Crisis Within a Crisis: Environmental Degradation in the Rohingya Refugee Settlement in Bangladesh

July 23, 2025

The mass exodus of Rohingya to Bangladesh was the result of decades-long government persecution that culminated in the 2017 military-backed ethnic cleansing. More than one million Rohingya fled to Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, forming the world’s largest refugee settlement. In a small area more densely populated than some megacities, refugees face many challenges, such as inadequate food, clean water, fuel and poor sanitation. How they are coping with the shortages is causing significant damage to the environment of Cox’s Bazar, resulting in an ecological crisis within the refugee crisis. This enormous crisis requires the urgent need for sustained international commitment and long-term integrated planning to protect both human welfare and environmental stability in the region.

Figure 1. Rohingya refugee camp at Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh [Image source: UNICEF, 2020]

The Rohingya Refugee Influx

The Rohingya, a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority from Myanmar’s northern Rakhine State bordering Bangladesh and India, have faced systematic discrimination, statelessness, and state-led persecution for decades. Their plight is rooted in contested ethnic identity and institutional exclusion—particularly through Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Act, which effectively denied them legal nationality. The marginalization of the Rohingya was further compounded by escalating anti-Muslim sentiment and recurrent communal violence, especially since 2012. The situation culminated in a mass exodus following brutal military crackdowns in August 2017 that were defined as ethnic cleansing and possible genocide (UNHCR, 2018).

As a result, over 1.1 million Rohingya sought refuge in Cox’s Bazar near the Bangladesh–Myanmar border, forming what is now the world’s largest refugee settlement. The 33 refugee camps span only 23.6 square kilometers—less than 1% of the Cox’s Bazar District—but host more than one-third of the district’s total population. As a result, the camps’ population density is approximately 40 times higher than the rest of Cox’s Bazar, and four times greater than New York City, becoming one of the highest on Earth (UNHCR, 2025a).

While the government of Bangladesh, in cooperation with international agencies, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), World Food Programme (WFP), and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), has provided critical humanitarian support, living conditions in the camps remain desperate, with severe inadequacy in food, clean water, sanitation, and fuel (UNHCR, 2024). Moreover, recent funding cuts have dramatically worsened the conditions (UNHCR, 2025c). The World Food Programme (WFP), citing critical financial support shortfalls, was forced to reduce monthly food rations by more than half, jeopardizing the health and nutrition of over one million refugees (WFP, 2025).

Several initiatives have been implemented to address humanitarian and environmental challenges, including the SAFE Plus Program, which distributes liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and fuel-efficient stoves to reduce reliance on firewood; reforestation and slope stabilization projects in collaboration with NGOs; and community-led waste management programs involving composting and hygiene education (IOM, 2019). 

Environmental Impacts

Deforestation

To accommodate the rapid influx of Rohingya refugees in 2017, Bangladesh government allocated approximately 2,500 hectares of protected forest in the Cox’s Bazar region and made it possible for large-scale deforestation to construct shelters (De La Portilla, 2021). The refugees also turned to vegetation for alternative energy sources, transforming a once-biodiverse forest ecosystem into a barren landscape dominated by bamboo and plastic shelters. In the years following the 2017 refugee movement, considerable deforestation occurred (Figure 2), likely due to land clearing for settlements and resource exploitation. Although there has been some localized restoration by 2021 because certain forestry initiatives had been implemented, the net result remains a significant deforestation relative to pre-2017 levels.

Figure 2. Changes in Vegetation Cover in Rohingya Refugee Camps, Cox’s Bazar (2017–2021) [Image source: UNDRR, 2022[

While the widespread deforestation has severely weakened natural ecological buffers, increasing camps’ vulnerability to flooding, landslides, extreme heat, and intensified cyclone activity, environmental damage has also had profound effects on local wildlife, particularly endangered Asian elephants (INAS, 2021).

