Bangladesh - Cox's Bazar - OVERVIEW - WSC Light - ReliefWeb
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
OVERVIEW - WSC Light
Bangladesh - Cox’s Bazar
February 2022
# of areas classified in each severity Summary
phase (out of 44)
Based on available data, the host and refugee communities in Cox’s Bazar in
Phase 5 (Catastrophic) 0 Bangladesh have unmet water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) needs. Out of the
Phase 4 (Critical) 0 44 classified areas located in Teknaf and Ukhia Upazilas of Cox’s Bazar, 11 are
crisis situations (severity phase 3) and 33 are stressed situations (severity phase
Phase 3 (Crisis) 11 2)1. This is mostly due to lack of access to improved sanitation facilities, water
Phase 2 (Stressed) 33 insufficiency, and the use of risky coping mechanisms to meet basic water and
sanitation needs.
Phase 1 (None/minimal) 0
Methodology
The WASH Severity Classification
(WSC) is a new interagency global
initiative led by the Global WASH
Cluster, the United Nations Children’s
Fund (UNICEF), and REACH
Initiative. Developed at the global
level through a participatory process,
the WSC project aims to build a
standardised approach to classifying
the severity of WASH needs and
vulnerabilities across contexts.
The findings presented in this
report are the product of a WSC
Light exercise conducted in
February 2022. Unlike standard
WSC implementations, the Light
approach does not include a joint
analysis workshop. Instead, with
the support of key WASH partners
in-country, a global team of WSC
analysts identified, reviewed, and
processed data sources pertaining to
different areas of the WSC Analytical
Framework.
Normally the WSC analysis
considers relevant data collected
from various sources six months
prior to the exercise. However,
given the lack of data for certain
indicators, the data range was
expanded to include the most recent
relevant information (starting in
2019). Data was collated from a range
of sources, including government
databases, UN agency and I/NGO
assessments. The full list of data
sources used is provided at the end
of the document (Annex 3).
In accordance with the WSC
Analysis Protocols, analysts
iteratively analysed this information,
producing severity classification
for 10 unions and 34 refugee camps
located in Cox’s Bazar, and identified
the key factors driving the situation. Figure 1: WASH Severity Classification, Bangladesh, February 2022
The findings were then reviewed
and validated by WASH experts in
country.
1
Upazilas are the third tier of administration in Bangladesh, forming sub-units of districts.
WSC | Bangladesh 2
Figure 2: WASH Severity Classification for the refugee community of Cox’s Bazar,
Bangladesh, February 2022
Contributing Factors sources (UNHCR 2021). Forests were
cleared to build settlements and
Bangladesh: Key figures A massive influx of Rohingya refugees further deforestation occurred as
from Myanmar in 2017, extreme unmet fuel needs led to the cutting
weather events and the economic of trees and vegetation for cooking
Ranking in 2020 Human
ramifications of the COVID-19
133th
Development Report and heating sources. The Bangladesh
out of 189 countries pandemic are some of the key factors
government designated Teknaf and
(UNDP, 2020): affecting WASH conditions in Cox’s
Ukhia Upazilas of Cox’s Bazar as
Bazar. These events compounded
the areas to build refugee camps.
of the population live below existing structural vulnerabilities
24% the national poverty line
(UNDP, 2020)
in Cox’s Bazar’s Teknaf and Ukhia
Upazilas, affecting both the host
This included the construction of
Kutupalong settlement in Ukhia,
community and the refugee which is one of the largest refugee
Estimated people in population. settlements in the world (UNHCR 2021,
1.36m
need in 2021 Joint WB 2021).
Response Plan Rohingya Refugee Crisis
(ISCG, 2021): There have been several fires in
For decades Rohingya refugees camps, which have caused widespread
have fled to Cox’s Bazar to escape damage and further destruction.
violence in Myanmar’s Rakhine state. In 2021, a massive fire displaced
In August 2017, waves of successive approximately 50,000 refugees
violence caused a mass exodus of (UNHCR 2021). In 2022, three separate
more than 742,000 Rohingya to Cox’s fires have displaced an estimated
Bazar (UNHCR 2021). By 2019, more 8,000 refugees. The fires displace
than 900,000 refugees were present families and destroy homes, but they
in Ukhia and Teknaf Upazilas (OCHA also destroy and contaminate WASH
2021). infrastructure. UNICEF reports that
The sudden increase in population the fire in Camp 16, in January 2022,
led to rapid deforestation of the hill damaged 200 WASH facilities (UNICEF
regions and depletion of groundwater 2022).
