UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2004

ANNUAL TRIPARTITE CONSULTATIONS ON RESETTLEMENT Geneva, 18 – 19 June 2003

______

UNHCR

PROJECTED GLOBAL RESETTLEMENT NEEDS

2004

Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2004

Table of Contents

Table of Preliminary Projections ------1

Introduction ------3

AFRICA ------5

Great Lakes ------6

Refugees in Burundi Refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Refugees in Rwanda Refugees in United Republic of Tanzania

East and Horn of Africa ------12

Refugees in Eritrea Refugees in Ethiopia Refugees in Kenya Refugees in Somalia Refugees in Sudan Refugees in Uganda

West and Central Africa ------20

Refugees in Benin Refugees in the Central African Republic (CAR) Refugees in Côte d'Ivoire Refugees in Gabon Refugees in Ghana Refugees in Guinea Refugees in Liberia Refugees in Nigeria Refugees in Sierra Leone

Southern Africa ------31

Refugees in Angola Refugees in South Africa, Namibia and Mozambique Refugees in Zambia and Zimbabwe

THE AMERICAS ------35

Refugees in Costa Rica Refugees in Cuba Refugees in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Belize Refugees in Venezuela, Panama, Peru, Ecuador, Surinam, and Guyana Refugees in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay

ASIA ------39

South Asia ------39

Refugees in India Refugees in Nepal Refugees in Sri Lanka

East Asia and Pacific ------42

Refugees in China and Hong Kong Refugees in Indonesia Refugees in Malaysia Refugees in Thailand

EUROPE ------46

Eastern Europe ------46

Refugees in Armenia Refugees in Azerbaijan Refugees in Belarus Refugees in Georgia Refugees in Russian Federation Refugees in Ukraine

South-Eastern Europe ------51

Refugees in Albania Refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina Refugees in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Refugees in Serbia and Montenegro

Southern Europe ------56

Refugees in Turkey Refugees in Cyprus Refugees in Malta

CASWANAME ------59

Central Asia ------60

Refugees in Kazakhstan Refugees in Kyrgyzstan Refugees in Tajikistan Refugees n Turkmenistan Refugees in Uzbekistan

South-West Asia ------64

Refugees in Iran Refugees in Pakistan

North Africa and The Middle East ------65

Refugees in Egypt Refugees in Iraq Refugees in Jordan Refugees in Lebanon Refugees in Saudi Arabia Refugees in Syria Refugees in Yemen

UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2004

Sub-Region* Country of Asylum** Needs*** Capacity

Africa

Great Lakes Burundi 500 500 Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) 715 115 Rwanda 4,000 1,380 Tanzania 2,000 2,000 East and Horn of Africa Eritrea 1,195 115 Ethiopia 6,000 3,000 Kenya 6,000 6,000 Somalia 225 225 Sudan 1,000 1,000 Uganda 550 550 West and Central Africa Benin 29 29 Central African Republic (CAR) 380 40 Côte d’Ivoire 15,000 15,000 Gabon 2,000 300 Ghana 1,525 1,525 Guinea 4,540 4,540 Liberia 215 30 Nigeria 190 190 Sierra Leone 8,000 500 Southern Africa Angola 225 225 South Africa, Namibia and Mozambique 207 207 Zambia and Zimbabwe 3,340 600 Africa TOTAL: 57,836 38,071

The Americas

Costa Rica 600 300 Cuba 55 55 Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El 20 20 Salvador, Nicaragua and Belize Venezuela, Panama, Peru, Ecuador, 900 500 Surinam and Guyana Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, 15 15 Uruguay, Paraguay America TOTAL: 1,590 890

Asia

South Asia India 200 200 Nepal 20 20 Sri Lanka 30 30 East Asia and Pacific China and Hong Kong 314 314 Indonesia 176 176 Malaysia 695 234 Thailand 435 305 Asia TOTAL: 1,870 1,279

Europe

Eastern Europe Armenia 3 3 Azerbaijan 195 195 Belarus 41 41 Georgia 900 150 Russian Federation 377 377 Ukraine 350 40 South-Eastern Europe Albania 40 40 Bosnia and Herzegovina 120 120 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 50 50 Serbia and Montenegro 500 500 Southern Europe Turkey 3,000 3,000 Cyprus 15 15 Malta 50 50 Europe TOTAL: 5,641 4,581

CASWANAME

Central Asia Kazakhstan 60 60 Kyrgyzstan 240 240 Tajikistan 50 50 Turkmenistan 47 47 Uzbekistan 250 250 South-West Asia Iran 2,000 1,500 Pakistan 1,000 1,000 North Africa and the Egypt 4,000 3,000 Middle East Iraq 600 600 Jordan 1,000 1,000 Lebanon 1,200 1,200 Saudi Arabia 200 200 Syria 1,000 1,000 Yemen 40 40 CASWANAME TOTAL: 11,687 10,187

GLOBAL TOTAL: 78,624 55,008

* Region and Sub-region: Countries in this report are grouped according to the established regional boundaries as covered by the geographic Bureaux of UNHCR.

** Country of Asylum: Figures indicate resettlement need and expected submissions according to countries of asylum, not by country of origin.

*** Needs and Capacity: Where possible, this report indicates both the number of refugees considered by UNHCR to be in need of resettlement, as reported by individual Field Offices, and the anticipated number of resettlement submissions given the capacity of that Field Office.

GLOBAL RESETTLEMENT NEEDS IN 2004

Introduction

This report provides an overview of UNHCR’s projection of both resettlement needs among refugee populations of concern to UNHCR, as identified by UNHCR Field Offices, and anticipated resettlement submissions for 2004. The document is intended to help the reader appreciate the various situations in which UNHCR and the international community are responding to resettlement need, to assist resettlement countries in planning their activities, and to assist UNHCR in prioritising its activities and allocation of resources.

The conditions and needs presented in this document have been synthesised from Country Operation Plans (COPs) submitted by UNHCR Field Offices for 2004. While preparing their COPs for 2004, all Field Offices undertook a six-step exercise to proactively plan for future resettlement needs of refugee populations under their responsibility and to identify the resources required to meet that resettlement need.

As part of the exercise, Field Offices were requested to subdivide each refugee population under their responsibility into large categories reflecting group characteristics, such as country of origin, ethnicity or religion. These groups were then further sub-divided according to characteristics linked to their refugee experience, such as cause and date of flight or political affiliation. Field Offices were then requested to consider the current protection needs and durable solutions prospects in the medium to long term for each sub-group. If resettlement was identified as the most appropriate durable solution for the sub-group, or for sections of the sub-group, the Field Office was requested to identify the relevant submission category or categories that would best apply to the group, according to Chapter 4 of the Resettlement Handbook.

The process also called for both the identification of actual resettlement need within the refugee population and an estimation of how many refugees the office would be able to process for resettlement given their current resettlement capacity and staffing levels. In this respect, the process is part of on-going efforts to more comprehensively assess resettlement needs and to adequately plan for resource requirements associated with achieving the goal of enhanced resettlement activities worldwide.

The figures specified in this report are the total number of persons UNHCR anticipates submitting for resettlement from a given country in 2004. Where possible, and where a dramatic difference between resettlement need and capacity has been identified, this report highlights how limited capacity in many Field Offices results in only a portion of refugees in need of resettlement being submitted for the consideration of resettlement countries.

At the same time, it is important to note that the resettlement needs specified here are those reported by individual Field Offices. Additional needs are generally believed to exist, but Field Offices require additional support to more thoroughly and comprehensively assess this need.

