1. Case-study No. & Title:
232. International Rescue Committee – Croatia: promoting return of minority refugees to respectively Croatia and Bosnia

International Rescue Committee’s (IRC) Community Revitalization Project (CRP) promotes two-way sustainable return axes for minority refugees, aiding those returning to Croatia and encouraging the return of refugees exiled in Croatia to their homes-of-origin in Bosnia. The project works by facilitating cooperation between local governments and local minority NGOs in a mutually beneficial community development strategy.

For a definition of the abbreviations used in this report, click here.

Keywords

w	Mediation
w	Participation
w	Negotiations
w	Strategy Building
w	Economic development
w	Social development
w	Community planning
w	Institution building
w	Human capacity building
w	Education
w	Facilitation
w	Conflict resolution
w	Communication
w	Info dissemination
w	Co-existence
w	Co-operation
w	Partnership
w	Inter-ethnic relations

2. Author information:
2.1 Author’s Name
Sean Moffatt

2.2 Institutional Affiliation and Contact:
20 Oak St.
Garnerville, NY
10923, USA

Tel.: 001 (845) 429-2470
E-mail: sean_moffatt99@hotmail.com

2.3 Date recorded
09/02/2001

3. Good Practice Information Sheet
3.1 Local Level Good Practice:
The IRC CRP is a program designed to promote two-way cross-border minority refugee return by promoting return among refugee populations, ensuring favorable conditions in recipient communities for refugee return and providing carefully-tailored return support services designed to overcome the diverse obstacles that inhibit refugee return. While other agencies and services also work in support of minority return, the CRP has a broader approach to this goal as it seeks to provide more than the minimal conditions for sustainable refugee return. Rather, the CRP looks to provide an integrated community development plan that incorporates majority ethnic leadership in addressing factors that underlie inter-ethnic hostility. The CRP encompasses three facets:

w	Facilitating Inter-ethnic Dialogue;
w	Providing Community Revitalization Projects that work to support the sustainable return of minorities while encouraging governmental leadership to improve their minority policies;
w	Promoting Minority Refugee Return.

The program is implemented through a local minority in partnership with the local government. This partnering provides a progressive forum for inter-ethnic cooperation and improved foundations for the understanding and development of civil society structures.

3.2 Location:
During the 1999-2000 program the CRP is implemented in three regions based on UN designations for the four former sectors of conflict in Croatia FSW (Former Sector North: an area south of Zagreb along the Bosnian border with the towns of Karlovac and Sisak as central reference points), FSN (Former Sector North: an area south of Zagreb along the Bosnian border with the towns of Karlovac and Sisak as central reference points);and FSS (Former Sector South) in the following municipalities:

w	Okucani
w	Djulovac
w	Gornji Bogicevi
w	Jaseovac

In 2001 IRC will expand the municipal coverage of the CRP to five new municipalities while providing follow-up projects to selected communities from the 1999-2000 program.

3.3 Minority/Target Groups:
The program targets:

w	Minority Croatian-Serb returnees, remainees in Croatia and potential returnees still in exile in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or the Republic of Serbia entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina;
w	Bosnian-Croat settlers located in Croatia’s former sectors of conflict.

3.4 Major Actors Involved

w	Local Government
w	Local NGO
w	Public Institution
w	National NGO
w	International NGO
w	Minority self-government
w	Local leaders
w	Other, namely: Community Steering Committees

3.5 Budget allocated by local government authorities and/or by other actors
The primary donor is the US Dept. of State Bureau for Populations, Refugees and Migration (US BPRM) with support also garnered from the Dutch Government and UNHCR. The average financial allocation to a single municipality is $212,000 with four municipalities targeted in the program.

3.6 Timeframe
The CRP follows on from the IRC’s initial implementation of humanitarian activities in Croatia during the emergency response phase in 1992, when both the Croatian and Bosnian wars were displacing hundreds of thousands of people who fled to Croat-held areas of Croatia in search of sanctuary. Immediately after that period, IRC continued by adapting its role in Croatia by refocusing on the provision of basic needs to the earliest Serb returnees and/or remainees in the post-war setting. The IRC’s role supporting Serb return continued to evolve with targeted refugee return/community development strategies by which the return of Croatian-Serbs could be advanced in a systematic fashion, rather than in the spontaneous that had been the case hitherto. In 1999, the IRC initiated the CRP in cooperation with SDF with funding from the US BPRM. The CRP was designed to be a more holistic development approach by which both the needs of minority returnees and the communities they return to could be met. The program has completed its 2000 round of funding and is expected to continue in 2001.

