By Farhana Akter
Whenever the issue of disaster-induced displacement in Bangladesh is raised, a familiar social narrative comes to mind. This conventional perception is rooted in the scenario of a rural family that has lost everything to floods, river erosion, devastating cyclones, or severe salinity intrusion, and has migrated to cities like Dhaka in search of employment, safe shelter, and security following disaster shock. However, the reality is far more complex and multidimensional than this simplified notion suggests.
The latest IOM national assessment estimates a total of 4.96 million people are currently internally displaced due to disaster, and 85% of them are housed in unions (small rural administrative units). At the macro-regional level, Chattogram Division, a broad administrative region spanning 11 districts, alone accounts for 24% of the country’s estimated IDP (internally displaced persons) population, while the megacity of Dhaka comprises 16%. Conversely, at the local level, a separate cluster of four districts, comprising Chattogram district alongside three rural districts of Sirajganj, Bhola, and Noakhali, collectively accounts for one in four IDPs nationwide. These figures challenge a common assumption that displacement inevitably ends in urban migration. Another reality lies within these displacement statistics. The number of displaced women (2.51 million) now exceeds that of men (2.44 million). This picture directly challenges the conventional belief that men predominantly migrate for livelihood purposes. However, the movement is far more complicated, and the impact of displacement is deeply gendered.
For many displaced families, the survival challenge begins after relocating. The IOM assessment shows displacement in Bangladesh is often long-term. Nearly two-thirds of the estimated disaster-induced IDP population, 63%, was displaced before April 2020. This means that for millions of people, displacement is not simply a temporary response to a disaster. The concern, then, is not only where displaced people go. It is whether they ever get to return. For families whose ancestral land had been lost to disaster, returning may no longer be realistic. This raises a difficult question: when people do not return, is it because their new settlement has provided a better life, or because their old home can no longer sustain one?
The Resettlement Reality
Every year, riverbank erosion in Bangladesh causes the loss of approximately 8,700 hectares of land and displaces around 200,000 people. Likewise, the World Bank (2018) estimates that, without appropriate adaptation and mitigation measures, about 13.3 million people in Bangladesh will be internally displaced by 2050. Recognising its climate vulnerability, the Bangladesh government has taken measures to support the displaced in its post-independence development plans and has prioritised the country’s climate adaptation policies and strategies. Since the launch of the Government of Bangladesh’ flagship “Ashrayan Project” in 1997, the project has provided housing for 8.67 million landless and homeless people, directly benefiting about 4.34 million people. However, a recent study indicates that, while the government’s reintegration efforts have provided disaster-induced IDPs with new living spaces and limited access to electricity, water, and sanitation, they still fall short in providing sufficient livelihood options and essential services like healthcare and development centers, which further increases their vulnerability.
Although the government has not published a detailed report of IDPs from disasters among Ashrayan beneficiaries, Ashrayan-2 includes the Khurushkul Ashrayan Project in Cox’s Bazar, which is set to house 4,409 families. Khurushkul Ashrayan Prokolpo, arguably the World’s largest climate rehabilitation center, has multi-story apartments, each flat with the same basic layout: two rooms, one kitchen, and one bathroom. The allotment system provides one 456-square-foot flat per family, regardless of the family’s total head count, making large families face a density of about 4 to 5 people sharing a single room. Field reflection also shows that the settlement area lacks a proper waste management system, forcing residents to pile all types of waste together near apartment buildings, food carts, and even along the roadside. Some waste bins that are present are not properly used since there are no clear instructions on waste segregation, nor were residents consulted on how to segregate waste in a multi-store setting. This not only creates a health hazard but also clogs drainage during the rainy season. Moreover, two- or three-wheeler vehicles are hard to find, making it difficult for residents to commute to destinations such as schools, hospitals, and fishing fleets.
Similarly, the living standards of 3,635 landless families rehabilitated across 43 Ashrayan projects in seven upazilas of Khulna district (Paikgacha, Dumuria, Terkhada, Batiaghata, Dakop, Rupsha, and Koyra) have been extremely dire for a long time because of a severe lack of basic civic amenities and employment opportunities. In another project in Paikgacha area, only eight families remain of the original forty households in the barracks because their toilets are completely unusable, and they are forced to drink saline water since the only tube well is broken.
Not only is there a lack of amenities; in some places, when local agriculture, ecology, and geology are not considered during site selection for resettlement construction, the buildings can also be highly exposed to climate change and extreme weather events. In 2021, seven out of 22 houses in the Ashrayan project in Bogura district of Rajshahi Division collapsed during moderate rainfall since the houses were constructed on the sandy bank of a canal, and the soil subsided. Similarly, at another project in Terkhada Upazila, the plaster on the house pillars has crumbled, and the homes become submerged in knee-deep water during the monsoon season. In a project in Dumuria Upazila, more than 56 concrete houses remained submerged for two months because they were built despite expert warnings on land that was originally a riverbed and low-lying area. As a result, over 100 residents were forced to relocate to a nearby area.
