduced salt-tolerant rice varieties and expanded
mangrove plantations [
11
]. Along with embankment and polder, these measures protected
and promoted agricultural production. In 2005, it adopted a National Adaptation Program
of Action (NAPA), one of the first few countries to do so, followed by the 2009 Bangladesh
Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP) [11].
Past studies highlighted several adaptation practices for CIDPs in Bangladesh. Many
of them identified direct and indirect displacement drivers. Direct drivers include re-
curring floods, cyclones, and riverbank erosion. Indirect drivers include drought and
salinity intrusion [
10
,
15
–
18
]. Scholars also identified people’s first responses to climatic
displacement [
16
,
19
]. Some others examined livelihood uncertainty and stigmatization of
displaced people under government resettlement schemes [
19
–
23
]. There are reports on
the improved coping capacity of displaced people after resettling in shelters [24].
Among a growing number of studies on climate-induced displacement, what is
critical but missing is the extent to which both central and local government response
mechanisms took shape and how these mechanisms affected vulnerable people. Therefore,
this paper attempts to examine Bangladesh’s central and local government responses to
climate-induced displacement with a particular focus on changes in response mechanisms,
underlying socioeconomic policies that somewhat induced these changes, and future
prospects of governing climate-induced disaster displacement. In doing so, it seeks to better
understand how Bangladesh’s post-displacement responses coherently or incoherently
responded to its climate change and socioeconomic policies in the last five decades or the
entire history of the country since independence from Pakistan. This paper offers one
of the most thorough examinations of Bangladesh’s policy changes and gaps on disaster
displacement. In the following discussion we first explain about the methodology we
used for examining government policy responses, followed by results and discussion of
our investigation.
2. Materials and Methods
The following discussion in this paper is largely based on eight policy documents that
are salient to understand national plans and actions for climate-induced displacement. All
are written in Bengali:
1. The Land Reform Policy of 1984
2. Agricultural Khasland Settlement and Management Policy of 1997,
3. Bangladesh Climate Change Strategies and Action Plan (BCCSAP) of 2009,
4. National Disaster Management Plan of 2010,
5. Standing Orders on Disaster (SOD) of 2019,
6. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) of 2009,
7. Seventh Five-Year Plan of 2016–2020, and
8. Perspective Plan of 2010–2021.
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788 3 of 12
These are the essential documents to understand the evolution of disaster displace-
ment policies of Bangladesh. For example, the Land Reform Policy of 1984 set aside some
tracts of public lands for resettling landless peasants. The Agricultural Khasland Settlement
and Management Policy of 1997 laid the foundation for present-day disaster displacement
responses in Bangladesh. This led to the formulation of the National Disaster Manage-
ment Plan of 2010 and the Standing Orders on Disasters (SOD). These two documents
help understand what the central government at the time intended and what manage-
ment structure it wanted to formulate for climate-induced disaster affected people. The
Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and the Five-Year Plan are the most important
documents to understand national poverty reduction strategies for climate victims. The
Perspective Plan 2010–2021 is the national medium-term strategic paper that describes the
government’s priority issues to address. It helps us understand the extent to which disaster
displacement issues were prioritized among other urgent issues.
In addition, from April to August 2020, the lead author, a cadre officer of the Bangladesh
public administration, interviewed 18 local committee heads and 18 member secretaries at
all subdistrict climate victim resettlements and disaster management committees in the
southeast coast. The interview was carried out through telephone calls that lasted from 20
to 30 min each. In 2021, he also interviewed two key government officials, a director of the
Prime Minister’s Office and a deputy project director for phase 2 of the Ashrayan Project,
which is one of resettlement projects. Each interview lasted 40 to 50 min, carried out on an
online media messaging platform, such as WhatsApp. The interview questions focused
on management strategies and challenges they observed in handling climate-induced dis-
placed people. The information the interviewees shared was cross-checked with available
documents. To conduct research for this paper, we obtained permission from a respective
Bangladesh agency and received a multiple-year fellowship from the Japan International
Cooperation Center (JICE).
In analyzing the collected information, we tried to understand how past govern-
ments recognized climate-induced people with the focus on post-disaster rehabilitation
frameworks, institutional arrangement for resource mobilization and immediate responses
for climate victims, and their consistency to overall resettlement programs. Through the
content analysis, we additionally examined how financial resources for displaced people
have been diversified or strengthened in government programs.
Although past climate change studies have popularized the concept of CIDP, we do
not yet have its widely accepted definition partly due to varied recognitions by countries
and regions. The term has often been interchangeably used with environmental refugee,
climate refugee, and internally displaced people. In its Climate Victims Rehabilitation
Project of the Ministry of Land, Bangladesh defined CIDPs as landless and homeless
destitute families affected and displaced by climate change, riverbank erosion, and other
natural disasters [
25
]. In this paper, the term “climate victim” refers to poor homeless
people who were displaced by climate change related disasters. The term “resettlement” is
defined as the government action to resettle those who were displaced by climatic events,
such as flood, cyclone, riverbank erosion in a cluster village. “Rehabilitation” means a set
of government actions to restore displaced people’s livelihoods. Relevant local government
councils that implement these actions are Union Parishad and Upazila Parishad.