The timeliness of the CRP’s implementation has been an important aspect of its success as local governments are increasingly turning towards the international community in hope of assistance vis-à-vis the Croatian government’s nationwide reductions of municipal budgets and reneging on funding promised to communities of war-affected areas.

3.7 Local level good practice relation to national level ethnic policy
There are multiple ethnic policies relevant to IRC’s CRP in Croatia. The government of Croatia has long nurtured two disparate minority policies, one official and the other de facto. The former is the commitment of the Croatian government to accept the return of minorities and promote a stable multi-ethnic nation as agreed to in both the Erdut and Dayton peace accords. The latter policy is unofficial but vehemently maintained with the support of high-level nationalist HDZ politicians and implemented most effectively through municipal governments strategically working at the community-level, who discourage and prevent Serb return via subterfuge and bureaucratic intransigence rather than openly opposing return and risking international condemnation. The federal government has attempted to amend its poor ethnic polities in 2000 with the establishment of a Coordinative Commission to address concerns in war-affected areas and reform to some discriminatory laws. Unfortunately these initiatives have not been effective; particularly in the restoration of occupied minority property where little or no progress has been made.

Another important policy position is that of the international community working to ensure the implementation of peace agreements and long-term regional stability through political pressure on all levels of Croatian government and the funding of programs designed to realize objectives detailed in regional peace agreements. The return of refugees is a particular priority for the international community and the one that has been most controversial with regional governments interested in cementing the results of their ethnic cleansing campaigns. However, led by the UNHCR, the US Government and OSCE, the international community has had a positive impact upon undermining the resoluteness of return opposition and improving the real ability of refugees to return.

4. Good Practice Description
The CRP program creates an environment conducive to minority return in recipient communities by addressing not only the most basic needs of returnees in terms of sustainable return but also improving the fundamental issue of inter-ethnic relations. The crux of this is creating a tangible sense of benefit for communities who accept the return of minority refugees and encouraging municipal governments to amend their positions on minority issues.

A) Opening Dialogue Between Minority and Majority Community Leadership: IRC implements the CRP in cooperation both with a local NGO (primarily the Serbian Democratic Forum - SDF) that works with the minority Croatian-Serb community and with the municipal leadership that represents the Croatian or Bosnian-Croat ethnic majority. The hope of the IRC is that funding for community revitalization projects is incentive enough to overcome the very real hostilities existing between both ethnic groups. Given the acute need for community development funding in war-affected communities the IRC has found that even municipalities with the worst minority records lend an ear to their proposals and work hard to secure the IRC’s cooperation.

The key factor for a municipality in attracting IRC’s CRP program is the community’s ability to establish inter-ethnic cooperation - both ethnic groups must work together in the best interests of the overall community instead of working for the sole interest of their own group. To achieve this, IRC initially acts as both mediator and negotiator working to create what are often termed as ‘break-throughs’ in ethnic relations, namely situations that allow for coexistence and cooperation as well as promote minority refugee return. This is often an arduous process but the CRP is particularly noteworthy for its effect on local governments by giving the IRC leverage to encourage tangible Dayton-oriented policy changes on the part of intransigent municipal governments who oppose minority return. Built into the project are two opportunities for collaborative partnership and dialogue:

Cooperative Agreement – a tripartite agreement signed by IRC, a local NGO that represents minority interests and the municipal government. The cooperative agreement defines the roles of all three participants and, more specifically, outlines the indicators for policy changes supporting refugee return which the local government agrees to implement during the course of the project. Some of the indicators a Cooperative Agreement might include are agreeing to return a certain number of minority properties by a certain date or publicly declaring a community’s willingness to accept returnees;

