[🇧🇩] Save the Rivers/Forests/Hills-----Save the Environment

[Saif]

Govt should ensure rights of rivers as juristic people

THE discharge of untreated industrial effluent into rivers continues with the authorities knowing fully well that such a situation would only push the rivers towards their death. The photograph...

www.newagebd.net

Govt should ensure rights of rivers as juristic people
09 November, 2024, 00:00

THE discharge of untreated industrial effluent into rivers continues with the authorities knowing fully well that such a situation would only push the rivers towards their death. The photograph of a Shyampur stretch of the River Buriganga that New Age published on November 8 shows how untreated industrial effluent kills the river. In the wake of World Cities Day, observed on October 31, the photograph should serve as a pressing wakeup call for the government to take stern action against the pollution of rivers by way of the discharge of untreated industrial effluent. This is merely one point into the river where industrial effluent is discharged. There are thousands of industries around the capital Dhaka, bounded by four rivers and a canal — the Balu and Sitalakkhya on the east, the Turag and the Buriganga on the west, Tongi Canal on the north and the Dhaleshwari on the south. And the industries on the fringes of the capital and on the outer sides bordering the rivers keep polluting the rivers with their untreated effluent. There have been court directives for the government and its agencies to stop such pollution. There have been initiatives to stop such pollution that have fallen through or petered out.

But why do such initiatives have failed? They have so done, mostly because when it comes to the task on the ground, the agencies, a horde of them, start engaging in blame trade, with one in its effort to pass the blame for such a situation and the responsibility to stop such pollution onto others. There has also been noticeable incoordination between the agencies when they start trying to stop industries from discharging untreated effluent into the rivers. And, they usually do not do the job efficiently, effectively and seriously, leaving scopes for the polluting industries to continue with their marauding discharge once government initiatives stall and the furore that occasionally breaks out dies down. This has been a regular phenomenon, especially around occasions related to the cause of the environment, when green campaigners rise up to advance environmental causes, the court renews its efforts and the media make some report, censuring the government for its inaction. The High Court in February 2019 declared rivers to be ‘living entities’, rendering them as ‘juristic people’ having rights to be legally protected and put the rivers, as not being usual living entities, under the care of a guardian called the National River Conservation Commission. The court ordered river pollution, along with river grab, to be treated as criminal offences, noting that killing a river amounts to a collective suicide. Yet nothing substantial has so far happened.

It is, therefore, time that the government took an integrated approach to stop river pollution with untreated industrial effluent, by getting at the industries that have sprung along the rivers, not only around the capital city also across the country, forcing them to treat the effluent before the discharge into the rivers.​

 

[Saif]

Trump prepares to withdraw from Paris climate deal: NYT

US President-elect Donald Trump's transition team has prepared executive orders and proclamations on withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, reports NYT

www.thedailystar.net

Trump prepares to withdraw from Paris climate deal: NYT

Photo: AFP

US President-elect Donald Trump's transition team has prepared executive orders and proclamations on withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and shrinking the size of some national monuments to allow more drilling and mining, the New York Times reported on Friday.

Trump is also expected to end the pause on permitting new liquefied natural gas exports to big markets in Asia and Europe and revoke a waiver that allows California and other states to have tighter pollution standards, according to the report.

Trump promised during his campaign to take many of the actions listed in the report. Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman for the Trump transition team, said in a response to a Reuters request that the results of Tuesday's election gave him a "mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail. He will deliver."

The administration of President Joe Biden paused approvals of new LNG exports in January in order to complete a study on the environmental and economic impact of the exports. The US Energy Department will have a draft updated analysis out for a 60-day public comment period before the end of the year, a department official said.

Some people on the transition team are discussing moving the headquarters of the Environmental Protection Agency out of Washington, the report said, citing unnamed people involved in the discussions.​

 

[Saif]

COP29: What is a carbon credit? What is Article 6?

Countries at the U.N. COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan will attempt to agree rules for a global system for trading carbon offset credits. Here's what you should know: WHAT ARE CARBON OFFSETS? Some governments and companies may struggle to reduce their planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

COP29: What is a carbon credit? What is Article 6?
REUTERS
Published :
Nov 09, 2024 15:28
Updated :
Nov 09, 2024 15:29

A view shows the venue of the United Nations climate change conference, known as COP29, during a media tour ahead of the summit beginning in Baku, Azerbaijan November 8, 2024. REUTERS/Aziz Karimov/File Photo

Countries at the U.N. COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan will attempt to agree rules for a global system for trading carbon offset credits.