The resettlement requirements estimated by UNHCR in this report are not exhaustive nor can be seen as definitive. Clearly, variable factors such as new protection emergencies and

3 changing conditions in countries of asylum and origin will affect resettlement needs throughout the year. Furthermore, administrative capacity and human resource limitations may have an impact on the actual numbers of cases referred to states for resettlement.

In addition to the needs identified in this document, resettlement need may be identified as a result of on-going discussions on the strategic use of resettlement and the potential role of resettlement in Convention Plus arrangements.

The report, therefore, should be considered as one among many planning tools and considerations, rather than as an authoritative document. It must further be noted that the projections herein do not capture unilateral resettlement activities carried out by governments, separate from UNHCR programmes, such as processing under family reunification programmes or other categories of concern to states.

The absence of a given refugee population in this report should not be interpreted to mean that resettlement as a tool of protection, as a durable solution or as an expression of international solidarity should be precluded for that population. Nor should consideration of a given refugee population be interpreted to mean, unless otherwise indicated, that resettlement will necessarily be promoted for every refugee.

Finally, it should be noted that the countries in this report are grouped according to the established regional boundaries as covered by the geographic Bureaux of UNHCR. For example, North Africa is not included under the Africa Bureau region, but under the Central Asia, Southwest Asia, North Africa and Middle East (CASWANAME) Bureau region. Furthermore, the projected numbers reflect the number of refugees in need of resettlement according to current location, rather than country of origin. For example, the numbers of African refugees projected in need of resettlement out of Africa does not include the refugees found elsewhere outside of Africa, who are instead included in the projections of the regions where they are located.

AFRICA

Projected needs: 54,036 persons / Processing capacity: 37,971 persons

The primary objective of making resettlement a viable and meaningful component of comprehensive protection strategies in Africa continues to receive the attention and support of UNHCR, both in Headquarters and in the field. Tangible progress has been made in the region on making resettlement a more responsive tool of protection, a more dependable durable solution, and a more meaningful expression of international solidarity and burden sharing.

Diversifying both the nationalities of refugees considered for resettlement and the location of UNHCR’s resettlement activities remain key goals for UNHCR in Africa. To help ensure that deserving refugees are considered for resettlement, regardless of their nationality or location, UNHCR has broadened the locations for resettlement activities and developed staffing plans consistent with the complementary objectives of diversification and access.

Heightened security concerns following the events of 11 September 2001 have, however, had significant implications for particular refugee populations. In some regions, where security concerns are most acute, ensuring equal access to all refugee populations in need of resettlement consideration has been an almost impossible task.

An important recent development in resettlement activities in Africa was the formal establishment of the Regional Resettlement Hubs in Accra and Nairobi in January 2003. These Hubs will provide co-ordination, support and monitoring of resettlement activities in the region. These three main functions of the Hubs will serve not only to strengthen the management of resettlement activities in Africa, but also build the resettlement capacity of Field Offices through training activities. The Regional Resettlement Hubs will work in close consultation with the Resettlement Section/DIP and the Africa Bureau in UNHCR Headquarters to ensure the successful realisation of their functions.

In order to more effectively respond to the challenge of addressing protracted refugee situations in Africa, and further to the objectives of diversification and access, significant efforts have also been made to ensure more appropriate levels of resettlement staffing in the region. Seven new professional resettlement posts were established in 2003 in Africa, including positions in Kenya, Ghana, Guinea, Tanzania, South Africa and Ethiopia. While some of these posts were only established temporarily, they helped further the goals of diversification and access in Africa. This level of staffing must, however, be maintained, and even increased, if the resettlement need of refugees in Africa is to be effectively addressed.

This staffing situation is also being supported by the deployment of Resettlement Consultants in Africa through the UNHCR - ICMC NGO Deployment Scheme, in the DRC, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Zambia.

Finally, it should be noted that the resettlement needs presented in this section are those reported by individual Field Offices. While UNHCR generally believes that much greater resettlement needs exist, especially among protracted refugee situations, additional support is required to more effectively assess, and respond to, this need.

5 GREAT LAKES

Projected need: 7,215 persons / Processing capacity: 3,995 persons

Refugees in Burundi

Prior to an influx of refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in late 2002, there were approximately 28,102 refugees in Burundi. In the absence of a comprehensive verification exercise for the estimated 8,000 new arrivals, this estimate stands as a planning figure only. More accurate population statistics should be available following an on-going verification and registration exercise.

The majority of registered refugees are Congolese, having arrived in Burundi in successive influxes over several decades. The most significant period of influx was between 1964 and 1967 as a result of the establishment of a one-party system in the Congo and the persecution of lumumbistes – supporters of the former government of Patrice Lumumba. A second significant influx took place in 1996 – 1998 as a result of the civil war in the DRC and the fall of the Mobutu regime. The most recent influx dates from October to December 2002 and the offensive of the Mayi Mayi coalition and elements supportive of Commander Masunzu against the forces of the DRC, following the withdrawal of Rwandan and Burundian troops from the east of the DRC. In addition to these, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Bujumbura has registered a smaller number of refugees from Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sierra Leone, the Republic of Congo and Angola.

Burundi is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. While the Burundian transitional constitution of 2001 does include provisions relating to asylum, the priority for UNHCR in 2002 – 2003 was the development of domestic legislation in the absence of a Burundian national law specifically relating to refugees.

Repatriation is not currently seen to be a viable durable solution for Congolese refugees. Despite the signing of the Lusaka and Pretoria Accords, inter-Congolese dialogue on peace has not been meaningfully implemented and fighting continues in the east of the DRC. Given the prevailing conditions in the eastern DRC, it is not possible to consider the repatriation of Congolese refugees from Burundi at this time.

In addition, continuing tensions in Burundi, which have resulted in generalised suffering for the majority of citizens and impoverishment of the country as a whole, prohibit formal efforts at local integration. Asylum seekers and refugees are, however, generally tolerated in Burundi. They are able to work in the informal sector and are encouraged to work in the education and health sectors, two areas where Burundi has a deficit of trained professionals. A new nationality law, which has been in effect in Burundi since 2001 and which recognizes dual nationality, may eventually facilitate the process of naturalization for refugees.

In the absence of both voluntary repatriation prospects and national legislation addressing the particular needs of refugees, the first category of refugees in need of resettlement from Burundi remains those Congolese refugees with physical or legal protection needs arising from their opposition to the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie (RCD), the rebel movement which controls much of the east of the DRC with the support of Rwanda and Burundi.

At the same time, Burundi is increasingly concerned by the political and security implications of refugee movements from the DRC, as demonstrated by the decision by the Government in October 2002 to deny entry to 7,000 people fleeing an intensification of fighting in the east of the DRC.

Given these conditions, and following a process consisting of preliminary screening and in- depth interviews, individual Congolese refugees with particular profiles have been identified as being in need of resettlement. They include, primarily, former administrators, politicians, leaders of the Mayi Mayi and the Banyamulenge, traditional chiefs, human rights activists and members of collective associations. Given the strong links between Burundi and the RCD rebel movement, UNHCR believes that these refugees cannot receive adequate protection in Burundi.

In addition, there are a number of ex-combatants, deserters and victims of war who have been identified as not excludable, according to Art. 1(F) of the 1951 Convention, and for whom the only possible solution, given their condition and prospects in Burundi, is resettlement. This resettlement need was highlighted in 2002 by the refoulement of a number of Congolese refugees from Burundi, justified by the government on the grounds that the refugees in question were deserters, former combatants, or supporters of Masunzu.

A number of other refugees have also been identified as being in need of resettlement due to other vulnerabilities, especially medical needs.

