An Agenda for a Dignified and Sustainable Rohingya Refugee Response in Bangladesh Rohingya refugee response while delegitimising others.257 There is debate among local NGOs about the ‘local’ nature of agencies as follows: the time period for which an agency has been operational in Cox’s Bazar; the location of its main office; areas of operation and where the staff are from, giving rise to further divisions between ‘local’ and ‘more local’ (district/sub-district level).258 Overall, the distinction between international, national and local actors remains contested. The term ‘local’ may constitute a range of actors such as national and local authorities, national and local civil society organisations, and affected communities.259 In the Bangladesh context, ‘local’ may sometimes refer to international, national and local agencies who have a long presence in Bangladesh, as is the case of many international NGOs who have been operational in Bangladesh since its independence or over a period of 20 years working on poverty reduction, development, disaster preparedness and response and more recently, with Rohingya refugees.260 A good example in this regard is the case of BRAC, a large NGO that originated in Bangladesh in 1972 and is now operational in more than 10 countries. Despite its strong international presence, BRAC is considered to be a national Bangladeshi NGO and is represented as such in humanitarian coordination structures, mainly due to its origins and policy-making influence in Bangladesh, perhaps at the cost of excluding smaller Bangladeshi agencies engaged in the response. Despite concerns raised about the internationalisation of the Rohingya refugee response by localisation advocates in Bangladesh, research shows that the status of NGOs (international, national, local), is not relevant for Rohingya refugees as long as their basic needs are being met. 261 A localisation discourse focused around ‘national/local versus international actors’ is unlikely to achieve much progress in an overcrowded and competitive aid landscape where many humanitarian actors are trying to access funding from a few sources. Rather, a more pragmatic approach would be to embrace the diversity of Bangladeshi civil society acknowledging their comparative advantages in understanding the context and establishing Government relations and advocate for an equal and partnership-oriented approach that balances quality and inclusion.262 5.2.1.3 Affected communities A lot of the debates around localisation of the Rohingya refugee response are focused on the role and capacity of national and local NGOs/CSOs. Much less attention has been devoted to understanding localisation from the perspective of affected communities at the centre of the humanitarian situation as agents of change. In the context of localisation of the Rohingya refugee response, we must ask what is the purpose of localisation. It must be noted that while local Bangladeshi agencies are local to the 257 Kristina Roepstorff, Localisation Requires Trust: An Interface Perspective on the Rohingya Response in Bangladesh, 24 March 2021, available at https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12483 258 Ibid. 259 Ibid. 260Smruti Patel, Going the Extra Mile!, Start Network (2017), available at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58256bc615d5db852592fe40/t/5a9ad053f9619a449822b94e/1520095320908/Star t+Network+-+Bangladesh+Localisation+Review+SCREEN.pdf 261 This distinction is perhaps more applicable to host communities who may feel better served and represented by local NGOs/CSOs who have a stronger understanding of the context as well as their needs. See, Kerrie Holloway, Dignity and ‘localisation’: Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, Humanitarian Exchange Number 73, October 2018, available at https://odihpn.org/magazine/dignity-and-localisation-rohingya-refugees-in-bangladesh/ 262 Patel, supra n. 261. Act for Peace / May 2021 57