3. Case study: Mitigation
Socioeconomic, Environmental, and Climate Change
Impacts of the Barapukuria Coal Plant
What can we expect as we go from 2% coal to 12% under
the government plan?
Look to Barapukuria coal plant for answers along key aspects:
1. financing,
2. employment,
3. socioeconomic,
4. environment,
5. climate change.
Distributional impacts & Policies that moderate these impacts
4. 4
Tilai River
Subsided Land
Fly Ash Pond
Chimney
Financier: China ExIm
Borrower: BD Government (GoB)
Builder & 5 yr Operator: Harbin Electronics
Owner & Operator: PDB (GoB)
Plant Contracted GoB Workers
Plant Outsourced Workers
Plant Chinese Workers
Mine Chinese Workers
Mine Contracted GoB Workers
Mine Outsourced Workers
$
Power Plant
Coal Mine
Local Community
Land Owners
Landless Peasant
Indigenous Groups
CSOs
Journalists
Research Institutes
Ministry of Power, PDB
Ministry of Environment
Background: Key Players
525 MW
$656 mn
5. Key Findings
Financing
Financing comes in ‘package’ -> machinery, builders,
technical know-how
Traditional financiers moving away from fossil-fuel
power generation
Employment Lack of jobs for local communities
Loss of indirect employment from imported factor
inputs
Socioeconomic
Impacts
Title-holding landowners fairly compensated
Uncompensated impacted communities include:
sharecroppers, indigenous communities
Environmental
Impacts
Water depletion impacted 15 villages; Water & Air
Pollution
GHG emissions (525 MW, subcritical): ~4 million mt
CO2/year
6. Safeguard Policies
Bangladesh Public Consultation, Grievance Mechanism not required/ not
implemented
Environmental Management Plan with timelines not required
China
Overseas
Regulations
Recommends Chinese firms conduct Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA)
Refers to host country laws and international standards (ADB, ExIm,
Equ. Princ.)
China ExIm Guideline includes resettlement (only one of two policy banks to do
so)
Monitors environmental impact throughout project cycle (not
accessible)
Equatorial
Principles
EIA includes impacts on indigenous peoples (like ADB)
Independent Monitoring required for high risk projects (like ADB)
ADB Includes indirect socioeconomic impacts
Applies Polluter Pays Principles
7. Nature of Safeguards Characteristics IDBs
Conditional Harmonization
IDB has predetermined set of mandatory thematic, operational, and
procedural standards that a borrower must comply with regardless of
their national country system and level of development. The
development bank performs compliancet work itself or provides
technical assistance for the borrower to comply
WB, EIB, IADB, USEXIM
Capability Enhancing Recognition
IDB recognizes borrowing country standards but conducts due
diligence to ensure that the bank project is in compliance with local
laws and norms. If country system capabilities are deemed to be
inadequate the IDB development bank provides technical assistance
technical assistance to the borrower country to improve the standards
for the project.
CAF, KfW, CaDB, AfD
Deferential Recognition
IDB recommends that projects comply with national country systems,
but seldom assess the adequacy of such systems, project compliance
with such systems, and/or provide technical assistance to project
managers or borrower countries for compliance.
BNDES, CDB, CHEXIM
IDB Safeguards in Latin America
China Banks at Weaker End of Safeguard
Spectrum relative to BWIs
Source: GEGI
8. Long term issues
Financing Project document does not include revenue over
plant’s lifetime (30 y)
By 2030 renewables cost competitive with subcritical
coal
Water
depletion
2% coal impacted 15 villages, 2041 Policy could impact
375 villages
Wastewater discharge pollutes water bodies; fly-ash
deposit
Air
Pollution
Health impacts from copollutants
Average cost $49/ton of CO2 (from 37 studies around
the world)
GHG
emission
2041 Policy not compatible with Intended Nationally
Determined Contributions
Not compatible with a longer timeline (2050)
9. Conclusion
• Research highlights some key aspects of different options that exist
for developing countries to meet energy needs, and a framework for
how to weigh these different aspects
• Recommend policy based on environmental and economic
considerations.