WSC | Bangladesh 3
Further issues in camps arise as (LDC) by 2026 (WB 2021). However,
the presence of armed groups in the this projection was made prior to
refugee communities continues to the COVID-19 pandemic which has
grow (HRW 2021). This causes an slowed and even reversed some of
increase in security threats, especially the developmental and economic
at night when humanitarian actors achievements of the past several
are less visible. Reports of violence years. For instance, over the past 30
in camps are fuelling calls from years, poverty in Bangladesh has
the host community demanding declined from 44% to 14% in 2019.
repatriation of refugees to Myanmar. This rate began to increase again and
Despite tensions between the host and reached18% by the end of 2020 (WB
refugee communities, Cox’s Bazar only 2021).
recorded 3 security incidents from
November 10th to December 10th 2021 Mobility restrictions to contain the
(ACLED 2021). This was a reduction spread of the pandemic led to reduced
compared to the 37 incidents reported earning opportunities, job loss and
over the preceding 6-month period worsening livelihood conditions in
and 57 from December 2020 to Cox’s Bazar. COVID-19 lockdowns
December 2021 (ACLED 2021). have had a significant effect on day
labourers and casual workers, who
Natural Disasters make up a large portion of earners
in Cox’s Bazar (WB 2021). The host
Cox’s Bazar is susceptible to multiple community has reported sharp
climate-related disasters and decreases in average earnings, while
recurring extreme weather events the refugee community lost nearly all
(UNHCR 2021). Cyclones, storm surges opportunities to earn as day labourers.
and flooding risks remain high for all Approximately a third of host
populations in this region. The risk community members who reported
Ukhia refugee 25% is heightened during the monsoon being temporarily absent from work,
season which lasts from June to
Ukhia host 39% as a result of lockdowns, did not
August (ADB 2021). As a coastal city
yet regain employment (WB 2021).
with low elevation, flooding during
Teknaf refugee 9% Furthermore, 73% of wage-earners
the monsoon season is common.
from the host community, and 63% of
In conjunction with the rapid
Teknaf host 32% non-wage earners, reported earning
deforestation that occurs locally, there
lower wages than pre-pandemic level.
is an increased risk of landslides for
Figure 3: Percentage of households both upazilas during monsoon season WASH Impact and Outcomes
relying on unimproved water sources (UNHCR 2021).
(REACH 2021). Refugee communities are particularly The following section considers the
vulnerable, as several of the camps specific WASH needs of the population
were constructed in flood-prone areas in Cox’s Bazar. Following the mass
(ADB 2021). UNHCR estimates that refugee inflow of Rohingya to the
200,000 refugees are at risk during region, existing WASH infrastructure
monsoon season. Camps have flooded was put under added stress as quick
and been destroyed by landslides in adaptations were required to ensure
previous years (UNHCR 2021). Flooding access to basic facilities in camps.
and landslides cause household and
Water
public WASH infrastructure to be
destroyed, leading communities to Access to improved water sources
engage in risky coping mechanisms varies broadly depending on the
to meet their needs. In a three day population group and area. For the host
period of 2021, 12,000 Rohingya were community, only 68% of households in
displaced and 2,500 shelters were Teknaf and 61% in Ukhia are covered
damaged or destroyed as a result by improved water sources. Access
of monsoon rains (UNHCR 2021). ranges from 52% (Haldia Palong Union)
Between 2018 and 2020, more than to 74% (Whykong Union).2 The refugee
250,000 Rohingya were affected by community has much higher rates,
flooding and landslides (UNHCR 2021). with 91% of households in Teknaf and
Economic Impact of COVID-19 75% of households in Ukhia having
access to improved water sources.
Bangladesh is currently ranked 134th However, there is considerable
of 189 on the Human Development variance among camps reporting
Index (UNDP 2021). The country is access to improved water sources,
projected to graduate from the UN’s from 50% (Camp 20x) to 96% (Camps 22
ranking of Least Developed Country & 26).
