Notes on Tri-lateral Consultation

1. On invitation of the chairman of the Steering Committee on Refugee Matters, Mr. Hans Koschnick, representatives in-charge of refugee issues from the Republic of Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, met in the premises of the German Ministry of Interior in Bonn in order to exchange and share views on refugee matters in the three countries.

The meeting was attended by:

Ý

2. This consultation aimed at updating, through informal discussion, the participants on developments in the respective countries, at detecting issues of common concern and providing answers on specific questions or possible misunderstandings affecting return and re/integration of refugees. The possibilities of closer cooperation between the respective countries in regard to necessary measures further facilitating and promoting return were also to be explored.

3. Following a briefing on recent meetings with the donor community held in Brussels, the Chairman outlined the need for a triangular approach and the need to elaborate a strategy paper and action plan for the coming 2 years in order to promote and foster international support for return and re/integration matters on a regional as well country specific basis. International funding for refugee return would fade and reduce considerably within this period and needed to be replaced by an inclusion of refugee needs into economic and social recovery and become entire part of national planning. Donors had clearly indicated that they wished to see a regional dynamic to develop and had asked to integrate crossborder issues in programming and planning of projects.

4. The fact that the majority of the remaining 1.4 million refugees and DPs would probably decide not to return to their pre-war homes, was now widely understood and accepted, but required a broad range of issues to be resolved, not only in regard to acquired rights, such as pensions or property, but also in view of changing social and economic patterns in the region. Urbanization, for instance, had certainly been a result of the change of the political system in the three countries, but displacement to the urban centers was also an important factor not to be neglected and be taken into account in the return and integration process. Return to economically not viable areas was not sustainable. New funding opportunities had evolved through the possibility to obtain loans through International Financing Institutions such as the European Council Development Bank, EBRD or the World Bank, allowing governments to become responsible and provide the necessary linkages between all working tables and activities.

5. Following general briefings on the status of displaced and refugees in their respective countries, the participants from the region welcomed the idea of such technical consultations as an important step to identify issues of common concern, which could be addressed preferably through bi-lateral protocols on return or bi-lateral agreements. All agreed that an agreement or protocol on the high political level, outlining obligations and principles, would provide for the right environment, but should not become a pre-condition for the resolution of practical and technical questions between countries on a bi-lateral level, facilitating and promoting the actual return of refugees. Most of the pending questions could certainly be resolved almost immediately. While the normalization agreement between Croatia and FRY includes a paragraph on refugee return (Article 7), a similar agreement would also be needed between Croatia and Bosnia and Bosnia and FRY

6. National integrity was to be preserved and the differing environment in each country to be recognized, while there remained a need to adjust legislation and procedures and agree on a range of matters, currently affecting and slowing the return and integration process in and from the neighboring countries, thus not being issues to be addressed in isolation. Facilitation and promotion of the mostly self-organized return movements versus complication and bureaucratic regulation of the return process was important in the future.

7. The exchange of information and data was stressed by all as a current priority to streamline ongoing reconstruction programs and property repossession efforts. A regular exchange of statistics and pending applications for return was needed. Information on returnees having already benefited from assistance should be provided to the former country of asylum to avoid the currently observed recycling pattern and facilitate de-registration. The registration exercise in FRY, now planned for March, and the census in Croatia planned for April, would provide important data and a sound basis for return planning in Bosnia and Croatia as well as provide indications on the populations to be settled locally. All relevant data emanating from the exercise in FRY would be available by end of May 2001.

8. Bosnia had already received 30,000 applications for return from Croatia and 25,000 from FRY with the help of the RADS system. With the recent registration carried out in Bosnia, some 24,800 refugees from Croatia had been registered (in RS). Croatia indicated that it had a database on 50,000 returnees to Croatia and applications of some 6,500 persons for return to Bosnia for which no reply had been received from Sarajevo. In view of the quantity and variety of data available, it was agreed to begin immediately exchanging information on bi-lateral level.

9. Freedom of movement had already been facilitated between Croatia and FRY through a bi-lateral agreement and produced good results, resulting in increased border traffic between Eastern Slavonia and the Vojvodina. A similar arrangement was now required between FRY and Bosnia and Croatia and Bosnia.

10. The implementation of property legislation remains a key issue in the region. Besides the important need to exchange data, including information on legislation and implementation thereof in the three countries, improvements and adjustments are still required. Croatia reiterated its readiness to ensure the implementation of property legislation in accordance with CoE and EU legal standards and principles, while keeping in mind its participation in the stabilization and association process. In this respect, Croatia announced further changes in relevant regulations in order to ensure administrative implementation of the property legislation in place in Croatia. The Property Legislation Implementation Plan (PLIP) in Bosnia had yielded positive results in most areas, but still required further and stronger commitment by the local administration.

11. The difficult question and responsibility of provision of alternative accommodation remained with the respective governments and administrations and no fully satisfactory solution had been found so far. It was agreed that double occupancy cases were not of humanitarian concern and should not be provided with alternative accommodation. The exchange of data will help to identify those whose property is reconstructed in the country of origin but who also occupy property in the country or place of asylum or request alternative accommodation. Croatia had made considerable progress in resolving the issue of some 10,000 occupied objects through eviction and construction of alternative accommodation to be financed through the CEB and the state budget; reconstruction needs however, remained important with over 35,000 units required. In Bosnia little progress had been made so far in regard to alternative accommodation and reconstruction needs exceeded by far the number of actual and expected returns.

12. Property exchanges effected during the war had been treated differently in Bosnia and Croatia and required discussion. Property sales and exchanges now taking place needed some regulation and could possibly be addressed tri-laterally. No information was currently available on the status and number of exchanged property in the region, but better data would help to improve planning on national level.

13. Occupancy rights acquired prior to the war were impossible to restore in Croatia, in a differing approach from Bosnia, but law ensured the right to accommodation for all citizens.

14. Citizenship and ensuing national obligations such as military service were certainly to be discussed, double citizenship having being introduced in Croatia and FRY. Any change in status, however, should not affect property rights. Access to documents was to be facilitated, as some gray areas remained to be resolved.

15. Payment of Pensions needed to be ensured and discussed, although the level of payment would need to vary from country to country. This would also apply for other social benefits, such as health insurance, which would depend on national capacities and regulations. The fact that mostly the elderly returned, strained the very limited social systems and available resources in Croatia and Bosnia furthermore. All participants agreed that every citizen has the same right on payments of pensions and other benefits.

16. The return and/or integration of extremely vulnerable individuals (EVI) would need to be discussed urgently, as most were accommodated in Collective Centers and less costly and more human solutions had to be found.

17. In regard to funding all agreed that governments should request provision of loans through international financing institutions, taking full responsibility for the recovery process. The restrictions on national budgets, as requested from Croatia by the IMF, however, limited the level of national involvement at this point. It was agreed that efforts should be made through the SP to lift these restrictions in the coming 2 years on all budgetary provisions aiming at the benefit of DPs, refugees and returnees or return impacted areas. The fact that Bosnia had not been found to be creditworthy at this stage was pointed out, pending the establishment of functioning state institutions.

18. To conclude the meeting, Chairman Hans Koschnick thanked all present for the frank and open exchange of views and information and called on the participants to continue this constructive dialogue in the near future. Notes from the meeting would be shared for comments before wider dissemination. He also requested to comment on the concept paper on priority areas, distributed during the meeting, as a possible option to ensure stronger linkages between economic recovery and refugee return and re/integration. It was agreed that the next steering committee meeting scheduled for 22nd of March in Sarajevo would provide an opportunity to continue discussions.

Kleinschmidt/Brussels/6/03/01