The Community Steering Committee (CSC) - the first step of the CRP, after the inter-ethnic cooperation has been secured and a Cooperative Agreement is signed, is establishing a Community Steering Committee. The CSC consists of four persons, one IRC representative, one SDF representative and two members of the municipal government and for the CSC to succeed individuals members must reconcile their ethnic differences to work together on their community’s development priorities in a way that is beneficial to both groups. The Steering Committee is responsible for identifying CRP projects but, more importantly, the CSC is given the task of making final decisions on project beneficiaries. Allowing the CSC the final decision on beneficiaries ensures the project will benefit both ethnic groups as well as making each side aware of the other’s actual social needs and encouraging greater inter-ethnic understanding.

b) Community Revitalization Projects (CRP): Once the CSC is working cooperatively, community revitalization projects are proposed. Proposed projects can come from any person involved in the CSC as well as from relevant outside parties such as other NGOs working in the area, the local Red Cross or other stakeholders in the community. Once a consensus has been reached and a project is selected, a tripartite agreement covering rights and responsibilities within the project is signed by the IRC, the local NGO and the municipal government.

Within a Community Revitalization project there are two interrelated tasks:

1)	The IRC’s commitment to ensure that their local NGO partner can implement the scope of services agreed to in approved projects by building the capacity of the local NGO so that the NGO may take on activities in which they were not previously proficient. The local NGO with whom IRC signed a sub-project agreement for the 1999-2000 program is the Serbian Democratic Forum (SDF) (the IRC expects to expand the number of local NGOs they work with). In this partnership the SDF reports to the IRC while playing three keys roles:
	i)	representing non-governmental minority leadership at meetings with local governments and during CSC meetings;
	ii)	working with Serbian refugee communities in Bosnia and Serbia to promote and facilitate refugee return to Croatia;
	iii)	identifying potential CRP projects and beneficiaries and acting as the means of implementation for approved projects.
	The collaboration with the SDF allows the IRC to invest in a local agency able to secure the program’s long-term sustainability, it also allows a local NGO whose activities were hitherto focused on one minority to provide services to the other ethnic group. To improve the SDF’s organizational integrity and broaden the range of programs the NGO is able to, the IRC organized several workshops for the SDF including topics on Needs Assessment, Organizational Development and Management Administration.

2)	IRC’s funding of projects within the community takes place in coordination with the CSC and is implemented by SDF. The average investment IRC will make in a community is $212,000, however how that funding is allocated between the project components depends on relative need and the nature of the projects proposed by the CSC. The basic project components involved in a CRP intervention include:
	w	Community Revitalization and Infrastructure Rehabilitation Projects – these represent large monetary investments with high visibility that benefit the overall community at the same time as providing important incentives in terms of the local government’s cooperation;
	w	In-kind Grant awards – both ethnic groups, either on an individual basis or through small local associations, receive these grants. Ninety percent of grants go towards agricultural-oriented purchases such as livestock, farm machinery and chainsaws. Repayments occur at a flat rate of 50% for individual awards and 100% for associations. These repayments are made via in-kind disbursals to the most vulnerable community members as determined by the CSC;
	w	Skills and Employment Training – organized and intended for both ethnic groups, vocational retraining programs are held in each municipality. Upon successful completion official recognition is given for skills development in-cooperation with the Federal Office for Unemployment. While the prevailing economic conditions in Croatia have meant that no more then 8% of graduates have found immediate employment, the potential for gainful employment has been improved;
	w	Humanitarian Assistance – the SDF is given the job of handling the distribution of basic non-food returnee support packages for new Serb returnees. These average $100 per packet which consists of bedding, blankets, pillows and washing detergent;
	w	Shelter Rehabilitation – over 20 new Serb returnees per municipality whose homes are in the lower categories of damage received shelter rehabilitation assistance, averaging $3,500 per home. This is to ensure that the first condition for sustainable return is met. Without this basic assistance many Serbs would return to homelessness. Larger damage categories are referred to other shelter assistance agencies.

