1 st September 2009 Croatia: Housing rights and employment still p reventing durable solutions The number of internally displaced people (IDPs) in Croatia has fallen significantly since the armed conflict between the Croat majority and the Serb minority ended in 1995. At the end of the war, around 250,000 people were displaced within Croatia, of whom 32,000 were Croatian Serbs. By June 2009, the number of IDPs had fallen to about 2,400, includ- ing over 1,600 ethnic Serbs. The outcome for the two groups of IDPs has been quite different. In 1995, there were three times more Croat IDPs than Croatian Serb IDPs, but by 2009 the situation has been re- versed with twice as many Croatian Serbs as Croats still displaced. As of June 2009, over 220,000 Croat IDPs and some 23,000 Serb IDPs had returned. However almost half of Serb returns to and within Croatia are not sustainable, according to international organisations and NGOs. For the remaining Croat IDPs, the main obstacle to return is the poor economic situation in return areas, whereas ethnic Serb IDPs also face continuing discrimination in accessing housing, property and employment. Although successive governments have made significant progress since 2000 in reforming and adopting laws to support the return of ethnic Serb IDPs, their implementation has been slow due to their complexity and the discriminatory attitude of administrative bodies. One continuing barrier has been the absence of a remedy for the arbitrary cancellation of ten- ancy rights for former occupiers of socially-owned apartments; this has mainly affected ethnic Serbs. Alternative housing options have been made available to those who wish to return, but others have been left without any durable housing solutions or compensation for the loss of their tenancy right. Over the past three years the number of IDPs in Croatia has remained steady, indicating that the remaining few have been unable to resolve their status by returning to their place of origin or integrating locally. To enable them to find durable solutions it would be necessary to combine economic support to the most vulnerable, fair compensation for former holders of occupancy rights, and an effective monitoring system to ensure minority rights are up- held. www.internal-displacement.org Map of Croatia More maps are available on http://www.internal-displacement.org 2 Croatia: 1st September 2009 Housing rights and employment still preventing durable solutions Background and main causes of 2009). Of these, over 1,600 were Croa- displacement tian Serbs displaced in eastern Slavonia (email communication with UNHCR, Croatia’s independence from the former August 2009). Additionally, almost Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia in June 72,000 Croatian Serbs still live in Bosnia 1991 was followed by armed conflict and Herzegovina and Serbia and Monte- which lasted until 1995 and resulted in negro (email communication with hundreds of thousands of people being UNHCR, August 2009). displaced from and within Croatia. Dur- ing the same period, there was an influx Since 2005, IDP numbers have fallen by of ethnic Croat refugees fleeing the war only a few hundred a year, compared to in neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina. an average decrease of 4,500 between 2002 and 2005. This can mainly be ex- The Serb secession in eastern and west- plained by the slowing of reconstruction ern Slavonia, Banovina, Kordun, Lika and housing care programmes and the and in the Knin region which gave rise to lack of transparency, consistency and the “Republika Srpska Krajina” led over fairness in their implementation. 220,000 ethnic Croats to flee to other ar- eas of the country. Four years later, Croa- As IDP numbers have decreased, so have tia’s armed forces regained control of government services to house them. In most of these Serb-controlled territories, 2007 most of the state-run collective cen- leading to the displacement of up to tres which housed the majority of IDPs in 300,000 ethnic Serbs, primarily to Serbia eastern Slavonia were closed, with only and Montenegro and to Bosnia and Her- some of the residents receiving some zegovina (UN CHR, 29 December 2005), form of alternative housing, including and also to eastern Slavonia (the Danube relocation to other centres outside the re- region), the only area of Croatia which gion (email communication, Centre for was still under Serb control. The Novem- Peace, 11 June 2008). Currently, six col- ber 1995 Erdut Agreement provided for lective centres provide housing to almost the transitional administration of eastern 170 IDPs (mainly ethnic Croats), 470 Slavonia by the United Nations, followed refugees and 40 returnees, but two are by a handover to Croatia in January 1998. planned for closure by the end of 2009 In 1997, the United Nations Transitional (email communication with UNHCR, Administration in Eastern Slavonia August 2009). In the absence of a precise (UNTAES), UNHCR and the Croatian closure plan maintenance has been re- government signed an accord confirming duced or suspended in the remaining col- the right