Sierra Leone A TAG LANCE Main Objectives and Activities Assess the protection requirements of those Liberian refugees who did not wish to repatriate; facilitate the local integration of Liberian refugees in need of international protection and identify resettle- ment opportunities; assess how national and local socio-economic, political and security factors will affect the needs of Sierra Leonean returnees; compile Returnee District Area Profiles taking into account the security needs of potential returnees to those dis- Persons of Concern tricts; facilitate and later promote Main Refugee Total Of whom Per cent Per cent Origin/Type of in UNHCR Female under 18 the voluntary repatriation of Sierra Population Country assisted Leonean refugees and help them Sierra Leone (IDPs) 300,000 - - - settle back into their communities Sierra Leone 200,000 - - - of origin; in the context of the (Returned IDPs) Brookings process, establish opera- Sierra Leone 40,900 24,900 - - tional linkages and mechanisms (Returnees) which best ensure a smooth transi- Liberia (Refugees) 6,500 6,500 - - tion from emergency relief to longer-term reconstruction and recovery. Income and Expenditure (USD) Annual Programme, Trust Funds and Supplementary Programme Budgets Impact Revised Income Other Total Total • In 2000, UNHCR undertook Budget from Funds Funds Expenditure Contributions1 Available2 Available screening of 1,872 Liberian AB/TF 941,439 879,376 431,354 1,310,730 832,471 households including new appli- SB 9,380,111 3,966,962 2,697,173 6,664,135 6,664,135 cations, in order to determine the Total 10,321,550 4,846,338 3,128,527 7,974,865 7,496,606 need of those who did not partic- 1Includes income from contributions earmarked at the country level. ipate in the voluntary repatria- 2Includes allocations by UNHCR from unearmarked or broadly earmarked contributions, opening balance and adjustments. tion programme. The above figures do not include costs at Headquarters. • Limited assistance in the form of health care, educational support • A total of 40,900 people returned to Sierra Leone in and targeted individual assistance for vulnerable persons 2000. Out of these, the Office provided basic assis- was provided to Liberian refugees. Three Liberian tance for some 24,900 upon return since September. refugee families in need of international protection were Most returned spontaneously from troubled Guinea, resettled in a third country. but were unable to return to their (rebel-controlled) • Following the renewed conflict in Sierra Leone in areas of origin. Some 10,000 returnees were accom- May, UNHCR revised its voluntary repatriation plan modated in host communities while plans were for Sierra Leonean refugees, reducing its planning fig- underway to establish temporary settlements and ure from 170,000 to 50,000 people. identify other possible host communities. W ORKING E NVIRONMENT the situation in Sierra Leone was not conducive to their safe and dignified return, some 24,900 people opted to The Context return to Sierra Leone from September onwards. Most were unable to return to their places of origin, which The return of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) were still under rebel control, and to which humanitar- and Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) lead- ian organisations had virtually no access. These ers to Freetown and the formation of a Government of returnees were thus in the same situation as internally National Unity in late 1999 raised high hopes. Soon displaced persons (IDPs). after, however, peace-keepers were kidnapped and hos- tilities resumed in May, resulting in further displace- Constraints ment of Sierra Leonean people. The arrest and impris- The main constraint faced by the Office during 2000 onment of most of the RUF leaders in Freetown marked was the fragile security situation that prevailed in Sierra the end of the Lomé peace agreement signed in July Leone and in its neighbouring country, Guinea. On the 1999. The ensuing situation in Sierra Leone could be one hand, the insecurity in Sierra Leone prevented described as one of “no war, no peace”. The signing of a UNHCR from promoting the voluntary repatriation of cease-fire agreement in Abuja in November did not Sierra Leonean refugees; on the other hand, the deterio- bring an end to this situation, but opened a door for the ration of security in Guinea made it necessary for possible resumption of peace negotiations. UNHCR to assist emergency return movements from With increasing attacks on villages along its borders, the the country. The lack of access to rebel-held areas pre- Guinean Government made public statements in vented effective returnee monitoring and the compila- September, blaming Sierra Leonean refugees for the tion of the Returnee District