c) Promoting Cross-Border Refugee Return: there are two interrelated movements to effect cross-border return for Croatia: the return of Croatian-Serbs to Croatia and the return Bosnian-Croats to Bosnia. The goal of the CRP is to achieve both while ensuring the sustainability of Bosnian-Serb return to Croatia and improving inter-ethnic relations in recipient communities. The difficulty is that communities in areas that have been ethnically cleansed of Croatian-Serbs are today as much the home of Bosnian-Croat refugee settlers as they are the home of the original Croatian-Serb residents. However, the occupation of Serb homes by Bosnian-Croat settlers represents a major obstacle to the legal rights of Croatian-Serb refugees to return to their prewar homes. The issue has improved marginally in 2000 after a more moderate party assumed the Croatian Presidency, This led to increases in minority returns throughout the region. Such indicators denote that past efforts and the ongoing persistence of the international community are beginning to bear fruit, even though the illegal occupation of homes remains a formidable impasse for potential Croatian-Serb returnees. Solving the problem requires the return of Bosnian-Croats to homes-of-record in Bosnia thereby simultaneously vacating Serb homes in Croatia. However there are two reasons why Bosnian-Croats have been able to effectively resist the pressure to return:

The political support this population has received from past HDZ-led governments that encouraged BC settlers to remain in Croatia by legalizing the occupation of Serb homes in areas that had been ethnically cleansed, thus blocking the potential return of Croatian-Serbs;

The policy of the international community to deny assistance for Bosnian-Croat settlers as a sanction against their occupying of Serb homes under the pretext that as Croatian citizens, settlers were no longer suitable for international humanitarian aid and were a governmental responsibility. This policy has led to a breakdown in dialogue between Bosnian-Croat settlers and representatives of the international community and thereby allowing an acute mutual distrust to develop.

The hostility against the return of Serbs goes farther than occupation of homes and includes denial of social assistance and acts of intimidation. Bosnian-Croats fear that once evicted from occupied property they must chose between:

w	return to Bosnia, where they may face anew the discrimination that originally drove them into exile, fewer employment opportunities and certain minority status;
w	resettle in another community where a house may not be available to them;
w	find a permanent solution in a third country, outside the Balkans, that is accepting asylum-seekers.

Through the CRP, the IRC has been able to overcome the profound mistrust of the international community existing in targeted municipalities, to establish good contacts with the Bosnian-Croat settler community, as well as to carry out the groundwork for the development of a working relationship based on an inclusive approach. The trust-building and improved contacts allows the IRC to directly identify individual Bosnian-Croats interested in return by bypassing or co-opting BC settler association leadership. Refugee associations often represent a staunch anti-return platform and have sabotaged pro-return initiatives from within their own refugee communities through a mix of false rumor, obstruction, intimidation and sponsorship of an intensive group psychology that undermines individual will. For the majority of Bosnian-Croats who do not wish to return IRC does work with national Croatian authorities to find alternative permanent solutions in Croatia that will also allow for the return of Croatian-Serb refugees. One such initiative has been working with the Croatian Agency for Mediation of Real Estate Transactions (APN) to create alternative accommodation through rehabilitation of APN’s housing stock. While this initiative is still in its formative stages it may be the best solution to begin mitigating ethnic tensions over highly sensitive issues.

For individuals who are interested in return, the IRC works to realize their wish with IRC’s networked regional presence (Croatia, Bosnia and FRY) that focuses on solving individual return obstructions across borders, be they are legal or shelter-related, before physical return occurs. The IRC has several mechanisms that work to achieve return:

w	Legal Services – when the major obstacle preventing return is the occupation of a former home, IRC and SDF provide legal services that facilitate the return of property through legal channels including support in the application process and courtroom representation. These services are also important to returnees when attempting to access social services or apply for legal documentation after return;
w	Go-and-See bus trips – IRC helps to organize bus trips for potential returnees that they may see again the homes they left behind and learn firsthand about conditions in the return community as well as about their individual potential to return. Refugees also take advantage of this service in order to obtain documents from municipal offices and to ‘prepare the ground’ for permanent return;
w	Information Dissemination – IRC sponsors a large media campaign tailored to promote return by providing accurate and timely information regarding the realities of return, therefore allowing potential returnees to make an informed return decision and refuting the false rumors and untruths discouraging return. This campaign includes paid-for service announcements on radio, TV and in newspapers as well as sponsored radio call-in shows and an independent refugee newspaper;
w	Liaison Services that Refer Individual Cases to Refugee Support Agencies – when the major obstacle preventing return is uninhabitable housing IRC provides a cross-border assistance program which will help put an individual into the shelter rehabilitation program of another agency, if IRC cannot address the need themselves through IRC’s own shelter programs. This program will also help identify other sectors of returnee support programming such as agricultural or income generation support and refer the potential returnees to those programs.