Finally, UNHCR has undertaken a screening of refugees in Muyinga refugee camp and the Cishemeye transit camp at Cibitoke. The results of this additional screening exercise will allow, among other benefits, the identification and submission of other refugees who are in need of resettlement as a durable solution.

UNHCR in Burundi has strengthened its links with the Regional Resettlement Hub in Nairobi. With the support of the Nairobi Hub, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Bujumbura plans to submit 500 persons for resettlement from Burundi in 2004.

Refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo

As of the end of 2002, there were an estimated 333,000 refugees in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), including 184,000 Angolans, 76,000 Sudanese, 20,000 Rwandans, 20,000 Burundians, 7,000 Congolese (Republic of Congo), 23,000 Ugandans and 3,000 Central Africans.

The DRC is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. The national refugee law, which was developed in partnership with UNHCR, was adopted and promulgated on 16 October 2002. Refugee status determination is still conducted by UNHCR, pending the establishment of a National Eligibility Commission.

The long-running conflict in the DRC continues in mid-2003, despite efforts to bring-about a negotiated settlement. Rounds of negotiations between the various Congolese factions were launched in August 2001 in Gaborone, Botswana, forming the basis of the Inter-Congolese Dialogue. This process culminated in the signing of an agreement by the various parties in

7 December 2002 in Pretoria, South Africa. Under a complex power-sharing arrangement, the creation of a “one plus four” structure for the transitional government was adopted, with Joseph Kabila remaining President, and with four Vice Presidents to serve for the two-year period leading up to national elections. The four posts of Vice Presidents are to be filled by representatives of the Government, the two main rebel groups – the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie (RCD) and the Movement pour la Libération Congolais (MLC) – representatives from other opposition parties, and members of civil society.

As illustrated by the recent upsurge in fighting in the east of the DRC, the political and social situation in the country as a whole remains critical despite some progress in the ongoing peace process. The country remains divided between partisans of the Sun City accord and its opponents, who are united in the Alliance to Save the Inter-Congolese Dialogue. Agreement between the two sides is crucial if lasting peace is to be achieved. As long as the conflict continues, chances are that many human rights abuses will continue, and the DRC will continue to be a significant source of additional refugees in the region.

In a region where most of the neighbouring countries are either at war or whose political systems remain fragile – as in the case of the Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Sudan and Burundi – UNHCR is unable to promote voluntary repatriation of many refugees currently in the DRC. There are, however, positive developments for refugees from Rwanda and Angola. In 2002, the spontaneous return of some 20,000 Angolans and the voluntary repatriation of some 12,000 Rwandans were reported following increased stability in their countries of origin.

At the same time, the wars in the DRC have destabilised the political situation and the economy, thus hampering opportunities for the local integration of refugees. Nevertheless, UNHCR has implemented local integration programs for Rwandans and Burundians in Mbuji-Mayi and for Angolans in Bandundu and Katanga.

Given these conditions, UNHCR’s Regional Office in Kinshasa has identified a number of refugee populations in need of resettlement from the DRC. A small number of Angolan refugees from Cabinda Province have been identified as being in need of resettlement due to their legal and physical protection needs. These refugees benefit from prima facie refugee status linked to on-going fighting in Cabinda and the effects of civil war in other areas of Angola. They are located in an insecure border area where a tripartite security arrangement between the DRC, the Republic of Congo and Angola has lead to the potential of refoulement of refugees suspected of belonging to current or previous activist movements in Angola.

In 2004, UNHCR also anticipates identifying approximately 50 Rwandan and 200 Burundian refugees in need of resettlement due to their inability to locally integrate in the DRC, their insecurity resulting from tensions between the country of asylum and country of origin, and their inability to return to Rwanda or Burundi. This group will also likely include a number of victims of torture and women-at-risk.

A smaller number of Sudanese refugees, located in rebel-held territory in the DRC, are also in need of resettlement. While local integration prospects would be promising if the security situation in their current location improved, rebel incursions across the border, frequent inaccessibility of the refugee population and their insecurity indicates that resettlement will be the appropriate durable solution for a number of women-at-risk and refugees who lack local integration prospects.

On-going political instability in the Central African Republic, and the subsequent threats to members of the ethnic Yakoma group, especially political opponents, civil servants and students, has highlighted the resettlement need of Central African refugees in the DRC. Threats of refoulement and lack of repatriation prospects mean that a limited number of these refugees are in need of resettlement.

Finally, a number of Congolese refugees belonging to the Bacongo (Lari) ethnic group are believed to be in need of resettlement. This group is comprised mostly of intellectuals, and includes a substantial number of young single males from urban areas who fled the 1997 and 1998 conflicts in the Republic of Congo (RoC) and subsequent fighting in the Pool region. The proximity of their camp to the RoC border, their restricted freedom of movement and their limited prospects of local integration in a rural context, all contribute to their resettlement need.

In all, UNHCR’s Regional Office in Kinshasa has identified 715 refugees in need of resettlement. Due to limited resettlement capacity, however, UNHCR anticipates the submission of only 115 persons for resettlement from the DRC in 2004.

Refugees in Rwanda

Rwanda hosts approximately 35,000 refugees, mainly Congolese (DRC) and Burundian. Another 2,500 UNHCR-registered urban refugees, mainly non-Banyamulenge Congolese (non-Tutsi origin), live in or around Kigali.

Rwanda is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. In July 2001, the parliament passed the National Refugee Law, which established the National Refugee Council. Nominations to the National Refugee Council are expected in 2003. UNHCR will then provide training and capacity-building support to the Council. Once operational, UNHCR will transfer the files of asylum seekers to the Council and a National Eligibility Committee will assume responsibility for refugee status determination.

Political instability and the military context in the Great Lakes region of Central Africa makes it difficult to promote durable solutions for Congolese and Burundian refugees in Rwanda for the foreseeable future. Freedom of movement, self-reliance and integration prospects are limited, particularly for camp-based refugees. In addition, the state of Rwanda’s economy allows refugees only limited access to jobs, economic opportunities and agricultural land. Self-reliant, urban refugees do enjoy some freedom of movement, but receive little assistance from the government or UNHCR.

While the long-stayer Burundian refugees in Kigeme Camp have some limited possibilities for self-sufficiency, the long-term sustainability of local integration is questionable. Most of these refugees arrived in the early 1970s and were eventually integrated into local communities. They were, however, uprooted as a result of the 1994 conflict and have subsequently not been able to return to their homes. UNHCR’s Branch Office in Kigali, with the assistance of the Regional Resettlement Hub in Nairobi, began processing approximately 315 persons for resettlement in February 2003. Combined with the needs of Burundian Hutus who arrived in Kigeme Camp following conflict in Burundi in 1993, UNHCR estimates the referral of 480 persons for resettlement from Kigeme Camp in 2004.

Approximately 29,000 Congolese refugees reside in Kiziba Camp (15,000) and Gihembe Camp (14,000). The majority of these refugees originate from the North and South Kivu regions of the DRC. Following the September 2002 campaign of coerced returns which led to the repatriation of several thousand camp-based Congolese refugees to IDP settlements in North Kivu, a large percentage of whom have since returned to Rwanda, the sustainability of asylum for Congolese refugees has been brought into question. In addition, there is pressure from the government to consolidate the two camps by moving the Gihembe population to Kiziba Camp. Refugees might be under threat if authorities are unable to find an appropriate site or finance this move.