of displaced people to return to lective centres leading to a deterioration and from eastern Slavonia. of living standards in 2008. Current displacement and return As of June 2009, over 244,000 IDPs had figures returned to their place of origin, includ- ing some 220,000 Croat IDPs (of whom UNHCR in June 2009 put the number of 92,000 returned to the Danube region) remaining internally displaced people and 23,000 out of a total of some 32,000 (IDPs) at around 2,400 (UNHCR, June 3 Croatia: 1st September 2009 Housing rights and employment still preventing durable solutions Croatian Serb IDPs (UNHCR, June Minorities to enforce the Constitutional 2009). Law on National Minorities, which obliges local authorities as well as public Continuing barriers to return enterprises to employ representatives of minorities according to their percentage The main obstacles to return for remain- within the overall population (EC, No- ing Croat IDPs have been the poor eco- vember 2008). However, these national nomic situation in their region of origin policies are not necessarily reflected at and some remaining housing issues local levels, and the Commission on the which led many of them to integrate lo- Elimination of All Forms of Racial Dis- cally (USDoS, 28 February 2005, p.11; crimination (UN CERD, March 2009) email communication with UNHCR, Au- noted in 2009 the reluctance of some lo- gust 2009). However, the barriers to the cal authorities to implement laws and return of ethnic Serb IDPs have been government policies on non- harder to overcome. Such obstacles in- discrimination, in particular with regard cluded a slow and often discriminatory to returnees. implementation of legislation in areas such as property repossession, housing The demographic structure of the Serb care, reconstruction and access to citizen- returnee population confirms the impact ship. Limited access to property, utilities, of the unemployment factor on return and education, employment, as well as occa- raises concern regarding the long-term sional security incidents against returnees presence of minority population. 37 per and lack of social cohesion in the return cent of returnees are over 65 (compared areas has also affected return and its sus- with only 17 per cent among the popula- tainability by preventing integration of tion as a whole) and therefore have ac- returnees with the rest of the population. cess to a pension which guarantees a Indeed, a UNHCR study indicated that minimum income. Children constitute between up to half of Serb IDP and refu- only 12 per cent of the returnee popula- gee returnees left the country or resettled tion (half of the overall figure for Croa- elsewhere within Croatia (UNHCR, tia), bringing into question the long-term 2007). sustainability of minority communities in return areas (UNHCR, 2007). Discriminatory employment practices against Serbs contribute to this poor sus- In 2008, the situation of older IDPs and tainability of return. The unemployment returnees became a little easier as a new rate is much higher in return areas than in government policy to recognise periods the rest of the country (email communi- of work in areas under Serb control dur- cation with UNHCR, August 2009). Mi- ing the war paved the way for increased norities remain highly under-represented pension entitlements. At the end of May in state administration, the judiciary and 2009, almost 16,000 resulting claims had the police (EC, November 2008; USDoS, been lodged with the Croatian pension 2009; Minority Rights Group Interna- fund, half of the requests had been proc- tional, July 2008). In 2008, the govern- essed and 3,500 approved. ment adopted an action plan and established the Department for National 4 Croatia: 1st September 2009 Housing rights and employment still preventing durable solutions The complexity of the legal framework, largely refrained from intervening especially regarding housing care and (ECRE, October 2007). In 2008, police reconstruction, has made it harder for investigations have improved although IDPs to assert their rights and effectively only a few prosecutions took place (EC, prevented their return to urban areas. In- November 2009, p.13), and Croatian deed most tenancy rights were granted in Serbs have been appointed as regional urban areas and there is still no compen- police advisers for security issues and sation for the arbitrary termination of ethnically motivated crimes in Zadar and these rights. As a result only three per Vukovar. cent of returnees live in settlements of more than 100,000 inhabitants (ECRE, Property and housing issues October 2007). While the restitution of illegally occupied Biased war crimes rulings have also dis- private properties continued in 2007 and couraged the return of displaced minori- 2008, members of local minorities still ties. A majority of Croatian war crime face difficulties in accessing their hous- proceedings continue to be held in local ing and property rights (USDoS, 11 courts where the crime occurred, rather March 2008; email communication with than one of the four courts designated for UNHCR, August 2009).