2.1 More than 140,000 refugees and displaced persons returned in 1998, of which some 100,000 were refugees from abroad (mainly from Germany). Only about 35,000 of them were minority returns, a figure only slightly higher than that achieved last year. The rest simply added to the mass of internally displaced persons in need of durable solutions.

2.2 This leaves over 375,000 refugees abroad who still lack durable solutions, about half of them in Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. More than 860,000 Bosnians remain internally displaced, most of whom would be in the minority if they chose to return to their homes of origin now. According to RRTF estimates, at least 120,000 of these people would be prepared to return at once if conditions were created that would allow them to feel safe and build a future for themselves and future generations. If this quantum leap were made, further returns - possibly in the hundreds of thousands - can be expected over the next 1-3 years. Without the initial push , however, a self-sustaining flow of returns is inconceivable.

2.3 Despite the promises enshrined in Dayton, conditions for minority return do not exist in most parts of the country. The primary reason is an appalling lack of political will on the part of the authorities at all levels. This lack of political will manifests itself in a number of ways, from obstructionism in the passage and implementation of new property laws, to a failure to provide security for returnees and properly investigate crimes against minorities, to clear discrimination in the judicial and public administrative systems. Lack of and unequal access to employment, scarcity of resources and politicization in education policy further undermine minority return. Returns to Croatia remain hampered by continued constraints. Key obstacles outlined in the UNHCR Regional Strategy include the use of media to incite opposition to return or intimidate the displaced not to return; denial of access to public services and fundamental human rights; and the deliberate relocation of returnees or the internally displaced in order to consolidate control and further ethnically-motivated political objectives.

2.4 Experience shows that political interventions and effective use of economic leverage in select target areas can achieve results and create opportunities for minority return. Persistent interventions to address human rights violations and remove administrative and legal obstacles to return are vital as well. The RRTF Action Plan endorsed by the April 1998 Donors Conference outlined these and other key pillars to successful implementation of Annex 7, and they have formed the basis for the RRTF's work in 1998.

2.5 Building on past experience and carrying on as before will doubtless continue to produce incremental progress in minority return. But there is no reason to expect this approach to produce any more returns next year than it has to date. Indeed, there is every reason to expect that there will be even less political will on the part of the local authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to support return in 1999 than was the case in 1998. The 1998 general elections confirmed that the majority of voters in this country still vote along ethnic lines. We are not yet at a stage where even the most moderate municipal leaders can support minority return without being concerned about negative feelings of their constituents. Municipal elections will take place in 1999. The result of these elections will have a major impact on the return process.

2.6 The High Representative gave his perspective on the state of peace implementation to the Steering Board and the North Atlantic Council in September and October. He set out his objectives for Annex 7 implementation as follows:

• A significant mass of sustainable minority returns to their pre-war homes achieved in a phased, orderly, and peaceful manner

• A self-sustaining minority return process and significant regional return movements

• The creation of security, economic, social, and legal conditions conducive to voluntary return and harmonious reintegration

• Full and effective exercise of property rights of all pre-war residents

• Managed integration of displaced persons and refugees who choose to relocate based on a free and informed choice, in order to avoid violation of the property rights and right to return of others

2.7 He offered the international community a stark choice as to how to achieve these objectives: the international community can either continue to as before with comparable, modest results; or it can launch an all out effort and focus all political leverage, economic resources, and security assets in 1999 - while still at their peak - to generate a decisive break-through in minority return that will form the basis for future self-sustaining movements. This choice exists only for 1999: people will not put their lives on hold forever in the hope of return and 3 years have already passed since the Peace Agreement was signed. For each year that passes, fewer people will opt for return and segregationist forces will gain in strength.

2.8 Ultimately the decision on how to proceed with minority return in 1999 is about achieving stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina , and about making a decisive effort to put in place enabling conditions for return that can sustain future spontaneous movements. In a very immediate human sense, it also about supporting the urgent wish to return of people who are prepared to take personal risks to go home in defiance of nationalist myths.

2.9 This plan offers the 100% commitment scenario - setting out the policy considerations and operational requirements for achieving a breakthrough in 1999.

3.1 The realisation of a break-through in minority returns in 1998 depends critically on three factors, all political by nature:

• Space ( generating space for people to return to )

• Security ( for individual returnees ) and

• Sustainability ( making it possible for returnees to build a future in their home areas ).

3.2 Neither can be dealt with in isolation, nor in a partial manner. The integrated approach set out in the RRTF Action Plan from 1998 remains valid.

• The Space Problem

3.3 Most habitable accommodation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is presently occupied (legally or illegally). Achieving substantial returns will therefore depend on generating vacant housing space - the fast track solution - and resolving property disputes related to occupied apartments and houses. This latter process will be time consuming and painful, as it involves contested rather than vacant space and forces people to move, sometimes into inferior accommodation.