While repatriation will be a long-term solution for some of the Congolese refugees, certain groups, such as the 2,000 Banyamulenge refugees from South Kivu, would be in real danger if forced to return to the DRC. While a regional review of, and approach to, this caseload is required, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Kigali will explore the possibility of a group submission for the resettlement of this group due to a lack of local integration prospects. UNHCR also estimates the referral of 700 persons from Kiziba and Gihembe Camps in 2004.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Kigali also receives an average of 10 letters a day from urban refugees, requesting resettlement. While resettlement need for urban refugees is estimated at around 800 persons, office capacity in would Kigali allow the referral of only 200 persons in 2004, primarily Congolese and Burundian. Resettlement priority is given to refugees with a history of individual persecution, victims of torture and to refugees with legal and physical protection needs. Other prioritised profiles will include women-at-risk and those lacking local integration prospects.

In total, while almost 4,000 refugees have being identified as being in need of resettlement, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Kigali estimates that it will be able to submit 1,380 refuges for resettlement from Rwanda in 2004. This number may be revised following a more in-depth analysis of the durable solutions needs of camp-based refugees.

Refugees in Tanzania

There are currently 481,566 UNHCR-assisted refugees in Tanzania, mostly originating from Burundi (339,364) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (133,784), but also from Rwanda, Somalia and other countries. Burundian and Congolese nationals are accorded prima facie refugee status. Rwandans and other nationals must undergo a process of individual refugee status determination.

Tanzania is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. In 1998, Tanzania enacted national legislation that severely restricted the rights of refugees. Refugees in Tanzania are largely confined to 13 refugee camps where their freedom of movement, work and educational opportunities are extremely limited. Tanzania is currently not considering local integration for the Burundian, Congolese, and Rwandan refugees. The government has, however, agreed to local integration for the 3,343 Somali refugees in Tanga region, who have historical and cultural ties to Tanzania. There is growing pressure from the government for all refugees, particularly long-stayer populations such as the Burundians, to return to their respective country of origin, regardless of prevailing conditions.

There has been mixed progress on repatriation prospects for refugees in Tanzania. Since the signing of the Burundi Peace Accord in 2000, there has been little progress toward a formal voluntary repatriation framework. UNHCR currently facilitates, but does not promote, the repatriation of Burundian refugees to the northern provinces. At the same time, however, significant influxes of Burundian refugees have occurred. In the DRC, while a number of foreign troops have withdrawn and peace negotiations are ongoing, the conflict in the eastern provinces continues to displace civilians and frustrate repatriation efforts. Between October and December of 2002, approximately 20,000 Rwandan refugees were repatriated in accordance with the Tripartite agreement between UNHCR and the governments of Rwanda and Tanzania. Despite the fact that repatriation is being considered as the most viable solution for most of the refugees in western Tanzania, resettlement is still seen to be the only viable durable solution for a significant number of refugees.

An estimated 300 Congolese refugees, who fled conflict in then-Zaïre, have now been in refugee camps for over a decade with no prospects of either voluntary repatriation or local integration. Given that they also face discrimination by other refugees in the camps, resettlement appears to be the only viable durable solution for this group. UNHCR’s Branch Office in Dar es Salaam plans to undertake a comprehensive identification and registration process to establish a credible list of individuals in this group, in addition to the exact size of the group, before pursuing a group submission in 2004.

Possible group submission is also under consideration for the estimated 170,000 Burundian refugees who arrived in Tanzania in 1972 and who are currently located in three refugee settlements. While this group has been self-sufficient for over two decades, they have not been allowed to locally integrate in Tanzania. In addition, repatriation to Burundi would be highly problematic for the majority of this group who have lost claims to property in Burundi and have no effective ties to their country of origin, especially those who were born in Tanzania. In addition, many have been educated in English since childhood, and it would be very difficult for them to integrate in French-speaking Burundi. The consideration of this as a group for resettlement will commence in 2004 and will be further explored in-light of anticipated repatriation programmes. It is problematic to give a precise figure of resettlement need for this group ahead of more detailed planning and screening.

UNHCR also anticipates that a number of cases of mixed marriage will be submitted for resettlement in 2004. These cases comprise largely of Burundian couples of Hutu and Tutsi origin and Congolese Banyamulenge married to persons from other ethic groups who fled their countries of origin due to ethnic tensions there, and who continue to face discrimination in the camps in Tanzania.

UNHCR may also need to consider the resettlement need of Rwandan refugees whose application for asylum has been rejected by the Tanzanian authorities, but who UNHCR considers to be in continued need of international protection.

While a more accurate estimation of total resettlement need in Tanzania is not yet available, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Dar es Salaam anticipates the submission of 2,000 refugees for resettlement from Tanzania in 2004.

11 EAST AND HORN OF AFRICA

Projected needs: 14,970 persons / Processing capacity: 10,890 persons

Refugees in Eritrea

Eritrea currently hosts approximately 4,200 refugees. These refugees are entirely dependent on UNHCR’s assistance, which is supported by an Eritrean government implementing partner. The population is comprised of 485 Sudanese residing mainly in Elit camp and 3,600 Somalis in Emkulu camp. The remaining 100-150 persons are urban refugees of Sudanese and Ethiopian origin who live independently or in Haz Haz camp.

Eritrea is one of two African countries to have not acceded to either the 1951 Convention or the 1969 OAU Convention. It also lacks national refugee legislation and a coherent policy for dealing with refugees. Only Somalis and Sudanese living in designated camps are recognized as refugees by the Eritrean government, which conducts a type of prima facie determination to ascertain whether the asylum seeker is eligible for camp assistance. Other nationalities, such as Ethiopians, are not recognized as refugees, and are treated by the government as illegal migrants. Only UNHCR carries out individual refugee status determination, but these activities are limited due to a lack of resources.

The lack of national legislation guaranteeing the rights of refugees, coupled with limitations on both freedom of movement and employment opportunities, excludes the possibility of pursuing local integration for refugees in Eritrea. Voluntary repatriation is not a viable durable solution for refugees from Sudan and Somalia, with the possible exception of Somalis from Somaliland. Resettlement is therefore the only viable durable solution for refugees residing outside designated camps, with the rare exception of those refugees who have been able to acquire a temporary residence permit, which is usually possible only when sponsored by an employer.

UNHCR resettlement planning in Eritrea has been focused on the possible submission of approximately 1,000 Somali refugees in Emkulu camp belonging to minority ethic groups for whom voluntary repatriation may not be a viable option. UNHCR’s Branch Office in Asmara is still planning to undertake a more thorough identification of this group through an additional registration process and an assessment of their durable solutions needs. The number of minority groups within the large Emkulu camp population has complicated the task of identification and assessment. If a group submission is deemed to be possible and appropriate, UNHCR estimates that approximately 1,000 persons would be included, primarily due to their lack of local integration prospects. If a group submission is deemed to be neither possible nor appropriate, then limited capacity and staffing in Eritrea would limit the number of submissions to approximately 50 persons in 2004.

UNHCR offices in Eritrea and Ethiopia are also co-operating to resolve the situation of 25 Ethiopian/Eritrean stateless persons. UNHCR anticipates submitting these cases for resettlement in 2004 based on their legal and physical protection needs.

UNHCR also anticipates identifying approximately 170 Sudanese refugees as being in need of resettlement in 2004, including an estimated 50 widows of SPLA members and other abandoned women, 100 men of draft age and 20 separated minor boys. Refugees fitting this

profile face a number of acute protection concerns, including rape, forced marriage, abduction and forced recruitment. In light of these protection concerns, and given their inability to repatriate to their country of origin, UNHCR believes that resettlement would be the only viable durable solution. Given current capacity, however, UNHCR would only be able to submit 40 refugees from this category for resettlement in 2004.

In total, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Asmara has identified 1,195 refugees as being in need of resettlement, but anticipates the submission of only 115 refugees for resettlement from Eritrea in 2004.

