An Agenda for a Dignified and Sustainable Rohingya Refugee Response in Bangladesh The CwC Working Group through its partners has been successful in expanding information and outreach, including during COVID-19 and training refugee community volunteers. However, there needs to be a fundamental shift from messaging to meaningful participation of Rohingya, through Rohingya-to-Rohingya engagement, community-based representation structures, broader and inclusive consultations by age, gender and diversity considerations.159A survey by Ground Truth Solutions in early 2020 showed that while trust levels are high between Rohingya refugees and humanitarian workers, there is much work to be done with regard to increasing awareness of available services and feedback and complaints mechanisms among both refugees and host communities.160 Only 19% of those aware of complaints mechanisms had filed a complaint due to reliance on community justice mechanisms.161 The complaints and feedback mechanisms currently operational in the camps need to be followed up by establishing a consistent and open dialogue with a diversity of actors in the Rohingya community, including men, women, youth, persons with disabilities etc, and critical self-reflection by the humanitarian community about gaps in services and accountability, in the spirit of mutual trust, respect and understanding. In 2017-18, Rohingya civil society organisations (CSOs) were beginning to grow within the Cox’s Bazar camps to advocate for their rights, including women and youth groups tackling diverse issues ranging from community representation, education, livelihoods and international justice and accountability. This advocacy space was however, clamped down by Bangladeshi authorities following the events of August 2019, along with greater scrutiny of agencies supporting Rohingya CSOs.162 These groups coped with these developments by gradually shifting their focus from political and rights-based advocacy towards community development. They work with limited resources and struggle for community-wide outreach. Their engagement with Bangladeshi authorities, humanitarian actors and host communities remain limited.163 A stakeholder mapping exercise by CwC Working Group (2020) shows that out of the 77 community-based groups working with refugees and host communities in Ukhiya and Teknaf, only 26 were receiving in-kind or financial support from humanitarian agencies164 despite supporting their work on awareness raising and implementation of programmes. Thousands of Rohingya refugees serve as volunteers and frontline responders in the camps supporting critical service delivery and provision of lifesaving information to communities in need. Yet, humanitarian agencies are not allowed to hire them as staff due to their tenuous legal status. They are not recognised as legitimate humanitarian actors and their valuable insights and perspectives are missing from daily programming decisions to larger operational prioritisation. 159 Sida and Schenkenberg, supra n. 152, p.29 Ground Truth Solutions (GTS), Bangladesh: Strengthening accountability to affected people, Q1 2020, available at https://groundtruthsolutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/GTS-Bangladesh-report-R4.pdf 161 https://groundtruthsolutions.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/GTS-Bangladesh-report-R4.pdf 162 Sullivan, supra n. 68. 163 CPJ-BRAC University, Civil society, governance and security dynamics in Rohingya refugee camps, Policy Brief (2020), available at https://cpj.bracu.ac.bd/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CPJ-Camp-Civil-Society-Analysis-COVID-19-ResponsePolicy-Brief_Final.pdf 164 CwC Working Group, Stakeholder Mapping - Ukhiya & Teknaf Upazila, Cox’s Bazar Bangladesh (2020), available at https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/stakeholder_mappi ng_dashboard_cbos_presence_map_20201126.pdf 160 36 Act for Peace / May 2021