Generating Vacant Space

3.4 Vacant housing stock can be generated in six ways, all of which will be pursued simultaneously:

Returns to Contested Space

3.6 While investing in expanding the housing stock space is the fastest "track" to return, full implementation of Annex 7 requires attention also to the problem of contested space.

3.7 The following reforms in the legal and administrative framework concerning property are required to facilitate returns to contested space:

The Security Question

3.8 Individual security remains a key factor in displaced persons' decisions on whether to return to areas where they would be in the minority.

3.9 Overall responsibility for the personal security of individual citizens rests with civilian law enforcement agencies. While there has been some progress toward developing a local police force in BiH which is sensitive to the needs of returnees, many political and financial obstacles remain, particularly in the RS where police restructuring and reform has barely begun. A common problem throughout BiH is the lack of minority police officers, which DPs and refugees report is an essential element in their decision to return to a secure environment. The public security gap between the "area" security provided by SFOR and the individual security needs of returnees, will therefore have to be bridged by other means if a break-through in minority returns are to be achieved in 1999.

3.10 The RRTF's strategy for bridging the security gap involves a two-track approach of (a) supporting UNMIBH and other agencies in their efforts to develop a multi-ethnic and professional police force, and (b) working with SFOR to provide a minimum security framework for individual return movements that can compensate for the short-comings of local institutions, while UNMIBH works with the local police to build their capacity to provide return-related security and to recruit minority police officers. In practice, this means:

The Sustainability Challenge

3.11 Apart from space and security, the most common pre-requisites cited by displaced persons and refugees for their return to places of origin sustainability concerns related to employment, education, health, social services, and impartial local government structures.

3.12 As outlined in the RRTF 1998 Action Plan, intervention and investment in each of these sectors should focus on improving the provision of services for receiving communities, as well as minority residents and returnees. Due consideration will be given to gender issues and to protection and promotion of the rights of children in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. There should be a focus on access and integration of minorities in these sectors. In 1998, the linkage between RRTF axes of returns and the provision of these service was poorly developed. Success in 1999 will depend on strengthening this link, mobilising more active involvement of development actors including the World Bank and the UNDP, and improving co-ordination

NORTH WEST / POSAVINA

4.2 The North West RRTF region covers the western part of the RS, the Una Sana Canton (Canton 1), the Northern parts of Canton 10 comprising Drvar, Glamoc and Grahovo and the Posavina municipalities of Derventa, Brod, Odzak, Vukosavlje, Modrica and Samac. As much of the displacement took place within the NW itself - for example Prijedor-Sanski Most, Prnjavor/Derventa-Petrovac/Grahovo - priority axes for minority return are largely contained within the AOR of the NW RRTF. In addition an estimated 80,000 refugees from Croatia live in Western RS. These people came mainly as a result of Croatian military operations in May and August 1995. As a result of this movement an additional number of non-Serbs became displaced.

4.3 Despite a disappointing lack of genuine commitment on the part of the Republika Srpska government to support return during 1998, progress has taken place in a number of areas in the Anvil (some 1,000), in Gradiska (approximately 500) and in Kotor Varos (more than 100 heads of household have started to repair their houses in Siprage and intend to bring their families in spring). The EC DG1A 1998 programme provided an essential framework for initial reconstruction activities in the NW area to support minority return. The attacks on minority returnees and the international community in Drvar in April were a serious setback to the return process there; returns are slowly starting again, however, mainly to outlying villages.

4.4 The Banja Luka Conference, in April 1998, brought together many of the key political figures (both national and international) to promote minority return in the North West of BiH and in Croatia, and brought the issue of Croatian Serbs back onto a wider international political agenda. Cooperation between the RRTF and the Return Facilitation Group in Croatia is expected to accelerate cross-border returns significantly in 1999.

4.5 The aim for 1999 will be to accelerate returns in areas where groundwork has been started in 1997 and 1998. In addition increased effort will be invested in the Posavina region as that area has a potential for minority return but has suffered from a lack of international attention. The Anvil municipalities (Sipovo, Mrkonjic Grad) will, due to improvements in the political situation there allowing for self-sustaining return, need the attention of more development oriented agencies such as UNDP and the World Bank. Cross border return to and from Croatia and FRY will be a particular challenge. The below priority axes may be revised during the course of the return season to reflect changes in dynamics on the ground.

4.6 Priority axes: In 1999, the NW RRTF will concentrate on the key axes outlined below. These axes have been prioritised on the basis of:

• Return potential: supporting a substantial number of DPs/refugees wishing to return.

• Political significance: opening up areas of strategic importance for minority return, particularly Republika Srpska.

• Space: focusing on returns from/within urban areas to reduce overcrowding and to facilitate minority returns into currently occupied private and socially owned housing. i.e. Banja Luka, Sanski Most, Derventa and Gradacac.