Refugees in Ethiopia

As of 31 December 2002, Ethiopia hosted a total of 132,836 refugees. Of these, 89,992 are from Sudan, 37,349 from Somalia and 5,018 from Eritrea. There is an urban caseload of 477 refugees from Djibouti, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, and elsewhere. The Sudanese and Somali refugees in Ethiopia are typical examples of protracted refugee situations, having been in exile for many years without prospect of a durable solution.

Ethiopia is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. It has entered reservations to the 1951 Convention, including on provisions pertaining to wage-earning employment and public education. Ethiopia has not yet developed national refugee legislation. The combined effect of Ethiopia’s reservations to the 1951 Convention and the lack of national legislation precludes local integration as a viable durable solution for refugees in Ethiopia. In light of this fact, and given prevailing conditions in their country of origin, resettlement remains the only viable durable solution for refugees from Sudan and Southern Somalia. Voluntary repatriation is deemed to be eventually possible for refugees from Northwest Somalia.

UNHCR anticipates that 1,700 Sudanese refugees in Ethiopia will be in need of resettlement in 2004 due to their experience with ethnically-motivated violence in the camps, their lack of freedom of movement, and their lack of access to basic rights, including education. While this resettlement need is anticipated for 2004, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Addis Ababa currently lacks the capacity to respond to this need and will require the support of additional resettlement staff.

UNHCR also anticipates a smaller resettlement need among Somali refugees in Ethiopia. Given the on-going repatriation operation for refugees from Northwest Somalia, only refugees from Southern Somalia would be considered for resettlement in 2004. Within this smaller group, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Addis plans to consider the condition of 500 refugees from Southern Somalia who may be in need of resettlement as women-at-risk, for family reunification purposes, due to medical needs, and for those refugees who lack local integration prospects. Again, limited resettlement staff in Ethiopia will limit UNHCR’s ability to respond to this resettlement need in 2004.

There is also significant resettlement need among Eritrean Kunama refugees. Discussions continue on the possibility of addressing the resettlement needs of this population of 3,608 through a group resettlement process. In the absence of such a process, UNHCR believes that some 600 of the more than 5,000 Eritrean refugees in Ethiopian are in need of priority

13 resettlement consideration due to their legal and physical protection needs, their experience as victims of torture, their medical needs and due to their lack of local integration prospects.

Finally, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Addis anticipates the identification of some 200 refugees from the urban refugee population to be in need of resettlement in 2004, mainly due to medical needs and their lack of local integration prospects.

While initial planning for 2003 envisaged approximately 2,000 submissions, the proposed US-funded resettlement post in Gambella is planned to result in 2,000 submissions to the US alone. Given that the Australian High Commission in Nairobi has augmented its resettlement staff, and there is a call from the Canadian High Commission for increased referrals, it seems likely that UNHCR’s Branch Office in Addis Ababa will be expected to refer at least 3,000 persons for resettlement from Ethiopia in 2004. Given sufficient support in terms of resources and staffing, and considering the chronic nature of the refugee situation in Ethiopia, this figure seems to be both appropriate and achievable.

Refugees in Kenya

Kenya hosts approximately 233,500 asylum seekers and refugees, the majority of whom receive UNHCR protection and assistance. The majority of these refugees originate from Somalia and Sudan. The Somali refugees are of nomadic and agro-pastoralist background, whereas the Sudanese are predominantly agriculturist. A sizeable number of Ethiopians and Eritreans, and a smaller number of Ugandans, Congolese (DRC), Rwandans and Burundians have also sought refuge in Kenya

Kenya is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. The Government has not, however, enacted domestic refugee legislation, and therefore applies the Aliens Act in dealing with refugees, which has resulted in instances of arbitrary detention and restrictions on freedom of movement.

Notwithstanding positive statements from the newly-elected Government in Kenya, the local integration of refugees in Kenya remains unviable as a durable solution. The continuing policy of encampment and the lack of authorisation for refugees to engage in employment or other forms of self-reliance remain the primary hindrance to local integration prospects.

Although peace negotiations are on-going for both Somalia and Sudan, the two main refugee- producing neighbours of Kenya, conditions do not allow for the organised voluntary repatriation of the majority of the refugees in the foreseeable future.

In 2002, the UNHCR Branch Office for Kenya made significant progress in terms of restoring the integrity and credibility of resettlement activities following the serious corruption and malpractice that was discovered in resettlement processing in 2001. The corruption scandal of 2001 resulted in the suspension of UNHCR staff (including a criminal investigation affecting some of the suspended staff) and suspension of resettlement activities.

In order to address this critical issue, UNHCR took major steps throughout 2002 to re-build its institutional credibility and set in place a transparent, accountable and consistent resettlement processing system. At the same time, the Branch Office maintained its suspension of resettlement processing of all cases under the “normal” resettlement priority

and limited the resettlement response to only those refugees requiring urgent or emergency resettlement from Kenya. Throughout the year, this temporary suspension gave the Office the opportunity to address underlying institutional and operational gaps in the Kenyan resettlement operation and the processing of special groups.

Individual resettlement submissions from Kenya will increase substantially in 2003 and 2004 with the adoption of Standard Operating Procedures and normalisation of resettlement processing. Case profiles for resettlement include both those identified as requiring legal or physical protection due to inadequate or unsafe conditions of asylum in Kenya, and those individuals in protracted situations who are in need of a durable solution.

Increased attention will be given to resettlement from the Dadaab and Kakuma refugee camps, where conditions are more arduous than in Nairobi and where resettlement capacity has been lacking in recent years. UNHCR’s resettlement activities in Nairobi will therefore focus on urgent protection cases and individuals unable to reside in the camps for protection- related reasons.

At the Dadaab and Kakuma refugee camps, priority attention will be given to refugees in need of physical or legal protection, vulnerable individuals – including women-at-risk, survivors of violence and those requiring resettlement on medical grounds – and family reunification. While resettlement submissions are expected to include Ethiopian refugees (notably ethnic Oromo, Amhara and Ethiopians of Eritrean background for whom the Eritrean cessation clause is not applicable), attention will also be given to specific target groups whose situation may warrant resettlement consideration, such as vulnerable Sudanese women and girls at Kakuma. An increasing number of submissions in 2003-2004 will include Somali refugees, especially vulnerable women, and individuals in protracted refugee situations who are in need of a durable solution.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Nairobi anticipates submitting 1,200 Somali Bantu for resettlement in 2003 and 2004. These refugees are the residual caseload remaining from the resettlement of the larger population of Somali Bantu in 2002 – 2003. These remaining Somali Bantu, located in Kakuma Camp, are especially vulnerable, including a number of cases of women-at-risk, and are in need of resettlement not only due to their lack of local integration prospects, but also their legal and physical protection needs in the camp. Preparations and submissions will begin in 2003, but UNHCR estimates that the vast majority of these cases, roughly 850, will need to be addressed in 2004.

Submissions are also expected for 1,000 Ethiopian refugees in Kakuma and 1,000 Sudanese in Kakuma. The Ethiopian refugees include Oromo, Ogaden and Amhara, and are primarily former civil servants in Ethiopia. Both groups are in need of resettlement due to their inability to repatriate to their country of origin, their inability to locally integrate in Kenya, and due to their legal and physical protection needs, especially given the precarious protection environment in Kakuma Camp.

