Esrat Jahan:
A major new study released by the World Bank this September, in collaboration with the BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD), Yale University, and the University of Kent, has cast a stark light on the relocation of Rohingya refugees from Cox’s Bazar to the remote island of Bhasan Char.
Framed initially as a bold humanitarian solution to overcrowded camps, the initiative now appears to be falling short of its promises, delivering reduced welfare for refugees and raising critical concerns over its long-term sustainability.
Following the 2017 mass exodus of Rohingya refugees fleeing violence in Myanmar, Bangladesh sought to ease pressure on the congested camps of Cox’s Bazar by developing Bhasan Char — a previously uninhabited, flood-prone island in the Bay of Bengal. Over $300 million was spent to transform the island into a planned settlement with embankments, cyclone shelters, and solar-powered homes. By April 2025, approximately 37,000 people had been relocated.
While initial reports focused on the alleged involuntary nature of the move, the presence of UN agencies and NGOs on the island shifted some public perception. Yet according to the newly published findings, the lived experiences of relocated refugees tell a more troubling story.
Drawing on harmonised survey data, researchers compared welfare indicators between refugees on Bhasan Char and those remaining in Cox’s Bazar. The results are sobering: food consumption is 44 per cent lower on the island, dietary diversity has declined by 37 per cent, and meal frequency is nearly halved. Illness rates are 17 per cent higher, and symptoms of depression are significantly more prevalent.
Employment prospects are equally grim. Island residents earn 45 per cent less on average, with limited opportunities due to saline soil and poor market access. Aid delivery is inconsistent, with refugees 28 percentage points less likely to receive food support. Education and healthcare remain severely constrained, with risky and costly boat travel required for serious medical referrals.
Moreover, the cost of supporting refugees on Bhasan Char is triple that of Cox’s Bazar. Annual per capita expenditures range from $1,350 to $1,810, compared to $430 to $580 in the mainland camps. The infrastructure alone represents a sunk cost of nearly $10,000 per person.
The report’s conclusion is unequivocal: while well-intentioned, Bhasan Char has deepened refugee vulnerability while straining already limited humanitarian budgets. As global displacement reaches record highs, the study offers a cautionary tale. Durable refugee solutions must prioritise connectivity, autonomy, and integration—not costly isolation that undermines dignity and hope.
