Climate financing at grassroots level

As one of the most climate-vulnerable nations, Bangladesh has been actively advocating for increased international climate finance for least developed countries, rightly emphasising that those responsible for high pollution should be held financially accountable for the damage they have already caused and are still causing. However, it is astonishing to learn from a recent elaborate field report by a correspondent of the Financial Express that, despite the country's global campaign for climate funds, it has yet to implement a sound climate financing mechanism at the grassroots level. For example, Union Parishads (UPs) - the lowest tier of government - are expected to safeguard communities from rising sea levels, salinity, tidal surges, and crumbling infrastructure. Yet, they have no designated budget for climate change adaptation or mitigation. Consequently, the occasional climate-related expenditures that some UPs receive in coastal areas are buried under vague categories such as "repair and maintenance" or "disaster response," rendering frontline climate action virtually invisible in national accounts. This is not merely an accounting oversight-it is a systemic failure.

Bangladesh has rightly earned international recognition for its climate vulnerability and proactive planning at the national level. The Ministry of Environment and Forests was renamed to include "Climate Change," and flagship initiatives such as the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP) and multi-donor programmes like local government initiative on climate change (LoGIC) have been launched. Yet, at the grassroots level, the impact remains minimal and largely symbolic. The standardised UP budget template issued by the government includes dozens of expenditure heads-such as education, health, agriculture, and WASH - but conspicuously omits climate change. Even the term "resilience" is absent. Does climate financing warrant such low priority that it does not deserve a dedicated budget head in the local government's budget template? This omission is not just about a matter of wording or terminology. As a UP chairman rightly pointed out, without a budget head, there is no planning. Without planning, there is no data. This is why national-level reports on climate financing often cite the unavailability of data at the UP level. How can such data exist when there is no formal space to record it in the first place?

This highlights that, despite the presence of donor-funded programmes and high-level international commitments, the government has failed to institutionalise climate finance where it matters most-at the community level. Union Parishads may be the lowest and smallest tier of government, but they are the first line of defence when disaster strikes. They open cyclone shelters, distribute relief, mobilise volunteers, coordinate repairs, and, when necessary, bury the dead. Therefore, they must be equipped with adequate funding and manpower to build a robust defence against climate change. Regrettably, climate action in Bangladesh remains fragmented and project-based, lacking the cohesion and continuity required for long-term resilience. This piecemeal approach, combined with a top-down framework, continues to leave local governments disempowered and unprepared.  To build long-term resilience, the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Local Government, and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change must act together to revise the UP budget template in the upcoming fiscal year. A dedicated budget heading for climate action would allow local government bodies to plan, spend and track funds effectively-and generate essential data regarding climate financing. Most importantly, it would enable local government officials to take proactive measures, rather than reacting after disasters strike.