An Agenda for a Dignified and Sustainable Rohingya Refugee Response in Bangladesh independent and transparent manner.172 Reports also indicate that the provisions of the Digital Security Act, 2018 are being used against media and civil society groups to curtail their freedom of speech and expression.173 The Government’s short-term strategy focused on repatriation, within a politicised operational environment, shapes collective public-facing NGO engagement in the humanitarian response. Certain government actions have created an environment of fear and uncertainty. These include bans and suspensions on NGO activities, direct and indirect threats to NGO operations, delayed project approvals and completion processes, and increased surveillance and scrutiny of camp projects and staff. This has made it increasingly tough for NGOs to balance the humanitarian imperative with advocacy goals, in line with the core humanitarian principle of ‘do no harm’. This has resulted in situations of self-censorship and cautious protection and operational advocacy initiatives, in order to preserve humanitarian access.174 A study by Asia Displacement and Solutions Platform (ADSP) highlights the partisan context that NGOs in Coz’s Bazar operate in. NGO operations in the Rohingya refugee response in Cox’s Bazar are influenced by Bangladesh’s dual political imperative with regard to Rohingya refugees-temporariness of stay and prompt repatriation. Their role, mandates and capacities are mediated by several factors, such as the complex administrative and policy frameworks, increasing limitations and controls on the scope of humanitarian operations, and delicate relationships with local authorities and political actors.175 The NGO space is also dominated by a contested localisation debate which hinders prospects for strong NGO partnerships and coordination often at the cost of advancing refugee protection.176 As NGOs try to work around these controls, the lack of strong collective advocacy and coordination contributes, in part, to the reinforcement of a restrictive operational environment. 177 For example, relocation to Bhasan Char led to tensions between the Bangladeshi authorities and the humanitarian community. This event presented an ethical dilemma for the aid community who are struggling to strike a fine balance between advocating for easing restrictions and improvement of overall camp conditions for a large majority of Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar and negotiating for access to the island where a smaller group of refugees have been relocated. Despite these obstacles, humanitarian agencies have undertaken joint advocacy initiatives in collaboration with their counterparts in Myanmar and the region, on highlighting the general plight of 172 Human Rights Watch, Bangladesh: New Law Will Choke Civil Society, 19 October 2016, available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/19/bangladesh-new-law-will-choke-civil-society NGOs protest proposed social welfare law, Dhaka Tribune, 30 June 2019, available at https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/law-rights/2019/06/30/ngos-decry-proposed-social-welfare-law 173 Ashutosh Sarkar, It’s now a gag on the media, free speech, 7 May 2020, available at https://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/news/its-now-gag-the-media-free-speech-1900231 174 Caitlyn Wake and John Bryant, Capacity and complementarity in the Rohingya response in Bangladesh, HPG Working Paper, Overseas Development Institute, December 2018, P.22, available at https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/12554.pdf 175 ADSP, Rohingya in South East Asia: Opportunities for engagement, March 2020, p. 22, available at https://adsp.ngo/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/ADSP_2020_ROHINGYA-IN-SOUTHEAST-ASIA_COUNTRY_PROFILES_V2.pdf 176 Ibid, p. 25. 177 Wake and Bryant, supra n. 174, p.22 38 Act for Peace / May 2021