An Agenda for a Dignified and Sustainable Rohingya Refugee Response in Bangladesh coordination structures, a few as members of decision-making bodies like HoSoG and SEG, a few as sector co-leads and others as sector partners and UN implementing partners. The access and inclusion of NGOs in the coordination system remains uneven depending on their size, programme focus areas, funding, partnerships etc. Representation of NGOs, especially Bangladeshi NGOs, remain limited in sectors, as co-leads and Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) members. Language is a key barrier for local NGOs to actively participate in these roles as English remains the main language of communication in the response with limited translation facilities in the local language. Complex documents and use of jargon also exclude many NGO partners.232 As described earlier, a number of NGO coordination bodies are currently operational in Bangladesh, both at the Dhaka and Cox’s Bazar level, that includes many, if not all NGOs working in the Rohingya refugee response, with the broader common objective of strengthening NGO cooperation and easing delivery of programmes. Yet, these diverse mechanisms do not adequately interact with and complement each other to build synergies and common positions on key issues of concern. Some factors that undermine collective NGO engagement and action are as follows: a. a. Challenging operational environment: Humanitarian agencies are working in a challenging operational context in a deteriorating environment. Restrictive government policies and practices undermine their ability to operate and deliver programmes efficiently and effectively. It also limits the scope for collective NGO advocacy and action on refugee protection and humanitarian access thereby continuing the cycle of restrictive programming. b. Competing objectives: The Government of Bangladesh has a short-term view of the Rohingya crisis with a focus on expedited refugee repatriation. This has made it difficult for humanitarian partners to plan for multi-year interventions in the Rohingya refugee response despite the growing needs in a protracted displacement context. Amidst growing tensions between refugees and host communities, local NGOs/CSOs reported facing challenges in balancing their programmes for Rohingya refugees and host communities. While there is a need to consider the needs of host communities as an integral part of the Rohingya refugee response, the growing pressure on the humanitarian community to allocate additional funds towards meeting longerterm development needs within the short-term humanitarian response framework, without conducting prior assessments and consultations with affected communities could be inefficient and inexpedient. c. Dynamics between international and Bangladeshi NGOs: There are many strong partnerships between international agencies (UN and international NGOs) and Bangladeshi NGOs in the Rohingya refugee response but there are differing perspectives on capacities of both international and local actors, and ways of collaboration. There is general agreement in the wider humanitarian community on the need for localisation of the response but the road to building consensus on the way forward remains contested (discussed in detail in Chapter 5). Many Bangladeshi NGOs have been supporting the Government-led disaster response but their role becomes complex in a sensitive refugee context (where refugees are not formally recognised 232 IFRC, Mission Report: Grand Bargain Localisation Workstream Demonstrator Country Field Mission Bangladesh, 8 -13 September 2018, p. 9, available at http://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2018/11/Mission-ReportBangladesh-Final.pdf 52 Act for Peace / May 2021