Adopting a civil society-supported ‘route-based approach’ can enhance existing coordination structures and more effectively assist and protect Rohingya refugees undertaking dangerous maritime and overland journeys.

In the 2015 Andaman Sea crisis, thousands of refugees fleeing Myanmar and Bangladesh became stranded at sea after people smugglers abandoned their boats and neighbouring countries refused to allow them to come ashore. Over 8,000 people were left adrift for weeks without food, water or medical care. Following resolution of this crisis, regional States identified strengthened coordination as one of the most critical measures required to prevent future tragedies and better protect those who risk their lives at sea.[1]

In the years that followed, several initiatives were implemented with the intention of improving coordination. At the regional level, this included the establishment of the Bali Process Task Force on Planning and Preparedness (TFPP) to enhance coordination capacities, the Bali Process Consultation Mechanism as a new emergency response mechanism, and the ratification of the ASEAN Convention Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (ACTIP).[2] Yet when there was a resurgence of maritime movements across the Andaman Sea more recently, these reformed coordination mechanisms failed to deliver the anticipated improvements in protection. Poor communication between relevant officials, the continued enforcement of pushback policies, and disjointed responses by regional States have resulted in the Andaman Sea route becoming one of the deadliest in the world. In 2024, one of every 13 people undertaking the journey across the Andaman Sea was reported as dead or missing (657 individuals in total), as compared with one of every 22 individuals in the 2015 Andaman Sea crisis and one of every 39 people crossing the Central Mediterranean in 2024.[3]

Conceptualising a route-based approach for the Rohingya

The movement of Rohingya across the Asia-Pacific is complex, continuously evolving in response to conflict dynamics in Myanmar, changing policies by regional host countries, adaptive patterns in smuggling operations and Rohingyas’ shifting assessments of risk and opportunity. Children and women now make up the majority of passengers undertaking maritime journeys, in contrast to the predominance of young men (including Bangladeshi migrants) during the 2015 Andaman Sea crisis.[3] Patterns of movement have also shifted, with an increasing proportion of boats heading towards Indonesia rather than Malaysia and Thailand, although many arrive with the intention of eventually continuing their journey to Malaysia. In addition, thousands of Rohingya continue to make use of overland smuggling routes that provide passage to Malaysia via Myanmar and Thailand.[4]

A review of recent data from the Mixed Migration Centre (MMC) has found that protection risks encountered by Rohingya refugees are multifaceted, spanning the entirety of their journeys. On maritime routes, inhumane conditions aboard overcrowded boats, combined with inadequate access to food and water, contribute to high fatality rates. Women and children are particularly vulnerable, with numerous reports of gender-based violence, sexual exploitation and other forms of abuse during transit. Protection risks persist even after arrival in destination countries, where Rohingya frequently face prolonged stays in camps, inadequate shelter and limited access to basic services and livelihood opportunities. The psychological toll of these experiences, including trauma and mental health challenges, further compounds their vulnerabilities.[5]

In response to these challenges, we argue that a civil society-supported route-based approach can play a crucial role in strengthening the provision of appropriate assistance and protection for Rohingya on the move. We follow a definition of the route-based approach that understands it as a “comprehensive strategy to address the needs and protect the rights of migrants and refugees at every stage of their journeys in countries of origin, transit, destination, and return” which involves “implementing continuous protection and assistance measures from departure to arrival and integration into destination communities”.[6] Drawing on this, and building on the conceptualisation articulated by UNHCR,[7] we propose that the following principles should be recognised as the distinctive features of a route-based approach which, if adopted, would bolster current responses to forced displacement: 1) adaptability to shifting migration patterns; 2) cross-border cooperation; and 3) sustained engagement across different stages of migrant and refugee journeys.

Furthermore, to effectively implement this in the Rohingya context, we emphasise that a route-based approach needs to be supported by a corresponding route-based coordination mechanism that would be tasked with ensuring that government and stakeholder interventions are coherent, resourced and adaptive to the shifting patterns of Rohingya movements. If such a mechanism were sufficiently resourced and supported, it would facilitate communication, harmonise responses across borders and enable humanitarian actors to better address the specific needs of Rohingya refugees at each stage of their journey.