WSC | Bangladesh 4
water. However, this is a major leap
from 2019, when only 29% of refugees,
across upazilas, had access to piped
water (REACH 2019).
In the refugee community, 49% of
households in Teknaf camps and
58% in Ukhia faced no issues due to
lack of water, compared to 73% of
host communities in both upazilas.
Three in ten households from the
host community in the two upazilas
do not have an issue related to lack
of water. Aggregated data, however,
hides broad geographic variations.
In Sabrang Union, the percentage of
households having no issue due to a
lack of water is as high as 93%, while
in Whykong Union it is around 63%.
As for the refugee population, it also
varies greatly among camps, with 81%
of households in Camp 23 stating that
they had no issues related to lack of
water, compared to only 34% in Camp 4.
Despite refugee communities
facing more issues due to lack of
water, higher proportions of the
refugee community report having
sufficient water to meet their needs.
The percentage of host community
households reporting having sufficient
drinking water ranges from 73% (Jalia
Palong & Whykong Union) to 83%
(Sabrang & Raja Palong Union), while
the refugee community households
range from 77% (Camp 01e) to 94%
(Camp01w).
The most common coping mechanism
for host and refugee communities
lacking sufficient water is fetching
water from a further source. There is
considerable variance between camps,
depending on local water systems.
Figure 4: Percentage of households in the host community relying on unimproved This coping mechanism is particularly
water sources (REACH 2021). common in camps 4 and 11, where it
Most of the host community relies is practised by over 55% of households.
on deep tube wells as the main water Among host communities, only the
source, the second most common unions of Baharachara and Whykong
source is shallow tube wells. Over have at least 25% of their households
Ukhia refugee 49% the last few years, the use of piped travelling further to access water. The
water has increased in the host second most common coping strategy
Ukhia host 15% community. In 2020, 10% of the host (for both groups) is reducing non-
communities were using piped drinking water consumption.
Teknaf refugee 78% water; by 2021 this had increased to
Sanitation
20% in Teknaf and 15% in Ukhia. The
Teknaf host 20% refugee communities’ main source of In Teknaf’s host communities, 80% of
water, across camps, is piped water. households have access to improved
In the refugee communities, 78% of sanitation services, except for Sabrang
Figure 5: Percentage of households
reporting piped water as their primary households in Teknaf and 49% of Union, where 26% of households rely
water source (REACH 2021). households in Ukhia report piped on unimproved services. In Ukhia,
water as their primary source. These 80% of the host community is covered
numbers are up slightly from 2020, by improved sanitation services.
when 69% of refugees in Teknaf and Haldia Palong Union has the lowest
42% in Ukhia relied primarily on piped coverage at 66%, Palong Khali Union
2
Unions are the fourth tier of administration in Bangladesh, forming sub-units of upazilas.
WSC | Bangladesh 5
Figure 6: Percentage of households in the refugee community relying on unimproved
water sources (REACH 2021).
has the highest coverage at 88%. For main sanitation facility. Camp 21 has
refugees in Teknaf, except for camps the lowest access to flush toilets in
21 (75%) and 27 (74%), all camps have Teknaf at 46%, in this camp; 48% of
at least 80% of households covered households report using pit latrines
by improved sanitation facilities. In (with and without slabs) as their
Ukhia, camps range from 74% in Camp primary sanitation facility. Camp 5 has
11 to 92% coverage in Camp 23. the lowest access to flush toilets in
Ukhia refugee 16% Ukhia at 35%, with 40% of households
The most common sanitation facility using pit latrines with a slab.
Ukhia host
for host communities is a pit latrine
20%
with slab, used by 62% of the host Men and women from the host
community in Teknaf and 63% in communities were more likely to
Teknaf refugee 15%
Ukhia. Haldia Palong Union has the report they faced issues with latrines
lowest access to pit latrines with when compared to the refugee
Teknaf host 19%
slabs (50%) and the highest per cent communities. In Teknaf 46% of
of host households using latrines households reported that men and
Figure 7: Percentage of households not with no slab (23%). In the host women faced barriers when accessing
covered by improved sanitation facilities community, 15% of residents use a latrines. In the refugee community of
(REACH 2021). flush toilet as their main sanitation Teknaf, 33% of households reported
facility, with Whykong Union at the issues faced by women, while 34%
low end and Teknaf Union having the reported issues for men. Similarly,
highest proportion with 10% and 21% in Ukhia, less than 40% of refugee
respectively. Both unions report that households report issues at latrines for
2% of households have no access to men and women, compared to more
than 50% of households in Ukhia’s host
sanitation facilities and must rely on
community. For members of the host
open defecation.
community – both men and women,
In the refugee communities, 59% of the two most common issues linked
Teknaf households and 60% of Ukhia with sanitation are due to facilities
households use a flush toilet as their being unclean and lacking sufficient
WSC | Bangladesh 6
continued improvement in access to
soap among the refugee community.
