A World Bank-led study finds that Bangladesh’s relocation of Rohingya refugees to Bhasan Char has worsened food security, health, and livelihoods while costing three times more than managing Cox’s Bazar camps. The model, though well-equipped on the surface, emerges as socially harmful and economically unsustainable.
In September 2025, the World Bank, together with researchers from BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD), Yale University, and the University of Kent, published a landmark study on Bangladesh’s ambitious relocation of Rohingya refugees from Cox’s Bazar to the remote island of Bhasan Char. Framed as a solution to overcrowding and insecurity, the program promised modern homes, solar-powered utilities, schools, clinics, and cyclone shelters. Yet the study delivers a sobering verdict: for the refugees, life on the island has meant worsening well-being, and for donors and the Bangladeshi government, it has created a fiscal burden that is difficult to sustain.
From Overcrowded Camps to an Isolated Island
The relocation scheme emerged in the aftermath of the 2017 exodus, when nearly a million Rohingya fled Myanmar following a brutal military campaign later described by the United Nations as genocidal in intent. Cox’s Bazar, one of the world’s most densely populated regions, suddenly bore the weight of an immense humanitarian crisis. To ease this pressure, Bangladesh invested more than 300 million dollars into developing Bhasan Char, a 40-square-kilometer island in the Bay of Bengal. The settlement, complete with embankments, paved roads, housing clusters, and cyclone defenses, was designed to house up to 100,000 refugees. By April 2025, some 37,000 people, roughly 8,500 families, had been relocated. At first, skepticism dominated the headlines. Between 2019 and 2021, three-quarters of media reports described the move as involuntary. Only later, once UN agencies and NGOs began operating on the island, did some accounts shift toward cautious approval. Refugees themselves, however, remain split, some point to improved housing and lower risks of communal clashes, while others describe the despair of isolation and limited mobility.
Evidence of Declining Welfare
The researchers relied on harmonized survey data from the Cox’s Bazar Panel Survey and the Bhasan Char Panel Survey, enabling a rare direct comparison between relocated families and those who stayed behind. Because the relocation lacked systematic selection, the study applied both simple averages and propensity score matching to adjust for differences. The findings are stark. Families on Bhasan Char experience a 44 percent lower food consumption score, a 37 percent decline in dietary diversity, and nearly half the frequency of meals compared to those in Cox’s Bazar. Illness rates are 17 percent higher, while depression nearly doubles, with moderate to severe symptoms rising by more than six percentage points. Livelihoods are another casualty: wages are 45 percent lower, and while island residents engage in small-scale farming, fishing, or livestock rearing, saline soil, poor market access, and limited infrastructure keep incomes meager. Even humanitarian assistance is patchier. Refugees on the island are 28 percentage points less likely to receive food aid and far less likely to access non-food assistance. Education remains limited, and healthcare services barely extend beyond primary care, with referrals to mainland hospitals hindered by risky and expensive boat journeys.
Counting the Costs of Isolation
If welfare outcomes paint a grim picture, the financial calculus is even harsher. Operating costs on Bhasan Char are about three times higher than in Cox’s Bazar. Annual per capita spending ranges from 1,350 to 1,810 dollars, compared to just 430 to 580 in the mainland camps. Food aid alone costs three times as much on the island, while shelter, protection, and water and sanitation expenditures at least double. On top of these recurrent costs lies the sunk expense of nearly 10,000 dollars per person used to build the island’s infrastructure. Put simply, more money is being spent to deliver less welfare. At a time when humanitarian budgets are already overstretched, this inefficiency raises red flags. Aid agencies are increasingly asked to do more with less, and the Bhasan Char model demonstrates just how unsustainable it can be to maintain an isolated settlement that requires costly logistics and yields limited returns in human dignity.
Lessons for a World in Crisis
The study concludes that the Bhasan Char experiment, however well-intentioned, is both socially damaging and economically inefficient. The findings carry lessons far beyond Bangladesh. With global displacement at record highs, governments and aid providers are desperate for alternatives to overcrowded camps. Yet the evidence here suggests that remote, purpose-built settlements risk compounding vulnerability rather than alleviating it. International experience consistently shows that when refugees are allowed to integrate with host communities, access labor markets, and build skills, outcomes improve for both refugees and hosts. By contrast, Bhasan Char cuts people off from opportunity, locks them into aid dependence, and burdens humanitarian systems with unsustainable costs.
In the end, the glossy surface of Bhasan Char, the embankments, the neat rows of houses, and the solar grids cannot conceal a harsher reality. Refugees on the island face poorer diets, weaker health, diminished incomes, and fewer services. Donors, meanwhile, face spiraling costs with little to show for it. As the world contemplates how to respond to unprecedented displacement, the cautionary lesson of Bhasan Char is clear: solutions must rest on connectivity, autonomy, and inclusion, not costly isolation. Anything less risks turning refugee policy into a cycle of deeper dependency, higher expense, and diminished hope.