Addressing root causes

One of the most important aspects of the route-based approach is its emphasis on addressing root causes as part of a comprehensive response. This is particularly relevant in the case of the Rohingya route, as the deterioration of conditions faced by Rohingya in Bangladesh and Myanmar remains the primary driver of Rohingya maritime movements. In Myanmar, the Rohingya experience of decades of violence, discrimination and persecution has worsened since the February 2021 military takeover, as armed conflict has precipitated food shortages, diminished access to essential services and involved repeated attacks on civilians. In Rakhine State, security concerns have become particularly acute since the escalation of conflict in October 2023. Meanwhile, Rohingya in Bangladesh are facing precarious security conditions with escalating levels of gang violence, forced recruitment and gender-based violence. This is compounded by overcrowding, restrictions on mobility and formal livelihoods, limited access to education and minimal prospects for durable solutions. Further exacerbating these drivers are environmental factors which function as a ‘threat multiplier’ for vulnerabilities related to shelter, health, sanitation, food and water security and livelihoods.[8]

The significance of ‘root cause’ conditions in Myanmar and Bangladesh extends beyond their role as drivers for onward movement, however. These also have significant downstream effects and consequences which influence what kinds of assistance and protection interventions are needed at later points in their journeys. For instance, MMC has found that smugglers have been one of the main information providers for Rohingya refugees embarking on onward movements from Bangladesh and Myanmar, influencing refugees’ decisions on whether to embark on maritime or land routes, which countries to transit, and even their intended country of destination.[5] Coordination mechanisms should therefore not only mobilise resources and actors to respond to refugees in transit but also support pre-departure interventions aimed at addressing this information gap, so that Rohingya do not have to rely on unreliable information from smugglers.

Third-country solutions

In addition to addressing root causes, the route-based approach recognises the important role that the international community can play as part of a comprehensive response. For example, the involvement and engagement of resettlement States in supporting third-country solutions and offering financial support could provide a significant contribution in increasing access to durable solutions for Rohingya refugees.

Inclusion of local and civil society actors

Analysis of the application of a whole-of-route approach in Latin America underscores the critical role that local and civil society actors can play in “[ensuring] that interventions are relevant and sustainable.”[6] In the Rohingya context, enabling the participation and engagement of local actors in a whole-of-route coordination structure is particularly important both due to the critical role they play in supporting the Rohingya humanitarian response and because these actors have often already developed internal coordination mechanisms that can facilitate strengthened responses.

In Indonesia, for example, fishermen and local civil society groups in Aceh have played leading roles in rescuing refugees in distress and providing emergency assistance, by making use of messaging platforms to enable rapid mobilisation of frontline responders and swift dissemination of information about boats in distress to local, national and regional stakeholders. However, despite their significance, these local actors remain largely excluded from key strategic decision-making and planning roles in national and regional coordination structures, which remain predominantly managed and organised around the capacities and interests of State actors.

Supplementing national coordination structures

One of the most notable reforms implemented at the national level in the aftermath of the Andaman Sea crisis was Indonesia’s adoption of Presidential Regulation No 125 in 2016 (PR No 125), which provides guidelines and outlines responsibilities for government agencies in search and rescue and in management of refugees, and also codifies a definition of refugees in alignment with the 1951 Refugee Convention.

However, although PR No 125 is a significant step towards advancing the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in Indonesia, it does not provide guidance on how cross-border cooperation with other regional States should be managed or how search and rescue and disembarkation policies should be harmonised across States. This is significant in the context of Rohingya maritime movements because search and rescue is a shared responsibility that cannot be achieved by Indonesia alone. A route-based coordination mechanism could play a significant role in addressing this gap by establishing clear channels of inter-governmental communication and facilitating the negotiation of responsibility-sharing agreements among regional States for disembarkation responsibilities.