Here's what you should know:

WHAT ARE CARBON OFFSETS?

Some governments and companies may struggle to reduce their planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to meet their climate targets. Supporters of carbon offsets see them as a key means to help meet these goals.

These offsets allow one nation or company to offset some of their emissions by paying for actions to cut emissions elsewhere. These actions might include rural solar panel installations or converting a fleet of petrol buses to electric.

WHAT IS ARTICLE 6?

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement helps countries work together to reduce their carbon emissions. It sets out two options for countries and companies to trade offsets, helping them meet the goals they set to reduce planetary-warming gases in their climate action plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

One allows two countries to set their own terms for a bilateral carbon trading agreement, this is known as Article 6.2. The second aims to create a central, UN-managed system for countries and companies to begin offsetting their carbon emissions and trading those offsets, known as Article 6.4.

Article 6 is seen an important mechanism for delivering climate finance to developing countries, and a Paris Agreement carbon market, if launched, could continue operating even if the United States under Donald Trump withdraws support for the Paris Agreement.

WHAT'S BEEN DECIDED SO FAR?

At the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, negotiators reached a breakthrough agreement that established a broad rulebook to regulate trading of carbon credits.

But after two weeks of talks at COP28 in Dubai, countries failed to seal a deal on necessary details to operationalise a central carbon trading system or to clarify rules for nations wanting to make bilateral arrangements.

Some countries like Japan and Indonesia have decided to press ahead with bilateral agreements without those clarifications and are already preparing to trade carbon credits, known as "internationally transferable mitigation outcomes" (ITMOs). The UN says 91 agreements had been made between 56 countries as of October this year. Thailand and Switzerland completed the first sale in January, and the market for bilateral trade agreements is still quite small.

Some buyers are worried there are not adequate rules to stop countries changing the terms of the agreements, or revoking them, and that there is not a robust system to ensure that credits bought and sold are not being counted by both the buying and selling countries.

WHAT WILL BE DECIDED AT COP29?

Officials are keen to secure an early "win" on Article 6 at this year's climate conference.
Market watchers are hopeful an agreement can be reached to set guardrails for the bilateral agreements and to operationalise the UN-backed centralised marketplace.

Guardrails include checks and balances to provide assurance countries are buying and selling actual emissions reductions. Some countries for example want methods nations use to generate credits to be checked internationally.

Countries will also negotiate whether the UN's central registry can itself house credits that can be transacted and retired or whether it should operate just for accounting purposes.

An expert group elected under United Nations rules has already hammered out a framework for the multilateral trading system to ensure credits meet basic quality standards. But countries at COP29 can decide to either sign off on this standard, open up further discussions, or reject it.

After COP29, the technical expert group will meet again to agree which methodologies for generating carbon credits through cookstoves projects or reforestation for example can issue credits into the new Paris Aligned system.

If the key points are resolved this year, the system could launch as soon as 2025.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET?

Some companies that are under no legal obligation to cut their emissions have set voluntary targets, which they can meet partially through buying credits on a voluntary carbon market. In 2022, the voluntary market was valued at about $2 billion worldwide. But the market value plummeted to $723 million last year after being shaken by repeated scandals.

Linking up carbon projects currently in the voluntary market with the Paris Agreement system could boost confidence.

Developers of projects like mangrove restoration to regenerative agriculture can apply to have their credits sold under the UN system, meaning that if approved, they could sell in either that system or on the voluntary market. Experts expect UN-approved credits to carry a higher price tag.

WHAT ARE CARBON OFFSETS?

Some governments and companies may struggle to reduce their planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to meet their climate targets. Supporters of carbon offsets see them as a key means to help meet these goals.

These offsets allow one nation or company to offset some of their emissions by paying for actions to cut emissions elsewhere. These actions might include rural solar panel installations or converting a fleet of petrol buses to electric.

WHAT IS ARTICLE 6?

