The Sixth Assessment Report by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that the sea level has increased by 0.20 metres over the last 120 years and continues to rise fast.
The report also anticipated more severe food security risks due to climate change, leading to malnutrition in South Asia, one of the global hotspots of high human vulnerability, at 2°C or higher global warming.
This does not necessarily mean the world will have to wait for a 2°C or higher global warming; the impact is already there and is evident in the climate-vulnerable community in countries like Bangladesh.
We can critically look at two of the latest impacts on the ground in Bangladesh.
The first one is high tide during the full moon and new moon. It is, of course, not new. But the new element is the higher level of high tide, influenced by sea level rise because of thermal expansion, glacier ice loss, and ice sheet loss.
The second one is the changed rainfall pattern. Bangladesh experienced the least rainfall this year over the last 41 years.
How is it affecting the people on the ground?
They are experiencing a loss of livelihoods and agricultural products, including crops, fisheries, and livestock. And it is happening, even in the case of adaptation practices.
For a long time, to sustain themselves in the changed context, vulnerable people have been adapting to their best, which has limits. And, because of the high tide and low rainfall this year, the climate-vulnerable communities are failing to adapt -- the level of high tide was beyond expectation, and it continued for three cycles in the months of June, July, and August.
On the other hand, the low rainfall was also for three months during the monsoon period. So, the agricultural products failed -- either fully or partially -- from area to area.
What is next, then?
The climate-vulnerable community is sandwiched in the existing socio-economic conditions, including poverty and other embedded factors. Because of their limited coping capacity and loss of livelihoods, they get trapped in the vicious cycle of loans and installments.
They must make the repayment every week -- so how to deal with it? They step out and migrate immediately to the nearby urban settings for income. They are the evidence of climate-induced migrants, the worst victims in the context of climate change impacts.
In most cases, this internal migration is neither planned nor systemic. They are making an immediate decision and moving with low or no connectivity. There is another story at the destination -- the lower opportunity of livelihood due to limited skills and thus a lower pay and stressed life -- ultimately, a “subhuman” lifestyle.
How much is this loss and damage issue recognized and addressed on the ground? There is no straightforward answer, but we are sure there is hardly any action.
We are still debating on drawing a line between classical and climate-induced migration. The government of Bangladesh recognized it partially and committed to addressing it at the destination end, considering it only as a pull factor.
There is no discussion on the non-migrant people -- those with the aspiration to stay in the local area but with the minimal capability to do so.
What actions can be taken?
Community leaders and community-based organizations must bring the agenda to the table for discussion at the local level.
The civil society organizations working on the ground must make an evidence base, place the information, and influence the agenda of the policymakers.
The local government must be sensitized to respond to this through social safety net programs.
This climate-induced migration demands comprehensive action as it is a governance issue. It must include the government and private sector to ensure reskilling of the community and offer alternative livelihood opportunities.
Above all, it requires rigorous actions considering the scale and dynamics, ultimately resulting in informed and systemic decisions benefiting the climate-induced migrant.
Will the problem be solved, then?
We find an alarming estimation of displacement of around 35 million people from only the coastal districts in Bangladesh by 2050.
The scale is relatively high to be managed by the effort of an individual country.
How much can Bangladesh and other least-developed countries afford it?
What will be the situation in the middle of the century then?
This is an unjust question to ask vulnerable countries.
Why will they be asked for their actions to address loss and damage -- it is not happening because of their actions. The 47 least-developed countries emit a maximum of 3% of the carbon globally while they are the most vulnerable.
So, this is the time to raise a strong voice for just actions, for example, addressing loss and damage by the nations responsible for it.
There is no more time for negotiations, processes, and dialogue -- people are dying in the global south because of the lifestyle of the developed nations. The LDCs must immediately negotiate for just decision-making in finance, technology transfer, and capacity building.
Most importantly, the LDCs and developing countries should raise their voice for just accountability of the emitting nations -- their commitment to finance and other support.
The vulnerable nations have demonstrated their responsibility through actions with their fund, higher ambitions, submissions, and reporting. Hence, this is the time to challenge the developed countries for their inward accountability to the commitment as part of the UNFCCC process, Kyoto Protocol, and Paris Agreement.
The civil society organizations from Bangladesh participating in COP27 should aim for more space in the side events and exhibits to bring the evidence of loss and damage as much as possible so that it influences the discussion -- to inform the negotiation and ultimately advocate for positive action for loss and damage funds.
They can also participate in the climate campaigners' movements, which was quite significant in COP26.
Bangladesh, as the chair of the V20, should lead the agenda of these negotiations urgently. COP27 is the right place to do so, capitalizing on the different forums and networks.
It can bring evidence of loss and damage on the ground and why the finance must be directed in addressing loss and damage. It can also capitalize on the initiatives from individual states such as Scotland and Denmark -- but the critical point is that it must be in the institutional mechanism, both in UNFCCC and Paris Agreement.
Whatever it is, it must be now and be just for all.
Ashish Barua is the Program Manager for the Climate Change and Sustainable Development program of Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation in Bangladesh.