6th Meeting of the Steering Committee on Refugee Matters

1. The meeting, chaired by Mr.Hans Koschnick, chairman of the Steering Committee and co-chaired by Werner Blatter, UNHCR Chief of Mission Sarajevo, was held in the premises of UNHCR in Sarajevo. In addition to the hosting Governments of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the following countries and organizations attended the session from 10.00 to 13.20 hrs: Republic of Croatia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, USA, Sweden, Canada, Germany, France, UK, Japan, Netherlands, European Commission, World Bank, Council of Europe Development Bank, OSCE, OHR, IOM, ICVA/ECRE.

2. Following the welcoming address by the BH Minister for Human Rights and Refugees, Mr. Zubak, on behalf of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the chairman gave a brief overview of the activities of the Steering Committee since the last meeting held on 27 November 2000 in Brussels. His recent visits to the region had been most encouraging and the constructive ongoing bi- and tri-lateral cooperation on refugee matters, are essential ingredients to jointly achieve further and significant progress in regard to the implementation of durable solutions in 2001 and 2002. He pointed out that return and integration matters became more and more linked to economic recovery and development aid, not only to ensure sustainability of return and re/integration, but also in view of diminishing resources for humanitarian programs. While the first priority remains the return and while all necessary steps must be taken to quickly remove the remaining difficulties and obstacles, the decision of the individual to return or not had to be respected; this individual choice will have as a consequence that local integration will become the preferred option for many refugees and displaced

3. Co-chairman Mr. Blatter, UNHCR CoM BH, provided a summary of the results of the year 2000, which had seen a breakthrough in returns, mostly of minorities, particularly in BH, where over 80,000 people (67,000 minorities) had returned during the year. Now, that obstacles to the return process as such, were gradually reducing or had disappeared, the need for additional reconstruction assistance must be recognized as a major obstacle to return. In BiH alone, 15,000 additional houses need to be reconstructed for those who have already returned or are in the process of returning. In addition Mr. Blatter stated that the sustainability of return had become a major issue and the importance of the economic situation in return areas must not be overlooked. The return to rural areas versus urban returns required different answers and the social and economic changes leading to the ìurbanizationî of many displaced and refugees had to be accepted. While the Dayton Agreement (Annex 7) clearly stipulates the right to return and while the IC and the countries concerned, have the joint responsibility to make returns a reality, he concurred at the same time that the individual choice to return or not to return was essential and that local integration was becoming increasingly an acceptable option.

4. The Executive Secretary presented the latest (3rd) draft of the ìAgenda for Regional Actionî (AREA) which was currently under preparation and a result of numerous consultations with the concerned countries, donors and involved organizations in the past 2 months. AREA aimed to take stock of issues affecting the implementation of durable solutions for the remaining refugees and displaced populations in the region. The Agenda identified and proposed adequate remedial action and activities to be carried out on various levels, but should also provide overall policy guidance and should finally become a planning tool and framework for all. The document, which had been shared with the participants shortly before the meeting, remained a draft at this stage and would be finalized once comments had been received.

5. Minister Zubak, speaking for BH, informed the meeting that a total of 725,000 refugees and displaced had returned to or within BH since 1995. 80% had returned to the Federation and 20% to the RS. 600,000 Bosnians were living outside of the country while 500,000 were still displaced within BH. To achieve a return figure of 120,000 persons in 2001 was an ambitious target, but appeared possible, should sufficient resources for reconstruction be made available. More than 25,000 applications for return had already been received and were a significant indicator. Important return areas in regard to Croatia were the Posavina, and Banja Luka areas and in regard to FRY, Glamoc, Grahovo, and Drvar areas. The Property Law Implementation Plan (PLIP) was an essential tool, but had not yet produced sufficient results; according to the Minister. Over 240,000 claims for property or tenancy right repossession had been received thus far with an insufficient percentage of the cases having been resolved. However, the enhanced return process required additional resources and needs were already exceeding currently available funds. The Donor Conference of Organizations of Islamic Countries planned take place soon, would hopefully raise additional resources. He emphasized the importance to exchange and update data and information with Croatia and FRY and stated that BH was ready to engage in this process. The RS Minister for Refugees Mr. Micic added that regional coordination existed and that incompatible regulations were the main impediment to return at this stage. He also stated that he was not satisfied with the rate of the PLIP implementation in RS, but identified the lack of available alternative accommodation as most important issue in this regard.