In 2019, 67% of refugees in Cox’s Bazar
had access to soap (REACH 2019). By
2020, 95% of refugees, in Ukhia and
Teknaf reported having access to
soap. However, the host community
tracks a slight decrease in soap access,
with 98% of Teknaf and 94% of Ukhia
having access in 2020, compared
to 92% and 93% in 2021. This recent
trend is concerning considering
that handwashing is one of the key
preventive measures to contain the
spread of COVID-19.
In 2019, UNICEF found that only 53%
of households in Cox’s Bazar had soap
and/or detergent at their handwashing
facility (MICS 2019). This indicates that
the host community upazilas may fair
better than other non-host upazilas
within Cox’s Bazar regarding soap
access. When asked to identify their
top needs for 2022, only 2% of host
community households in Teknaf,
and 1% of Ukhia’s host community,
identified hygiene items as one of their
top three needs.
Public Health Outcomes
There is limited information on
public health outcomes in Cox’s
Bazar, particularly for the host
community. However, UNICEF reports
that nationally, 36% of children
under the age of 5 are affected by
some form of malnutrition such as
wasting or stunting (UNICEF 2022).
In 2020, UNICEF found that 11% of
refugee children suffer from acute
malnutrition and 30% suffer from
chronic malnutrition (UNICEF 2020).
Figure 8: Percentage of households in the refugee community relying on unimproved When looking at comparable
sanitation services (REACH 2021).
indicators from the most recent MSNA,
lighting. In the refugee communities, there seems to be a considerable
the main issue is the fact that facilities difference between host communities
are overcrowded with long waiting and refugee communities’
queues. participation in nutrition services.
Ukhia refugee 3% In Teknaf, 28% of host households
Hygiene with children received services from
Ukhia host 7% nutrition programs, compared with
Access to soap is widespread, in both
host and refugee communities, across 98% of the Teknaf refugee households.
Teknaf refugee 2% Ukhia had similar results, with 27% of
upazilas. In Teknaf, 92% of host and
host communities and 96% of refugee
Teknaf host 8%
98% of refugees have access to soap.
households accessing services. The
In Ukhia, 93% of host and 97% of the
variance between hosts and refugees
refugee community report having
is also present when looking at
Figure 9: Percentage of households access to soap. Baharachara (88%)
malnutrition screenings with MUAC
without access to soap (REACH 2021). and Whykong (87%) are the unions
tape. Less than 20% of host community
where access to soap remain relatively
households report their children
limited, with all other camps and
having been screened, compared
unions reporting over 90% access.
to more than 80% of the refugee
These numbers seem to show a households.WSC | Bangladesh 7
Figure 10: Percentage of households in the refugee community relying on
unimproved sanitation services (REACH 2021).
Vaccine campaigns for refugees have June to August, as well as the ability
been in place since 2017, however, of the Government, and development
there have been outbreaks of cholera and humanitarian actors to react to
and diphtheria in camps over the associated shocks in a timely and
past few years. Covid vaccinations effective manner.
are available, with 32% of Bangladesh
There are currently no models to
citizens having received two doses of
predict the scale and severity of the
the vaccine as of January 2022 (WHO
2022 monsoon season. However,
2022). The proportion of refugees
Bangladesh has been experiencing
who have been vaccinated against
increased temperatures and erratic
COVID-19 is unknown, however,
rainfall patterns in the past years (ABD
the government began offering
2021). Previous monsoon seasons
vaccinations in camps in August 2021.