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement helps countries work together to reduce their carbon emissions. It sets out two options for countries and companies to trade offsets, helping them meet the goals they set to reduce planetary-warming gases in their climate action plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

One allows two countries to set their own terms for a bilateral carbon trading agreement, this is known as Article 6.2. The second aims to create a central, UN-managed system for countries and companies to begin offsetting their carbon emissions and trading those offsets, known as Article 6.4.

Article 6 is seen an important mechanism for delivering climate finance to developing countries, and a Paris Agreement carbon market, if launched, could continue operating even if the United States under Donald Trump withdraws support for the Paris Agreement.

WHAT'S BEEN DECIDED SO FAR?

At the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, negotiators reached a breakthrough agreement that established a broad rulebook to regulate trading of carbon credits.
But after two weeks of talks at COP28 in Dubai, countries failed to seal a deal on necessary details to operationalise a central carbon trading system or to clarify rules for nations wanting to make bilateral arrangements.

Some countries like Japan and Indonesia have decided to press ahead with bilateral agreements without those clarifications and are already preparing to trade carbon credits, known as "internationally transferable mitigation outcomes" (ITMOs). The UN says 91 agreements had been made between 56 countries as of October this year. Thailand and Switzerland completed the first sale in January, and the market for bilateral trade agreements is still quite small.

Some buyers are worried there are not adequate rules to stop countries changing the terms of the agreements, or revoking them, and that there is not a robust system to ensure that credits bought and sold are not being counted by both the buying and selling countries.

WHAT WILL BE DECIDED AT COP29?

Officials are keen to secure an early "win" on Article 6 at this year's climate conference.

Market watchers are hopeful an agreement can be reached to set guardrails for the bilateral agreements and to operationalise the UN-backed centralised marketplace.

Guardrails include checks and balances to provide assurance countries are buying and selling actual emissions reductions. Some countries for example wants methods nations use to generate credits to be checked internationally.

Countries will also negotiate whether the UN's central registry can itself house credits that can be transacted and retired or whether it should operate just for accounting purposes.

An expert group elected under United Nations rules has already hammered out a framework for the multilateral trading system to ensure credits meet basic quality standards. But countries at COP29 can decide to either sign off on this standard, open up further discussions, or reject it.

After COP29, the technical expert group will meet again to agree which methodologies for generating carbon credits through cookstoves projects or reforestation for example can issue credits into the new Paris Aligned system.

If the key points are resolved this year, the system could launch as soon as 2025.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET?

Some companies that are under no legal obligation to cut their emissions have set voluntary targets, which they can meet partially through buying credits on a voluntary carbon market. In 2022, the voluntary market was valued at about $2 billion worldwide. But the market value plummeted to $723 million last year after being shaken by repeated scandals.

Linking up carbon projects currently in the voluntary market with the Paris Agreement system could boost confidence. Developers of projects like mangrove restoration to regenerative agriculture can apply to have their credits sold under the UN system, meaning that if approved, they could sell in either that system or on the voluntary market. Experts expect UN-approved credits to carry a higher price tag.​

 

[Saif]

COP29: A quick run-through of the finance agenda

The centrepiece of this year’s COP agenda is undoubtedly climate finance.

www.thedailystar.net

COP29: A quick run-through of the finance agenda

Photo: REUTERS

Why is COP29 called the Finance COP?

The 29th session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP29) will be held at Azerbaijan's capital, Baku, from November 11 to 22, 2024. The UNFCCC secretariat and the host country are expecting around 50,000 participants; including government officials, policymakers, practitioners, youth, and investors. The centrepiece of this year's COP agenda is undoubtedly climate finance, with the decision text on New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) targeted to be finalised. Recently, the host country announced the launch of a Climate Finance Action Fund (CFAF) among its packages of initiatives at COP29.

So, what is the NCQG?

In 2009 at Copenhagen, the Conference of Parties (COP15) decided to commit to a goal of mobilising $100 billion per year by 2020 to support developing countries in their climate actions. However, the collective commitment of developed countries had failed and the $100 billion goal was extended until 2025, at COP21 in Paris. Meanwhile, under the Paris Agreement, parties agreed to set a new climate finance target by 2025 from the floor of $100 billion considering the needs and priorities of developing countries. This new goal also sends a strong political signal to the parties to be more aware at the negotiation rooms.

What has happened to date?