Area Profiles. There was deterioration of the security situation. This triggered a hardly any information about the situation of those who mass movement of Sierra Leonean refugees. Although had returned spontaneously to those areas. UNHCR 202 — UNHCR Global Report 2000 was only able to provide protection and assistance to safety and dignity had not yet been met, the Office returnees located in safe areas under the control of the eventually began organising emergency repatriation Government such as the Lungi and Pujehun Districts. A movements by ship from Guinea in December. In doing concentration of returnees in a limited number of safe so, information campaigns were carried out prior to areas put a considerable burden on resources in those departure, to enable refugees to make informed deci- areas which were already particularly over-stretched with sions on their return based on the current situation in the presence of IDPs. Sierra Leone. UNHCR established a safe and orderly departure and an adequate reception capacity upon The assessment of the protection requirements of the arrival, ensuring assistance to vulnerable persons. remaining Liberian refugees was affected by frequent UNHCR could not facilitate or promote voluntary staff changes, the use of non-UNHCR staff to conduct repatriation from other countries of asylum, while some interviews, the temporary evacuation of staff in May 7,500 reportedly returned from Liberia spontaneously and the emergency repatriation operation from Guinea. during 2000. Funding In co-operation with the Government, the Office estab- The security situation inevitably led to delays in the lished two transit facilities near Freetown with the implementation of programmes. The funds received, capacity to accommodate some 1,500 people. While however, were sufficient to undertake the activities others waited in transit centres for the completion of required. camps and the identification of host communities in the southern region, some 10,000 returnees from the north- A CHIEVEMENTS ern area were temporarily located in host communities AND I MPACT in the Lungi peninsula. Accommodating returning refugees in host communities was favoured over the Protection and Solutions construction of camps; this approach effectively put a time limit on UNHCR’s involvement in returnee assis- Following the completion of the organised voluntary tance. UNHCR initiated systematic monitoring of repatriation programme in December 1999, UNHCR returnees in co-ordination with government counter- undertook a review of those Liberian refugees who parts, implementing partners and other NGOs. By remained in Sierra Leone. A total of 1,872 households building partnerships with other relevant agencies, the were interviewed in 2000. It was found that approxi- Office worked towards harmonising returnee and IDP mately 65 per cent of these might have a continued need Sierra Leone protection monitoring within the IDP assistance struc- for international protection in Sierra Leone or justified tures established by the Government, maximising humanitarian grounds to remain in the country; only resources and information sharing, and raising the over- about ten per cent were considered to be economically all standards of protection for all. self-sufficient and locally integrated. An estimated 40 per cent could be counselled for voluntary repatriation. As part of the Brookings Process, a high-level inter- In 2000, only the most vulnerable Liberian refugees agency mission (UNDP, World Bank and UNHCR) were provided with assistance. Three Liberian refugee took place in February. As a result of this mission, five households and one Sudanese refugee family were reset- gaps in linking humanitarian assistance and develop- tled in a third country. In addition, ten people of other ment were identified (political will and security; reinte- nationalities approached UNHCR during the year to gration; communication and governance; partnership apply for asylum; seven applications were rejected, and and co-ordination; and the so-called sub-regional at year’s end three were still pending. dimension). As a follow-up to the mission, the “Brookings Menu” was formulated by the agencies in As a result of the deteriorating security situation in May, Sierra Leone. This was a list of activities in need of fur- UNHCR reduced its overall planning figure for volun- ther attention from the international community. The tary repatriation from 170,000 to 50,000. Meanwhile, a deterioration of the security situation since May, how- series of events which had taken place in Guinea since ever, made it difficult for Sierra Leone to function as a September jeopardised the protection of Sierra Leonean test case. refugees and thus led to a major turn in UNHCR’s strategy and position