Ukhia refugee 96% have triggered floods and landslides
Six-Month Severity Forecast with large-scale effects in Cox’s Bazar,
Ukhia host 27% including the destruction of WASH
The WASH conditions in Cox’s Bazar infrastructure and displacement
Teknaf refugee 98% were under a lot of strain and were of host communities and refugees,
inadequate to serve the growing leading communities to engage
Teknaf host 28% population during the most recent in risky coping mechanisms to
influx of refugees from Myanmar in meet their basic WASH needs and
August 2017. However, the situation heightening the risks of waterborne
Figure 11: Percentage of households stabilized over the last three years diseases such as diarrhoea (ADB
accessing nutritional services (REACH and good progress was made in terms 2021, IOM-WFP 2022). The WASH
2021). of access to basic WASH goods and infrastructure might be particularly
services for both the host community prone to shocks as its maintenance
and refugee population (REACH 2022, has been reduced and sporadic over
forthcoming). How the WASH situation the last two years due to movement
in Cox’s Bazar evolves over the next restrictions put in place as part of
six months will depend mainly on the COVID-19 containment measures
the weather and climate-related (REACH 2022, forthcoming). While the
events associated with the annual Government, and development and
monsoon season, which lasts from humanitarian actors are prioritizingWSC | Bangladesh 8
climate-related programming, their labour and reduced earning levels
current preparedness and readiness demonstrate only a slow recovery (WB
to respond to climate-related shocks 2021). Without improvements in the
are still below the requirement (HCTT earning potential, the strained coping
2021). As such, similar effects as in capacities are expected to remain
past years will likely be observed in low and more severe WASH coping
the next six months with increased mechanisms might be observed,
severity of the WASH situation in especially during the monsoon season.
both the host community and camps,
albeit on an undetermined scale While it is difficult to predict how
and uncertainty on the span of their the upcoming monsoon season will
impact. affect WASH conditions in Cox’s
Bazar, evidence from previous years
The COVID-19 containment measures
suggests that there will be widespread
also reduced livelihood and income-
generating opportunities, which is displacement and destruction as
still affecting the households’ ability a result of flooding and landslides.
to meet basic needs, especially in the This will likely be compounded by
host communities, which receive the economic strain brought about
no or little humanitarian assistance by the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, it
(REACH 2022, forthcoming). The is probable that the WASH situation
economic forecast of Cox’s Bazar will remain the same or possibly
remains uncertain but the shift from deteriorate over the next six months,
monthly salaried work to daily-wage depending on climate-related shocks.Annex 1: Overview of severity analysis
Teknaf Host Community
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Severity
None/minimal Stressed Crisis Critical Catastrophic phase
Baharchara 0% 81% 19% 0% 0% Phase 2
Nhila 0% 80% 20% 0% 0% Phase 3
Teknaf 0% 74% 26% 0% 0% Phase 3
Sabrang 0% 81% 19% 0% 0% Phase 2
Whykong 0% 84% 16% 0% 0% Phase 2
Teknaf Refugee Community
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Severity
Camp
None/minimal Stressed Crisis Critical Catastrophic phase
Camp 21 0% 75% 25% 0% 0% Phase 3
Camp 22 0% 86% 14% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 23 0% 93% 7% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 24 0% 85% 15% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 25 0% 95% 5% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 26 0% 87% 13% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 27 0% 74% 26% 0% 0% Phase 3
Camp NRC 0% 82% 18% 0% 0% Phase 2
Ukhia Host Community
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Severity
None/minimal Stressed Crisis Critical Catastrophic phase
Haldia Palong 0% 66% 34% 0% 0% Phase 3
Jalia Palong 0% 81% 19% 0% 0% Phase 2
Palong Khali 0% 88% 12% 5% 0% Phase 2
Raja Palong 0% 87% 13% 0% 0% Phase 2
Ratna Palong 0% 79% 21% 0% 0% Phase 3Ukhia Refugee Community
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Severity
Camp
None/minimal Stressed Crisis Critical Catastrophic phase
Camp 1E 0% 89% 11% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 1W 0% 87% 13% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 2E 0% 83% 17% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 2W 0% 90% 10% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 3 0% 85% 15% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 4 0% 85% 15% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 4 Ext. 0% 92% 8% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 5 0% 85% 15% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 6 0% 83% 17% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 7 0% 87% 13% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 8e 0% 87% 13% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 8w 0% 84% 16% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 9 0% 82% 18% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 10 0% 84% 16% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 11 0% 74% 26% 0% 0% Phase 3
Camp 12 0% 85% 15% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 13 0% 86% 15% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 14 0% 78% 22% 0% 0% Phase 3
Camp 15 0% 84% 16% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 16 0% 86% 14% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 17 0% 78% 22% 0% 0% Phase 3
Camp 18 0% 79% 21% 0% 0% Phase 3
Camp 19 0% 89% 11% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp 20 0% 79% 21% 0% 0% Phase 3
Camp 20ext 0% 88% 12% 0% 0% Phase 2
Camp KRC 0% 89% 11% 0% 0% Phase 2Annex 2: Methodology
About the WSC WSC Light implementation process
The WSC is a new interagency global initiative led by the Global WASH Cluster,
All relevant
UNICEF, and IMPACT Initiatives. Developed at the global level through a
data sources are
participatory process, the WSC project aims to develop a standardized approach
identified and
to classifying the severity of WASH needs and vulnerabilities across contexts.