To mainstream climate change adaptation in state policies, Saito [
26
] emphasized the
importance of coordination, recognition, financial feasibility, and implementation experi-
ence. Following this, the above eight policy documents were analyzed with four indicators:
(1) post-displacement response, (2) paradigm shift from 1971 to 2020, (3) cross-jurisdictional
collaboration, and (4) resource diversification. The first indicator examines government’s
current strategies for CIDPs. The second indicator examines policy paradigms that evolved
in the last five decades to better understand policy gap and coherence. The third indicator
clarifies cross-jurisdictional implementation coordination for post-displacement gover-
nance. The fourth indicator examines the financial resource mobilization for resettling
climate victims.
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788 4 of 12
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Post-Displacement Governance for Climate Victims
Our research on the Bangladesh government’s CIDP strategies found that its post-
displacement governance is largely characterized by resettlement and rehabilitation activi-
ties with particular emphasis on (1) resettlement in constructed houses, (2) rehabilitation
through capacity building, and (3) socioeconomic resilience to reduce disaster vulnerabili-
ties (see Figure 1).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 7788 4 of 13
third indicator clarifies cross-jurisdictional implementation coordination for post-dis-
placement governance. The fourth indicator examines the financial resource mobilization
for resettling climate victims.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Post-Displacement Governance for Climate Victims
Our research on the Bangladesh government’s CIDP strategies found that its post-
displacement governance is largely characterized by resettlement and rehabilitation ac-
tivities with particular emphasis on (1) resettlement in constructed houses, (2) rehabilita-
tion through capacity building, and (3) socioeconomic resilience to reduce disaster vul-
nerabilities (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Post-displacement governance model in Bangladesh (source: own work).
Documents of the Land Ministry’s Climate Victim Rehabilitation Project showed that
each resettlement was supported by a rehabilitation process, such as community devel-
opment training and economic development promotion [25]. Community development
included such topics as leadership, disaster preparedness, primary health care and sani-
tation. The economic development included microcredit loans. One of the significant ac-
tions for resettling climate victims is the food for work program of the Department of
Disaster Management (DDM). The DDM distributes 30 kg of food grains to each resettled
household. It also hires them for rural road maintenance works. The central government’s
seventeen departments and elected local councils in a subdistrict implement skill devel-
opment training, microcredit support and social protection programs. The central–local
institutional engagement showed an integrated post-displacement governance.
3.2. Paradigm Shift of the Post-Displacement Governing Policies
3.2.1. Changes in Post-Displacement Governance from 1971 to 2009
As early as the 1970s, Bangladesh recognized the importance of helping CIDPs. At
that time, post-displacement actions were carried out as part of poverty reduction and
economic development. A severe tropical cyclone in 1970 killed approximately 500,000
people [14]. After independence in 1971, the government allocated uncultivated public
lands or khaslands for displaced households by the Presidential Order 98 of 1972. It also
2. Rehabilitation
A. Community development training:
1. Leadership
2. Women empowerment
3. Primary health care and sanitation
4. Disaster preparedness
5. Environmental protection
B. Economic development support:
1. Training on income generation
2. Small entrepreneurship
3. Cooperative interventions
4. Microcredit, savings
5. Employment generation in lean season
C. Government’s Social Protection
Program
Climate victims are empowered with
socioeconomic resilience
Relocated Rehabilitated
1. Resettlement
Uncultivated
public lands
3. Resilience
Self-employment
and poverty
alleviation
Provide equal
ownership of
land/house to
wife and husband
famil
y
Interact and
adapt to the local
environment and
social system
Figure 1. Post-displacement governance model in Bangladesh (source: own work).
Documents of the Land Ministry’s Climate Victim Rehabilitation Project showed that
each resettlement was supported by a rehabilitation process, such as community devel-
opment training and economic development promotion [
25
]. Community development
included such topics as leadership, disaster preparedness, primary health care and san-
itation. The economic development included microcredit loans. One of the significant
actions for resettling climate victims is the food for work program of the Department of
Disaster Management (DDM). The DDM distributes 30 kg of food grains to each resettled
household. It also hires them for rural road maintenance works. The central government’s
seventeen departments and elected local councils in a subdistrict implement skill devel-
opment training, microcredit support and social protection programs. The central–local
institutional engagement showed an integrated post-displacement governance.
3.2. Paradigm Shift of the Post-Displacement Governing Policies
3.2.1. Changes in Post-Displacement Governance from 1971 to 2009
As early as the 1970s, Bangladesh recognized the importance of helping CIDPs.
At that time, post-displacement actions were carried out as part of poverty reduction
and economic development. A severe tropical cyclone in 1970 killed approximately
500,000 people [14].
After independence in 1971, the government allocated uncultivated
public lands or Khaslands for displaced households by the Presidential Order 98 of 1972.
It also promoted farming in resettled areas. Since then, the country experienced several
policy changes, as shown in Table 1.