Bangladesh is home to about 268 resident and 93 migratory elephants, most of which inhabit the forests of Cox’s Bazar. Refugee settlement removed nearly 2,000 hectares of elephant habitat. In 2018, around 38 elephants were confined to shrinking forest zones near the Kutupalong camp due to ongoing deforestation (Daly, 2018). This region includes one of Bangladesh’s 12 recognized elephant corridors and 57 transboundary migration routes connecting with India and Myanmar, which are vital for the survival and mobility of the species. A smaller habitat provides less food and water to elephants. In addition, elephants migrate to find new sources of food and water. If they cannot move, they will face starvation and dehydration (Save the Elephants, 2025). While Bangladesh hosts only about 1% of the global Asian elephant population, the intense ecological stress on the elephants in Cox’s Bazar represents a disproportionate threat to the species’ regional viability (Md. H. Rahman, 2019).

As a result, the elephants were forced into refugee camps in search of food and passage. These intrusions have resulted in fatal human-elephant conflict (HEC), with 13 refugees killed and nearly 50 injured, mostly men and children (Md. H. Rahman, 2019). In this context, HEC stems directly from habitat fragmentation and obstructed migratory routes, as elephants attempt to traverse territories that they have long occupied.

Beyond biodiversity loss, deforestation has had cascading impacts on local ecology, economy, and social fabric. The destruction of forest landscapes has undermined livelihoods dependent on social forestry, agroforestry, animal husbandry, and traditional medicine, while also limiting access to essential resources such as fuelwood, timber, and bamboo. In an already food-deficient region, this environmental degradation has exacerbated food insecurity, particularly affecting marginalized communities such as the Chakma. In addition, declines in soil fertility, water retention, and slope stability have undermined agricultural productivity and settlement safety, amplifying socio-economic vulnerabilities (Ahmed & Sabastini, 2024).

Soil Erosion and Land Degradation

Land degradation is defined as the decline in the capacity of land to support agriculture, biodiversity and human habitation, encompassing processes such as soil erosion, fertility loss, soil compaction, and the depletion of vegetation cover. In Cox’s Bazar, rapid and uncontrolled clearing of forested hills to accommodate the sudden influx of Rohingya refugees has led to severe environmental degradation. The removal of vegetation has left slopes highly susceptible to erosion, particularly during the monsoon season, accelerating the loss of topsoil and weakening the land’s ability to retain water. These processes have intensified both floods and water scarcity, while also compromising the stability of makeshift shelters and essential infrastructure (Jalal, 2022). Soil erosion in Cox’s Bazar increased from 2015 to 2020, with Rohingya camps having a 32% increase exceeding the district's average (Figure 3) (Hossain et al., 2023).

Figure 3. Temporal Changes in Soil Erosion (2015–2020) in Rohingya Refugee Camps, Cox’s Bazar [Image source: Hossain et al., 2023].

The consequences of such degradation have been acute. In 2018, monsoon-triggered landslides and floods affected more than 42,000 refugees. In 2021, environmental degradation forced approximately 24,000 refugees to relocate within or between camps in search of safer ground (INAS, 2021). In addition, these events have contributed to a decline in forest cover and biodiversity, disrupting both human and ecological systems.

In response, reforestation and slope stabilization initiatives have been implemented to restore degraded land and prevent further erosion. These efforts emphasize the use of fast-growing, soil-enriching tree species and aim to preserve existing vegetation critical to slope integrity. Habitat restoration strategies have also been used, including planting food-friendly species for elephants and community education programs to reduce human-elephant conflict. Complementing these ecological interventions, the FAO, IOM, and WFP launched the SAFE Plus initiative in 2020, which seeks to reduce dependence on firewood by providing alternative energy sources such as LPG and stoves. Collectively, these measures have successfully restored approximately 258 hectares of degraded forest within the camps and 2,000 hectares in surrounding areas. Refugees have actively contributed to these efforts by planting more than 600 hectares of trees, confirming the importance of community engagement in achieving sustainable land restoration (INAS, 2021).

