Cox's Bazar beach facing severe existential threat




Waves crash against an eroded portion of Cox's Bazar beach, exposing damaged geobags as the shoreline continues to recede. — FE Photo

COX'S BAZAR, Sept 10: Cox's Bazar, home to one of the world's longest natural sea beaches, is increasingly facing a threat of destruction due to unchecked sand extraction,

destruction of beach vegetation and casuarina trees, unplanned urbanisation and mounting pressure from tourism infrastructure.

Locals claim that at least 500 feet of the beach's sandy stretch has disappeared into the sea over the past five years. Although geobags have been placed at several points to combat erosion, the measure has failed to provide a lasting solution.

In many places, the bags have torn apart, shifted from their original positions or become exposed as sand beneath them has been washed away, making the erosion even more visible.

During a recent visit to Laboni, Sugandha and Kalatali points of Cox's Bazar beach, signs of severe erosion were found at several locations. In some areas, sections of the

beach have dropped several feet, while in others, the removal of sand from beneath geobags has created gaps and cavities. In several places, waves have battered and torn the geobags apart, scattering their remains across the beach.

The situation is not only damaging the natural beauty of the beach but also creating discomfort for tourists. As the sandy stretch and natural dunes continue to shrink, tourism-dependent businesses and the fragile coastal ecosystem are also coming under growing threat.

A tourist couple, Jesmin Bokhari and Shah Rukh Bokhari, who travelled to Cox's Bazar from Mirpur in Dhaka with their family, said the condition of the beach had deteriorated significantly.

The environment of the beach has become very poor. Looking at the eroded shoreline, it feels as if a war has taken place here. Instead of temporary repairs, the authorities should take a long-term approach to solving the problem, they commented.

Local residents said that only a few years ago, many parts of the beach had extensive sandy stretches, rows of casuarina trees and natural dunes covered with beach vegetation. Today, powerful waves are crashing directly onto many of those areas.

Erosion becomes particularly severe during the monsoon, they said. Despite repeated efforts to protect the shoreline with geobags, the expected results have not been achieved.

Tourism entrepreneur Shahed Selim said Cox's Bazar beach suffers severe damage every year during the monsoon.

"The beach is gradually losing its existence because of sand extraction from the sea and the destruction of beach vegetation and casuarina trees," he said.

According to people concerned with the issue, interference with the natural movement of seawater, encroachment on the beach, pollution, inadequate drainage and unplanned urbanisation have further complicated the situation.

H.M. Faridul Alam Shaheen, joint convener of Dharitri Rokkhae Amra, a local environmental organisation, blamed sand extraction and unplanned activities for the worsening situation.

"Geobags are being placed in the affected areas, but they are not working. They are also affecting the natural beauty of the beach. Every year, a significant amount of money is being spent on geobags, but it seems that the entire expenditure is going into the water," he said.

Experts opine climate change is not the only factor behind the erosion. Unplanned tourism development and the destruction of natural sand dunes have also contributed significantly to the deterioration of the beach.

They believe that geobags may temporarily reduce the impact of waves, but they cannot provide a long-term solution. Instead, restoring natural dunes and bringing back the beach's ecological balance should be prioritised.

Fazlul Kader Chowdhury, president of the Cox's Bazar Civil Societies Forum, said the beach was globally renowned for its natural beauty.

"But if uncontrolled sand extraction, destruction of dunes and vegetation, and unplanned development continue, the beach's natural defence system will become even weaker," he said.

Oceanographer Abdul Qayyum suggested that sand be brought from other areas to replenish the eroded sections.

Salahuddin Ahmed, sub-divisional engineer of the Cox's Bazar Water Development Board, said the agency had faced various obstacles while attempting to work on beach erosion control two years ago.

"Because of those obstacles, we currently have no ongoing work there," he said.

However, Cox's Bazar Deputy Commissioner Md A. Mannan said initiatives were underway to identify erosion-prone areas and formulate a permanent project.