4.7 RRTF Operational Support:

4.7.1. For the OHR/RRTF structure: The current NW Regional RRTF network includes a number of local RRTF structures (LRRTFs) that have been created as a result of the identification of the axes (these main LRRTFs are listed below but ad hoc coordination forums also exist for Bihac and Kotor Varos). The LRRTFs are to a large extent managed by UNHCR and OHR together, in the case of OHR-RRTF from the regional office in Banja Luka with the assistance of two "satellite offices" in Prijedor and Derventa.

• LRRTF Grahovo / Glamoc / Drvar

• LRRTF Prijedor / Sanski Most / Novi

• LRRTF Greater Banja Luka

• LRRTF Posavina

• LRRTF Kljuc / Ribnik

• LRRTF Petrovac

• LRRTF Krupa

The additional resources required for OHR-RRTF to support these projected minority returns in 1999 through the RRTF structure include an OHR representation in Una-Sana Canton (Bihac) to provide political support (this would be an OHR resource not specific to RRTF), an RRTF officer devoted to the Petrovac / Prnjavor / Derventa axis and RRTF-staff resources in Drvar to support the Drvar / Glamoc / Grahovo axis. As with the other regions, staff resources will need to be dedicated to public information initiatives to promote minority return.

4.7.2. From other RRTF agencies: UNHCR, SFOR, IPTF, OSCE Human Rights and Democratisation, and IMG must have one officer dedicated to each axis, at least on a part time basis. ARFGs in Croatia will dedicate staff to each cross-border axis.

4.8 The Southern RRTF region covers Federation Cantons 7 and 8, along with the southern half of Canton 10, and 6 municipalities in Eastern Herzegovina (Republika Srpska). Canton 8 is and was a Bosnian Croat majority canton. Canton 7 is mixed but with displaced Bosniaks having moved into Bosniak municipalities such as Jablanica and Konjic and into the east Mostar municipalities; Bosnian Serbs have generally moved into the Republika Srpska and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In the Eastern Herzegovina (Republika Srpska) municipalities Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks have been displaced either as refugees or are in Cantons 7 and 8. In 1998, the return process accelerated beyond all expectations and overtook the provision of resources, resulting in a 1998 funding gap of approximately 40 million DEM for housing and infrastructure (electricity and water) for returns that have already taken place into the region. Many returnees are likely to spend the winter in sparse conditions, returning to their "DP residence" now the weather has closed in.

4.9 The vast majority of returns in 1998 were high profile group returns of Bosniaks into unoccupied damaged housing in Bosnian Croat majority areas. A few individual Bosnian Croat returns to Konjic have taken place. Returns into Eastern Republika Srpska have been negligible, although in recent months assessment visits to the Republika Srpska by both Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats have increased. Return of Bosnian Serbs to Mostar has been modest in number, but is a very positive development and an indication that the RS leadership does not have a total hold over their people.

4.10 However, the lack of administrative integration and the continuing existence of parallel structures (Bosnian Croat and Bosniak) not only serve to hinder returns, but also ensure that returns remain only 'partial' - returnees for the present are inclined to keep a presence in their municipality of displacement, thereby failing to free up housing for return by the pre-war occupant. Administrative integration of these minority returnees into receiving municipalities, and the long-term sustainability of the returns are crucial. Both require political will on the part of receiving authorities and material support by the IC. The provision of ID cards, access to utilities, re-activation of self-sufficiency agriculture, and access to education, health facilities and employment, all require urgent attention.

4.11 In 1999, Bosniaks are expected to return at an even faster pace than in 1998, with a political aim of moving onto returns into currently occupied private and socially owned housing. They will most likely attempt to do this irrespective of the status and implementation of the property laws, concentrating to some extent on "politically" sensitive areas. Security problems must be expected. The first group of returns to Eastern Herzegovina by Bosniaks is already planned for early 1999. The Bosniak authorities are expected to place greater emphasis on the need for administrative re-integration and long-term sustainability for their returnees. Likewise they will expect that the international community deals in a firm manner with non-compliance by Bosnian Croat authorities in the implementation of laws and directives by the High Representative.

4.12 Bosnian Serb returns, like those of Bosniaks in 1999, are likely to proceed even without prior reassurances of reconstruction assistance for returns into unoccupied damaged housing. In addition to covering the existing shortfall from 1998, it is critical that donors support all projected return movements in a timely manner, to prevent increased instability in the region, and any reversal in the returns process.

4.13 Bosnian Croats are expected to continue to construct settlements in the Neretva valley as incentives to relocation versus return. Meanwhile, Bosniak authorities in Mostar are beginning to place priority on the vacation of Bosnian Croat houses to put the HDZ under direct pressure. The line of the Bosnian Croat political leadership, who continue to intimidate those who express a wish to return, is one of obstruction and raising of preconditions. Reciprocity of return is a common pre-condition, along with the building of Bosnian Croat settlements so as not to reverse the post-war political balance in key municipalities.

4.14 Priority Axes: In 1999, the Southern Region RRTF will concentrate on the key axes outlined below. These axes have been prioritised on the basis of:

• Return potential

  • supporting a substantial number of DPs/refugees wishing to return.