Water scarcity, contamination and waterborne diseases

Rohingya camps and surrounding communities require an estimated 9 million liters of drinkable water per day, yet WASH services currently reach only 30% of the population in need (Islam & Nuzhath, 2018). As a result, the refugees have access to 10 liters of drinkable water every day. According to the Sphere Standards, which provide the global guidelines for humanitarian response, a person needs a minimum of 15 liters of water per day for basic needs, such as drinking, cooking, and hygiene (The Sphere Project, 2011).

Thus, Rohingya refugees are not even getting the bare minimum. In contrast, an urban Bangladeshi uses 180 to 308 liters per day and an American uses up to 310 liters per day (Rahaman et al., 2024; USEPA, 2025). In other words, refugees have access to a tiny fraction of the water available to urban Bangladeshis and even a smaller fraction of that consumed by Americans. Consequently, they are forced to collect water from contaminated streams and unprotected sources.

The water scarcity in Cox's Bazar camps has been worsening due to seasonal groundwater depletion, rapid population growth, and the environmental stress caused by inadequately planned water infrastructure.

Following the 2017 influx, approximately 20,000 shallow tube wells were installed, often without appropriate spatial planning and close to the latrines. This led to significant groundwater contamination and over-extraction, severely depleting the first aquifer and reducing water availability both within the camps and in neighboring host communities, thereby increasing the risk of local resource conflict.

Water contamination also presents an urgent public health challenge. Extreme overcrowding, poor sanitation, and inadequate hygiene practices contribute to widespread fecal contamination, which was detected in 28% of water sources and 74% of storage containers. Secondary contamination largely results from improper cleaning of water containers and insufficient hand hygiene. Consequently, outbreaks of waterborne diseases, such as cholera, typhoid fever, and acute watery diarrhea, are common.

In April 2019 alone, more than 64,000 cases were recorded in about 1 million refugees, with nearly half involving children under five years of age (Akhter et al., 2020). In comparison, between 2017 and 2020, the entire Bangladeshi population of 160 million recorded 73,606 cholera, 38,472 typhoid, 2,510 hepatitis A and 1,643 cases of amoebiasis (Chowdhury & Rahman, 2025). In other words, a population less than 1% of the total Bangladeshi population had more cases in one month than the rest of the population had in 4 years. While this comparison is specific to one month, it helps highlight the extreme disease burden in the camps.

In response, humanitarian agencies began replacing shallow wells with deeper, hydrogeologically informed alternatives. Nevertheless, ongoing deforestation, land compaction, and insufficient aquifer recharge mechanisms continue to threaten the long-term sustainability of water resources (Rahman, 2019).

Waste Management Crisis

The Rohingya refugee camps generate over 10,000 tons of solid waste per month, equivalent to 460 grams per person per day. The primary categories of household waste include organic food waste, plastics, paper and cardboard, and glass or bottles, along with additional waste from dust, leaves, and open defecation by children (Uddin et al., 2022). In the absence of formal waste management infrastructure, the accumulated waste is typically dumped in open sites near the camps, where it frequently clogs drainage systems, exacerbates flooding, and contaminates soil and water with hazardous substances such as microplastics (CPI, 2025).

Moreover, waste is usually disposed of with open burning, contributing to odor pollution, respiratory illnesses, and the contamination of ground and surface water, posing serious environmental and public health risks. Poor sanitation and waste handling further contribute to outbreaks of waterborne diseases such as cholera and typhoid, vector-borne diseases such as dengue and malaria, and respiratory and skin infections linked to exposure to toxic fumes and unhygienic conditions.

In response to this growing crisis, Community Partners International (CPI) launched a community-led structured waste management program in Kutupalong Camp. Trained refugee volunteers collect and process six tons of waste per month, with organic waste composted on-site and distributed to support household vegetable gardening. This initiative provides a sustainable waste management solution that not only mitigates environmental health risks but also improves food security amid ongoing cuts in humanitarian funding.