"We are identifying the areas where erosion control measures are necessary and preparing a Development Project Proposal (DPP) for submission to the government. We hope work can begin through a government-funded project once the necessary allocation is secured," he said.​

Bangladesh unveils $1.85b plan for green transition




Bangladesh has outlined a $1.85 billion investment plan to execute an equitable green economic transition, becoming the first country in Asia to incorporate a dedicated Just Transition chapter into its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC 3.0).

The framework translates the country's climate targets into actionable and bankable investment opportunities, according to an action plan presented at a national high-level dialogue in Dhaka on Thursday.

The dialogue was jointly organised by the Department of Environment, International Labour Organisation (ILO), South Asian Network on Economic Modeling (SANEM) and the Embassy of Sweden.

The strategy was developed through a cross-mapping of 14 national strategy documents, including the Eighth Five-Year Plan, Perspective Plan 2041 and Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100. It consolidated 258 commitments into 33 core priorities.

These priorities form an action matrix containing 69 traceable and time-bound activities across six key sectors-energy, transport, construction, agriculture, waste management, and industrial processes and product use (IPPU).

The final implementation plan will be incorporated into NDC 3.0 this month before being presented to international development partners and global investors at COP31 in November.

SANEM Executive Director Dr Selim Raihan and ILO Just Transition Technical Officer Elisa Benistant Fremigacci jointly presented the action plan and its annexes at the dialogue.

Speaking as the chief guest at the event, State Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Shaikh Faridul Islam said the government was focusing on field-level measures to clean major rivers and reduce air and noise pollution.

Referring to his recent visits to facilities in Rajshahi, he stressed the need to improve occupational safety and health standards for factory and waste-management workers.

Workers are central to economic growth and therefore need fair wages, stronger social protection and skills upgrading to cope with technological changes, he said.

Bangladesh is also targeting 10,000 MW of renewable energy within five years as part of its clean-energy transition, including through wind power projects such as those in Cox's Bazar.

The government is forming an inclusive, multi-sectoral team to present strong research and policy positions at COP31, the state minister added.

Speaking at a panel discussion, Dr Fahmida Khatun, distinguished fellow at the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), said a just transition must focus on creating employment through the green transition.

She called for sector- and occupation-level mapping to identify where jobs would be gained or lost and proposed adding a green jobs module to the Labour Force Survey to establish a reliable baseline. She also stressed the need for data disaggregated by sex, age, geography, and formal and informal employment to better target social safety-net programmes such as the Family Card.

Emission-reduction tracking should be paired with employment and decent-work indicators, she said, calling for an institutional mechanism to integrate data across the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, government ministries, employers and worker organisations.

Moustapha Kamal Gueye, director of the ILO's Just Transition Priority Action Programme, said climate ambition requires building human capacity among workers, businesses and communities to transform energy, agriculture and transport systems.

Social justice and decent work are essential to climate mitigation and adaptation rather than merely additional benefits, he said, stressing that social dialogue should be formally institutionalised instead of remaining ad hoc.

Bangladesh Employers' Federation Secretary General Farooq Ahmed said a just transition required a whole-of-society approach involving all stakeholders, not just employers and workers.

He noted that Bangladesh accounts for only 0.47 per cent of global carbon emissions, yet remains disproportionately vulnerable to climate change because of its geographical position.

He identified three key responsibilities: raising public awareness, mobilising financial and technical resources, and developing a framework for resilience and preparedness.

He also called for climate issues to be communicated in simple and accessible language and stressed the need to build the capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises to adapt to environmental and technological changes.

Mesbahuddin Ahmed, chairman of the National Coordination Committee for Workers' Education, recalled past industrial disruptions caused by globalisation and cautioned against repeating instances where workers lost jobs without opportunities for retraining.

The current green transition must prioritise worker reskilling and involve worker organisations from the outset, he said.