It is also important to note that the provision of protection and assistance as part of a route-based approach extends into the post-disembarkation or post-rescue phase. This is partially addressed in PR No 125, although recent responses to Rohingya arrivals in Indonesia have revealed some gaps in its implementation. For instance, PR No 125 does not provide State funding for local governments mandated to implement refugee management responsibilities nor does it establish clear procedures for sheltering refugees, and these omissions have caused significant delays in the provision of resources and services while negotiations with local authorities are resolved. In addition, there has been insufficient engagement of important non-security focused agencies (such as the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Women Empowerment and Child Protection, and the Ministry of Health), which has prevented Rohingya receiving the support services they need.

The Bali Process: a potential coordination mechanism

The Bali Process has a mandate to “facilitate cooperation and collaboration, information-sharing and policy development on irregular migration in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond” and a broad membership that includes source, transit and destination countries for Rohingya movement.[9] Given this, it is well positioned to take on a leading coordinating role to support whole-of-route interventions and provide the critical coordination support that the route-based approach requires. And indeed, in its 2016 internal review of the region’s response to the Andaman Sea crisis, the Bali Process identifies several “calls to action” that would contribute significantly to a whole-of-route response. These include “systematic and regular reporting on movements,” “concerted efforts to address root causes and push factors” and “coordinated and predictable search and rescue protocols and disembarkation points”.[1] The review also identified the need to develop and maintain a registry of contact points, including officials at the national level and locally based international agency and civil society staff members, to help improve national planning and preparedness. Under a whole-of-route approach, such a registry should be extended and made accessible to all relevant stakeholders and actors along the Rohingya routes.

By realising these previously identified calls to action, which remain as important and relevant now as they were in 2016, the Bali Process would establish a strong foundation upon which a more route-based approach to Rohingya movements could be enacted, thereby enhancing the regional coordination capacities that have been built through the establishment of the Consultation Mechanism and the Taskforce on Planning and Preparedness. In so doing, the Bali Process could facilitate stronger cross-border cooperation to deliver more sustained support for Rohingya in need of protection.

Meeting the challenge

In the absence of other viable alternatives and legal pathways, and given the escalating conflict in Myanmar, Rohingya refugees are likely for the foreseeable future to continue to undertake perilous journeys in search of safety and protection. To meet this challenge and ensure the dignity of those on the move, coordination remains vital; the whole-of-route approach provides a constructive framework through which to address gaps in current responses, establish fairer responsibility-sharing arrangements and enhance existing coordination structures. Through the establishment of stronger linkages with civil society and local actors and by building on the foundations of the route-based aspects of existing coordination mechanisms, significant improvements in the delivery of protection and assistance at every stage of their journey can be delivered.

 

Paul Luc Vernon
Regional Advocacy Specialist, Asia Displacement Solutions Platform
paul.vernon@adsp.ngo

Abdullah Mohammadi
Data and Research Project Manager, Mixed Migration Centre
abdullah.mohammadi@mixedmigration.org

Gading Gumilang Putra
National Advocacy and Communication Officer, Jesuit Refugee Service – Indonesia
gading@jrs.or.id

 

[1] Bali Process (2016) Review of Region’s Response to Andaman Sea Situation of May 2015

[2] The Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime is a regional forum that supports collaboration, dialogue and policy development relating to irregular migration in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. www.baliprocess.net/

[3] UNHCR (8th January 2025) ‘Focus on saving lives, urges UNHCR as more Rohingya flee by sea’

[4] MMC (2024) Comparing Smuggling Dynamics: from Myanmar to Malaysia and Thailand

[5] For 4Mi data on protection risks faced by Rohingya refugees en route to Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, see 4Mi Interactive | Mixed Migration Centre bit.ly/4mi-interactive

[6] Institute of Studies on Conflicts and Humanitarian Action (2024) Review of Regional Coordination Mechanisms in Response to Mixed Movements in the LAC Region

[7] UNHCR (2024) A Route-Based Approach: Strengthening protection and solutions in the context of mixed movements of refugees and migrants

[8] Protecting Refugees in Asia (2024) Impact of Climate Change on the Migration and Displacement Dynamics of Rohingya Refugees  

[9] Bali Process ‘About the Bali Process’

READ THE FULL ISSUE