Okucani Municipality
The following is a profile of the IRC’s CRP implemented in Okucani, which was and still is a hard-line Bosnian-Croat settler community. According to information collected by IRC from the 1991 census, 84% of Okucani’s population was Serb (4,777 out of a total of 5,712 residents) where today the entire Serb population numbers 1,300 persons with 75% of the population being Bosnian-Croat settlers; including the current mayor who is a settler himself. While the Bosnian-Croat population as a whole displayed interest in working with the IRC and the SDF to help address the needs of their most vulnerable population, there was no support for the return of Serbs at the time. Therefore this case does not exemplify the IRC trying to establish activities under ideal conditions but in a contentious community with a high potential for failure. The Cooperative Agreement was signed with Okucani on 23 July 1999 and a CSC was simultaneously established.

A Multi-SectorApproach to Minority Integration
Below is a summary of the CRP projects implemented in the Okucani community:

w	Community Revitalization/Infrastructure Project – Public Utilities Company: municipal authorities proposed the establishment of a public utilities company that they judged to be of vital interest to the community and the CSC accepted the plan. The IRC’s investment was $60,000, which was used to purchase a garbage truck, tractor-trailer, drilling machine, grinding machine, and tools for the company’s employees. Five returnees were employed in the newly-established company.
w	Housing repairs: in Okucani the houses of 25 Croatian-Serb returnees were repaired with an average of $3,500 per home thus enabling their return;
w	In-kind Grants Allocations: 64 grants were distributed in GB with 312 other households being assisted through in-kind repayments;
w	Humanitarian Aid: 51 households received returnee support packages;
w	Skills Training: 26 individuals participated in skills-training courses that covered transport mechanization, construction, glazing, architecture and fire-fighting. Seven persons found employment.

Advancing Minority Refugee Return
As the goal of the program is the return of refugees, the true effectiveness of the program is indicated in the establishment of positive return trends and the adherence of local officials to the Cooperative Agreement.

w	During the period between 1999-2000, when IRC was active in Okucani, 220 Serbs registered as returned.
w	During IRC’s intervention 23 occupied homes were vacated. This is the highest number out of all four municipalities the IRC’s CRP targeted and is well above the five evictions stipulated in the Cooperative Agreement;
w	The number of return-related inquiries addressed by the IRC-SDF during the period was 1,117;
w	The number of legal resolutions assisted by IRC-SDF was 650
w	The number of returnees applying for social/health assistance was 57 and the number who were able to receive such assistance was 21.

While no Bosnian-Croat settlers left Okucani to return to Bosnia during this time, promoting return is a gradual process that is performed cautiously over time and the IRC’s promotion of return in Okucani does represent the first initiative presenting return as a real option to the Bosnian-Croat community there. The municipality was able to evict BC settlers who wished to remain in Okucani from occupied housing because of the APN’s purchase of housing, which was then used as alternative accommodation for the BC settler family.

Even though the CRP was effective in the Okucani community in terms of the return of minorities, the IRC has cited a high-level of obstructionism including bureaucratic impasses when returnees attempt to access legal documents or public healthcare services. Due to these concerns the IRC has stated that a continued international presence is necessary to insure ongoing compliance with the Cooperative Agreement, that the IRC intends to implement in 2001.

IRC has also noted the need to support further the development of civil society structures in targeted communities thereby improving the community’s own ability to accept greater responsibility for future revitalization and inter-ethnic cooperation. As an additional side effect of the program, IRC has become aware of the need for capacity-building among municipal authorities whose deficiencies in developing project plans and economic development strategies were manifest during cooperation on the CRP. The IRC intends to provide business training while looking into other types of potential assistance that can be provided to municipal employees.

Abbreviations used in this report:

APN	Croatian Agency for Mediation of Real Estate Transactions
BC	Bosnian Croat
CRP	Community Revitalization Project
CSC	Community Steering Committee
IRC	International Rescue Committee
OSCE	Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
SDF	Serbian Democratic Forum
UNHCR	United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
US BPRM	US Dept. of State Bureau for Populations, Refugees and Migration