• Chance to inform policy that addresses needs of vulnerable
populations especially with the emergence of Southern-led finance
10. Case Study: Adaptation
• Project name: “Strengthening Resilience of Climate-Induced Migrants
in Vulnerable Urban Communities in Khulna”
• BRAC project
• Addresses environment, climate change, and socioeconomic
vulnerabilities
• Focus on livelihoods + climate impacts
• Waterlogging, access to potable water
11. Overview 11
» Implementing Organization: BRAC Humanitarian Programme (BHP) and BRAC Ultra-
Poor Graduation Programme (UPG)
» Location: Urban Settlements in Khulna and Rajshahi
» Target Population: Ultra-poor climate migrant women in urban settlements
» Duration: 18 months
12. Study Area 12
» Khulna: 3rd largest city, Population: 770,498,
Informal settlements: 520
» Vulnerabilities: inadequate rainfall, urban
flooding, water logging, storm surge,
infrastructural challenges
» 3 most vulnerable slums: 5 no. ghat, 7 no. ghat,
and Notunbazar
13. Objectives 13
» Assess the current situation in terms of economic, social and environmental
problems of the communities
» Identify the climate-induced vulnerabilities to track potential change at the end
of the programme
14. Project Outcomes
14
Capacity to minimize, withstand
and bounce back from negative
impacts of climate change Strengthened the socio economic
resilience
2
3
1
Improved social
empowerment
19. 19
Qualitative Evaluation
FGDs: 3 slum committees
• Challenges faced
• Interaction between challenges
• Actions taken
• Effective solutions proposed by locals
KIIs: 4 government and non-gov organizations
• Existing projects for managing the challenges
• Identify operational & functional challenges of interventions
• Suggest potential scope of HH level integrated interventions
20. Quantitative Evaluation 20
Assessed the vulnerability of the participant and control group to track
potential change at the end of the programme
1 Socioeconomic
» Income generating
activities
» Income generating assets
» Credit, Grants and Savings
» Food Security
» Decision making
» Social Inclusion
2 Household/Infrastructural
» Housing Structure
» Surrounding Infrastructure
» WASH
3 Climate Change
» Climate-induced migration
and impacts
» Awareness
» Adaptation measures
22. Study Results
22
Household level financial condition
Indicators Participants (mean)
Per capita monthly HH income (BDT) 1,754.60
Have cash savings (Yes=1, No=0) (%) 6.2
Respondent involved in IGA (Yes=1, No=0) (%) 59.5
Average value of HH productive asset (BDT) 4,868.90
Households receiving government allowance/assistance (Yes=1, No=0) (%) 10.6
24. Study Results
24
Household level infrastructure condition
Indicators Mean
House is built resistant to rain and storm (Yes=1, No=0) (%)
32.8
Water enters the house if waterlogging happens in the area (Yes=1, No=0) (%)
64.2
Cooks inside the house (Yes=1, No=0) (%)
63.9
25. Study Results
25
90.9
17.2
10.9
9.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Lakri/Wood
Sawdust
Cow dung/ Pipe coal
Gas cylinder
Percentage (%)
Fuel
Type
Houehold level fuel use
26. Study Results
26
Wash and Sanitation:
» Almost 28 percent of the participants had to cover more than 15 minutes of walking distance
from their houses to the sources of drinking water
» Household’s monthly expenditure associated with water collection is on an average BDT 72
» Around 53 percent of the surveyed households expressed the need for safe drinking water
» About 50 percent of the surveyed households used joint/community latrine in the settlements
28. Study Results
28
Climate induced migration
» Around 9% of the participants migrated for work, but 72 % moved after losing land and house in
natural disasters
» The participants mostly migrated from Bagerhat, Barisal, Pirojpur and Khulna districts
Climate Change Awareness
» 30% of the participants reported that they had heard about the term “Climate Change”
Adaptation strategies against climate shocks
» 12% of the participants made a loft in the house while 5% raised the base of the furniture to protect
household items from water logging
» 55% changed their water sources due to climate change issues
30. Conclusion
30
» Participant group comprises of climate-induced migrants who are socioeconomically vulnerable,
have very low levels of per capita household income & productive assets
» Inadequate housing and sanitation infrastructure, making them vulnerable to flooding and storm
surges
» Scope to improve the anticipatory capacity of the community
» Cooking facilities used are carbon intensive and have negative health impacts
» Existing water supply, drainage access does not sufficiently counter impacts of climate change
such as increasing salinity in water and waterlogging
» Waste management facility is inadequate and unaffordable to the most vulnerable households
» Potential scope for household level integrated interventions