processed with
Since late 2019, the development of the WSC has focused on developing and support of key
testing the core analytical tools that are used for its implementation. These tools WASH actors in
include: country
• The Analytical Framework: Conceptual basis that provides rationale for
what data to include in the analysis and how to organise and structure data
in the analysis process.
• The Severity Scale: Description of five phases of WASH severity and the WSC global
characteristics experienced in each. analyst team
apply WSC
• The Calculation Model: Computational method for combining different
method to
pieces of quantitative and qualitative data to assign households and areas
WASH data in
into different severity phases.
accordance with
• Analysis Protocols: Step-by-step guide detailing how the analysis process WSC protocols
is to be conducted in workshop settings and how to handle specific issues
encountered during the analysis.
The implementation represented the first nationwide implementation of these
tools in Bangladesh.
The severity of
Bangladesh Implementation WASH conditions
The WSC Light implementation in Bangladesh took place between January are classified
2022 and February 2022. First, secondary data sources pertaining to different by consensus,
areas of the WSC Analytical Framework were collated with the support of key including drivers
WASH partners at country level. Once identified, the data was reviewed and and projections/
restructured before being processed for analysis. Data was collated from a range trends
of sources, which have been listed in Annex 3.
WSC global analysts analysed the data in accordance with the WSC Analysis
Protocols at admin 3 or 4, comparing figures with Admin 1 and National
levels, and triangulating between different sources where possible. Analysis
results were then shared with the key country-level WASH partners for review Results are
and further contextualisation before being finalised to produce the severity written up and
classifications and projections provided in this report. disseminated
with broader
partner and donor
community
Acknowledgements
The WSC global governance system is comprised of the following agencies and
organisations:
WASH Cluster
Water Sanitation HygieneAnnex 3: Main Data Sources
Organization Source Description Year
REACH REACH MSNA Multi-sector needs assessment 2021
REACH REACH MSNA Multi-sector needs assessment 2020
REACH REACH MSNA Multi-sector needs assessment 2019
World Bank World Bank’s Cox’s Bazar Assessment of economic/WASH/ 2021
Survey Panel Nutritional needs
World Bank World Bank Overview of the economic situation 2021
in Bangladesh
World Bank Crude Death rates Crude death rates in Bangladesh 2021
ACLED ACLED Security Incidents in Cox’s Bazar 2021
OCHA OCHA Population Estimates 2020 2021
UNHCR Population Fact Sheet Camp population count as of De- 2021
cember 2021
UNHCR UNHCR Press Releases following shocks 2021
UNHCR UNHCR Reports on Rohingya crisis 2021
UNICEF MICS Multi-indicator cluster survey 2019
UNICEF UNICEF Overview of Cox’s Bazar situation 2021
WHO WHO Vaccine information 2021
ABD Climate and Disaster Climate and Disaster Risk Atlas 2021
Risk Atlas
Bangladesh Government Annual Rainfall Annual Rainfall by subdistrict 2021
IOM-WFP Joint Flood Impact As- Flood Impact Assessment of ex- 2022
sessment treme rainfall in Cox’s Bazar, July
2021
HCTT HCTT Nexus Strategy Humanitarian-Development 2021
(2021-2025) Collaboration for Climate-Related
Disasters in Bangladesh
HRW Human Rights Watch Reports of violence within camps 2021You can also read
