However, with China blocking efforts at the UN Security Council to even discuss the crisis, few credible means are available to compel a change in Myanmar’s behaviour to allow for return. The emphasis placed on repatriation underscores the government’s strong reluctance to sanction any response that appears to suggest that Bangladesh is taking long-term responsibility for newly arrived refugees, including self-reliance initiatives, resettlement or relocation of refugees elsewhere in Cox’s Bazar or Bangladesh (other than Bhashan Char). Finally, it is important to note that some Rohingya will also oppose interventions that reduce pressure on Myanmar to create conditions conducive to allow them to return. It is also important to recognise how current regional attitudes to refugee hosting are shaped by historic policies, including the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) agreed in 1989 in response to a surge in Indochinese refugees. The historical reluctance to align the CPA with human rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention has to some degree contributed to a persistent attitude within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and among South Asian states that they are not bound by the norms and principles of an international, rightsbased refugee response – a scenario with potentially significant implications for the medium-term response in Bangladesh and efforts to secure policy reforms in support of a more sustainable refugee response. With traditional durable solutions off the table, at least for the time being, dialogue with the Government of Bangladesh to secure a more sustainable response to the Rohingya crisis continues. Following her February 2019 visit to Bangladesh, then UK Secretary of State for International Development Penny Mordaunt stated that it was ‘time to look beyond short-term life-saving assistance support, to give [refugees] the skills they need to create sustainable lives both for themselves and their families’ (Gov. uk, 2019). UN Special Rapporteur Yanghee Lee has also encouraged the government ‘to begin to engage in longer-term planning … A failure to do so will not only have negative consequences for the refugee population but also for Bangladesh, including most significantly, the host community’ (OHCHR, 2019). In a 2011 review, UNCHR called for ‘international development actors to support area-based programmes that would bring jobs, services and other tangible benefits to refugees and local residents alike’ (2011: 24). Some steps towards a response that meets the needs of refugees and host communities have been taken. All programming under the JRP must include an element of work with the host community, although only a limited number of people have benefited from such interventions (Ground Truth Solutions, 2019: 2). Both the World Bank (Lawder, 2018) and the Asian Development Bank have committed funding to support services for all affected populations. However, a longerterm approach to the crisis in Cox’s Bazar would require a significant shift in government policy. Current efforts to support host communities in Cox’s Bazar do not constitute the type of comprehensive development plan that might encourage the government to change its approach to the crisis and recognise the potential benefits of longer-term support to displacementaffected communities. Work has begun to map the role the international community could play in supporting such a policy shift. The Centre for Global Development has published proposals for a responsibility-sharing agreement between international and regional actors and Bangladesh. Building on the experience of development financing and beyond-aid solutions in Jordan, Lebanon and Ethiopia, the proposals include trade concessions, labour mobility agreements, foreign direct investment, climate financing and resettlement (Huang and Gough, 2019: 1). While these suggestions offer promise, it is clear they are some way from adoption as elements of the international response to this crisis. Furthermore, it is important that dialogue around new approaches maximises the opportunity for learning from previous efforts at international responsibility-sharing. In each case (Jordan, Lebanon, Ethiopia), results could be enhanced through greater emphasis on area-based approaches, and by ensuring that the design of interventions is rooted in an understanding of the perspectives, aspirations and skills of displaced and host communities themselves. It is critical therefore that the design of a mediumterm response in Bangladesh is grounded in an understanding of what refugees and host communities believe is most important to them. This report seeks to make a contribution to these efforts. Humanitarian Policy Group 9