From Dadaab Camp, UNHCR anticipates submitting 1,000 Sudanese, 800 Somali and 500 Ethiopian refugees for resettlement. The Sudanese in Dadaab are a minority in a camp whose population is 98% Somali. Many of the Sudanese in Dadaab were transferred from Kakuma for protection reasons, most notably to avoid forced conscription. They have not, however, been able to integrate with the wider camp population due to cultural and linguistic differences. Resettlement has also been identified as necessary for 800 Somali refugees from

15 minority clans who are subject to discrimination in the camp. As in Kakuma, the Ethiopian refugees include Oromo, Ogaden and Amhara, and are primarily former civil servants in Ethiopia.

Finally, UNHCR anticipates submitting 500 Ethiopian Oromo refugees in Nairobi for resettlement in 2004. These refugees have been identified as unable to reside in either Kakuma or Dadaab, and are in need of resettlement due to their legal and physical protection needs and their lack of local integration prospects. The group also includes women-at-risk and victims of violence and torture.

In total, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Nairobi anticipates the submission of 6,000 refugees for resettlement from Kenya in 2004.

Refugees in Somalia

To date, UNHCR’s resettlement activities in Somalia have been only from the Northwest region of Somaliland, which enjoys relative stability and where UNHCR has a permanent presence of international staff responsible for refugee status determination and resettlement activities. While UNHCR’s Sub-Office in Hargeisa does not have any staff with exclusive resettlement responsibilities, resettlement objectives and activities are shared within the overall workplan of the Protection Unit.

Although Somalia is a party to the 1951 Convention, Northwest Somalia (or “Somaliland”) is a self-declared independent republic, which is not signatory to the 1951 Convention. While the local authorities declare their adherence to international laws, their capacity is limited. Arbitrary arrests are not uncommon. This situation has created a general insecurity amongst the refugee population, who consequently limit their movement. In addition, like other foreigners, refugees are regularly discriminated against and find local integration impossible, notwithstanding their length of residence. These conditions, coupled with the prevailing difficult social and economic conditions in Somaliland, lead UNHR to conclude that refugees in Northwest Somalia are in need of resettlement due to their lack of local integration prospects.

At the end of 2002, there was an urban refugee population in Hargeisa of nearly 200 individuals, which included approximately 160 Ethiopian refugees. Among the Ethiopian refugees were individuals with past political affiliation with the Mengistu regime and other opposition groups, ex-military personnel and family members of political dissidents, victims of violence, as well as those who were forcibly recruited into, or involved with, the army or other organized groups. These individuals will all be submitted for resettlement due to their legal and physical protection needs and their lack of local integration prospects. Given recent asylum and acceptance trends, UNHCR expects that the number of Ethiopian refugees in Somaliland will increase in the coming months. UNHCR therefore anticipates submitting 200 Ethiopian refugees for resettlement from Somaliland in 2004.

Apart from the Ethiopian nationals, Somalia also hosts refugees from other countries, including Angola, Burundi, Chad, the DRC, Sudan and Yemen. A significant number of these non-Ethiopian refugees suffer generalized discrimination, and limitations on their freedom of religion, which come to affect not only their safety and well-being in Somaliland, but also

their ability to locally integrate. Accordingly, UNHCR anticipates submitting 25 non- Ethiopian refugees for resettlement in 2004.

With the support of the Regional Resettlement Hub, UNHCR’s Sub-Office in Hargeisa plans to submit 225 refugees for resettlement from Somaliland in 2004.

Refugees in Sudan

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Khartoum has two primary refugee populations in need of resettlement consideration. The first consists of pre-1991 Ethiopian refugees who were determined to be in need of continued refugee status after the application of the Cessation Clause to the sub-group. The second is a potential number of screened-in Eritrean refugees who will be determined to be in continued need of international protection following the application of the ‘Ceased Circumstances’ cessation clause, which came into effect on 31 December 2002. In addition to these two primary groups, other cases for resettlement are identified from the post-1991 Ethiopian refugees and Eritreans who left Eritrea after the invocation of the cessation clause, as well as other refugee nationalities, which traditionally have not had a large presence in Sudan. These include nationals of Arab countries, and a smaller number of Congolese, Ugandans or Somalis.

Following the screening exercise for Ethiopian refugees in 2000-01, some 1,952 Ethiopians were identified as being in need of continued international protection. In addition, some Ethiopian asylum seekers have entered Sudan since the current government of Ethiopia assumed power in 1991. In total, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Khartoum estimates there are 14,770 Ethiopian refugees in Sudan.

There are significant legal obstacles to local integration for refugees in Sudan. Sudanese law restricts and prevents refugees from local integration given that the Sudanese Nationality Act 1957 stipulates that “if the alien is a national of another country, he has to validly and effectively renounce and divest himself of the said nationality under the laws of that country.” While this legal requirement may be achievable by other aliens, it would not be possible for refugees who are not in a position to return or make a legal application to their countries of origin in order to divest themselves of their nationality. In reality, therefore, the achievement of local integration through naturalisation by refugees in Sudan is not legally possible.

In addition, many refugees in Sudan suffer from a lack of legal and physical protection owing to their political affiliations. The authorities banned all opposition political parties in Sudan in 1998 and, since that time, individuals identified as having political links have faced harassment and intimidation with threats of deportation. Although the Government of Sudan usually respects the principle of non-refoulement, UNHCR is aware of situations where refugees with a political profile have been harassed by some Sudanese security officials and threatened with expulsion. In some cases, refugees have been issued with a letter from the office of the Commissioner of Refugees informing them that their presence in Sudan was not congruent with national security and advising the individual to look for a third country of refuge. In addition the Sudanese Asylum Act 1974 (Article 11) provides that “a refugee may be deported if his presence in Sudan constitutes a danger to the internal or external national security of the Sudan.” In such cases, UNHCR is not able to guarantee the protection of the concerned refugee in Sudan, leaving resettlement as the only viable option.

17 As the resettlement needs of the pre-1991 Ethiopian refugee population are being addressed in 2003, those of the post-1991 Ethiopian refugees will be addressed in 2004. While the resettlement needs of the estimated 12,000 post-1991 Ethiopian refugee population has yet to be precisely determined, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Khartoum anticipates the submission of 500 post-1991 Ethiopian refugees in 2004. This resettlement need is based on the tense relations between Ethiopia and Sudan and consequent suspicion of Ethiopian refugees, their inability to return to Ethiopia under the current regime, and their lack of local integration prospects in Sudan. Many individuals included in the preliminary group of 500 include students and cases of mixed marriages.

Also under consideration for possible resettlement are the screened-in Eritrean refugees. Approximately 27,000 persons have been registered to be screened by the refugee status determination teams. At present, urgent and vulnerable cases are being identified from amongst the refugees that have been determined to be in need of continued protection. These refugees are being referred to the UNHCR Branch Office in Khartoum for resettlement consideration. Once the status of the remaining population has been determined, this group will take priority in resettlement consideration.

The screening exercise is scheduled to be completed in January 2004. While detailed resettlement planning for the screened-in Eritreans is therefore not possible at this time, resettlement consideration will continue to take place when cases with protection concerns are identified by the on-going screening process. Based on current trends, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Khartoum anticipates that 500 screened-in Eritrean refugees will be submitted for resettlement in 2004. These cases include draft evaders, cases of mixed marriage, ex- combatants, religious minorities and some refugees with gender-related claims, including women from the military.

While a more accurate estimation of total resettlement need in Sudan is not yet available, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Khartoum anticipates the submission of 1,000 refugees for resettlement from Sudan in 2004.