Funding Crisis

In 2025, the UN and its partners are asking $934.5 million to provide life-saving assistance to 1.5 million Rohingya refugees and their host communities in Bangladesh (IOM, 2025) (Table 1). To date, the Joint Response Plan (JRP)—the main framework for coordinating humanitarian assistance for Rohingya in Bangladesh—has received only 16% of its required funding (Refugees International, 2025). 

On the other hand, the United States has provided significant support to Rohingya refugees since 2017, allocating around $2.4 billion to humanitarian initiatives in Bangladesh. However, the Trump administration's decision to reduce USAID funding by 90% and suspend the majority of foreign aid represents a significant policy shift that has profoundly disrupted the global aid architecture. Although the United States has announced that they will allocate $73 million in additional financial assistance to Rohingya refugees through the United Nations World Food Programme, the repercussions have been prompt and severe.

The health risks associated with water shortages and waste management are also compounded by a larger humanitarian funding crisis. Five U.S.-funded hospitals have reduced their services, while 48 health facilities, comprising 11 primary care centers, are facing operational challenges. David Bugden, principal coordinator of the Inter-Sector Coordination Group, reports that 300,000 refugees have faced interruptions in their access to essential healthcare services. Reductions in aid increase susceptibility to malnutrition and disease, while simultaneously facilitating avenues for human trafficking, radicalization, and exploitation—an alarming trend acknowledged by Bangladeshi officials (Reuters, 2025).

Although UNHCR supports 28 healthcare facilities, 10 mental health centers, 19 nutrition centers, and 2 stabilization centers, persistent funding gaps undermine access to medicine and qualified health personnel (UNHCR, 2022).

The UN and UNHCR have warned that due to financial shortfalls, 12.8 million displaced people—including 6.3 million children—may be denied life-saving health interventions in 2025, with nearly one million Rohingya refugees already experiencing the consequences.

In Rohingya camps, 19,000 acutely malnourished children are at risk of losing lifesaving treatment, and 5,000 pregnant women may be forced to deliver under unsafe conditions. In addition, 10,000 refugees suffering from life-threatening conditions and another 10,000 needing Hepatitis C treatment can go untreated. The situation is exacerbated by the potential collapse of mental health and psychosocial support services for 200,000 refugees, and interruptions in chronic and antenatal care threaten both short- and long-term health outcomes (UNHCR, 2025b).

Furthermore, the presence of healthcare providers is not sufficient in the absence of a robust public health infrastructure. Without reliable access to clean water, adequate sanitation, and preventive disease control, clinical intervention alone cannot offset the escalating health crisis.

Conclusions

The environmental degradation in the Cox's Bazar Rohingya refugee camps, characterized by deforestation, soil erosion, water scarcity and contamination, and waste mismanagement, presents significant risks to the protection of the environment, public health, and the effectiveness of ongoing humanitarian operations. Addressing these challenges requires an integrated approach that balances environmental recovery with the basic needs of displaced populations. Reforestation efforts, combined with the distribution of alternative fuels such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), have been introduced to reduce the reliance on forest resources and mitigate the risks of flooding and landslides. Sustainable land management practices, including slope stabilization, native vegetation preservation, and strategic settlement planning, are essential for controlling soil erosion and restoring land productivity. Ensuring water security will depend on responsible groundwater extraction, hydro-geologically informed deep well placement, and enhanced aquifer recharge through rainwater harvesting and improved soil permeability. In addition, community-based waste management systems that promote segregation, composting, and recycling offer viable solutions to reduce environmental risks and improve food security.