In the mid-1980s, the central government attempted to prevent large-scale land own-
ership by limiting private land ownership to less than 60 standard bighas (i.e., 33 acres
or 133,546 square meters). This was stipulated in Section 4(1) of the 1984 Land Reform
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788 5 of 12
Ordinance (LRO) [
27
]. One of the reasons to do so was to secure land for landless people to
resettle. Until 1997, Bangladesh had interchangeably used the terms landless and climate
victims. The 1997 Khasland Settlement and Management Policy clarified the definition of
the terms along with a cluster village establishment guideline. However, Section 7(1) of
the LRO authorizes the Land Ministry to allocate any Khasland fit for homestead use in
rural areas to “landless farmers” on a priority basis. The central government also built
corrugated iron sheet houses and alloted one acre of Khasland for each displaced household.
Table 1. Policy changes of climate induced post-displacement governance in Bangladesh.
Decades Post-Displacement Actions Major Policies/Laws Approach
1971–1979 Homeless people were placed in
shelters. Presidential Order 98 of 1972 Resettlement
1980–1989 Private land ownership was
restricted to increase public lands
for resettlement and farming. Land Reform Ordinance 1984 Resettlement and farming
1990–2000 Tin-shed houses were built in
cluster villages.
Khasland Management and
Settlement Policy 1997 Shelter in cluster village
2000–2009
Resettlement was enhanced
through social protection measures
(e.g., poverty/disaster risk
reduction).
Comprehensive Disaster
Management Program 2005,
BCCSAP 2009, PRSP 2009 Shelter and rehabilitation
2010–2020 Followed BCCSAP to enhance
social protection, capacity building
and local governance integration.
Climate Change Trust Act
2010, NPDM 2010, Climate
Fiscal Framework 2014 Capacity building approach
In the mid-1990s, the central government made more systemic approaches to resettle-
ment schemes by replacing one-off resettlements with resettlement-cum-livelihood support
apporaches. For these, the government engaged with various ministries to introduce more
socioeconomic development programs for resettling climate victims. This was typically
seen in the 1994 Char Development and Settlement Project (CDSP). The CDSP was operated
from 1994 to 2018 with four phases. Ministries responsible for land, water, local govern-
ment, agriculture, and livestock took responsibilities. Additionally, district and subdistrict
administrations were involved [
28
]. It provided each displaced household with both con-
structed houses and land (e.g., a tin-shed house and 0.8 to 1 acres of Khasland or charland:
These Bengali terms mean the land that gradually emerged from seas and rivers through
accretion and erosion process). The Ministry of Land administers khaslands. In so doing,
once sparsely located houses were brought under a cluster village. Priority was given
to those who were occupying khaslands after being displaced from their original houses
due to riverbank erosion or cyclone. Simultaneously, the government began constructing
cyclone shelters, water management infrastructure, such as dams and irrigation canals,
to promote socioeconomic and agricultural development activities. The abovementioned
1997 Khasland Settlement Policy then established a priority list, in which those replaced
from riverbank erosion and floods were the highest priority [
29
]. This policy directed to
preserve khaslands only for landless resettlement schemes.
From 2000 to 2009, the government began synergizing resettlement, risk reduction
and climate change adaptation policies. While maintaining the past priority actions, it
added a concept of disaster resilience in order to improve the resettlement effectiveness and
sustainability. For example, it began constructing semi-pucca houses instead of tin-shed
ones to promote resilient structures in cluster villages; this was stipulated in phase 1 of
the Ashrayan resettlement project [
30
] and phase 2 of the CDSP. Additionally, it began
promoting livelihood adaptation through agricultural activities under the comprehensive
Disaster Management Program (CDMP) of 2005–2009. The CDMP was designed to improve
institutional and community capacity for disaster risk reduction. It was implemented by
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788 6 of 12
the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief and the UNDP. Vij et al. [
31
] called the
changes in resettlement policies a paradigm shift from the policies of the late 1990s as the
Bangladesh government began focusing more on climate change actions. However, rather
than a shift, the CDMP can also be interpreted as a successive evolution of past resettlement
policies, partly in response to calls for action from international organizations and donors.
In 2009, the synergy of resettlement schemes and climate change governance gained
momentum when the government adopted the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategies
and Action Plan (BCCSAP). It established six main policy pillars: (1) food security, social
protection and health, (2) comprehensive disaster management, (3) resilient infrastructure,
(4) research and knowledge management, (5) mitigational measures, and (6) capacity
building and institutional strengthening [
11
]. Program 6 of BCCSAP pillar 4 has a protocol
to provide resettlement and rehabilitation support to displaced climate victims. To do this,
the government linked BCCSAP’s capacity-building and social protection programs with
its short-term poverty reduction strategy paper (PRSP) and medium-term Perspective Plan
for 2010–2021. This was stipulated in policy matrices 7 and 8 of the 2009 PRSP [
32
]. Clause
13(4) of the Perspective Plan reads that capacity-building and resource mobilization should
benefit vulnerable communities to extreme climatic events [33].
