Greening in crisis: NGO brokerage in a depoliticised humanitarian space in Cox’s Bazar

Sammanfattning

Environmental degradation in the Rohingya refugee camps of Cox’s Bazar has prompted extensive afforestation and reforestation initiatives led by NGOs and UN agencies. Yet the factors shaping the success or failure of these nature-based solutions (NbS) remain poorly understood. This study examines the challenges organisations face in implementing NbS in a highly regulated humanitarian setting and analyses how political, institutional, and social dynamics influence environmental interventions. Drawing on document analysis and semi-structured interviews with employees of the NGOs and UN agencies, the research explores the obstacles encountered, the strategies used to navigate constraints, and the role of government authorities in shaping project outcomes. Findings show that the challenges are not generic forestry problems such as soil degradation, species-survival issues or technical planting failures. These problems arise from humanitarian governance structure of the camps. Limited land availability, overlapping mandates, short-term funding cycles and bureaucratic approval processes reflect deeper resource governance problem that undermine the long-term sustainability. NGOs and UN agencies employ coordination platforms, community engagement and cash-for-work schemes to address these constraints. But their efforts are shaped by donor-priorities, host-refugee tensions and political sensitivities surrounding extended refugee encampment specifically, government concerns that long-term environmental projects may be interpreted as supporting the long-term settlement of Rohingya refugees. Government institutions particularly the Bangladesh Forest Department, plays a vital role in determining species selection, regulatory compliance and project legitimacy. Using the concepts of brokerage and the Anti-Politics Machine, the study shows how NGOs act as intermediaries negotiating among donors, authorities, and refugee communities, while political issues such as land scarcity and mobility restrictions are reframed as technical challenges. This depoliticization enables interventions to proceed but limits their transformative potential, reinforcing short-term, output-driven programming. The research contributes to rural development and natural resource management by demonstrating how NbS are negotiated, constrained, and depoliticised in crisis-affected environments. It highlights the need for long-term funding, stronger coordination, meaningful participation, and recognition of the political dynamics that shape environmental interventions. These insights are relevant for designing more sustainable and context-sensitive NbS in humanitarian settings worldwide.