|
Background: The presence of over one million Rohingya in Cox’s Bazar remains one of the world’s largest and most protracted humanitarian emergencies. Since 2017, local communities and organizations were the first responders at the onset of the crisis. Since then, local, national, and international NGOs have continued to play crucial roles in providing humanitarian support for the Rohingya. Evidence shows that partnerships with local NGOs and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) not only strengthen community ownership but also reduce operational costs.
However, several partnership decisions indicate that local NGOs/CSOs are not treated as respected and equal partners by UN Agencies. In many cases, UN Agencies have executed projects directly in the Rohingya camps without forming meaningful partnerships with local actors. More recently, a noticeable decline in partnership opportunities for local organizations/CSOs has been observed. For instance, UNHCR has reportedly discontinued partnerships with all local NGOs for the 2026–2029 partnership cycle, further marginalizing local actors in the response. But UNHCR guidelines acknowledge that Local/National Actors (LNAs) possess a deep understanding of the local and national context, culture, and dynamics.
UNHCR Localization Key Aspects: UNHCR’s localization framework is built on achieving equitable and quality partnerships with LNAs. UNHCR is committed to global agreements such as the Grand Bargain (2017) and the Principles of Partnership (2007) to enhance more equitable and substantive partnerships. This includes recognizing and valuing local actors as equal partners and ensuring partnerships are characterized by a shift in power and resources to LNAs. UNHCR has committed to two-way capacity-sharing to reinforce and strengthen existing LNA capacities. Furthermore, UNHCR is committed to increasing funding to LNAs, strengthening leadership, ownership, and meaningful participation in decision-making processes, and building stronger, more equitable collaborations. According to localization guidelines, UNHCR states it will accept a higher level of residual risk for some LNAs, particularly those with weaker internal controls (such as fiduciary controls), in recognition of the broader benefits of localization. UNHCR has listed specific actions to avoid when engaging with LNAs: i) Don’t make assumptions about LNAs’ capacities; ii) Don’t make LNAs feel less valuable or treat them merely as a cost-saving option and iii) Don’t reinforce existing power imbalances within local humanitarian structures.
UNHCR Partnership: 2025 vs. 2026-2029: In 2025, UNHCR engaged 16 NGO partners: 2 local, 8 national, and 6 internationals. This represented a ratio of 13% Local NGOs, 50% National NGOs, and 38% International NGOs. In contrast, for 2026-2029 partnership, UNHCR has selected 12 NGO partners consisting of 0% Local, 75% National, and 25% International organizations. This reflects a denial and undermined of local capacity and engagement with Cox’s Bazar-oriented NGOs, shifting emphasis to national and international partners. This is a direct contradiction to UNHCR’s localization commitments.
UNHCR’s Global Localization Status vs. the Reality in Cox’s Bazar: According to UNHCR’s Localization Report (2024), 87% of its funded partners were categorized as Local and National Actors (LNAs); as of June 2025, this stood at 85%. However, this reported progress sharply contradicts the partnership decisions made for 2026 in Bangladesh. For the 2026–2029 partnership cycle in the Rohingya refugee response, UNHCR Bangladesh did not select any local NGOs from Cox’s Bazar. This means UNHCR will have 0% direct funding partnerships with local NGOs in Cox’s Bazar in 2026. This decision undermines the local capacity and ignorance of their own guideline.
UNHCR stated that some local organizations applying for partnership were “not the Best Fit Partner.” This raises a serious concern. Such a stance contradicts UNHCR’s own localization policy and undermines the Grand Bargain commitments, which emphasize capacity strengthening and recognition of contributions rather than questioning capacity. This narrative of “capacity inadequacy” risks becoming a stigma against local actors and challenges the very spirit of a locally-led humanitarian response.
World Bank (WB) Funding for Host and Rohingya Communities: The World Bank has approved a
project to provide basic services and build disaster and social resilience for both the displaced Rohingya population and the host communities. The Government of Bangladesh (GoB) and UN agencies approved $400m loan and a $300m grant (total $700 million) to provide set to implement these projects, yet they have not involved local NGOs/CSOs in the implementation plan. Notably, one UN Agency will construct shelters for Rohingya refugees by WB funding. We insist that these shelters must be prefabricated houses; no permanent structures should be allowed. Detailed designs must be published in consultation with the Local Government and local NGOs/CSOs.
Inclusive and Complementary Partnership: Local actors and NGOs in Cox’s Bazar have played a critical and multifaceted role since the 2017 influx, serving as frontline responders and maintaining social cohesion. We appreciate the role of International NGOs in the response, particularly their excellence in fundraising and technical capacity. However, we demand an inclusive and complementary partnership model where local, national, and international NGOs work together. But INGOs are competing for fund with local NGOs in Cox’s Bazar. But INGOs should raise the fund from their country of origin, not in Bangladesh.
Sustainable Development and Resource Management for Cox’s Bazar: Cox’s Bazar has a high poverty rate compared to other districts in Bangladesh, with the national Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) placing it among the most impoverished. Sustainable development in Cox’s Bazar must focus on managing this poverty and the extreme vulnerability to natural disasters, both of which have been exacerbated by the large Rohingya refugee population and the subsequent pressure on natural resources. In Ukhiya and Teknaf, more than 25 million liters of water are extraction daily. This extraction of underground water must be reduced and alternative options should be introduced.
Key Recommendations
We, the Local NGOs, strongly recommend the following:
- UNHCR Must Cancel and Review Partnership Decisions (2026-2029): We strongly call on UNHCR to cancel the recent partnership selection decisions for the 2026-2029 cycle. These decisions must be reviewed in light of localization commitments and publicly explained to ensure transparency and accountability. UNHCR evaluate local, national, and international NGOs using the same criteria. This must be context-sensitive, with separate and appropriate benchmarks for each category. UNHCR must not make pre-assumptions regarding the capacity of local NGOs. Undermining local NGOs/CSOs means undermining local people.
- Transparency in World Bank (WB) Funding: The Government of Bangladesh and UN must declare how local NGOs will be ensured access to WB funds in Cox’s Bazar. We demand full transparency in this regard. NGOs who are imported to Cox’s Bazar will not be accepted for this funding.
- Prefabricated Housing Only: While we appreciate the decision to improve shelter for the Rohingya population but the shelter must be prefabricated houses. Local people, CSOs and local NGOs are not in favor of permanent structures. Shelter designs and details must be published in consultation with Local Government and Actors.
- Fundraising Role of INGOs: International NGOs should raise funds from their countries of origin and must not compete with local organizations for domestic resource mobilization within Bangladesh.
- Mandatory Partnership with Local NGOs and invest in Waste and Natural Resource Management: NGOs that come from outside Cox’s Bazar will not be able to work without partnering with local NGOs/CSOs in Cox’s Bazar. The Government of Bangladesh and UN must invest in fostering sustainable development, specifically regarding waste management, water conservation, and natural resource management.
