Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has urged the government to ensure full transparency and accountability in foreign investment at Chattogram port by disclosing all information and conditions related to the contract process.
In a press release on Wednesday, TIB said foreign investment in the development of Chattogram port could be positive news for the country. But for the sake of transparency and accountability, the government must disclose all information and conditions related to the contract process, it added.
The recent rush to establish new terminals and manage existing ones also requires clarification, it said. The government must explain whether these decisions are being taken on an ad-hoc basis or as part of a long-term strategic plan for port management, TIB noted.
Referring to the recent signing of agreements for the Laldia and Pangaon terminals with Denmark-based APM Terminals and Switzerland-based Medlog SA, respectively, TIB Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman said, “We appreciate the any government initiatives to attract direct foreign investment in port development and other sectors for overall economic progress. However, in this case, along with ensuring procedural transparency, it must be made public how issues related to national interests have been safeguarded in such agreements.”
He added that the foreign company involved in the Laldia Terminal construction “did not come here to provide public service or charity,” emphasising that their primary objective is profit. “Therefore, it is only natural that the government must also consider the country’s long-term economic gains and losses, as well as national interest. In this context, a thorough analysis to ensure maximum benefit is essential,” he said.
He further stressed that if the company’s international reputation was a determining factor in the Laldia Terminal agreement, the government must also clarify whether its global record on transparency, accountability, and corruption management was examined. Any risk mitigation measures or protective clauses safeguarding the country’s interests should be included in the agreement and made public, he said.
He added that the government must also explain the process through which APM Terminals was selected over other potential companies in accordance with relevant criteria.
He asked, “Has an analysis been conducted on port-centered employment and the positive and negative impacts on various related institutions and stakeholders? Overall, to what extent have the interests of the public been considered, and how much does this agreement contribute to developing local skills and capacities in this sector?”
He questioned whether a clear long-term economic strategy guided the signing of this agreement. Since the agreement has already been signed, he said, the government must promptly disclose answers to these questions in the interest of transparency.
He further pointed to concerns regarding the pace of the agreement’s approval process. Although the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which served as the transaction adviser for Bangladesh in connection with the APM agreement, had projected a 62-day timeframe for finalising the deal after the proposal submission, the entire process from submission to the Chief Adviser’s final approval and the signing was completed in only two weeks.
This included ten major steps, such as technical and financial evaluations, negotiation, port board reviews, and approvals from the Ministry of Shipping and the Ministry of Law, and the Letter of Award. Each of these steps, he said, typically requires detailed scrutiny due to their significance at the state level.
“This unusually rapid completion raises reasonable questions about the entire process. A clear explanation from the government is imperative,” he said.
He also asked why, if the Pangaon Terminal agreement followed a competitive process, an “exceptional” approach was taken in the Laldia case.
He noted that the extent to which local stakeholders’ opinions were considered before signing the agreement also remains unclear. “Alongside the positive aspects of such long-term agreements at the international level, have examples of economic risks in developing countries like ours and our capacity to provide remedies or fulfill liabilities been taken into account?” he asked.
He also questioned what benefits the state will receive in return for the profits the foreign operator will generate. He said no information has been made public regarding whether any cost-benefit analysis was conducted or whether the agreement states the possible financial gains or losses for the country’s population.
“In this context, the government must clarify its position to ensure transparency and make this information public,” he said.