6. Mr.Pejkovic, Head of ODPR Croatia, provided the participants with an overview on the progress made in Croatia in the year 2000. Some 33,000 returns including 18,000 minority Serb returns had been recorded during last year, bringing the total number of Serb returns since the end of the war to over 70,000. Since the election of a democratic government most, if not all, of the legal obstacles had been removed, others remained to be adjusted. Implementation was now the issue and the lack of resources the key impediment. The Croatian government had made considerable efforts and sought to be able to enhance the implementation of the re/construction program through international loans in support to the budget. The same approach had been used to provide funds for 2000 alternative accommodation units, primarily for Bosnian Croats, opting for local settlement in Croatia. US$250 million are needed for reconstruction and the return process in 2001. It had to be recalled that 25,000 persons were still in need of direct humanitarian assistance or welfare, said Mr.Pejkovic, also pointing out that many of the returnees were elderly in need of social welfare. A total of 13,000 property repossession claims was now being processed out of an estimated 21,000 properties being occupied. Croatia favored the exchange of data and information to avoid double occupancy cases and welcomed further discussions on bilateral level on returns. Mr.Pejkovic recalled that some 7,000 applications for return had been forwarded to Sarajevo last year and that so far no reply had been received. Within its 2001 budget, Croatia plans to support return of Bosnian Croats to BiH with an amount of approx. 4 Mio DM for construction material.

7. Ms. Raskovic-Ivic, Serbian Commissioner for Refugees, speaking on behalf of FRY informed the meeting that the registration of refugees in FRY was now underway and was scheduled to be completed by 31st of March. The new data would then be made available shortly. Based on the current statistics of 570,000 refugees and over 200,000, if not 300,000 IDPs, some 10% of this population still remained in Collective Centers, people who had to be helped as a matter of priority. Humanitarian needs in general remained very important, as FRY was facing a serious economic crisis and further budget cuts appeared necessary. Returns were in progress and unproblematic in regard to BH, but returns to Croatia had stopped since recent arrests of returnees upon arrival had sent wrong signals to refugees intending to repatriate. Ms. Raskovic pleaded to be realistic and accept the fact, that at least 40% of the refugees and probably more, would finally opt for local integration in FRY. Many had already settled after more than 10 years in exile, and while their return and property rights had of course to be respected, they should also be supported in the integration process. She was supported by Mr. Ladjevic, FRY Presidential Advisor on refugee matters, who emphasized that return and integration were not contradictory. Only urban Serbs would ultimately opt for return. He also requested the International community to provide a clear line on the conditionality to obtain appropriate funding support for the entire process, requesting to give ìthe rules of the gameî. Both concluded that, while many matters could be resolved bilaterally, a political agreement between Croatia, BH and FRY should be signed to address the legal, political and psychological consequences of the war.

8. Sweden welcomed the evolving regional cooperation, which it considered to be promising, and the ìAREAî which presented a good ground for the future. In its initial comments to the document Sweden referred to the need to include Roma issues, return from third countries and elderly vulnerable persons. The new arrivals of asylum seekers from BH and other countries of the former Yugoslavia was a serious matter of concern.

9. The US announced that its refugee program had decreased from 100 m US$ (75 BH/25 Croatia) in the year 2000 to approximately 80 m US$ in 2001. (60 BH/20 Croatia) besides a range of other programs which were not directly related to refugee matters, but had certainly indirect positive effects. Return had to remain the priority in BH and the PLIP implementation had to be accelerated. While welcoming the AREA document as sound and useful, the US representative stated he thought the used ratio of 70% for local integration in BH was probably set too high.