Given that environmental outcomes are closely related to fluctuations in refugee population size, long-term sustainability also requires anticipatory planning that accounts for both potential influxes and future repatriation. However, the prospects for the voluntary, safe, and dignified return of the Rohingya to Myanmar remain highly uncertain. Despite regional and international actors identifying repatriation as the preferred long-term solution, persistent instability in Rakhine State—driven by the ongoing armed conflict between the Myanmar military and groups such as the Arakan Army (AA)—continues to hinder progress. Recent developments, including the militarization of Rohingya areas and forced recruitment by armed factions, have further complicated the situation. Although regional diplomacy, such as the Bangkok emergency summit in December 2024, indicates tentative progress, the absence of guaranteed citizenship, security, and political rights renders meaningful repatriation unlikely in the near term (The Daily Star, 2025).). These realities underscore the urgency of developing durable, inclusive and rights-based solutions that address both the environmental and political dimensions of the crisis.

---

Glossary

• Aquifer: A permeable underground layer of rock or sediment that stores and transmits groundwater.

• Communal Violence: Conflict and aggression occurring between different ethnic, religious, or cultural communities.

• Composting: The biological decomposition of organic waste into nutrient-rich soil amendment used for agriculture.

• Cyclone: A large-scale air mass that rotates around a strong center of low atmospheric pressure, often causing extreme weather events like heavy rainfall and flooding.

• Deforestation: The large-scale removal of forest cover, often for settlement, agriculture, or fuel, leading to ecosystem and environmental degradation.

• Depletion: The reduction in the quantity or quality of a natural resource, such as groundwater, due to overuse or poor management.

• Drainage Systems: Infrastructure designed to remove excess water from land, crucial in preventing waterlogging and flooding.

• Environmental Degradation: The decline in environmental quality caused by harmful human activities or natural processes.

• Ecosystem Restoration: A process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.

• Ethnic Minority: A population subgroup that differs in nationality, culture, or religion from the dominant group within a society.

• Fecal Contamination: The presence of fecal matter in water or food, which can lead to serious public health risks such as waterborne diseases.

• Flooding: The overflow of water onto land that is usually dry, often worsened by poor drainage, deforestation, or land degradation.

• Food Security: The state in which all people have regular access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food.

• Groundwater Contamination: The pollution of underground water sources, commonly due to improper waste disposal or proximity to latrines.

• Habitat Restoration: Rebuilding or rehabilitating natural habitats to support native wildlife and biodiversity.

• Hand Hygiene: Practices such as handwashing that prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

• Land Compaction: The process where soil particles are pressed together, reducing porosity and water infiltration capacity.

• Land Degradation: The loss of the land’s productive capacity due to erosion, deforestation, overuse, or mismanagement.

• Latrines: Sanitary facilities used for the disposal of human waste; improper placement can lead to groundwater pollution.

• LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas): A cleaner-burning alternative energy source used for cooking, reducing dependency on firewood.

• Microplastics: Tiny plastic particles that contaminate soil and water, posing threats to health and ecosystems.

• Mitigation: Measures taken to reduce the severity, seriousness, or harmful effects of environmental issues.

• Monsoon Rains: Seasonal heavy rainfall that can trigger landslides and flooding in deforested or degraded areas.

• Organic Waste: Biodegradable material from plant or animal sources, often composted for agricultural use.

• Overcrowding: Excessively dense human settlement, leading to stress on resources, infrastructure, and public health.

• Persecution: Harsh or unfair treatment, often based on ethnicity, religion, or political beliefs, leading to displacement.

• Rainwater Harvesting: The collection and storage of rainwater for reuse, helping to recharge aquifers and support water security.

• Reforestation: The process of replanting trees in deforested areas to restore ecological balance and prevent erosion.

• Rohingya Refugee: A member of the Muslim minority group from Myanmar who fled persecution and currently lives in refugee camps, mostly in Bangladesh.

• Sanitation: Measures and systems that promote hygiene and the safe disposal of waste to protect public health.

• Scarcity: The shortage of essential resources such as clean water, arable land, or fuel.

• Settlement Planning: The organization and design of residential areas to ensure safety, sustainability, and access to basic services.

• Shallow Wells: Wells that access surface aquifers, often prone to contamination and seasonal depletion.

