Why Bangladesh needs environmental foresight over populism

Bangladesh is shaped by water and greenery. Its rivers, canals, wetlands, forests, and agricultural lands have sustained human settlements and livelihoods for centuries. Yet today, many of these ecological foundations are under pressure. Canals have been filled or encroached upon, wetlands have shrunk, forests have declined, and biodiversity is under increasing threat. 

At the same time, climate change is making floods, droughts, salinity intrusion, and extreme weather events more frequent and severe.

Against this backdrop, the government's canal restoration programme and its ambitious initiative to plant 250 million trees deserve recognition. Both reflect an understanding that environmental protection can no longer be treated as a peripheral issue. However, the ultimate success of these initiatives will depend not on how impressive the numbers appear in official reports, but on whether they generate lasting ecological and socioeconomic benefits.

This distinction is important because environmental policy often falls into the trap of what may be called "the politics of numbers." How many trees were planted? How many kilometres of canals were excavated? How much money was allocated? These are useful administrative indicators, but they are not reliable measures of environmental success.

A more meaningful set of questions would be: How many of those trees will survive after 5-10 years? Have local biodiversity and ecosystem functions improved? Has waterlogging declined? Are farmers and fishers benefiting from restored waterways? Have local communities become active stakeholders in conservation efforts?

International research on ecological restoration increasingly suggests that environmental programmes should be evaluated by outcomes rather than outputs. The difference may appear technical, but it is fundamental. Outputs measure activities; outcomes measure impacts.

The debate surrounding canal restoration offers a useful example. Bangladesh is often described as a riverine country, but it is equally a canal-dependent one. Historically, canals played a crucial role in drainage, irrigation, fisheries, water transport, and groundwater recharge. Over time, however, many canals have become disconnected from larger river systems, encroached upon by settlements, or clogged by pollution and sedimentation.

As a result, both urban and rural areas are experiencing increasing waterlogging and declining water security.

Scientific evidence from wetland and river restoration projects around the world shows that restoring natural water systems can reduce flood risks, improve groundwater recharge, enhance agricultural productivity, and revive aquatic biodiversity. Yet the same evidence also demonstrates that excavation alone is rarely enough.

A canal is not simply a trench in the ground; it is part of a living hydrological system. If upstream water flows remain blocked, illegal encroachment continues, pollution persists, and maintenance is neglected, newly excavated canals can quickly return to their previous degraded state.

The lesson is straightforward: the goal should be restoring water flow and ecosystem function, not merely completing excavation projects.

A similar lesson applies to tree-planting campaigns.

There is little doubt that Bangladesh needs more trees. Forests and green spaces absorb carbon, regulate temperature, reduce soil erosion, support biodiversity, and contribute to both physical and mental well-being. In a climate-vulnerable country, large-scale afforestation and reforestation can play an important role in strengthening resilience.

This distinction is important because environmental policy often falls into the trap of what may be called 'the politics of numbers.' How many trees were planted? How many kilometres of canals were excavated? How much money was allocated? These are useful administrative indicators, but they are not reliable measures of environmental success.

However, global experience also offers a cautionary tale. Many high-profile tree-planting programmes have produced disappointing results because planting trees is not the same as creating forests.

A forest is far more than a collection of trees. It is a complex ecosystem composed of plants, animals, insects, fungi, microorganisms, and countless ecological interactions. When tree-planting campaigns prioritise numerical targets over ecological considerations, they often produce monoculture plantations that support far less biodiversity than natural forests.

This reality is particularly relevant to ongoing debates in Bangladesh regarding species selection. Discussions about eucalyptus and acacia often become polarised, but the issue is not whether a particular species is inherently good or bad. The more important question is whether planting strategies are aligned with local ecological conditions and long-term conservation objectives.

Research consistently shows that diverse, native, and site-appropriate species generally provide greater ecological benefits than large-scale monocultures. They support local food webs, provide habitat for wildlife, and contribute to more resilient ecosystems.

Yet environmental conservation is not solely an ecological challenge; it is also a social and economic one.

One of the most important findings from international conservation research is that environmental programmes are unlikely to succeed if local communities are treated merely as beneficiaries rather than partners. Farmers, fishers, and rural communities often possess valuable knowledge about local ecosystems and have the greatest stake in their long-term health.

This insight is particularly relevant for Bangladesh, where millions of people depend directly on natural resources for their livelihoods. Conservation initiatives that ignore local economic realities frequently encounter resistance or fail to endure. By contrast, programmes that improve livelihoods while protecting ecosystems tend to generate stronger and more sustainable outcomes.

This is why framing the issue as "environment versus development" is ultimately misleading.

Healthy ecosystems are not obstacles to development; they are among its most important foundations. Productive agriculture depends on fertile soils and reliable water systems. Fisheries depend on healthy wetlands and rivers. Climate resilience depends on forests, floodplains, and functioning ecosystems. Environmental degradation, therefore, is not merely an ecological concern; it is an economic liability.

For Bangladesh, one of the world's most climate-vulnerable countries, environmental investments should be viewed as investments in long-term economic security.

The government's canal restoration and tree-planting initiatives therefore represent an important opportunity. But their success should not be judged by the number of seedlings planted or the kilometres of canals excavated. Instead, success should be measured by indicators that matter: tree survival rates, biodiversity recovery, improved water management, reduced flood risks, stronger livelihoods, and healthier ecosystems.

Nature does not operate according to electoral cycles. Forests take decades to mature. Water systems require continuous stewardship. Ecosystems recover slowly, often over generations.

For that reason, environmental protection demands something more valuable than short-term popularity: it demands long-term vision.

If Bangladesh can combine political commitment with scientific evidence, local participation, and sustained institutional support, today's tree-planting and canal restoration programmes could become landmark examples of environmental leadership. If not, they risk becoming little more than impressive statistics.

The choice is not between development and conservation. The real choice is between short-term visibility and long-term sustainability. And for a country facing mounting environmental and climate challenges, that choice may help determine the future of both its ecosystems and its economy.

Dr Khaled Misbahuzzaman is a professor at the Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, Chittagong University. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.