  • supporting potential for two-way returns on certain axes that linking in Central Bosnia Canton, and sustaining in 1999 the high-profile attention they have already received.

  • maintaining and consolidating the momentum of returns created in 1998.

  • opening up axes into Republika Srpska, particularly in view of the fact that Bosnian Serbs have and continue to return to the Federation.

• Political significance

  • achieving a breakthrough in Bosnian Croat returns in the Mostar area, in the context of the current HDZ policy on returns.

  • supporting the Bosniak drive to maintain and push new returns, particularly into Bosnian Croat-majority areas, which will provide additional impetus for the break-up of parallel administrative structures in the Federation.

• Space: focusing on returns from/within urban areas to reduce overcrowding and to facilitate minority returns into currently occupied private and socially owned housing e.g Mostar, Stolac and Capljina.

4.15 RRTF Operational support

4.15.1 For the OHR/RRTF structure: The current Southern RRTF network consists of three LRRTF structures managed from the OHR Regional Office in Mostar:

• LRRTF Mostar/Stolac/Capljina

• LRRTF Konjic/Jablanica/Prozor-Rama

• LRRTF Eastern Hercegovina.

Each LRRTF deals with more than one axis, and focuses on the receiving ends.

For OHR-RRTF to support the minority returns projected for 1999 resources are required for more effective coverage of Canton 8 and the southern part of Canton 10, as well as refugee return to the AOR. As with other regions, an increased emphasis on public information initiatives requires dedicated resources.

4.15.2. From other RRTF agencies: Closer co-operation between the Regional RRTF and Mostar-based staff of donors organisations is needed to improve information sharing on unanticipated returns and resulting funding gaps. The Southern Region is unusual in the extent to which spontaneous returns have taken place in 1998 completely outstripping the ability of the international community to keep pace. The Regional RRTF, within UNHCR, will engage SFOR in identification of requirements for mobilisation of SFOR/MSU resources to support sensitive group return movements, as these will increase significantly in 1999. OSCE Democratisation activities need to be more closely co-ordinated with the LRRTF structure. The sensitivity of public discussions on return issues have been made very apparent in 1998, and must be handled with due caution.

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA CENTRAL

4.16 The Bosnia and Herzegovina Central Regional RRTF covers Zenica-Doboj and Central Bosnia Cantons (Cantons 4 and 6 respectively). General features of the displacement in the region are:

• The flight of Bosnian Croats to Bosnian Croat pockets within the region, and to south-west BiH (Cantons 7, 8 and 10) and the Croatian coast, specifically in the area of Makarska;

• Bosniaks displaced from Bosnian Croat pockets in the region and beyond;

• Bosniaks from Western RS and Bosnian Croat dominated areas e.g. Kotor Varos, Jajce, Prozor, becoming DP's in the region; and

• The flight of Bosnian Serbs to RS and FRY.

4.17 Cantonal Return plans were adopted in 1998 in the Zenica-Doboj and Central Bosnia Assemblies, after sustained negotiation efforts on the part of the international community. These Cantonal plans provided a clear political signal enabling the RRTF to override municipal requirements for reciprocal return. Reconstruction efforts, notably the EC DG1A 1998 programme, were concentrated in areas mentioned in the Cantonal plans where returns could start immediately (e.g. Jajce, Bugojno, Travnik). "Spontaneous" returns outside these areas took place during the year, most of them smoothly and supported by targeted reconstruction (e.g. Busovaca, Novi Travnik). Other return movements proved more problematic, notably returns to Gacice and Bukovica in the Vitez area, a stark reminder that the area remains politically volatile.

4.18 In 1999, support for Cantonal authorities must continue and lend new impetus to the Return Plans. Bosnian Serb returns must formally be included in the Central Bosnia Cantonal Return Plan. Cantonal authorities must also be prevailed upon to give unequivocal support to spontaneous returns. Implementation of property legislation will be vital including the full implementation of reconstruction projects, using lawful evictions as a tool to reinstate beneficiaries. Impediments of a political nature (i.e. split municipalities) must be resolved in 1999.

4.20 A second objective is to create breakthroughs in Bosnian Serb minority returns, for which there is a large potential. Possibilities are opening up for Bosnian Serb returns from the FRY, for example to Bugojno, Donji Vakuf, Jajce and Olovo.

4.21 A third objective will be to enhance preparedness to support spontaneous returns politically and materially, hitherto mainly Bosniak returns.

4.22 Priority Axes: In 1999, BHC Region RRTF will concentrate on the key axes outlined below. A manageable number of axis have been prioritised on the basis of:

• Return potential:

• supporting a substantial number of DPs/refugees wishing to return

• supporting areas where reconstruction assistance alone will boost minority returns significantly, e.g. rural returns to damaged housing.

• Political significance: seeking breakthroughs where they will result in maximal ripple effects, facilitating further minority return.