• Slope Stabilization: Techniques used to prevent landslides and erosion by reinforcing or restoring natural slopes.

• Soil Erosion: The removal of topsoil by wind, rain, or human activity, leading to reduced fertility and land degradation.

• Soil Permeability: The ability of soil to absorb and transmit water, essential for aquifer recharge and flood mitigation.

• Solid Waste: Non-liquid waste material generated by human activity, including plastic, organic matter, and hazardous substances.

• Spatial Planning: The strategic placement of infrastructure to minimize environmental risks and optimize resource use.

• Systematic Discrimination: Institutionalized practices that consistently disadvantage certain groups based on identity factors.

• Topsoil: The uppermost fertile layer of soil, crucial for agriculture and vegetation, which is easily eroded.

• Toxic Fumes: Harmful gases released by burning waste or other materials, leading to respiratory issues and environmental pollution.

• Vector-borne Illnesses: Diseases transmitted through carriers like mosquitoes, such as dengue and malaria.

• Vegetation: Plant life that stabilizes soil, maintains biodiversity, and regulates water cycles.

• Waste Management: The collection, transport, treatment, and disposal or recycling of waste materials.

• Waterborne Diseases: Illnesses caused by consuming or being exposed to contaminated water, including cholera and typhoid.

• Water Contamination: The pollution of water sources with harmful substances, making it unsafe for consumption or use.

• Water Retention: The ability of land to hold water, important for reducing runoff and enhancing groundwater recharge.

• Water Scarcity: A situation where water demand exceeds supply due to overuse, poor infrastructure, or climatic factors.

---

Sources

1. Ahmed, T., & Sabastini, P. (2024). Deforestation as a Site of Conflict and Differentiation: The Case of the Rohingya Refugee Influx in the Teknaf Wildlife Sanctuary. Human Ecology, 52(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-024-00480-x

2. Akhter, M., Uddin, S. M. N., Rafa, N., Hridi, S. M., Staddon, C., & Powell, W. (2020). Drinking Water Security Challenges in Rohingya Refugee Camps of Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. Sustainability, 12(18), 7325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187325

3. CETRI. (2023). Rohingya Crisis: The Picture of Fund Crisis and its Impacts. https://www.cetri.be/Rohingya-Crisis-The-Picture-of?lang=fr#:~:text=However%2C%20from%202020%20on%2C%20the,global%20concern%20over%20the%20issue.

4. Chowdhury, A. H., & Rahman, Md. S. (2025). Machine learning and spatio-temporal analysis of meteorological factors on waterborne diseases in Bangladesh. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 19(1), e0012800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0012800

5. CPI. (2025). Cleaner Spaces, Healthier Futures: Waste Management in Rohingya Camps.

6. Daly, N. (2018). Endangered elephants trapped by world’s largest refugee camp. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/rohingya-refugee-crisis-elephants-bangladesh

7. De La Portilla, R. (2021). Rohingya refugees restore depleted forest in Bangladesh. UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/us/news/stories/rohingya-refugees-restore-depleted-forest-bangladesh

8. Hossain, F., Kamal, A. S. M. M., Sadeak, S., & Gazi, Md. Y. (2023). Quantitative soil erosion risk assessment due to rapid urbanization in the Cox’s Bazar district and Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 37(3), 989–1006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-022-02314-y

9. INAS. (2021). Sustainable land management in refugee camps—Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. https://ap-plat.nies.go.jp/inas/goodpractices/drr/6.html

10. IOM. (2019). Rohingya Refugee Camps Turn to LPG, Reforestation to Save Depleted Bangladesh Forests. https://www.iom.int/news/rohingya-refugee-camps-turn-lpg-reforestation-save-depleted-bangladesh-forests

11. IOM. (2025). UN and Partners Seek USD 934.5m for Life-saving Aid to 1.5 Million Rohingya Refugees and Their Hosts in Bangladesh. https://www.iom.int/news/un-and-partners-seek-usd-9345m-life-saving-aid-15-million-rohingya-refugees-and-their-hosts-bangladesh

