An Agenda for a Dignified and Sustainable Rohingya Refugee Response in Bangladesh The humanitarian community under SEG/ISCG leadership was able to advocate for resolution of some of these access constraints, for example, through centralisation of information requests through a common reporting format endorsed by the MoDMR/RRRC office. Yet, many NGOs consistently report non-compliance by camp and district authorities, resulting in restricted humanitarian access/service delivery to affected communities, delays in project approvals/closures and threats/harassment of humanitarian workers. Further, the introduction of additional security measures in the camps such as barbed wire fencing and others listed earlier have greatly limited the ability of refugees to access rights and services and hinder timely and effective delivery of humanitarian assistance to communities in need. The Government has expressed its intention to reduce the presence of NGOs in Cox’s Bazar and international humanitarian staff, for streamlining response management and ‘lessening comfort’144 in the camps to incentivise repatriation and relocation. Although the number of international humanitarian workers in the Rohingya refugee response have progressively reduced since 2017 with a simultaneous increase in national capacity, NGOs continue to face challenges in securing organisational registrations and timely work visa/work permits for technical experts and managerial staff, resulting in loss of financial and human resources and risking the quality and integrity of projects. In practical terms, there is lack of clarity and consistency between the different government authorities entrusted with policy level and operational decision-making for the response. NGOs have to navigate multiple levels of approvals and permissions procedures to start and close their projects in the Rohingya refugee response starting from the NGO Affairs Bureau right up to the camp authorities with several layers in-between involving various Government actors such as the security and intelligence agencies, RRRC office and district/sub-district administration. As a result, there is duplication of processes and overlapping paperwork at the central, district and camp level, causing confusion and delays in NGO registration, project approvals and closures, and slow implementation. Despite the one-year duration of the Joint Response Plan, NGOs continue to receive project permissions (FD7s) for a six-month period amidst many delays. NGOs have specifically reported facing denials or delays in approvals for protection related activities in the camps.145 NGOs need to have regular and predictable interlocutors within the Government of Bangladesh. The NTF and National Committee led by MoHA should ensure that Government agencies involved in the Rohingya refugee response have a systematic process of consultation with the humanitarian community on key issues and concerns. The simplification and streamlining of existing processes that align with the operational realities through provision of clear, written guidelines will enable humanitarian access for both refugees and humanitarian actors, ensure a predictable and efficient response and help maintain the high level of international support for Rohingya refugees and host communities in Cox’s Bazar district. 3.2.7 Refugee repatriation focused policy and its impacts Rohingya refugees and humanitarian stakeholders are in agreement with the Government of Bangladesh that there must be continued international pressure on Myanmar to create conducive 144 Foreign Minister for Lessening Comfort at Rohingya Camps, Daily Sun, 22 August 2019, available at https://www.dailysun.com/post/417288/2019/08/22/Foreign-Minister-for-lessening-comfort-at-Rohingya-camps. 145 COAST Trust, DG NGOAB discussed NGO concerns in Rohingya Response in Cox’s Bazar, 10 February 2018, available at http://coastbd.net/dg-ngoab-discussed-ngo-concerns-in-rohingya-response-in-coxs-bazar/ Act for Peace / May 2021 33