An Agenda for a Dignified and Sustainable Rohingya Refugee Response in Bangladesh based camp representation structures in line with UNHCR’s efforts in the registered camps, which are yet to be endorsed by the RRRC. At present, community representative structures have only been established in a few camps.220 Some reports221 point out that majhis themselves are opposed to the shift to the new system and have allegedly made attempts to disrupt the process through harassment and threats to community members. Yet, where the new process was piloted, only very few of the existing majhis who stood for the committee elections were elected.222 In Teknaf, where refugees and host communities are living in close proximity in ‘para’ (neighbourhoods), Para Development Committees (PDCs)223 have been constituted to facilitate interactions between both communities, identify common needs and resolve disputes in collaboration with Bangladeshi authorities and the humanitarian community. The PDCs were set up by the Site Management and Site Development (SMSD) sector and partners. As of 2019, there were 10 PDCs with 11 members each (6 host community members and 5 Rohingya refugee members). There are 3 women representatives in each PDC.224 This particular model warrants further exploration to better understand the impact on social cohesion and extent of meaningful community participation in decision-making processes. There are several community-based groups operational in the camps but due to increased Government scrutiny, shrinking funding and telecommunications restrictions, the scope of their activities and engagement with humanitarian actors remains limited. Expansion of community representative structures is urgently required to build and support Rohingya leadership and ensure their meaningful participation in decision-making processes. There is a need to explore Rohingya community structures and dynamics in the camps in greater depth to better understand how they identify and organise themselves in a displacement context. A study by IOM (2020) shows that Rohingya in the camps identify and organise themselves along three linesgusshi (clan), shomaz (community) and koum (ethnic group or nation).225 These factors have informed the formation of Rohingya civil society groups and claims of community leadership. Closer interactions with these structures will deepen understanding of the differences and divisions within the Rohingya community as well as help identify cultural similarities between Rohingya and host communities and how humanitarian programming can help re-establish social ties and community engagement mechanisms without perpetuating harmful social norms like exclusion of women representatives and other marginalised groups.226 220 JRP 2020, supra n. 64, p. 53. IRC, supra n. 118. 222 Ibid. 223 ACAPS-NPM, supra n. 206. 224 MD Smith and L. Tejeda Frem, Women’s Participation and Leadership in the Rohingya Refugee Response: Lessons from the Women’s Committee, IOM (2020), p.15, available at https://womenindisplacement.org/sites/default/files/202010/WPP%20Learning%20Report%20-%20Rohingya%20Response.pdf 225 Daniel Coyle, Abdul-Kadar Rahim, Mohammed Abdullah Jainul, Clan, Community, Nation: Belonging Among Rohingya Living in Makeshift Camps, IOM (2020), available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338645066_CLAN_COMMUNITY_NATION_Belonging_among_Rohingya_living_in_ makeshift_camps 226 Ibid. 221 Act for Peace / May 2021 49