An ad hoc work programme on the NCQG, facilitated by two co-chairs (one from a developed country and one from a developing country) has been implemented between 2022 and 2024. Meetings and technical expert dialogues conducted under the work programme aimed to finalise the draft negotiating text forming the basis of negotiations for setting NCQG at COP29. The initial structure of the substantive framework for the text proposed by the co-chairs included four elements: i) preamble; ii) context; ii) NCQG (comprised of quantitative elements, thematic scope, and qualitative elements) and; vi) transparency arrangements.

What to look out for in the upcoming 12 days?

COP29 must seal the deal on the NCQG's target and mechanisms. From among the elements of the structure being worked on, let's have a quick look at progress to date and anticipations:

i) Overall, most parties agreed with the structure proposed by the co-chairs. Some elements such as common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) that the NCQG must follow were added. Others were asked to be kept as standalone elements rather than sub-elements (such as time frame of the goal, and access to climate finance)

ii)The structure of the goal will need to decide on the following:
​

• will the goal be sub-layered?​
• which aspects will define the sub-layers?​
• will the three main streams of climate action (adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage) be used to allocate percentages in sub-goals?​

The developing parties definitely have made it loud and clear that this must be the case. But the richer countries are still not on the same page, with "strong resistance" expressed against an explicit loss and damage sub-goal. With a new US president in power, the developing parties will need to ramp up their fight for climate justice many folds.

iii) What will the time frame(s) of the goal look like? The options discussed include alignment with existing UNFCCC processes such as the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), Biennial Transparency Reports (BTR) and Global Stocktake (GST) cycles. Would a cumulative or an annual goal be set? How long would it take to achieve the goals with the options varying from five years to 10 or 15 years? Most of the existing UNFCCC processes are five-year cycles. What would the starting year be, 2025 or 2026? In case of a longer time frame, how often would review and/or revision provisions be kept? Periodic reviewing and revisions should be planned so that the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) biennial progress report and GST reports can inform stakeholders meaningfully. They must also be interlinked and planned with the transparency arrangements of the NCQG.

vi) The floor for the quantum or figure for the next climate finance is in trillions per year. The second report by the SCF published mid-October provides an updated overview of the needs of developing country parties based on available information in reports at the national, regional and global level. Costed needs (the estimated cost needed to address climate change) are a subset of the mentioned needs, thus indicating the monetary numbers in hand are underestimated. As per the report, NDCs from 142 parties contained a total of 5,760 needs, of which 48 percent are costed needs, amounting to $5.036–6.876 trillion. And that only speaks for mitigation. The quantum is thus largely interlinked with the structure and must address all three pillars of adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage. The quantum will also be determined by the time frame(s) and sources of finance. To ensure quality of finance, many parties also called for sub-targets for concessional and grant-based finance.

Azerbaijan's initiative or stunt?

Back in July, the host country announced a package of 14 initiatives, of which the Climate Finance Action Fund (CFAF) is targeted to kick off with an initial one billion dollars sourced through voluntary contributions from the fossil-fuel-producing countries. Half of the funds will be channelled to developing countries for climate action, while the remaining half will target implementation of ambitious NDC actions and working to limit global temperatures to 1.5°C.

Azerbaijan received significant criticism for holding a large share in fossil fuel production, with their stance on climate change remaining in question. This initiative may be an attempt for redemption, but risks being a bypass for fossil fuel producers when we all must be collectively working to transition away from fossil fuels.

With many parties, especially from among the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), boycotting COP29, and the recent turnarounds of the US elections, this COP is under immense pressure to deliver and it must deliver, because timely actions are long overdue.

Madiha Chowdhury is working in the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) as a senior research officer.

Juel Mahmud is working in the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) as a programme coordinator.​

 

[Krishna with Flute]

Govt should ensure rights of rivers as juristic people

THE discharge of untreated industrial effluent into rivers continues with the authorities knowing fully well that such a situation would only push the rivers towards their death. The photograph...