Refugees in Uganda

Uganda is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Kampala will concentrate its 2004 resettlement activities on the needs of Sudanese and Congolese refugees in Uganda. The total population of Sudanese refugees in Uganda is 172,311. The majority of these refugees are Christians from eastern and western Equatoria belonging to the Acholi, Nuer, Zande, Kakwa, Lotuku, Bari, Kuku and Madi ethnic groups. While some refugees fled inter-ethnic conflict in Southern Sudan, the overwhelming majority of the Sudanese refugees in Uganda fled the conflict between, and abuses committed by, the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese Peoples’ Liberation Army (SPLA).

The protection environment for these refugees in Uganda is precarious. There have been a significant number of documented cases of abductions and other human rights violations against the refugee population by the SPLA, which is present in Uganda and has been supported by the Ugandan government. In addition, insecurity is a significant problem for

refugees in the north of Uganda, where refugee settlements are located in areas where the Lord’s Resistance Army has been increasingly active in recent months. Women refugees are especially vulnerable, and are at risk of exploitation and abduction by both the SPLA and the Lord’s Resistance Army. The legal and physical protection of these refugees cannot, therefore, be ensured in Uganda.

Despite progress in the Machakos Peace Process, and the possible de-escalation of tensions between the Government of Sudan and the SPLA, prospects of repatriation remain low for the majority of Sudanese refugees in Uganda. Given that most refugees are Equatorians, and given their history of conflict with the Dinka-dominated SPLA, there remains a high risk of inter-ethnic conflict if returned, which greatly reduces the prospects of voluntary return to Sudan in the foreseeable future.

While the Government of Uganda’s self-reliance strategy is being implemented, and has resulted in 40% of refugees deemed no longer to be in need of food assistance, local integration in Uganda remains problematic. Uganda’s integration strategy does not include provisions for the granting of residency or citizenship to refugees, which rules-out local integration as a viable durable solution for the majority of refugees.

Due to their legal and physical protection needs, and as a result of their lack of local integration prospects, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Kampala plans to submit 400 Sudanese refugees for resettlement in 2004.

UNHCR is also concerned about the condition of Uganda’s 8,526 Congolese refugees. The majority of Congolese refugees have fled the conflict between the various factions operating in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). As Uganda has been a party to the conflict and has had, until very recently, troops active within the DRC, many refugees face insecurity in Kampala from rebel agents representing groups from which the refugees initially fled. Congolese refugees also fear the possibility of forced recruitment into armed groups.

In addition, Congolese refugees originating from urban areas prefer to reside in urban areas in Uganda. They have, however, come to face significant harassment from local authorities and have difficulties integrating because of language barriers. Refugee women and victims of violence and torture have also faced particular obstacles in recovering from their traumas, which have compounded their difficulties in integrating. Integration prospects are further reduced by the limited opportunities for naturalization.

As recent events in Eastern DRC clearly illustrate, the prospects for conditions permitting repatriation to the DRC are slim.

As a result, neither local integration nor voluntary repatriation appear to be viable durable solutions for the Congolese refugees in Uganda for the foreseeable future. UNHCR therefore anticipates the submission of an initial 150 Congolese refugees for resettlement in 2004.

In total, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Kampala plans to submit 550 refugees for resettlement from Uganda in 2004.

19 WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA

Projected needs: 31,879 persons / Processing capacity: 22,154 persons

Refugees in Benin

Benin hosts 4,752 refugees. 152 of these refugees were recently resettled to Benin under the pilot resettlement programme. The refugee population in Benin includes refugees from the Republic of Congo (RoC), Togo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Chad, Nigeria and Burundi. While the majority of refugees live independently in urban areas, some 1,000 refugees are accommodated in the Kpomasse refugee settlement.

Benin is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. It has also adopted national legislation on refugees, which creates a favourable legal framework for the protection of refugees. Coupled with Benin’s stable political situation, especially in comparison to many states in the region, and the Government’s willingness to engage with other actors on the question of refugee protection and durable solutions, Benin may be seen as providing an effective protection environment for refugees.

These accomplishments notwithstanding, UNHCR has identified limited but pressing resettlement needs in Benin. In particular, the country’s porous borders have resulted in concerns relating to the physical security of a limited number of Togolese and Chadian refugees in Benin. UNHCR will pursue resettlement for a small number of cases whose physical security cannot be ensured in Benin. While 6 refugees have already been identified, UNHCR anticipates that on-going identification will lead to additional submissions in 2004.

In contrast, a significant number of refugees, especially from the DRC have requested that UNHCR also submit their cases for resettlement due to perceived security concerns in Benin. UNHCR has investigated these concerns and have found them to be lacking in credibility. As such, these refugees are considered to be neither in need of, nor eligible for, resettlement. UNHCR’s Branch Office in Cotonou will continue to handle alleged security concerns with caution.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Cotonou has also been considering, on an on-going basis, the resettlement needs of refugees whose protection and special needs cannot be met in Benin. To date, 17 refugees have already been identified, including Rwandan, Congolese (DRC and RoC) and Nigerians in need of resettlement for family reunification, as survivors of violence and as unaccompanied children and adolescents. UNHCR anticipates that additional resettlement cases will be identified and submitted in 2004.

UNHCR has also been considering resettlement as a durable solution for a limited number of refugees in Benin who lack local integration prospects. Given economic opportunities that exist in the informal sector, and UNHCR’s efforts to encourage refugees to attain self- sufficiency, only a very small number of cases will be considered for resettlement under this criterion. In 2004, UNHCR also anticipates submitting 12 refugees remaining from the Congolese Tutsi evacuated from Kinshasa to Benin in 1999 for resettlement due to their lack of local integration prospects.

In total, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Cotonou plans to submit 29 persons for resettlement from Benin in 2004.

Refugees in the Central African Republic

The Central African Republic (CAR) is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. The CAR does not, however, have any national legislation on refugees. Significant progress was being made towards the adoption of a national law on refugees prior to the political upheaval in March 2003. Given that the National Assembly has been dissolved, and given that the National Refugee Commission needs to be reactivated, it is doubtful that any progress on refugee legislation will be made for the rest of 2003.

National refugee statistics are also difficult to provide for the CAR, as the archives and databases of the National Refugee Commission were destroyed during the violence of March 2003. In 2000, however, UNHCR estimated that there were over 49,000 refugees in the CAR, including refugees from Sudan, the DRC, Rwanda and Chad.

The coup of March 2003, and the subsequent insecurity, has had a significant impact on refugee protection and durable solutions activities in the country. Following the outbreak of violence, both nationals of the CAR and refugees fled to neighbouring countries. It is, however, believed that many of the refugees have subsequently returned, although this is difficult to verify given the prevailing insecurity and the porousness of the borders. Prior to the instability of March 2003, however, over 10,000 Sudanese refugees were considered to be relatively well integrated in the CAR.

While UNHCR’s Branch Office in Bangui reports that 300 refugees are in need of resettlement, security concerns and staffing restrictions will limit the Office to submit only 30 refugees for resettlement in 2004. This group includes refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), who fled the civil war in their country but continue to face threats to their legal and physical security due to the belief that elements from the DRC are partially responsible for the violence in the CAR. A number of Rwandan refugees are also in need of resettlement due their lack of local integration prospects and protection needs, stemming from the belief by elements in the CAR that they were closely associated with the former President of the CAR. Finally, a smaller number of Chadian refugees, who cannot return to Chad due to a well-founded fear of persecution resulting from their political opinion and ethnicity, are in need of resettlement due to their legal and physical protection needs.

While 380 refugee have been identified as being in need of resettlement, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Bangui plans to submit only 40 persons for resettlement from the Central African Republic in 2004 due to security concern in the country and staffing limitations.

Refugees in Côte d’Ivoire

While Côte d’Ivoire is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention, refugee protection in the country has been severely disrupted in recent months by a dramatic increase in political and military instability in many parts of the country.

