Written evidence submitted by Zahid Amin Shashoto, Head of Programme, Climate Change & Water Governance

Again thank you for the opportunity to share further points that I have missed during the session. I would like to briefly elaborate on a few thoughts, particularly in response to the question raised by David Mundell:

“In your view, what policy or funding changes could the UK Government make to climate change finance that would make it more accessible, effective, and impactful to your communities?”

During the session I responded briefly, but I would like to expand on three related points.

1. Climate finance for adaptation should not be treated as a siloed fund

Climate finance, particularly for adaptation, should not be approached as a standalone or isolated funding stream. In many highly climate-vulnerable countries, including Bangladesh, climate vulnerability is deeply intertwined with pre-existing structural vulnerabilities, such as landlessness, marginalisation, weak infrastructure, mal-development and inequitable access to resources.

These underlying vulnerabilities often determine who is exposed to climate risks and why. Climate change then acts as a multiplier, triggering more severe impacts on already fragile communities.

For example, in coastal southwest Bangladesh, severe tidal surges combined with increasingly frequent cyclones regularly cause embankment breaches, leading to tidal flooding and extensive loss and damage to homes, crops, and aquaculture systems. Many of the households affected are landless families who settled in these areas because they had no other options. They often occupy low-lying land or embankments, which are technically government land, simply because it is the only available space for them to live.

At the same time, the polder and dyke systems that were constructed decades ago have had unintended consequences. Now in the south-west Bangladesh it is sometimes  considered as mal-development. While they initially provided protection and encouraged settlement, they also created what could be described as an “escalator effect”: communities were led to believe that these structures would permanently shield them from tidal and riverine forces. However, these sediment-based embankments were not designed to withstand the evolving realities of climate change and sea level rise.

Furthermore, because the polder system prevents tidal sediment from naturally depositing on the floodplains, sediment instead accumulates on the riverbeds, gradually reducing the river’s drainage capacity. As a result, tidal surges become more intense and flooding more severe.

In response, adaptation initiatives often introduce measures such as salt-tolerant or flood-tolerant crops, floating agriculture, rainwater harvesting, or alternative livelihoods. While these interventions are valuable, they cannot fully succeed if the broader landscape and socio-economic conditions remain unchanged.

In other words, adaptation finance that focuses only on coping mechanisms without addressing structural drivers of vulnerability, such as maladaptive infrastructure, land inequality, and marginalisation, risks becoming a temporary fix rather than a sustainable solution. These are complex, systemic challenges; and as such, a wicked problem requires a wicked solution. Otherwise, communities remain trapped in a cycle of repeated loss and recovery.

2. Climate resilience is fundamentally linked to governance systems and human rights

Many of the challenges we face are not purely technical or environmental; they are systemic governance issues. Addressing climate vulnerability therefore requires long-term engagement with institutional systems, policies, and governance structures.

In many countries, government systems are organised sector-wise and are often rigid in their mandates. Yet these systems ultimately determine how resources are allocated, how infrastructure is managed, and how rights and protections are delivered to citizens. Climate change does not operate within these administrative boundaries, it interacts with issues such as land rights, social protection, gender justice, water management, and environmental governance.

For example, when communities lack secure land tenure or when marginalised groups, particularly women and landless households, have limited decision-making power, their ability to adapt to climate impacts becomes severely constrained. In such contexts, adaptation interventions alone cannot build resilience if human rights, access to resources, and institutional accountability remain weak.

Civil society and community organisations often play a crucial role in bridging this gap. They help facilitate dialogue between communities and government institutions, advocate for policy reforms, and ensure that local realities are reflected in national planning processes. However, this type of work requires long-term commitment rather than short project cycles.

Building climate resilience therefore demands consistent, long-term investment in strengthening governance systems, promoting inclusive decision-making, and addressing rights-based issues. Even small investments can make a difference if they are sustained over time. Without addressing these systemic dimensions, climate resilience risks remaining an aspirational concept rather than a practical reality.

3. Climate finance should prioritise and trust local organisations

Countries like Bangladesh have demonstrated significant capacity in locally led adaptation, where national and community-based organisations play a central role in designing and implementing solutions.

Local organisations often operate with lower operational costs, have deep contextual understanding, and maintain long-standing relationships with the communities they serve. This allows them to deliver support more directly and effectively while ensuring that interventions are tailored to local realities.

Despite this, many climate finance mechanisms remain highly centralised and administratively complex, making it difficult for local organisations to access funding directly. As a result, resources often pass through multiple intermediary layers before reaching communities, reducing both efficiency and impact.

A more equitable climate finance architecture would therefore include subsidy grants and funding mechanisms that prioritise locally led initiatives and strengthen local institutional capacity. Supporting national and grassroots organisations not only increases efficiency but also enhances accountability, ownership, and sustainability of adaptation efforts.

In this way, climate finance can become not only more effective but also more just, ensuring that those closest to the challenges are empowered to lead the solutions.