be moved to another camp where they would not have to pay rent. Similarly, a 50-year-old woman in Kutupalong said that, because their shelter was near the host community, they had to pay 1,000 BDT ($12) to the host community initially, then 200 BDT ($2.37) per month. They reported this to the Camp-in-Charge official (CiC: an official mandated by the government to assume all camp management responsibilities), who told the host community to stop demanding money from the refugees, but they started demanding 1kg of rice instead. The woman said that they were not in a position to pay rent, so they wanted to go back to Myanmar. As the experiences of the refugees above illustrate, there is a risk that conditions in the camps – in this specific instance, inability to pay rent – have led some refugees to consider moving or even returning to Myanmar. This raises concerns about how conditions in the camp – stemming from both humanitarian access and levels of aid – may affect Rohingya refugees’ decisions about their future. It is essential that humanitarian actors monitor this in the context of any discussions around return, given the historical precedent of coercive tactics being used to compel the return of Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh to Myanmar in the late 1970s, including attacks on refugees (by Bangladeshi security and government officials) and withholding food and other essential assistance to compel refugees to return (Lindquist, 1979; Crisp, 2018). Lack of firewood or stoves. Despite efforts to distribute gas stoves to refugees,4 those we interviewed repeatedly mentioned lack of gas stoves, gas cylinders and firewood as a problem. This is a significant issue given that assessments show that the risk of violence when collecting firewood is a serious concern for refugees (OCHA, 2019b). Refugees who had been given gas stoves were apparently entitled to regular refills, yet many we interviewed said their gas cylinder had run out and they had no way to refill it. One 34-year-old in Kutupalong with six children said: ‘we have a gas stove and cylinder and the gas is empty and we don’t have money to buy more and for firewood … if we go to the nearest village we are afraid because people threaten to kill us. It has been two months since we got the cylinder and we don’t remember which NGO gave it to us’. Another refugee in Kutupalong, who had also been given a gas stove and had run out of gas, said: ‘Women are burning their clothes and plastic in order to cook food, others are taking wood and bamboo from their houses 4 and burning this in order to cook. They are really suffering’. The refugees were not allowed to leave the camp or work, and thus were unable to buy more gas or firewood. Healthcare. Refugees described two issues with healthcare: that they could not access the level of (secondary) care they needed, and that the quality of care was low. The recent JRP affirms these and other challenges, including limited availability of treatment for non-communicable diseases, quality of care issues and heavy demand on the services available (while the standard is one round-the-clock primary health centre per 25,000 people, in the camps each centre serves more than double that, 54,000 refugees) (UN, 2019: 39). Refugees we interviewed from various camps expressed dissatisfaction and mistrust regarding health facilities. For example, numerous refugees asserted that there was some sort of corruption taking place at NGO-run clinics, which meant that treatment was inadequate. Refugees noted that health problems were caused or exacerbated by conditions in the camp (such as poor sanitation), and cited numerous barriers to care. In a focus group, one woman said ‘my brother is sick and we don’t have enough money for treatment because our parents are poor so it would be better if we could get treatment. There is an NGO hospital and they do treatment there, but the treatment is not good, if you have fever they just give tablets but they cannot treat any bigger disease. If we have a bigger problem the NGO can refer us to the hospital but otherwise we cannot go. Even if we are referred if we do not have money we cannot go’. Several refugees who worked as volunteers said they used their wages to access private Rohingya or Bangladeshi doctors, while others said they were unable to overcome challenges associated with healthcare – including limited access to quality care and lack of trust in certain heath facilities – because they lacked money and freedom of movement. WASH and protection. The JRP highlights a range of challenges related to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), including access, uneven coverage and high contamination levels in tube well spouts; for sanitation, ‘53% of households have access challenges including distance, overcrowding, location, and overflowing’ (UN, 2019: 43). Refugees we interviewed described similar problems, including poor-quality latrines and an inadequate number of nearby latrines, resulting in queues. One refugee in Kutupalong said that, in their area, there were 125 households and According to the February 2019 Situation Report for Cox’s Bazar, more than half of the refugee population, as well as some 7,000 host community households, were receiving gas as an alternative cooking fuel to curb deforestation and mitigate protection risks of firewood collection. LPG distributions were due to reach 240,000 households in the coming months (ISCG, 2019b). Humanitarian Policy Group 11