3.2.2. Displaced Climate Victims in Post-2009 Development Agenda
Since 2009, the Bangladesh government has diversified resource mobilization efforts
and linked BCCSAP programs to local development agendas. Instead of abandoning the
previous resettlement strategies, it attempted to connect them to the global climate funding
mechanisms. For this purpose, a climate change trust fund was established by allocating
money from national budget and donors. This was stipulated in Sections 3and 5of the
2010 Climate Change Trust Act [
34
]. Ministries that were responsible for adaptation and
capacity-building programs received money from this trust fund. Its funded programs
addressed six pillars of the BCCSAP. At the local level, Union Parishad and Upazila Parishad
councils took responsibility for rehabilitating households in small-scale capacity building
programs, such as poultry rearing, handicraft making, and disater preparedness. These
councils also provided seasonal employment, such as repairing rural roads.
In the 2010s, Bangladesh’s resettlement actions for disaster displaced people further
incorporated disaster risk reduction, which is the second pillar of the BCCSAP. The central
government established three areas of focus that should guide policy implementation for
displaced climate victims: (1) priority on disaster management, (2) relief, resettlement and
social protection, and (3) capacity building and poverty reduction [
35
,
36
]. For example, it
scaled up disaster resilient cluster village houses (e.g., pucca houses) in resettling climate
victims [
37
]. It also introduced more capacity-building actions, such as microcredit, small
entrepreneurship, and cooperative interventions [
33
]. The Disaster Management Depart-
ment enhanced employment generation (e.g., food/cash for work) and a social protection
program (e.g., vulnerable group feeding, children education allowance).
3.3. Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration for Displaced People
In administering displacement affairs, jurisdictional responsibilities fell on different
ministries over time, showing the policy emphasis of the time. Resettlement activities
in the early 1970s were administered mainly by the Ministry of Land, whereas the Min-
istry of Disaster Management and Relief took responsibility for rehabilitation actions.
This jurisdictional arrangement continued until the adoption of the CDSP project in the
early 1990s.
The combined effort for resettlement and rehabilitation began under the 1994 CDSP.
This project needed coordination among ministries responsible for land management,
agriculture, water resources and local government [
28
]. This was an attempt to promote
agriculture-based livelihood support for resettled households in Khasland. Then, the 1997
Khasland settlement policy engaged ministries, such as (1) environment and forest, (2) law,
and (3) home affairs along with the leading Ministry of Land [
29
]. This policy included
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788 7 of 12
local council members in district and subdistrict committees. For example, Union Parishads
were to confirm the identity and location of displaced households and recommend to the
committees for assigning victims to cluster villages. This interministerial engagement con-
tinued until 2009, when the government adopted the BCCSAP that involved the ministries
concerned with social protection and capacity-building activities.
In the 2010s, the government attempted to integrate resettlement schemes into BCC-
SAP’s governing pillars. In so doing, the government promoted networking and effective
interactions/communications among government agencies and local councils. At the
central level, the central advisory council (headed by a minister) and the central steering
committee (headed by the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister Office) were estab-
lished [
30
]. Upon request, the central advisory committee offers necessary policy reform
ideas to the Parliament regarding climate victim resettlement and rehabilitation. The steer-
ing committee oversees institutional collaboration at national, subnational and local levels.
Secretaries of 14 ministries and directorates that administer social protection programs
sit in steering committees. To localize the post-displacement responses, the subdistrict
level committee engages local councils and central government’s seventeen departments
to implement rehabilitation schemes [
30
]. Local councils engage resettling households in
local employment generation schemes, whereas central government departments provide
capacity-building support, such as skill development training and microcredit financ-
ing. This cross-jurisdictional collaboration has enhanced displacement governance and
improved the past governance practices before 2009.
3.4. Resource Diversification for Governing Climate Victims
Another salient finding we made after examining resettlement scheme documents of
the last 50 years was that financial support policies shifted from unilateral to multilateral
partnership. Bangladesh used to depend solely on a limited number of donors, but, in
time, it has acquired skill and know-how to create self-financing. In the 1970s, soon after
independence, the Bangladesh government typically depended on financial and technical
support from the United Nations and other foreign countries. For example, the Char
Development and Settlement Project in the 1970s was financed by the Netherlands, which
was later transformed into a large-scale resettlement project in 1994 [
28
]. In 2011, the
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) began financing this project
in collaboration with the Netherlands. Money for resettlement from the Bangladesh
government remained nominal until the establishment of the Climate Change Trust Fund
(BCCTF) in 2009 [
34
]. Following the BCCTF, World Bank-led donors also created a separate
fund called the Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund (BCCRF) in 2010 to support
climate change governance through NGOs.
However, the coordination of allocating budget among various sectors remained chal-
lenging. The Climate Fiscal Framework (CFF) in 2014 was created to mitigate this challenge
by clarifying a financial management roadmap. This roadmap emphasized the importance
of building more climate resilient houses, ensuring social protection and enhancing capac-
ity building among displaced communities. The government has allocated specific budget
for the socioeconomic rehabilitation of displaced victims in the national budget.
Table 2shows a steady increase in the budget allocation of six BCCSAP actions from
2016 to 2021. This climate budget consisted of 7 to 8% of the national budget during this
period. In particular, the government tended to focus on food security, social protection
and health. However, some studies have shown some shortcomings behind this large
budget allocation. Whilst it placed much emphasis on food security, social protection and
health, not much of the money was spent on women and children welfare. For example,
from 2014 to 2019, the Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund allocated only 0.1% of the
budget to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and 0.07% to the Ministry of Women
and Children Affairs [
38
,
39
]. Another study found that only four gender-specific programs
existed among 44 BCCSAP programs [40].
