The World Bank takes a breather over Dhaka's rickshaws

A major part of the project involves getting rid of Non-Motorised Transport. Shrewdly, they are doing this road by road, and not in one big bang. These so-called VIP roads have been termed "corridors." Already, two roads or corridors have been "freed" from rickshaws. Corridor 1 runs from Gabtoli (northwest) to Russell Square. Corridor 2 runs from Russell Square to Azimpur-Newmarket.

Things are not going smoothly.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Commuters are writing to newspapers about how the so-called "rickshaw jams" have been transferred from the main road to the smaller residential streets. They are recognising that such grand measures (similar to constructing a flyover) do not automatically solve the traffic problem. It just moves the problem on to somewhere else.

Is this the way to reduce poverty?
The World Bank champions the cause of self-employment. Recently a UN representative came to see how we are progressing on The Millennium Development Goals (MDG). These target a reduction in poverty by half by 2015. The over-hasty move to remove rickshaws seems to fly against these objectives, since there is considerable doubt whether compensation and "rehabilitation" packages will work. In fact, the World Bank had to recently made a public statement that there would be no further progress on this project until Corridor 2 affected rickshaw people are properly rehabilitated. In other words, no more money until things are done properly. That threat must be concentrating some minds.

The Bank seems to be calling for a review for the second corridor but what about the first corridor? Why should those thousands be forgotten? They should initiate a detailed study, report of findings and a clear statement of whether the process of compensation and alternative livelihoods is being successful. This should involve a real dialogue with the pullers and owners, not some stage-managed "consultation with stakeholders."

Irreplaceable money?
The massive economic impact of inwards remittances from rickshaw pullers to their families in the villages seems to have been overlooked or underestimated. Unofficial estimates range from $150M to $200M per year. That translates to nearly Tk. 1,000 crore. They provide a lifeline to poor rural families who have no other means of income generation. Approximately 70 percent of rickshaw pullers come from 20 districts where there is river erosion, i.e. environmentally-degraded districts where for many there may be literally no going back.

These people have searched for employment within these districts and found nothing available. We must ignore urban prejudices that they have not done so. Virtually no rickshaw puller wants to be in this inhuman profession. They would much rather be working in the agriculture or service sector near their families and village, rather than struggle in this polluted city.

So the question is: does this project generate the equivalent millions so that the poorest of families in the poorest of districts do not go down?

Directly? I very much doubt it.

Not good before an election
Given the next general election campaign will start in the next few months, the move to close down a significant part of the rickshaw industry, affecting hundreds of thousands people across the country, has got to be a sure vote loser. It will not help candidates when they have to explain why the authorities have thrown people out a job. For authorities, read "present government." It is an easily exploitable issue and this sector has a natural sympathy with many voters.

From a purely electoral perspective, it would be prudent to get the message across that the authorities recognise that is not just a transport issue and that it is a social and economic issue. That the authorities are listening to both affected passengers and also the pullers and ensuring a smooth transition for the latter.

There has to be an exit away from this type of inhuman industry. There is consensus on that. Where we differ is where the process is being handled callously and the short time frame in which it is being conducted.

We should learn from past operations. For example, most citizens supported the introduction of CNG auto-rickshaws because they replaced the polluting 2-stroke "baby taxis." They might be less supportive of how many auto-rickshaw drivers and owners have allegedly not been properly compensated and been thrown on the scrap heap. Numerous stories have come out in the media. We are in danger of repeating this on a much larger scale.

Take a look at what is on offer this time:

Compenstion/Rehabilitation Package
Emergency Asset Transfer of Tk. 5,000 for mainly older pullers. This is equivalent to six weeks' wages. Then what? In any case, hardly any puller will be eligible.

Micro-credit loans of up to Tk. 10,000. A consultancy group has estimated that less than a third of pullers will meet the eligible criteria. This is the equivalent of less than 3 months' wages. What return can one expect from Tk. 10,000?

The third element of the package is worth about Tk. 8,500 each for skill development and for job placement. Hardly any fit the criteria.

So, two-thirds are not going to get much in the way of money.

The World Bank should be wondering whether:

(a) Their packages are really good enough or even fair;

(b) The packages will be properly distributed;

(c) How effective the training will be;

(d) The net economic costs to the rural districts and how to replace that money; and

(e) Whether khas (government) land could be redistributed to affected pullers. At least they are an asset and worth something.

Bad for PR
They might also like to think what this does to their image if people living below the poverty line are not allowed an honest attempt to earn a living. The public relations unit (if there is one) of this institution has already scored an own goal with its attempt to gain immunity from the Bangladesh government. Before that, it pledged mostly old money for flood rehabilitation after the 2004 deluge. Santa Claus turned into Scrooge. They got away with that one because we have learnt to be quiet or look elsewhere. Civil society was more excited about the war of words over immunity. They were less interested in getting funds for reconstruction for our 20 million victims. Notice the generosity of donors for South East Asian Tsunami victims by contrast.

So far, as regards rickshaws, the Bank has finally made the right move in calling for proper handling of compensation for affected rickshaws. It now needs to go the whole way by ensuring there is a watertight and fair procedure before embarking on a politically sensitive mission that could lose a whole lot of votes. They have miscalculated before. Neither they, nor the government, can afford to get this one wrong.

Farid Bakht is a member of the Futurebangla Network and can be reached on faridbakht@yahoo.com.