ROLE OF NGOS TO THE WORLD’S FASTEST GROWING HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN COX’S BAZAR: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BRAC AND DRC

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The aid of this thesis paper is to examine the effects of humanitarian programmes on forcibly displaced Rohingya population in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, by making a comparative analysis of BRAC and DRC. Both primary as well as secondary data have been used in this study. The primary data has been collected by a closed-ended survey questionnaire at refugee camps in Ukhia and Teknaf subdistricts. Secondary data were retrieved from books, newspapers, websites, journals, articles and reports of local and international organizations. The outcomes of this study pinpoint that humanitarian programmes of BRAC and DRC have a significant impact on Rohingya population residing in Cox's Bazar. The research was limited to four refugee camps (Kutupalong Expansion Site, Camp-4 Extension, Camp-5 & Camp-6) and only two prominent INGOs had been taken into consideration, while collecting the primary data. Aid agencies may harness these research findings, while making policies on Rohingya refugees. This study will also encourage different national and international NGOs to take corrective action in project implementation based on feedback from affected people.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Chapter 1 1
• 1.1 Introduction 1
• 1.2 Rohingya influx in Bangladesh 5
• 1.3 Humanitarian Response Coordination Mechanisms 7
• 1.3.1 Government of Bangladesh 7
• 1.3.2 Humanitarian Stakeholders 8
• 1.4 Literature Review 10
• Chapter 2 12
• 2.1 Research Objectives 12
• 2.2 Research Questions 12
• 2.3 Methodology 13
• 2.3.1 Research Design 13
• 2.3.2 Data Collection and Analysis 13
• Chapter 3:2017 Refugee Influx: Role of NGOs 15
• 3.1 BRAC 15
• 3.2 Action Against Hunger 16
• 3.3 World Vision 17
• 3.4 Centre for Disability in Development 18
• 3.5 Danish Refugee Council 19
• 3.6 ActionAid Bangladesh 20
• Chapter 4 21
• 4.1 The Rationale Behind Choosing BRAC and DRC 21
• 4.2 Comparative Analysis 21
• 4.2.1 Demographic Profile 22
• 4.2.2 Protection 24
• 4.2.3 Child Protection 28
• 4.2.4 Gender-Based Violence 32
• 4.2.5 Site Management Support 35
• 4.2.6 Communication with Communities 38
• 4.2.7 Shelter 43
• 4.2.8 WASH 46
• Chapter 5 50
• 5.1 The misleading role of NGOs 50
• 5.2 Conclusion 51
• 5.3 Limitations of the Study 54
• References 55
• Appendix 58