4.23 RRTF Operational Support required

4.23.1 For OHR/RRTF: RRTF BHC will retain its current organisational set-up in 1999 with these local RRTFs (LRRTFs) managed from OHR Sarajevo through the Travnik satellite office:

• LRRTF Vrbas Valley

• LRRTF Travnik/Vitez

• LRRTF Kakanj/Vares

• Cross Border LRRTF

The additional resources required by OHR-RRTF to support these projected minority returns in 1999 through the RRTF structure are an additional LRRTF officer/resources to work on axes related to Zenica-Doboj Canton (ZDC). A field office may be added in Zenica or another suitable location in ZDC.

4.23.2. From other RRTF agencies: Co-operation with UN IPTF and SFOR will continue in the following areas: provision of a security environment for contentious returns; information gathering; phasing out cantonment sites which undermine return; and implementing return-related reconstruction. OSCE political support is essential at the municipal level, as is operational support for the return of elected officials in places such as Kakanj, Vares, Jajce, Kiseljak, Zepce. UNMIBH will be relied upon to provide operational support on the return of minority police within the Regional RRTF framework. ECMM will undertake specific information-gathering activities on behalf of the Regional RRTF. Direct contacts between the Regional RRTF and the field staff of RRTF donor members is vital to improve operational effectiveness.

SARAJEVO

4.24 The Sarajevo Regional RRTF covers Sarajevo and Gorazde Cantons, as well as the territory of Republika Srpska to their east. This area presents two different but intimately related return challenges: first, the need to encourage and accommodate Bosnian Serb minority returns from the Eastern and North-eastern Republika Srpska back to the Sarajevo and Gorazde Cantons; second, to facilitate the return of the largely Bosniak displaced population in Sarajevo and Gorazde to their homes of origin in Eastern Republika Srpska. The RRTF assisted with the first small minority group return to Eastern Republika Srpska, which took place on 19 October, but the area has until now been almost completely closed to return.

4.25 "Unblocking" Eastern Republika Srpska for return is essential to create the Dayton-envisioned unity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The objectives there for 1999 will be to identify and support breakthroughs in minority returns and to facilitate two-way return as well as return from third countries. Discussions have already started with local leaders in Eastern Republika Srpska municipalities, bringing political players from both sides of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line (IEBL) to the table, to address return and related reconstruction. But the progress made remains fragile.

4.26 The discrepancy between international presence in and aid to Eastern Republika Srpska and the Federation is still enormous. But the recent interest shown by some hard-line authorities in addressing the economic decline of areas under their control affords the international community important leverage. Close donor coordination will be essential to apply such leverage through both positive and negative conditionality.

4.27 For Sarajevo, the Sarajevo Declaration of 3 February set a target of 20,000 minority returns for 1998. It is unlikely that even half that number will have returned as the year draws to a close. The numbers envisioned both in the Sarajevo Declaration and in the priority axes remain a top priority for 1999. Success will depend on substantive improvement in the implementation of Federation property legislation, in the management of property and the elimination of property abuses in the Sarajevo Canton. It will also be conditional on the correct implementation of the property legislation in the RS and on achieving returns to the Eastern Republika Srpska. The unsatisfactory implementation of the property legislation in the Federation is at the moment not only blocking but discouraging a large number of returns of DPs, refugees, and those internally displaced. The recently passed property legislation in the RS should increase the potential for minority return and may force local authorities, as their housing stock comes under greater pressure, to consider supporting return for the first time. However, a consistent and cohesive policy on political interventions both in Sarajevo and Eastern Republika Srpska will be vital to achieve such openings and to support on-going returns.

4.28 Under other Sarajevo Declaration benchmarks, related to the re-integration of minority returnees, much progress still needs to be made with regard to employment policy and opportunities, education, policing and demining.

4.29 Priority Axes: In 1999, the Sarajevo Regional RRTF will concentrate on the key axes outlined below. These axes have been prioritised on the basis of:

• Return potential:

  • supporting a substantial number of DPs/refugees wishing to return.

  • supporting potential for two-way return along the largest axis: Federation => Eastern Republika Srpska.

• Political significance:

  • achieving breakthroughs in eastern Republika Srpska.*

  • maintaining and strengthening the inter entity relations established upon the initiative of the international community.

4.30. RRTF Operational support requirements

BRCKO

4.31 The position of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line (IEBL) in the Brcko area is to be decided by arbitration as outlined by Annex 5 of the Dayton Peace Accords. In February 1997, the Arbitral Tribunal placed the Brcko area under international supervision, to reduce tensions and secure progress in peace implementation, pending a final decision. The arbitral award, to be announced in the first quarter of 1999, will have a major impact on any planning for the Supervisory Area, as it is expected to determine the political control of the area, which will affect the status and security of the displaced population inside and outside Brcko town.