10. Canada described its assistance program supporting particularly in the demining sector, also involving the Canadian military contingent. In its initial comments on the Regional Agenda, Canada welcomed, what it considered to be a sound document, but requested to include and emphasize the special needs of women, include spontaneous returnees in assistance and to ensure that socio economic and psychological effects of repeated displacements are taken into account in government planning. Individual solutions for CC residents were important, but institutionalization should be the last option. Health and education systems in rural return areas were very important and access for the entire population important.

11. The UK announced in had spent 1.6 m pounds in return and reconciliation activities over the last 2 years (BH), including demining.

12. Japan indicated that assistance to FRY would certainly increase while assistance to the return process through grassroot and income generation projects should be maintained at the same level.

13. Germany regretted that more than 30 m DM of its assistance was blocked in BH due to procedural and formal obstacles but supported the request not to decrease return oriented resources in 2001.

14. The Netherlands stated that its funding level in BH would be maintained in 2001 with at least some US $20 m, but be more prominently oriented toward flexible ìhotspotî return oriented funding, but predictions beyond 2002 were difficult due to the forthcoming elections. It had; however, to be clear that grants for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance would need to be gradually replaced through a ìclassicî loan and development aid approach. In 2000 the Netherlands had provided some 25 m USD in addition to its initial 20 m USD assistance in BH, in view of the successful implementation and prevailing needs.

15. The World Bank referring to its development approach described the various initiatives and projects in BH and Croatia such as the ìLocal Initiative Projectî, the ìAgricultural Toolî project, the ìPublic Worksî project and the Social Development Initiative. 90,000 jobs had been maintained or created in BH alone and this program would be expanded with a target of some 200,000 beneficiaries. 30 m US$ were being made available to FRY in emergency assistance and an economic recovery program was now under preparation.

16. OHR/RRTF requested a tailored approach toward integration urging to maintain return as a first priority in reference to the Dayton Agreement. Where return was taken seriously, support to integration could be envisaged. Exchange of data was an important step and had been discussed in a recent meeting between OHR and the Government of Croatia.

17. The Council of Europe Development Bank referred to its problem that BH was not one of its members and that negotiations with FRY for the re-establishment of relations were ongoing. However, considering its mandate as ìBank for the Refugeesî it was ready to support return and integration assistance in the region. 90 MEURO had already been given to the countries of the region directly related to refugee issues.

18. The OSCE informed that its joint OSCE/CoE office had been opened in Belgrade. The ongoing registration of refugees in FRY was an important event and would help to better plan for the future. Particularly in regard to Croatia the mission had recently reported on the progress made in the area of police, media and other issues. Further efforts needed to be made to ensure the development of a conducive environment to return in the country. Although legislation had been amended, which was an achievement to be praised, a lot still needed to be done and the OSCE was ready to work closely with Croatia on the required adjustments.

19. IOM briefed on its 2 way cross border project and indicated that it had facilitated some 7000 go-and see visits ñ 250 since the beginning of the year alone. Integration had become a very important issue while the environment for return and particularly the social rights of the individual had to be ensured.

20. ICVA/ECRE urged to work further on the removal of the remaining obstacles and to establish flexible regional and crossborder funding mechanisms, as current systems were too slow to respond to emerging needs. According to a range of organizations working on return to Croatia, considerable problems remained to be resolved on the political and administrative level. NGOs were not convinced that there was a genuine commitment to return

21. The EC representative congratulated the 3 countries for their willingness and recent efforts to cooperate on refugee matters. He provided an overview on the current EC assistance in the 3 countries directly assisting refugees through the Integrated Return Programs in Croatia and BH, which would be maintained in 2001 at almost the same level. In FRY ECHO was still very active in supporting humanitarian needs also in Collective Centers. Integration would and should be supported through a range of other programs. In regard to the AREA document he commented that integration had been presented too prominently, and that return should clear remain the priority objective. He thanked the SP for the preparation of this paper, which should be regularly updated, and which was a very helpful planning tool to all.

22. It was decided to hold the next meeting of the Steering Committee on the 1st of June (now changed to 11 June) on invitation of the Council of Europe Development Bank in Paris.

23. Comments to the 3 rd Draft of the Agenda for Regional Action should reach the Executive Secretary by the 14th of April 2001. Draft 4 would then be prepared and be finally adopted in the next Steering Committee.