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788 8 of 12
Table 2. Budget allocation trend under climate financing in Bangladesh.
BCCSAP Thematic Areas
Fiscal Year Budget
(Figures Shown in Crore Bangladesh Taka (BDT) and % of Annual Climate Budget)
2016–2017 2018–2019 2019–2020 2020–2021
Food security, social protection,
and health 7065.7
(49.3%) 8890.9
(41.5%) 9233.6
(38.9%) 9992.71
(41.25%)
Comprehensive disaster management 1777.8
(12.4%) 1997.4
(9.3%) 2134
(9%) 1810.74
(7.47%)
Infrastructure 2395.3
(16.7%) 5726.5
(26.7%) 6787.8
(28.6%) 6303.85
(26%)
Research and knowledge management
(e.g., displaced people’s rehabilitation,
monitoring)
805.7
(5%) 857.8
(4%) 894.4
(3.8%) 848.62
(3.5%)
Mitigation and low-carbon development
1110.9
(7.8%) 2987.1
(13.9%) 3514.7
(14.8%) 4004.37
(16.53%)
Capacity building and institutional
strengthening 1167.7
(8.2%) 971.1
(4.5%) 1195.2
(5%) 1266.30
(5.2%)
Total climate budget 14,323 21,430.8 23,759.6 24,226
Percent of the national budget 7.4% 8.1% 7.8% 7.5%
Source: Adopted from [41]; 1BDT = US$0.012 approx.
Our further examination of budget allocation, however, found that this discrepancy
was somehow adjusted. For example, resettlement and rehabilitation activities received 3.5
to 5% of the climate budget under the BCCSAP’s research and knowledge management
theme. In addition, Bangladesh received approximately US$71 million from the BCCRF,
including US$23 million for recovery and rehabilitation actions of cyclone victims [
41
].
Furthermore, local government laws have allowed Union Parishads and Upazila Parishads
to support landless climate victims through local government budget. For example, each
Union Parishad allocates 5 to 7% of the annual budget for capacity building of climate
victims [42,43].
In the last 10 years, BCCSAP implementing ministries have, overall, improved fi-
nancial managemet capacity. This was partly due to the adoption of a ministry-based
priority matrix in the PRSP. For example, matrix 8 instructs to rehabilitate assetless and
homeless climate victims. Then, the government allocated money to the Ministry of Land
to implement climate victim resettlement schemes under BCCSAP pillar 4. It also allo-
cated money to other ministries that are responsible for climate victim rehabilitation under
pillar 1 (i.e., food security, social protection and health) and pillar 2 (i.e., comprehensive
disaster management). Our analysis found that the government has improved its capacity
for acquiring large-scale funds (Table 3).
Table 3. Budget utilization of Bangladesh’s Ashrayan 2 resettlement project.
Year Budget Utilization (Million US $) Percent of
Utilization
Allocated Utilized Unutilized
2010 1.93 1.93 0.00 100.00
2011 1.71 1.68 0.03 98.33
2012 1.42 1.39 0.03 98.06
2013 1.95 1.91 0.03 98.35
2014 2.36 2.33 0.03 98.94
2015 2.48 2.46 0.02 99.15
2016 3.53 3.46 0.08 97.80
2017 14.33 14.30 0.03 99.79
2018 5.31 5.28 0.03 99.40
2019 5.31 5.23 0.08 98.48
Note: adopted from [44].
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788 9 of 12
4. Challenges to Displacement Governance
Our analysis of past policies and actions for displaced communities found a persistent
policy gap between local needs and policy visions for the last 50 years. This gap was
largely engendered by the way policies were formulated unilateraly. In the 1970s and 1980s,
government administrations had the power to decide how Khasland was to be set aside for
and distributed to landless climate victims without consultation processes. Government
Memo 71/1971 of the Board of Revenue and Presidential Order 98/1972, for example,
authorized responsible agencies to take action, with no local engagement required [
45
].
Memo 71 simply directed the commissioner and deputy commissioners to resettle landless
families in agricultural Khaslands. The Presidential Order limited private lands within
100 bighas. The 1984 Land Reform Order further reduced this to 60 bighas.
This persistent neglect to need-based processes continued till the 1997 Khasland settle-
ment policy, which established national and subnational committees to secure implementa-
tion processes. However, committee members tended to engage mainly with bureaucrats,
parliament members, local councils, and the Minister to the Land Ministry [
29
]. This lack
of meaningful consultation with local people and victims largely continued to influence
resettlement policies. Therefore, climate victims do not have sufficient opportunities to com-
municate with policymakers. McAdam [
4
] rightly noted this disconnect as a coordination
gap in Bangladesh’s climate governance.
Another policy gap has been the way cluster village houses were built without clear
understanding of the people who use them. Clause 10 of the Ashrayan 2 project guideline
reads that the floor space of each allocated house is either 26 m
2
(pucca) or 24 m
2
(corrugated
iron-sheet) [
30
]. This size is too small for resettling households. A study found that the
average household size of resettling households in cluster villages was five [21].