4.32 The pre-war population of the town of Brcko, currently in the Republika Srpska, was approximately 40,000 in 1991, of whom 64% were Bosniak or Bosnian Croat. The majority of those Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats were displaced at the start of the war, from the town to the other side of the Inter-Entity Boundary Line (IEBL) and are still living in either in the Federation part of the pre-war Brcko municipality or in the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton. Their pre-war homes are now occupied by some 25 000 Bosnian Serb DPs, who come from all over the Federation but most notably arrived in the summer of 1995 when Jajce fell to the Croatian offensive and then in early 1996 when several thousand Bosnian Serbs came from the Sarajevo suburbs following the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords.

4.33 The majority of those displaced from the area currently in the Republika Srpska wish to return, but the Serb DP population remain publicly against return to the Federation and are privately often hesitant if interested. The supervisory framework in Brcko provided for an accelerated and focused implementation of the peace agreement, and as at November 1998, some 5000 Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats had returned to their homes of origin in the area. Almost all of these returns have been to unoccupied properties which have, in the main, been destroyed or uninhabitable. More than 1,000 homes and infrastructure surrounding them have been rebuilt with international assistance.

4.34 Returns into Brcko town have been minimal, mainly family reunifications, due to the number of DPs living there. Under the international supervision, no evictions are being carried out of DPs legally occupying property that has been declared abandoned, and without available alternative accommodation minority returns to property currently occupied by DPs will only result from a change in policy, improved management of housing stock, the provision of alternative housing, or an increase in the number of Bosnian Serb DPs leaving. The reinstatement of internally displaced minorities remains a priority. Ensuring the long term stability of Brcko's newly created multi-ethnic administration, police and judiciary, designed to make these returns and a multi-ethnic civic society sustainable in Brcko, remains a key challenge.

4.35 As the outcome of the arbitration remains unknown, this plan will assume for now the maintenance of some degree of status quo, so that the broad 1999 situation will be: a) continuation of Bosniak returns at the same rate; b) continuation of Bosnian Serb returns at an increased rate (but remaining relatively small); and c) an increased rate of Bosnian Croat returns as a result of investment in pre-war majority Bosnian Croat areas. The arbitral award will impact on all of these although a special district decision is likely to have a greater effect on b. and c. above.

4.36 Priority Axes: In 1999, the RRTF structures in Brcko will concentrate on the axes outlined below, pending a final arbitration decision. These axes have been prioritised on the basis of:

• Return potential: supporting a substantial number of DPs/refugees wishing to return, in this case predominantly the majority of the pre-war Bosniak population and part of the pre-war Bosnian Croat population who are seeking to return

• Political significance:

  • achieving significant minority return into Brcko RS (which the Interim and Supplemental arbitral awards tasked the Brcko Supervisor to facilitate).

  • promoting the politically significant return of Bosnian Serbs to Sarajevo and other parts of the Federation (emphasised in the Supplemental Award of 15 March 1998).

• Space: focusing on returns from/within urban areas to reduce overcrowding and to facilitate minority returns into currently occupied private and socially owned housing i.e. Brcko town.

4.37 RRTF Operational Support required

TUZLA REGION

4.38 The Tuzla Region covers the Tuzla-Podrinje Canton, the north-eastern part of Republika Srpska (from Bijeljina to Srebrenica) and the Doboj "Hub" comprising Doboj, Gracanica, Tesanj, and Teslic. As in the North West RRTF region, the majority of displacement has been within the region: Bosniaks were displaced from the north-eastern Republika Srpska to the Tuzla area, just across the confrontation line which is now the IEBL. While many of the displaced Bosnian Serbs in the northern and eastern reaches of Republika Srpska originate from inside this region (for example there are some 10,000 Bosnian Serb DPs in Bijeljina from Tuzla and Lukavac) there was also a major influx from the Sarajevo region in early 1996 following the hand-over of the Sarajevo suburbs after the signing of the peace agreement.

4.39 Tuzla-Podrinje Canton (TPK) is currently home to more than 140,000 DPs, including 20,000 repatriated refugees, mostly from Germany. The TPK in general and Tuzla in particular house by far the largest number of repatriates from Germany, most of whom are as yet unable to return to their homes of origin in the Republika Srpska and are thus relocatees. Small numbers of Bosnian Serbs have returned to the Open City of Tuzla, but the absorption capacity of the city remains very low due to the large DP and relocatee population, and implementation of the amended Federation property laws remains lax. The 1998 elections in the TPK have again produced a KCD government, albeit with a smaller majority in the Cantonal Assembly.

4.40 The numbers of minority returns to the Tuzla Region to date are small: According to UNHCR Tuzla, for the 20 months between December 1996 to August 1998, 4,900 persons returned to the Federation; 1,133 to the RS; and 1,380 to the ZoS.

4.41 Prospects for returns to the area of Republika Srpska contiguous with TPK remain modest. However, the municipalities of Ugljevik, Zvornik, Doboj (RS), and Osmaci have shown receptivity to minority returns and the current level of cooperation with local authorities is expected to continue in 1999. Prospects for returns to Bratunac are less encouraging; Srebrenica remains the most problematic area of all, a situation that must be tackled in 1999. Discussions to promote returns on a Kladanj-Vlasenica axis have started. Although Sehovici (near Kladanj) had only 2-3% Bosniak population before the war, the Mayor professes to be open to returns. The large number of collective centres remaining in these areas are not only retained as an argument by the Republika Srpska administration as to why minority return cannot yet be their priority but is also indicative of the poverty of living conditions in these areas.

