AID Politics hovers over Bangladesh

Though climate change debates are not new, in some recent past it has gained a different momentum in international aid politics. No doubt, climate change is going to be one of the top aid priorities challenging the dominant aid priorities on HIV&AIDS especially since last ten years. It is almost clear that both the developed and developing governments, aid agencies and all stakeholders will be involved in aid politics at all levels. Within these structures, government of Bangladesh has recently raised some critical concerns regarding DFID’s £60m aid on climate change. Moreover, Bangladesh government has raised questions on UK’s proposal to channel the fund through the World Bank System saying that there are doubts on effective utilization of fund if it goes through the bank. This case has posed some serious moral questions on Bank’s accountability.

One serious issue in this case is- if government is saying that the funding channel is problematic, then why it is needed to bring the Bank in between? It is clear that government is not happy with the Bank’s operating systems which reveals many other facts on Bank’s similar such other initiatives in the country. This is not the first time that Bank has been criticized. For example, a report commissioned by the World Bank itself, Princeton Survey Research Associates found that: ‘Most opinion leaders think the World Bank forces its agenda on developing countries. This finding is consistent and overwhelming in all regions and in virtually all countries. One in two opinion leaders in South Asia say Bank forces its agenda and that the Bank if often irresponsible in its development efforts in their country.”

The fundamental question is - beside series of criticisms why aid agencies are still insisting on what does not work for the country. Why western governments all the time leave space of criticism in their aid. Bangladeshi case is definitely not the new one; there have been many such cases across the world. These critical aspects pose some fundamental doubts on the accountability and transparency of aid agencies.

The support from DFID is positive however; its interest on backing the bank has been problematic from the public eyes and government as well. Agencies like DFID which have comparatively fair image in aid environment should be cautious about their own commitment to the developing countries and they should be aware of credibility issues as well. In any case, neither the Bank nor the DFID has right to impose their aid politics in a developing country like Bangladesh and its freedom to accept and reject on what works and what does not.

Yet another challenge for the developing countries is also their own systems as they are also not fair in terms of their accountability and transparency. Governments in the developing countries are also not out of public criticism on their performances and this creates doubts even within the minds of aid agencies and the governments in the developed countries and this creates a space for politics on resources and politics of manipulations and dominance.

Civil society on the other is either bias to either side based on their platforms of engagement. In Bangladeshi case, the role of civil society and activists has definitely gained a deep sense of respect in amplifying the voices from the justice point of view. However, equally it is important to remind the Bangladeshi government to be fair on its accountabilities and make sure that the money goes to the ground.

From the Desk of Earth Concern Analyst

Reference documents: guardian.co.uk, 15th Feb, 2010; Reality Check Report, 2007