Sector-level specialisation is also crucial to understanding future workforce needs and designing appropriate training, he added, stressing that a just transition must go beyond policy documents to deliver real jobs, job security and effective skills transfer.

ILO Country Director Max Tunon moderated the panel discussion.​

Who will pay for the climate crisis?

Atia Ibnat Rifah & Azizul Hakim Rakib
Published: 12 Sep 2026, 09: 34


A man walks past damaged buildings after the flash floods and mudslide, at Trishuli, Nuwakot district, Nepal, 29 August 2026. Reuters

Nepal has demanded climate compensation after the recent devastating landslides and floods that killed thousands and caused widespread damage. The question that Nepal has raised by demanding compensation from major emitters like the United States, India, and China is not unique to Nepal. Rather, it is one of the world’s biggest justice questions: who will ultimately pay for the damage caused by climate change?

To find the answer to this question, we need to look back. Since the Industrial Revolution, much of the world’s economic growth has been based on coal, oil, and gas. These fuels have fueled unprecedented prosperity in the economies, urbanization, and lifestyles of industrialised countries. But the environmental costs of that prosperity are not just on their shoulders.

Global warming is increasing, sea levels are rising, rainfall patterns are changing, cyclones and heat waves are intensifying, droughts are getting longer in some places, and the risk of floods and landslides is increasing in others. And the biggest impact of all this is often falling on countries that have played a relatively small role in creating this crisis.

This is where the biggest paradox of climate change lies. The countries or populations that have contributed the least to global warming often suffer the most. A coastal farmer in Bangladesh, a small farmer in Africa, or a family in a remote village in the Himalayas did not make the decision to join the global carbon economy. But they are paying the price of climate change with their lives and livelihoods.

So the question arises, is this just bad luck, or is it a matter of responsibility?

This is where the concept of climate justice comes into play. Not all countries are equally responsible for the climate crisis, nor are all countries equally affected. As a result, the argument that everyone should be equally responsible for the solution does not stand the test of fairness.

Countries that have achieved economic prosperity by emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases for a long time cannot be limited to reducing emissions in the future. They must also face the question of taking responsibility for a part of the damage caused today due to those past emissions.

There is a debate over the word ‘compensation’. Many in developed countries want to see climate finance as a continuation of development aid. On the other hand, affected countries argue that getting money for damage they did not cause due to the climate crisis is not kindness. It should be part of a fair international system.

The difference between the two positions is very important. Aid usually depends on the goodwill of the donor. But compensation depends on liability. When asking for aid, the poor country is a beneficiary; but when it demands fair compensation, it speaks of its rights. This change in language is very important in climate politics.

Of course, there is a hard reality here. It is not possible to hold any specific country responsible for the entire damage of every flood, cyclone or landslide in the world. In addition to climate change, local topography, deforestation, unplanned urbanization, weak infrastructure or a lack of disaster management can also make a disaster more severe. Therefore, an effective compensation system should not be based on emotions, but on scientific evidence, historical emissions, current emissions, economic viability and the scale of damage.

But this complexity does not negate the need for compensation. On the contrary, it shows that we need a more fair and effective international system.

The world is already talking about ‘Loss and Damage’. The UN climate process has decided to create a fund for this. This is undoubtedly an important step forward. But creating a fund is not the same as ensuring sufficient money compared to the need.

This is the major weakness of the current system. The scale of damage from the climate crisis is increasing rapidly, while compensation money still depends largely on voluntary commitments and political will. Uncertain and inadequate financing cannot be a sustainable solution to the damage of a crisis that has accumulated over decades and whose effects will continue for decades to come.

The bigger question is, where will this money come from?

Relying solely on the national budgets of developed countries will be difficult to meet in the long term. Proposals such as a global levy on the excess profits of the fossil fuel industry, certain types of charges on international aviation and shipping, mandatory contributions from high-emitting countries, or creating new sources of finance through the international financial system could be seriously considered for climate compensation. It is not unreasonable to create a link between an economy that has long benefited from its dependence on fossil fuels and an economy that has benefited from climate damage.