4.42 Minority return to urban centres such as Bijeljina and Doboj will be challenging as well, not just politically but also because the numbers of DPs occupying urban housing space. Genuine over-crowding is often difficult to separate out from abuses in the allocation of housing. The reinstatement of internally displaced minorities ('floaters") in these towns should remain a priority in 1999.

4.43 Returns to the ZoS around Tuzla in all directions will continue in 1999 - with many of the same problems as before: there is a great need for demining and intensive reconstruction; and considerable potential for tension.

4.44 Priority Axes: In 1999, the Tuzla Regional RRTF will concentrate on the axes outlined below but with the expectation that these may develop and change and the RRTF priorities will be tailored accordingly. These axes have been prioritised on the basis of:

• Return potential:

• supporting a substantial number of DPs/refugees wishing to return, along existing axes and those with known potential ^* supporting areas where reconstruction assistance alone will boost minority returns significantly, e.g. rural returns to damaged housing.*

• Political significance: seeking breakthroughs in currently politically intransigent RS municipalities ^*

• Space: focusing on returns from/within urban areas to reduce overcrowding and to facilitate minority returns into currently occupied private and socially owned housing e.g. Doboj, Bijeljina, Tuzla

4.45 RRTF Operational Support

• Doboj LRRTF: Doboj, Teslic, Tesanj, Gracanica.

• Eastern RS LRRTF: Zvornik (of which Klisa is part), Bratunac, Vlasenica and Srebrenica.

• Northern LRRTF: Bijeljina, Lopare and Celic.

Commitments

5.1 The plan requires more effective coordination between the International Community in BiH than has been the case hitherto. It does not require that anyone surrender their mandate, but it does mean that Agencies should work more closely within their areas of competence, share information more freely, and accept - where appropriate - the direction of the OHR. All individual agencies will also be required to produce supporting plans by the end of Phase 1. The commitment to do this will have to be made at the top level and confirmed by the Madrid PIC.

Financial

5.2 Financial resource needs fall into four categories as follows:

6. Delivery Mechanism

Plan delivery is dependent on a large number of different actors. In addition to the efforts of all levels of government within BiH, it requires an intensified and more focused effort on the part of the International Community. OHR will, in accordance with Annex 10 and the deeply political nature of the return challenge, be the main driver of this Plan.

• International protection of returning BiH refugees and displaced and arranging repatriation movements as required

• International protection and assistance for refugees and asylum-seekers in the country

• Assisting in the drafting of laws and legislation which promote and facilitate return and building implementation capacity of responsible authorities

• Monitoring and reporting on return to, within and from BiH

• Negotiating with authorities on behalf of refugee and displaced individuals and families who wish to exercise their right of return to their original homes.

OHR-RRTF

Under the guidance of the High Representative, the OHR-RRTF structure will bear the primary responsibility for plan delivery. The current structure involving a DHR-RRTF's Office in Sarajevo, supported by a Central Secretariat and Regional structure, will be maintained and expanded. A more rigorous distinction will be made between the functioning of the RRTF at all levels as a "consensual club" and the OHR-RRTF which will become the prime force for improved coordination and field management as well as plan delivery. Under the current structure, RRTF staff frequently perform more than one function and the RRTF structure relies on the expertise and inputs of other members as well as other parts of OHR. This synergy will be maintained and clarified. Revised management arrangements, and delegations of authority, within OHR are required.

Total OHR/RRTF staff numbers are expected to increase from 20 to 45.

The key level for plan coordination and implementation will be the Regional level. Fully functioning RRTF structures already exist in Banja Luka and Mostar. The Tuzla office will be upgraded to the same status. At present the RRTF structure includes Field Offices in Derventa, Drvar, Prijedor and Travnik. It is intended that these be maintained and that further offices be opened. The locations of these offices will be determined during Phase 1 of the plan, but it is intended that several of them should be located in Eastern RS to facilitate the return of people whose homes of origin are in Eastern RS but who have temporarily relocated in the Federation following their return from Western Europe. These Field Offices will be directly managed from the Sarajevo Office until the end of Phase 2 when responsibility will be transferred to the regional Office(s). Given their political significance Sarajevo and Brcko will continue to be managed separately. All Field Offices will be described as OHR-RRTF Offices and will be completely accountable to the OHR. Where appropriate they will, however, draw on the existing resources of other relevant organisations.

Improved information exchange is vital. Weekly summary reports will be prepared and circulated to all RRTF members as well as relevant donors. A system is being developed to enable the key operational agencies to share information on a real-time basis.

