As Bangladesh braces for increasingly intense cyclones, floods, droughts, and heatwaves, an urgent question arises: Is our climate budget providing real resilience or just paying lip service to green promises?
In the 2025-26 national budget, the Finance Ministry set aside a significant Tk 4.09 trillion, over 52% of national spending, for climate-related ministries and divisions. This includes Tk 412 billion, which is 10.7% of the budget, specifically for direct climate action. On the surface, this appears to show a strong commitment. But is the money making its way to the frontline?
Experts insist the answer is no. Despite demands to allocate 3% of GDP to climate finance, current spending is only about 0.67% of GDP, or Tk 41,030 crore. For an economy that is vulnerable to climate impacts, this is clearly not enough.
A climate budget is more than just a financial plan; it is a moral obligation. It seems that Bangladesh's government is more focused on impressing international donors than on safeguarding its own citizens.
Despite decades of planning, our climate budget still functions as disaster relief in disguise. When funding focuses on visible infrastructure projects, such as embankments, cyclone shelters, and urban roads, it creates the illusion of being prepared. But being prepared is not just about concrete walls. It involves building community capacity, promoting climate-smart farming, and ensuring responsive governance.
Examining the Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund (BCCTF) data from FY2009 to 2023 shows a significant imbalance. More than half of the funds were directed to infrastructure projects, while the much-needed "integrated disaster management" received only 0.89%, which amounts to just Tk?32?crore.
Even more troubling, drought-prone areas were overlooked, with only 63 national climate-budget projects there compared to 281 in coastal zones. This uneven investment highlights a preference for one-time, visible projects that attract attention, rather than lasting resilience strategies that empower local communities before crises hit.
Union Parishads (UPs), the frontline of disaster response, remain sidelined in climate financing. They do not have dedicated budget lines for adaptation and often have to list climate expenses under broader categories like "repair and maintenance". Without specific line items, there is no planning, tracking, or accountability. Bangladesh may seem progressive at the national level, but climate finance at the grassroots level remains almost invisible.
By the end of the century, Bangladesh may warm by another 0.8?°C, increasing flood risks by up to 16%. The NAP estimates the country will need $230 billion by 2050. However, actual climate funding has hardly increased, growing only 1.1% from FY15 to FY22.
To move from buzzwords to action, Bangladesh must raise climate spending to at least 3% of GDP, which matches the calls from civil society and experts, create separate budget lines for climate adaptation at the union and local levels to ensure transparency and accountability, and shift BCCTF funding toward preparedness and community-led initiatives
Adaptation spending needs to increase sevenfold to meet the NAP goals, reaching at least $12 billion, or about 2.8% of GDP, each year. Instead, the government relies on domestic resources and slow-moving donor loans.
By 2022, Bangladesh secured $1.2 billion in international climate funds. But this amount is small compared to the $12 billion needed each year. Together, the Green Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund, and LDC Fund contributed only $268 million from 2009 to 2022.
Even though the World Bank and IMF provide significant support, it often comes in the form of loans rather than grants. In fiscal 2024, the IMF released $220 million for climate change initiatives, mostly as loans. Japan's aid of $418 million for climate resilience was also structured as a development policy loan.
These arrangements raise a critical question: should the world's most climate-vulnerable countries be borrowing to cope with disasters they did not cause?
Another issue no one wants to confront is governance. Bangladesh's climate budgeting struggles with unclear project selection, poor coordination among ministries, and minimal involvement from civil society or local communities in decision-making.
The Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund (BCCTF), once praised globally, now faces scrutiny: Why have so many projects failed to create long-term benefits? Why are women's groups, indigenous people, and climate-displaced families left out of its priorities? When funds are trapped behind bureaucratic hurdles, the climate budget turns into a political weapon, rather than a protective measure.
To move from buzzwords to action, Bangladesh must: Raise climate spending to at least 3% of GDP, which matches the calls from civil society and experts, Create separate budget lines for climate adaptation at the union and local levels to ensure transparency and accountability, Shift BCCTF funding toward preparedness and community-led initiatives, instead of focusing only on infrastructure, Seek grant-based climate finance from donors while avoiding debt-based options, Mobilize domestic resources through pollution taxes, wealth taxes, and measures against corruption to free up funds for climate action and Involve the private sector through green bonds, public-private partnerships, and regulatory incentives.
Bangladesh already leads the world in climate adaptation innovation. Cyclone warning systems, mangrove protection, and female-led disaster response teams have saved countless lives. Yet as climate shocks increase, we need action, not just words. Without a strong and inclusive approach to climate budgeting, our villages will stay vulnerable to the next cyclone, flood, or heatwave. Isn't it time we made our climate budget as robust as our spirit?
The writer is a development professional and sociologist, currently serving as the National Coordinator of the International Land Coalition