www.newagebd.net

Govt should ensure rights of rivers as juristic people
09 November, 2024, 00:00

THE discharge of untreated industrial effluent into rivers continues with the authorities knowing fully well that such a situation would only push the rivers towards their death. The photograph of a Shyampur stretch of the River Buriganga that New Age published on November 8 shows how untreated industrial effluent kills the river. In the wake of World Cities Day, observed on October 31, the photograph should serve as a pressing wakeup call for the government to take stern action against the pollution of rivers by way of the discharge of untreated industrial effluent. This is merely one point into the river where industrial effluent is discharged. There are thousands of industries around the capital Dhaka, bounded by four rivers and a canal — the Balu and Sitalakkhya on the east, the Turag and the Buriganga on the west, Tongi Canal on the north and the Dhaleshwari on the south. And the industries on the fringes of the capital and on the outer sides bordering the rivers keep polluting the rivers with their untreated effluent. There have been court directives for the government and its agencies to stop such pollution. There have been initiatives to stop such pollution that have fallen through or petered out.

But why do such initiatives have failed? They have so done, mostly because when it comes to the task on the ground, the agencies, a horde of them, start engaging in blame trade, with one in its effort to pass the blame for such a situation and the responsibility to stop such pollution onto others. There has also been noticeable incoordination between the agencies when they start trying to stop industries from discharging untreated effluent into the rivers. And, they usually do not do the job efficiently, effectively and seriously, leaving scopes for the polluting industries to continue with their marauding discharge once government initiatives stall and the furore that occasionally breaks out dies down. This has been a regular phenomenon, especially around occasions related to the cause of the environment, when green campaigners rise up to advance environmental causes, the court renews its efforts and the media make some report, censuring the government for its inaction. The High Court in February 2019 declared rivers to be ‘living entities’, rendering them as ‘juristic people’ having rights to be legally protected and put the rivers, as not being usual living entities, under the care of a guardian called the National River Conservation Commission. The court ordered river pollution, along with river grab, to be treated as criminal offences, noting that killing a river amounts to a collective suicide. Yet nothing substantial has so far happened.

It is, therefore, time that the government took an integrated approach to stop river pollution with untreated industrial effluent, by getting at the industries that have sprung along the rivers, not only around the capital city also across the country, forcing them to treat the effluent before the discharge into the rivers.​

Government should make it a fundamental right to have clean and pollution free river water to all from river. First and foremost, thing is to maintain the water flow in river. We need lots of soil preservation and afforestation measures to maintain flow in river. A big moment in public private partnership is required to have rivers flowing with full flow once again.

 

[Saif]

Yunus asks Bangladesh to make extra efforts in COP29

He made the call in Baku just after he arrived in the Azerbaijan capital to lead Bangladesh in the annual UN-led climate change summit

www.thedailystar.net

Yunus asks Bangladesh to make extra efforts in COP29

Photo: CA press wing

Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus today asked the Bangladesh officials and NGOs and civil society leaders to put up extra efforts to highlight the country's climate crisis concern at the COP 29 conference in Baku.

He made the call in Baku just after he arrived in the Azerbaijan capital to lead Bangladesh in the annual UN-led climate change summit.

"Our main efforts will be to include our concerns and demands in the final declaration of the COP29," he told the Bangladesh delegation during a coordination meeting at a hotel in Baku.

At the meeting, Environment Secretary Farhina Ahmed briefed the officials about Bangladesh's stance on some key issues of the conference.

She said Bangladesh has set up nine teams to negotiate in all major areas, including climate finance, loss, and mitigation, and just transition and adaptation mechanisms in the summit.

At least 29 NGOs and civil society groups from Bangladesh are joining the COP29, she said.

She said despite assurance from the rich countries in the Global North, Bangladesh has so far received $344 million of grants and $250 million of loans as climate finance.

Earlier, at around 5:15pm local time, Bangladesh Chief Adviser Professor Muhammad Yunus arrived in Baku.

He will join the main summit of COP29 tomorrow and will speak in at least three major events.​

 

[Saif]

Climate debt is an unfair burden for Bangladesh

COP29 must secure fair climate finance for vulnerable nations

www.thedailystar.net

Climate debt is an unfair burden for Bangladesh
COP29 must secure fair climate finance for vulnerable nations

VISUAL: STAR

The fact that a climate debt has been accumulating in Bangladesh's name is both alarming and unjust, especially considering the country's minimal contributions to global climate crisis. According to a report citing data from the Dhaka-based research organisation Change Initiative, the country's per capita climate debt climbed to nearly $80 (about Tk 9,500) in 2022 from just over $2 in 2009. This places an unfair burden on our citizens that they should not have to bear.