Regional Structures

The existing relationship between the RRTF in BiH and the UNHCR/OSCE lead Return Facilitation Group in Croatia will be maintained. In addition to this, the ad hoc regional meetings involving UNHCR, OSCE and OHR considering all regional issues will be formalised and take place monthly with a rotating chair/location.

The Humanitarian Issues Working Group remains a key forum for engaging the parties in implementation of the UNHCR's regional strategy endorsed by the Luxembourg PIC in June 1998.

Special Envoys/Article 74

In accordance with Article 74 of Luxembourg the High Representative has the option of appointing Special Envoys to particular locations. These may, but will not necessarily coincide with existing OHR Field Offices. Where they do coincide the Special Envoy will automatically be the Head of such an office and operate through the existing chain of command while maintaining his/her direct relationship with the High Representative. The High Representative will recommend locations for Special Envoys based on the article 74 reporting mechanism. It will be open to him to choose locations with particular return potential as well as those with specific problems.

SFOR

SFOR has a crucial role to play in plan delivery both because of the security implications and their ability to move rapidly with small scale infrastructure delivery. In addition to the existing coordination mechanisms such as the Inter Agency Planning Group a joint "Plan Delivery Cell" will be established in Sarajevo to ensure improved information exchange and strategic plan development. This cell will also be responsible for designing and supervising the linkages between SFOR and the RRTF at both the regional and local levels. During Phase 1 of the plan the small scale project implementation capacity which already exists in a number of the MNDs will be extended and expanded.

Conditionality Group

The effective exercise of conditionality is a crucial part of the plan. The Field Offices and local RRTFs will be responsible for advising on municipal level linkages, while the High Representative maintains his responsibility for economic conditionality in conjunction with the Economic Task Force. During Phase 1 of the plan linkages will be established by the RRTF Secretariat and the ETF Secretariat, and Sector Task Forces to ensure that the High Representative's policies are applied consistently and that the long term development actors are fully engaged in ensuring the sustainability of returns

PHASE 1 - 17 December 1998 to 31 January 1999

PHASE 2 - 1 February 1999 to 31 August 1999

PHASE 3 - 1 September 1999 to 31 October 1999

PHASE 4 - 1 November 1999 to 30 November 1999

The RRTF will formulate, during Phases 1 and 2, an overall information strategy in support of the RRTF plan for minority return. As outlined in the RRTF Action Plan of March 1998, assistance will be aimed to ensure that refugees and DPs can make free and informed choices about their place of residence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the focus will be on those populations and areas which require the greatest assistance for such a free choice to become a reality. Accordingly the RRTF strategy will:

1. provide support specific to the priority return axes set out by the regional RRTFs;

2. target information to potential cross-border minority returnees, in cooperation with the RFG in Croatia, UNHCR in FRY and others. This will focus primarily on Croatian Serbs in Western RS but also address Bosnian Croats in Croatia and Bosnian Serbs in FRY;

3. outline an in and out of country information campaign on property legislation, to inform DPs and refugees about new and amended property legislation, and mechanisms for claiming and returning to that property in both entities.

1. This requires coordination and direction of return related information initiatives and press statements via RRTF structures:

• locally: one point of contact will be identified by each LRRTF to liaise with the regional coordination group. Information gaps should be identified at local level by the LRRTF working closely with DPs, refugees and their associations.

• regional: where this does not already exist, a coordination group will be set up at regional level with designated UNHCR, SFOR, OSCE and UNMIBH representatives. Again, RRTF-OHR will be the lead and designated staff resources will work with the regional coordinating group, its regional counterparts, and RRTF centrally, to design a strategy, allocate resources, task regional and local RRTFs and subcontract production in order to implement that strategy.

• centrally: a small steering group will be set up (UNHCR, SFOR, OSCE, USAID, UNMIBH and IOM) led by the OHR-RRTF Information Officer.

• cross-border: appropriate planning/coordination groups will be set up with the RFG in Croatia, and with UNHCR and relevant agencies in the FRY.

1. This also requires an evaluation of how to maximise the financial and staff resources available to RRTF members for the production and dissemination of information, and to ensure coverage and the elimination of overlap in RRTF efforts. In light of the lack of will of the authorities or broadcasters in either entity to take their responsibilities towards public information seriously without sustained political pressure, an effective RRTF information strategy will require the allocation of significant financial and dedicated staff resources. Specifically:

• RRTF members will agree on a shared budget by the end 1999 for the continued property information campaign instead of pursuing the ad hoc approach of 1998. This campaign will be part of the strategy forwarded to the PIC in Madrid.

• RRTF members will, by end 1998, coordinate budgetary and staff resources to best effect both in terms of working on campaigns and to ensure geographical coverage.

Finally, while all available channels will be used, it is recognised that:

• DPs, refugees and their associations must be worked with, supported, resourced and their capacity developed in this sphere; and

• geographical coverage of target DP populations, by information centres and mobile teams, must be ensured.

1. credibility is key and as information must be both credible and cost-effective, there will be an emphasis on local input and resources for production.