DFID’s Climate Change Programme in Bangladesh

ICAI Follow-up

1. Our report found that the Climate Change Programme (CCP) in Bangladesh had started well, with some good progress evident in pilots and early initiatives across the programme. Challenges remained, however, in the management of implementing organisations and UK resources that support Bangladesh’s response to climate change. These are reflected in our recommendations.

2. In response to our concerns regarding the management of implementing partners, DFID committed to review their agreements with partners on the CCP. We note, however, that no contractual agreements have been updated thus far, as discussions with the World Bank and UN are taking place at HQ level, reducing DFID Bangladesh’s ability to update at country level. It is, therefore, critical that DFID ensures that it sets clear performance targets with partner organisations in order to ensure accountability.

3. Our second recommendation encouraged DFID to ensure coordination and integration of all UK resources used to support Bangladesh’s response to climate change. Since our report there has been a significant scale up and restructure of the DFID climate change and disaster management team. There has also been some progress on national level integration, where a strengthened DFID team is now better positioned to drive donor and delivery agent coordination around climate change and disaster risk management in Bangladesh. Further integration between DFID’s Bangladesh and UK headquarters resources is, however, still needed.

4. Our third recommendation, that DFID should support local and international CSOs to provide monitoring and oversight, met with some initial delays. A scoping exercise to explore the role that CSOs could play in monitoring and ensuring accountability was completed in early 2013 and DFID is beginning to implement actions as a result. We will be monitoring the progress of this work as it continues.

5. Recommendation 4 sought to increase DFID’s attention to the risks of future migration induced by increased climate variability. Since our report DFID Bangladesh has met once with the International Organisation for Migration to discuss whether there are possibilities for complementary work. DFID has also engaged in discussions on research to be funded under the Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund (BCCRF) analytical window. These isolated examples suggest, however, that DFID is yet to focus fully on this topic.

6. Finally, recommendation 5 sought to strengthen DFID’s planning for project completion. In response, DFID led the development of a joint donor position on the future of the Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme in the last quarter of 2012. DFID has also extended its support to the BCCRF until 2017. Capacity across the government agencies and departments responsible for managing climate change and disaster risk resilience remains mixed, however; we would encourage DFID to prepare further for the end of the programme.

7. Overall, DFID Bangladesh has started a good package of work in order to address our recommendations. We note, however, that most progress has been achieved in strengthening DFID’s own capacity and improving stakeholder coordination and dialogue. The impact of this on delivery by Bangladesh partners remains to be seen.