This debt has reportedly accumulated because Bangladesh has funded projects to address the impacts of climate change. In 2009, the Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund (BCCTF) was created to support adaptation and mitigation initiatives. Currently, around six to seven percent of the national budget is allocated for climate adaptation each year, with 75 percent of this funding coming from domestic sources. Still, Bangladesh had to take $12.78 billion in climate debt to finance multiple projects between 2009 and 2022.

This might not have been an issue if Bangladesh had received the international financial support pledged for climate-vulnerable nations. At COP15 in 2009, developed countries committed to providing $100 billion annually by 2020 to help vulnerable nations adopt adaptation and mitigation measures. But the developed countries—primary contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—have failed to fulfil this commitment. In fact, in many cases, the pledges have turned into loans when those should have been grants (finance without any conditions).

Bangladesh, contributing just 0.56 percent of global GHG emissions, is ranked seventh in the long-term climate crisis index. Yet, between 2009 and 2022, the country received only $268 million in grants from the Green Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund, and LDC Fund. Meanwhile, as climate change worsens, the situation grows more severe: in coastal regions, around 3.6 crore people are now at heightened risk due to rising sea levels, river erosion, severe cyclones, and saltwater intrusion. Annual losses due to climate-related disasters are estimated at $3 billion, and climate-induced displacement is on the rise. Reversing these impacts in the country would require $230 billion, according to the National Action Plan (2023-2050). Why should we bear this cost when we have done so little to cause the crisis?

The refusal of developed countries to take full responsibility, leaving vulnerable nations saddled with debt, is unacceptable. Bangladesh must use COP29, which is being touted as the "Finance COP," to emphasise the need for substantial increases in climate finance as grants, not loans. This is non-negotiable, and Bangladesh and other climate-vulnerable nations must stand firm. We hope the chief adviser attending COP29 will succeed in conveying the urgency of this situation and pressing for genuine climate justice.​

 

[Saif]

Sundarbans must be protected at all costs

The Rampal power plant is causing various environmental issues, harming the forest and the Pasur and Maidara rivers near the forest.

www.thedailystar.net

Sundarbans must be protected at all costs
Government should consider phasing out Rampal power plant

VISUAL: STAR

As experts repeatedly cautioned long before the Rampal power plant became partly operational, the project is already causing various environmental issues, harming the Pasur and Maidara rivers near the Sundarbans as well as the forest itself. According to a report by this daily, the first unit of the coal-fired plant began operating in late 2022 without an effluent treatment plant (ETP), and it has since been discharging untreated waste into the rivers. This not only violates a condition set by the Department of Environment (DoE) but is also seriously damaging to aquatic life, potentially making fish unsafe for consumption.

A report published by the Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) in September revealed that wastewater from the plant is being discharged into the Maidara River—which converges with the Pasur—without proper treatment. As a result, mercury levels in the rivers have risen. CEGIS collected water samples from 14 locations near the plant on four occasions since February 2023, finding that mercury levels had exceeded the government-set acceptable limit of 0.0001 mg/L, reaching 0.001 mg/L. Between February and April this year, CEGIS teams found that while civil works for the ETP were completed, the mechanical and instrumental components were still unfinished.

Mercury contamination poses serious risks to the ecosystem. Phytoplankton and zooplankton, the microscopic organisms essential to aquatic ecosystems, absorb mercury, which then accumulates in fish, reducing their ability to reproduce. Humans and other animals consuming such fish may face serious health risks, according to experts. Moreover, local villagers who bathe in the rivers or use their water for daily chores are exposed to harm. We may recall that, in 2017, Greenpeace released a study warning that the plant would emit enough mercury to make fish within approximately 70 square kilometres unsafe for consumption. All this underscores why building the plant near the Sundarbans was a terrible idea from the outset.

The CEGIS report highlights many other alarming issues. Interestingly, however, the deputy general manager of the plant claims that the ETP has been "fully operational" for some time. If that's the case, why is the environment around the plant still being damaged? This is a question the government must investigate urgently. Immediate steps must be taken to mitigate the environmental damage caused by the plant, while a long-term plan for its discontinuation should be considered to prevent lasting damage to the ecosystems of Sundarbans, which is invaluable to Bangladesh and its people.​