Another issue is whether loss-and-damage finance should come in the form of loans. On paper, a loan may count as climate finance. But from the perspective of justice, the picture is very different. If a country that has suffered economic losses due to floods, cyclones, or rising sea levels has to borrow again to deal with those losses, the burden of the loss is simply shifted from the present to the future. Therefore, financing for loss and damage needs to be as grant-based and predictable as possible.

The greatest injustice of the climate crisis may not simply be that some people are losing their homes, land and livelihoods. It may be that those who contributed least to creating the crisis are being asked to pay the highest price for it.
Here, the question of the responsibility of the developed world is even clearer. Just as it is not right to simply claim that the development of industrialized countries is not entirely due to climate change, it is also not consistent with reality to deny the role of their historical emissions. Today''s climate crisis is not the result of any one year's emissions; it is the result of accumulated emissions over many decades. Therefore, determining responsibility only by looking at current emissions leaves out a large part of history.


At the same time, the reality of the current world must be acknowledged. Countries like China and India are now among the world's largest emitters, although their historical responsibility and per capita emissions are not the same as those of developed Western countries. As a result, a future climate compensation system cannot be stuck in a simple division of ''West vs. the rest of the world''. Those with greater historical responsibility, higher current emissions, and greater economic capacity must take proportionately greater responsibility.

That is, the basis of climate compensation should be justice, not revenge.

Another important aspect of this justice is where the money will go. The responsibility does not end when money is deposited in international funds. If money is also stuck in the bureaucratic structures of the affected country, or if the needs of local people are neglected in the name of large infrastructure projects, then that funding will lose its original purpose.

The ultimate beneficiaries of climate compensation must be the people who are actually suffering—coastal farmers, landless families in river erosion, displaced people, small-scale fishers, agricultural workers, and communities whose livelihoods have been lost due to climate change.

This debate is therefore particularly important for Bangladesh.

We have long been known as one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. Although our emissions are very small compared to the global crisis, the impact of climate change on our development, agriculture, water, coastal life, and human migration is becoming increasingly visible. As a result, climate financing for Bangladesh is not just another matter of international aid; it is a question of future development and justice.


Climate change in Bangladesh. Survival calls for effective climate adaptation Logic/UNDP

However, we also need to be careful about one thing. Demanding compensation alone is not enough. What the international framework for compensation will be, what damage will be considered compensable, how liability will be scientifically determined, how the money will be distributed, and how it will reach local people—these are questions that countries like Bangladesh need to take a stronger stance on.

Much of the discussion on climate change has been about how to prevent future disasters. Then came the question of how to adapt people to those changes. Now comes the more difficult question—who will pay for the damage that has already been done?

The answer to this question is not just a question of money. It is also a question of history. It is a question of development models. It is a question of power. And most of all, it is a question of justice.

Nepal’s recent claim has only brought that question to the fore. But the question is much bigger than Nepal. As the number and scale of climate disasters increase in the coming days, the world will have to decide—will we keep climate-affected countries dependent on sympathy and relief, or will we accept their losses as part of a just international obligation?

Climate change does not respect national borders. Its consequences do not stop at the borders of the countries least responsible for causing it. If the benefits of carbon-intensive development have been accumulated disproportionately in one part of the world while its costs are increasingly borne elsewhere, then the international system must find a fairer way to share those costs.

The greatest injustice of the climate crisis may not simply be that some people are losing their homes, land and livelihoods. It may be that those who contributed least to creating the crisis are being asked to pay the highest price for it.

* Atia Ibnat Rifah, and Azizul Hakim Rakib are postrgaduate students at the Department of International Relations, University of Rajshahi. They are also independent researchers researching in the field of climate change adaptation, environmental governance and politics, climate justice, and gender studies.​