3.2 Refugees with Disabilities: Perceptions and Barriers

According to the ISCG (2019, p. 10), the Government of Bangladesh considers the crisis as a short-term challenge and refers to the Rohingya as ‘Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals’, rather than refugees.13 In this context, human rights advocates and numerous INGOs have raised strong concerns about the obstacles that Rohingya refugees experience in exercising their fundamental rights and freedoms, including their right to education, livelihoods and full integration into the host communities (see Human Rights Watch, 2019; Amnesty International, 2020; Reliefweb, 2020).14 In January 2020, the Government began to allow education and formal schooling for 10,000 Rohingya pupils under a new pilot programme led by the United Nations Children’s Programme (UNICEF) (2020), while some refugees found work as day labourers or volunteers in small cash-for-work projects financed by the humanitarian actors (Wake and Bryant, 2018, p. 8). However, the official focus on repatriation constrains refugees’ capacity to pursue a lasting solution and build a life in their places of refuge. In response, the United Nations Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide underlines that "it is imperative […] that the Rohingya, while in Bangladesh, are afforded more chances to uplift themselves educationally and through access to livelihoods" (United Nations, 2018).

For refugees with disabilities, the situation in the camps is even more difficult than for those without disabilities. As mentioned previously, persons with disabilities face numerous barriers that prevent them from accessing crucial services and meaningfully participating in the humanitarian response. Most evident are the environmental barriers that hinder them from accessing registration and distribution points and WASH facilities, including latrines, bathing units and spaces for menstrual hygiene management, as well as various service facilities and so-called ‘safe spaces’ for children and women. These facilities are either located far away, uphill and across difficult terrain or are constructed in such a way that they are difficult for persons with disabilities to access or operate.

Buildings and shelters tend to have steps and narrow entrances, and latrine blocks are too narrow to accommodate a support person and persons using a wheelchair or mobility aids. During monsoon and cyclone seasons, service facilities are even harder to access because roads and bridges are flooded or become very slippery. Regrettably, these barriers are extremely difficult to address once they are established. The overcrowding of the camps limits the available space for an expansion or remodelling of existing facilities. As one respondent explained:

Interview 14, representative of an INGO.

Some service facilities are not in a good location. Some of them are very close to busy roads. […] But again, I understand, the acquisition of land is a bit of a problem, so to get appropriate land where services are safe and easy to access could be a challenge.

Moreover, stigma, discrimination and negative attitudes towards persons with disabilities within the communities mean that persons with disabilities rarely leave their makeshift shelters and become ‘invisible’ in the camps. If they do leave their shelter and have a visible impairment, they face increased stigma.

Interview 8, representative of an INGO.

I’ve seen people being carried in a basket, but I don’t know what can be done, whether there’s a solution for that. It really distracts me whenever I see it because it picks up a lot of attention and people just stand and stare and talk about it – I don’t see it as dignifying.

Rohingya refugees also display extremely negative attitudes and scepticism towards health services due to an overloaded health-care system in the camps, lack of confidence in alternative health-care services, lack of communication and accountability between health workers and patients and previous experiences in Myanmar, which often required the Rohingya to seek alternative practices from traditional healers, herbalists or faith and religious healers (ACAPS, 2020, p. 4). As a result, Rohingya refugees are hesitant to accept psychosocial support, physiotherapy and other types of rehabilitation services from disability-focused organizations. For example, instead of doing regular exercises to support recovery, Rohingya refugees tend to prefer injections as a cure.15

Interviewed humanitarian workers did not express negative attitudes or prejudices towards persons with disabilities during the research. However, there are persisting misconceptions within the humanitarian community, which lead to wrong assumptions on the needs, capacities of, and barriers faced by persons with disabilities in the camps, including how to identify and address them. One interviewee admitted:

Interview 22, representative of an INGO.

We always think about those who use a wheelchair and most of the time the response is: ‘Let’s build a ramp!’ But a ramp will not be helpful for people with different types of disabilities.

Promoting meaningful participation and involvement of persons with disabilities in needs assessments and the planning, implementation and monitoring of humanitarian programmes would help eliminate these misconceptions (IASC, 2019, p. 19) and promote an inclusive response. So far, however, refugees in the camps rarely participate in decisions affecting their lives (Wake and Bryant, 2018, p. 7). Although humanitarian organizations are increasingly engaging refugees in consultation meetings and focus group discussions, persons with disabilities are regularly excluded (ISCG, 2020).16

Moreover, complaint and feedback mechanisms – even those of disability-focused NGOs – are often not accessible or available in multiple formats.17 Some organizations try to address these gaps, yet respondents emphasized that they need to be more deliberate in reaching out to persons with disabilities. One respondent said:

Interview 5, representative of a United Nations agency.

We established a women’s participation committee of 100 members, but we realized that women with disabilities were not included. So we added ten more member spots so that they could then be invited. Now we have 110 members, including ten women with disabilities.

Overall, the participation of persons with disabilities depends too much on the efforts of individual organizations and staff members. To change this, it is crucial to identify persons with disabilities, along with their needs, capacities and the barriers they face within programmes and the wider humanitarian response. In Cox’s Bazar, systematically disaggregated data on gender, age and disability do not exist and only a few organizations have started incorporating the Washington Group question sets into their surveys and assessments.