Earlier this year, dredged soil from the Kapotaksha River excavation project in Khulna’s Dumuria Upazila was haphazardly piled up next to and even on top of the houses in the Barotia, Chuknagar, and Kathaltala Ashrayan projects. This damaged more than 100 houses and forced approximately 150 families to face displacement once again.
Repeated incidents like these show that, even if settlements give IDPs a roof over their head, inadequate access to basic services has reportedly resulted in some settlements being abandoned or people relocating to cities.
Gender Dynamics and Permanent Displacement
The gendered notion of displacement is more visible in rural areas, where livelihoods are closely connected to the land and water. Patriarchal structural frameworks, including social relations and norms, affect the gendered experiences of migration. When men migrate to cities in search of employment, it may not always provide economic stability. A worker whose previous livelihood was farming or fishing may arrive in an urban area without the skills required for formal employment. Day labour, construction, transport, and other informal jobs can become the most accessible options. Families who were partly self-reliant through agriculture, domestic livestock, or fishing, have to find a means of survival with limited resources in post displaced areas. Food must be purchased. Water must be collected. Housing must be maintained. Unpaid work does not disappear when livelihoods do. Women who previously had limited influence over major household decisions can suddenly become responsible for keeping the household functioning, with very few financial resources. This role can also be coupled with the added risk of insecurity and exposure to gender-based violence while moving to an unfamiliar area. This situation creates a hidden dimension of displacement. In early September, during my field visit to southern Khulna to assess the impact of salinity on women’s health, one key respondent, Sathi, shared her story of displacement. After losing their home to Cyclone Amphan, Sathi’s family had to move to a nearby village in Kaliganj, where they don’t have access to safe drinking water, leaving them with no choice but to use saline water for bathing, washing clothes, and other household activities. As for drinking water, Sathi has to walk two to three kilometers to a deep tubewell in another village and carry the water back. She often faces unpleasant stares from the locals while walking along the unfamiliar riverbank. She can only carry so much, so except for drinking, other household chores have to be done with saline water, which, with prolonged exposure, leads to health issues such as skin diseases and allergies. The broad impact of displacement often remains overshadowed by statistical complexities. With a new living space, a family might have a roof over their head, yet clean water remains scarce, and their familiar livelihoods are lost. While geographical resettlement may be feasible, socially and economically, they are often condemned to a lifetime of uncertainty and to the status of displaced persons.
Economic loss is relatively easy to count. A destroyed house has a monetary value. Lost livestock can be priced and a damaged fishing boat can be replaced on paper with a financial estimate. But what happens to the loss that cannot easily be priced? This is where the idea of non-economic loss and damage (NELD) becomes important. For displaced women in particular, home is often connected to routines, relationships, memories, and knowledge accumulated over years. A woman knows exactly which path leads to the pond where she washes dishes. She knows which neighbor can help during an emergency, and how household work is organized around the seasons. Displacement can erase that knowledge overnight. In a new settlement, the pond may no longer exist. Drinking water may come through a supply line with long queues. Privacy may be limited, and social networks must be rebuilt. These losses rarely appear in assessments that focus primarily on income, housing, or physical assets. Yet they shape whether a person actually feels whether they have recovered or not. UN Women predicts that globally, up to 158.3 million women and girls may suffer from poverty due to extreme climate events by 2050, which, in turn, adds an unequal burden of unpaid care work on them. The question of who moves, therefore, cannot be separated from who carries the burden of staying.
The Policy-Practice Gap
Although there are several policies and plans in Bangladesh addressing climate adaptation and displacement, relocating displaced people does not automatically result in their recovery. Resettlement projects can provide physical shelter, but questions remain about what happens after relocation. Can residents access safe drinking water? Can they find sustainable livelihoods? Can children continue their education? Can women travel safely? Can families maintain their social networks? Can they access markets, healthcare, transport, and other essential services? And perhaps most importantly: do people have a meaningful voice in deciding where and how they are relocated?
The examples of the Khurushkul Ashrayan Project and other resettlement projects of climate-vulnerable areas show that moving people from mud houses to concrete houses does not, per se, ensure improvement in their living conditions.
The systemic approach, therefore, needs to progress beyond the physical shelter of displaced people. The approach should cover the quality of life that displaced people are being provided. We need a response to disaster-induced displacement that safeguards people’s dignity, provides adequate housing and livelihoods, and ensures safety, social connections, and social capital.
Farhana Akter is a Programme Officer under the project “Promoting Effective, Responsive and Inclusive Governance in Bangladesh at WARBE Development Foundation (Welfare Association for Rights of Bangladeshi Emigrants). She previously worked at the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD), Bangladesh as a Youth Fellow (2024) and Youth Fellow Assistant (2025). She majored in Communication and Journalism at the University of Chittagong, Bangladesh. Her work focuses on climate change, migration, displacement, and community resilience in Bangladesh.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.