12. Islam, M. M., & Nuzhath, T. (2018). Health risks of Rohingya refugee population in Bangladesh: A call for global attention. Journal of Global Health, 8(2), 020309. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.08.020309

13. Jalal, M. (2022). Restoring degraded land in Rohingya refugee  camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/64716592-d871-46a8-81d9-4759f72dd951/content

14. Rahaman, M. M., Das, A., Hasan, J., & Utsha, A. F. (2024). WATER USE PATTERNS OF DIFFERENT DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES IN THREE DIFFERENT AREAS OF DHAKA NORTH CITY CORPORATION.

15. Rahman, A. T. (2019). Fighting water scarcity in Cox’s Bazar refugee camps. https://www.unhcr.org/us/news/stories/fighting-water-scarcity-coxs-bazar-refugee-camps

16. Refugees International. (2025). A Closing Window: How Aid Cuts are Undermining Rohingya Possibilities. https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports-briefs/a-closing-window-how-aid-cuts-are-undermining-rohingya-possibilities/

17. Reuters. (2025). Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh fear aid cuts will deepen crisis. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/rohingya-refugees-bangladesh-fear-aid-cuts-will-deepen-crisis-2025-03-27/#:~:text=At%20the%20Bangladesh%20camps%2C%20Rohingya,by%20disruptions%20in%20healthcare%20services.

18. Save the Elephants. (2025). Threats to elephant. https://savetheelephants.org/about-elephants/threats-to-elephants/

19. The Daily Star. (2025). To solve the Rohingya crisis, we must address the root causes. https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/solve-the-rohingya-crisis-we-must-address-the-root-causes-3815601

20. The Sphere Project. (2011). Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response: The Sphere Handbook. The Sphere Project. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781908176202

21. Uddin, S. M. N., Gutberlet, J., Chowdhury, A. T., Parisa, T. A., Nuzhat, S., & Chowdhury, S. N. (2022). Exploring waste and sanitation-borne hazards in Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, 12(8), 587–599. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2022.068

22. UNDRR. (2022). Involving rohingya refugees-reforestation bangladesh reduce disaster risks. https://www.undrr.org/news/involving-rohingya-refugees-reforestation-bangladesh-reduce-disaster-risks

23. UNHCR. (2018). CULTURE, CONTEXT  AND MENTAL HEALTH  OF ROHINGYA REFUGEES. https://www.unhcr.org/media/culture-context-and-mental-health-rohingya-refugees

24. UNHCR. (2022). ROHINGYA REFUGEE RESPONSE IN BANGLADESH. file:///C:/Users/EhsanPc/Downloads/Public%20Health_Factsheet%20Q2%202022.pdf

25. UNHCR. (2024). Seven years of crisis for Rohingya refugees. https://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing-notes/seven-years-crisis-rohingya-refugees

26. UNHCR. (2025a). Rohingya Refugee Population Dashboard. file:///C:/Users/EhsanPc/Downloads/GoB%20UNHCR%20Population%20Dashboard%20-%20March%202025-A3.pdf

27. UNHCR. (2025b). UNHCR: Funding cuts threaten the health of nearly 13 million displaced people. https://www.unhcr.org/us/news/briefing-notes/unhcr-funding-cuts-threaten-health-nearly-13-million-displaced-people

28. UNHCR. (2025c). UNHCR-Bangladesh. https://www.unhcr.org/countries/bangladesh

29. Unicef. (2020). Three years of the Rohingya refugee crisis. https://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/en/stories/three-years-rohingya-refugee-crisis

30. USEPA. (2025). Statistics and Facts. https://www.epa.gov/watersense/statistics-and-facts

31. WFP. (2025). WFP appeals for urgent funding to prevent ration cuts to over one million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. https://www.wfp.org/news/wfp-appeals-urgent-funding-prevent-ration-cuts-over-one-million-rohingya-refugees-bangladesh