There has been some disconnect among responsible administrations in governing
disaster displacement issues. Currently, financing is coordinated by the Ministry of Finance,
whereas the Ministry of Land looks after resettlement schemes and the Ministry of Disaster
Management and Relief is responsible for social protection activities. Although this juris-
dictional compartmentalization and overlap are nothing strange in other countries, a lack
of coordination among government stakeholders has led to the delay in decision-making
and disaster responses when climate victims need immediate support to recover from
disaster damage. For example, when a major flood affected delta communities in mid-July
2017, government aid did not reach the victims in many parts until mid-August, even
though the central government quickly disbursed relief money [46].
Another formidable challenge for government officials has been a lack of uniformly
organized information to identify climate victims to connect with humanitarian protection
measures. This bookkeeping problem is interlinked to a lack of uniformly understood
term to help climate victims. Displaced individuals were categorized as “landless” under
the 1997 Khasland management policy, “environmental refugee” in the 2009 BCCSAP,
and “climate victims” in the Land Ministry’s climate victim resettlement project. Some
terms, such as “environmental refugee”, do not fall under global humanitarian protection.
Scholars, such as Zetter [
47
], and McAdam [
4
] suggested that the term “refugee” did not
help individuals to claim legal protection under international refugee conventions.
5. Conclusions
This paper discussed Bangladesh’s governing strategies for displaced climate victims
with particular emphasis on four specific indicators to understand post-displacement
policies. It has identified four particular governing strategies. The first strategy was that the
government initially resettled displaced households by allocating houses in cluster villages
on public lands. The second strategy was that the government trained resettling people
to develop income-generating skills. This support was followed by microcredit financing
options and social protection. Here, the central government attempted to link ministries
and local councils. The third strategy of the government was to align resettlement efforts
with local-level climate change adaptation and poverty reduction activities. In so doing,
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788 10 of 12
the government engaged local councils, such as Union Parishads and Upazila Parishads. The
fourth strategy focused on diversifying financial resources by obtaining more funding from
donors and establishing its own financial mechanism.
Another objective of this study was to understand how post-displacement responses
have changed over time by incorporating urgent social welfare concerns such as poverty re-
duction, disaster management, and climate change adaptation. We highlighted a paradigm
shift from the 1970s to the 2010s. During this period, government aid shifted its focus
from one-off resettlement and poverty relief to multi-purpose socioeconomic benefits
for climate victims. In executing climate victim resettlement schemes, the Bangladesh
government evolved by departing from donor dependence to partnership-building ap-
proaches. The BCCSAP of 2009 played a pivotal role in more comprehensively integrating
and coordinating actions for displaced climate victims as part of national priorities.
Among these strategies, one of the significant challenges Bangladesh still faces today
is to induce meaningful community participation, including climate victims at cluster
villages, in decision-making processes. The rehabilitation guidelines do not clarify the
role resettled climate victims can play in decision-making processes. It is critical to find
a way to deal with a disconnect between local needs and central government visions
or those of international organizations so that local aids for climate victims are more
effectively mobilized.
Here, another fundamental question can be raised as to how rural Bangladesh can
empower and enrich people, their economy, and the surrounding environment. So often,
the international community has portrayed Bangladesh as a source of (illegal) migrants to
other countries. McAdam (2013) rightly suggested that Bangladesh’s climatic displacement
was largely attributable to internal factors [
4
]. Although Bangladesh has dramatically
reduced the number of cyclone victims and improved disaster responses in the last 50 years,
if these actions were not enough to entice many to stay and contribute to their own country,
what else Bangladesh can do? Although this question is beyond the scope of this paper,
we would still argue that more comprehensive rural development actions are needed to
empower and enrich rural people. For example, cluster villages we examined in this paper
can go beyond lifesaving and livelihood-maintenance places. Disaster responses may
create more opportunities for good education and job opportunities.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, C.K. and K.M.; methodology, C.K. and K.M.; analysis,
C.K. and K.M.; investigation, C.K.; data curation, C.K. and K.M.; writing—original draft preparation,
C.K.; writing—review and editing, K.M.; supervision, K.M. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This study was supported by a fellowship from the Project for Human Resource Devel-
opment Scholarship (JDS) by Japanese Grant Aid, Japan International Cooperation Center (JICE),
Nishi-Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement:
We explained the purpose of the study to the officials mentioned in
the study and interviewed them after they agreed.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and
Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field,
C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C.,
et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014.
2.
Heslin, A.; Deckard, N.D.; Oakes, R.; Montero-Colbert, A. Displacement and Resettlement: Understanding the Role of Climate
Change in Contemporary Migration. In Loss and Damage from Climate Change; Climate Risk Management, Policy and Governance;
Mechler, R., Bouwer, L., Schinko, T., Surminski, S., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 237–258.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788 11 of 12
3. Alston, M. Women and Climate Change in Bangladesh; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
4. McAdam, J. Climate Change, Forced Migration, and International Law; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013.
5.
Benzie, M.; Persson, Å. Governing Borderless Climate Risks: Moving Beyond the Territorial Framing of Adaptation. Int. Environ.
Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 2019,19, 369–393. [CrossRef]
6.
McLeman, R. Climate Change and Adaptive Human Migration: Lessons from Rural North America. In Adapting to Climate
Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance; Adger, W.N., Lorenzoni, I., O’Brien, K., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,
2009; pp. 296–310.
7.
de Sherbinin, A.; Castro, M.; Gemenne, F.; Cernea, M.M.; Adamo, S.; Fearnside, P.M.; Krieger, G.; Lahmani, S.; Oliver-Smith, A.;
Pankhurst, A.; et al. Climate Change. Preparing for Resettlement Associated with Climate Change. Science
2011
,334, 456–457.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
Thomas, A.; Benjamin, L. Policies and mechanisms to address climate-induced migration and displacement in Pacific and
Caribbean small island developing states. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. 2018,10, 86–104. [CrossRef]
9.
General Economic Division (GED). Accelerating Growth, Empowering Citizens; The 7th Five Year Plan 2016–2020; Government
of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2015. Available online: https://policy.asiapacificenergy.org/node/2443 (accessed on
2 May 2020).
10.
Nishat, A.; Mukherjee, N. Climate Change Impacts, Scenario, and Vulnerability of Bangladesh. In Climate Change Adaptation
Actions in Bangladesh; Shaw, R., Mallick, F., Islam, I., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2013; pp. 15–41. [CrossRef]
11.
Ministry of Environmental, Forest, and Climate Change (MOEFC). Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP)
2009; Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change; Bangladesh Secretariate: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2009. Available online:
https://moef.gov.bd/ (accessed on 2 May 2020).
12.
The World Bank. Bangladesh: Building Resilience to Climate Change. 9 October 2016. Available online: https://www.worldbank.
org/en/results/2016/10/07/bangladesh-building-resilience-to-climate-change (accessed on 7 February 2021).
13.
Kazi, S. Bangladesh’s 50 Years Journey to Climate Resilience. World Bank Blogs. 12 November 2020. Available online: https:
//blogs.worldbank.org/endpovertyinsouthasia/bangladeshs-50-years-journey-climate-resilience (accessed on 7 February 2021).
14.
Haque, U.; Hashizume, M.; Kolivras, K.N.; Overgaard, H.J. Reduced death rates from cyclones in Bangladesh: What more needs
to be done? Bull. World Health Organ. 2012,90, 150–156. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15.
Walsham, M. Assessing the Evidence: Environment, Climate Change, and Migration in Bangladesh; International Organization for
Migration, Regional Office for South Asia: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2010. Available online: https://publications.iom.int/books/
assessing-evidence-environment-climate-change-and-migration-bangladesh (accessed on 2 April 2020).
16.
Ahmad, M. Fighting Hazards and Saving People: Disaster Management in Bangladesh. In Asian Experiences in Disaster Management:
Challenges and Prospects for the Future; Asian Resource Foundation: Bangkok, Thailand, 2013; pp. 63–76.
17.
Patwary, O.H. Climatic Change and Displacement: The Case of Bangladesh. Int. J. Arts Sci.
2016
,9, 565–580. Available online:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319939100 (accessed on 2 April 2020).
18.
Haque, M.; Pervin, M.; Sultana, S.; Huq, S. Towards Establishing a National Mechanism to Address Losses and Damages: A Case
Study from Bangladesh. In Loss and Damage from Climate Change Concepts, Methods and Policy Options; Mechler, R., Bouwer, L.,
Schinko, T., Surminski, S., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 451–473. [CrossRef]
19.
Rahman, M.S.; Gain, A. Adaptation to riverbank erosion-induced displacement in Koyra Upazila of Bangladesh. Prog. Disaster
Sci. 2020,5, 1–8. [CrossRef]
20.
Mallick, B.; Ahmed, B.; Vogt, J. Living with the Risks of Cyclone Disasters in the South-Western Coastal Region of Bangladesh.
Environments 2017,4, 13. [CrossRef]
21.
Mallick, B.; Sultana, Z. Livelihood after Relocation—Evidences of Guchchagram Project in Bangladesh. Soc. Sci.
2017
,6, 76.
[CrossRef]
22.
Barua, P.; Rahman, S.H. Integration of Community-Based Rehabilitation Program for Defensible Solution of Climate Displacement
Problem in the Coastal Area of Bangladesh. Aust. J. Sci. Technol. 2018,2, 169–176.
23.
Arnall, A. Resettlement as Climate Change Adaptation: What Can Be Learned from State-led Relocation in Rural Africa and
Asia? Clim. Dev. 2018,11, 253–263. [CrossRef]
24. Kaluarachchi, Y. Building community resilience in the re-settlement of displaced communities. Procedia Eng. 2018,212, 443–450.
[CrossRef]
25.
Ministry of Land (MOL). The Climate Victims Rehabilitation Project (CVRP) Guchhogram-2 (the Cluster Village Project-2); Government
of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2017. Available online: https://www.guchhogram.gov.bd/about-guchcchogram/ (accessed
on 30 June 2020). (In Bengali)
26.
Saito, N. Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation in Least Developed Countries in South and Southeast Asia. Mitig. Adapt.
Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2013,18, 825–849. [CrossRef]
27.
Ministry of Law. The Land Reform Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No. X of 1984); Legislative and Parliamentary Affairs Division,
Ministry of Law, Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019. Available online: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-665.
html (accessed on 15 May 2020).
28.
Char Development and Settlement Project (CDSP). Brochures: Char Development and Settlement Project Phase IV at a Glance;
Ministry of Land, Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2017. Available online: https://cdsp.org.bd/ (accessed on
1 January 2021).
Sustainability 2021,13, 7788 12 of 12
29.
Ministry of Land (MOL). The Agricultural Khasland Settlement and Management Policy of 1997; Land Administration Manual, Part 3;
Ministry of Land, Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1997; pp. 179–194. Available online: https://minland.gov.bd/
(accessed on 15 May 2020). (In Bengali)
30.
Prime Minister Office. The Ashrayan-2 Project Implementation Guideline. In The Ashrayan (Housing)-2 Project, 2nd ed.; Gov-
ernment of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019. Available online: http://ashrayanpmo.gov.bd/ (accessed on 15 May 2020).
(In Bengali)
31.
Vij, S.; Biesbroek, R.; Groot, A.; Termeer, K. Changing climate policy paradigms in Bangladesh and Nepal. Environ. Sci. Policy
2018,81, 77–85. [CrossRef]
32.
General Economic Division (GED). Steps towards Change. National Strategy for Accelerated Poverty Reduction (NSAPR) II (Revised)
FY2009-11; General Economics Division, Planning Commission, Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2009. Available
online: https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/sites/default/files/ressources/bangladesh_nsapr_ii.pdf (accessed on 2 May 2020).
33.
General Economic Division (GED). The Perspective Plan of Bangladesh 2010–2021: Making Vision 2021 a Reality; General Economics
Division, Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2012. Available online: https://unctad.org/system/files/non-official-
document/dtl_eWeek2018c03-bangladesh_en.pdf (accessed on 2 May 2020).
34.
Bangladesh Climate Change Trust (BCCT). The Climate Change Trust Act, 2010, Act No. LVII of 2010; Ministry of Environment
and Forest, Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2016. Available online: http://www.bcct.gov.bd/site/view/
commondoc/Project%20Guideline/- (accessed on 31 March 2021).
35.
National Disaster Management Policy (NDMP). National Disaster Management Policy 2015; Ministry of Disaster Management
and Relief, Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2015; pp. 7243–7290. Available online: http://www.ddm.gov.bd/
(accessed on 2 May 2020).
36.
Standing Orders on Disaster (SOD). Standing Orders on Disaster 2019; Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, Government
of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019; pp. 59–86. Available online: http://www.ddm.gov.bd/site/view/policies/ (accessed
on 27 August 2020). (In Bengali)
37.
National Plan for Disaster Management (NPDM). National Plan for Disaster Management 2010–2015; Disaster Management
Bureau, Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief, Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2010. Available online:
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/bgd146945.pdf (accessed on 2 May 2020).
38.
Chowdhury, S. Climate Change Adaptation Policy Actions in the Coastal Areas of Bangladesh. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School
of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan, July 2018.
39.
Tanjim, M. A Study on the Mainstreaming of Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan in the Health and Gender
Sectors of Bangladesh. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba,
Japan, July 2020.
40.
Sharif, I.; Nasir, N.; Khanum, R.; Khan, A.S. Climate Change Adaptation Policies in Bangladesh: Gap Analysis through a Gender
Lens. BRAC Univ. J. 2016,11, 11–15.
41. Finance Division (FD). Climate financing for sustainable development. In Budget Report 2018–2019; Government of Bangladesh:
Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2020. Available online: https://mof.gov.bd (accessed on 27 August 2020).
42.
Ministry of Law. The Local Government (Union Parishad) Act, 2009. In Laws of Bangladesh; Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka,
Bangladesh, 2009. Available online: http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/ (accessed on 20 April 2020). (In Bengali)
43.
Local Government Division (LGD). The Upazila Parishad (Amendment) Act 2011; Local Government Division; Ministry of Local
Government and Engineering, Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2011; pp. 15085–15099. Available online:
https://lgd.portal.gov.bd (accessed on 2 February 2021). (In Bengali)
44. Prime Minister Office. Annual Report 2019–2020; The Ashrayan 2 Project; Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2020.
Available online: http://www.ashrayanpmo.gov.bd/ (accessed on 22 March 2021). (In Bengali)
45.
Ministry of Land (MOL). The Bangladesh Land Holding (Limitation) Order, 1972 (President’s Order No. 98 of 1972); Land Administration
Manual, 4th Chapter: Land Reform; Ministry of Land, Government of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1972; pp. 217–223.
46.
Alom, M. Flood: Relief Disbursement, Distribution, Live Saving and Nutrition. The Daily Prothom Alo 22 August 2017. Available
online: https://www.prothomalo.com/ (accessed on 25 March 2021).
47.
Zetter, R. Protecting Environmentally Displaced People: Developing the Capacity of Legal and Normative Frameworks; Research Report;
Refugee Studies Centre; Oxford Department of International Development, University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2011.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