Côte d’Ivoire used to host approximately 72,000 refugees. Of these, 68,774 were Liberian, 536 Sierra Leonean and up to 2,000 of other nationalities, primarily for the Republic of Congo (RoC) and Rwanda. While the majority of refugees were accommodated in the western part of the country in a Zone d’Accueil des Réfugiés (ZAR), a smaller number remained in Abidjan and Yamoussoukro.

Before the failed coup attempt of September 2002, the resettlement caseload from Côte d’Ivoire was primarily Liberians with physical and legal protection needs, vulnerable cases, and some medical cases. Approximately 83 persons had been identified for possible resettlement submission from the Tabou area. In Abidjan, some 15 persons were under review for possible resettlement. In the Danané/Guiglo area, many claims required further review, although UNHCR’s Branch Office in Abidjan projected submitting 100 persons for resettlement.

The refugee population has been severely affected by the on-going conflict in Côte d’Ivoire since the failed coup attempt of 19 September 2002. Refugees have specifically suffered as a result of the rising xenophobia against Liberians and the ongoing recruitment of youths by both the rebel and government forces. There is rising belief among many Ivorians that the refugees, especially Liberians, have played a role in bringing instability to Côte d’Ivoire. As a result, refugees have been the victims of harassment, physical and sexual assault, and even murder. Attacks against refugees have been reportedly carried-out by the Ivorian army, rebel groups and Liberian armed groups who have been active in Côte d’Ivoire since the coup attempt.

The lack of effective command and control structures within the various armed factions, and the general deterioration of public order and law enforcement, has increased the insecurity for everybody, but especially for Liberian refugees. The Ivorian Government, who so generously hosted hundreds of thousands of refugees over the last decade, is now proving increasingly unable or unwilling to continue to protect the refugees on its territory, especially Liberians. In light of these deteriorating conditions, 20,000 Liberians reportedly opted to return to their country of origin, notwithstanding the increasingly precarious situation in Liberia. UNHCR has also facilitated the return of some 2,000 Liberian refugees.

UNHCR’s priority in Côte d’Ivoire has been to relocate the entire Liberian refugees stranded in the western parts of the countries and in Abidjan to safer location within Côte d’Ivoire. The Government has identified a possible site in Bondoukou at the border with Ghana, but no formal agreement has been reached, or security guarantees given, to allow this relocation to proceed. In the current environment, the Ivorian Government is clearly unable to ensure the physical protection of the Liberian refugees throughout the country.

In light of these deteriorating conditions, and given the failure of international efforts to stabilize the situation, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Abidjan had proposed the evacuation of Liberian refugees from Côte d’Ivoire. Such an evacuation was seen as the sole means of ensuring the legal and physical protection of Liberian refugees.

UNHCR estimates that at least 15,000 Liberian refugees are at risk in the Danane/Touleupleu region, in the ZAR, in Nicla camp, in Tabou, and in Abidjan.

UNHCR and the UN Humanitarian Envoy have requested several countries to consider the emergency relocation of groups of Liberian refugees to their territory. The US has agreed to resettle a significant number of Liberian refugees through a group resettlement process. Norway has also agreed to resettle a number of Liberian refugees on an individual basis. Nigeria has also agreed to facilitate the relocation of a significant number of Liberian refugees from Côte d’Ivoire to an existing refugee settlement in Nigeria.

Initial discussions with these partners have focused on the resettlement of 6,000 refugees to the US, 200 refugees to Norway, and the relocation of 5,000 refugees to Nigeria.

Notwithstanding these positive and encouraging undertakings, additional resettlement opportunities still need to be identified to fully address the resettlement needs of Liberian refugees in Côte d’Ivoire.

Refugees in Gabon

Gabon hosts 13,473 refugees, mostly from the Republic of Congo (RoC). Other refugees in Gabon come from 24 different African countries, including Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Rwanda and Burundi. Most refugees live in urban areas.

Gabon is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. Following a refugee influx in the 1970s, the Government of Gabon created the Délégation Général pour les Réfugies in 1976. Gabon received additional refugees in the 1990s from the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the RoC. These new arrivals led to the development of new legislative measures to deal with refugees. In 2000, an agreement was signed between Gabon and UNHCR which established an Eligibility Commission and the Commission Nationale pour les Réfugiés.

Given that Gabon is relatively stable in relation to many of its neighbours, it has become a favoured destination for refugees from the region.

A voluntary repatriation exercise began in 2002 for refugees from the RoC, and UNHCR anticipates that some 3,000 refugees will chose to repatriate under the programme. It is, however, anticipated that a residual caseload will remain after the repatriation. Resettlement will likely be the only viable durable solution for this group, given that local integration for refugees will be difficult to achieve given Gabon’s difficult economic situation. In fact, refugees have increasingly been blamed for Gabon’s poor economy in recent months. In addition, while refugees have the legal possibility of applying for naturalization in Gabon, in reality this process has not proven to bring results. Many refugees who applied for naturalization several years ago are still awaiting decisions.

Planning estimates for resettlement in 2004 include the resettlement needs of 250 ethnic Ndzebi, Kougui and Puna refugees from the Republic of Congo. Most of these refugees fled the civil war in the RoC between 1997 and 1999. Many were government officials and bureaucrats in their country of origin, are university-educated and known for their political opinions. They cannot be expected to repatriate given their well-founded fear of persecution due to their political opinion. Resettlement has been identified as the preferred durable solution for these refugees given their legal and physical protection needs and medical needs.

23 The group is also believed to include women-at-risk and elderly refugees in need of resettlement.

UNHCR has also identified 150 Arab Chadian refugees as being in need of resettlement. This is one of the oldest refugee populations in Gabon, and most have been recognized as refugees under the 1951 Convention. While voluntary repatriation will likely be the preferred durable solution for some of these refugees, UNHCR estimates that resettlement will be necessary for most of these refugees, due to their inability to return to Chad, their lack of local integration prospects in Gabon and their legal and physical protection needs.

Of the remaining nationalities, UNHCR anticipates that 100 refugees will require resettlement in 2004. This group includes women-at-risk, elderly refugees, refugees with legal and physical protection needs and refugees who lack local integration prospects.

While UNHCR estimates that 2,000, mostly Congolese, refugees require resettlement from Gabon in 2004, limited staffing will result in only a total of 300 refugees being submitted.

Refugees in Ghana

Ghana is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. Ghana enacted national legislation on refugees in 1992, which established a Refugee Board to carry out refugee status determination. The vast majority of refugees and asylum seekers in Ghana have not, however, benefited from an individual status determination. During 2001, the mandate of the Board lapsed and status determination activities ceased altogether. The Board has now been reconstituted as a result of extensive negotiations with the Government and it is anticipated that, following capacity building and training, the Board will commence status determination activities sometime in 2003.

Following the attempted coup in Abidjan, Ghana has experienced an influx of refugees fleeing the on-going violence in Côte d’Ivoire. The new refugee population includes both Ivorians and other nationalities, mainly Liberians, who had previously been refugees in Côte d’Ivoire. Estimates of new refugee arrivals in Ghana range between 1,000 and 3,000.

Following the allegations of irregularities in resettlement submissions and management in early 2002, and in view of the increased resettlement activities conducted by resettlement countries in Ghana, efforts are underway to significantly strengthen the capacity and procedures of UNHCR’s Ghana office, specifically the management of resettlement activities. These efforts include increasing staffing levels, establishing written procedures for identification and case processing, and additional management safeguards including registration and photo-taking of refugees upon arrival, as well as proper data management. Strategies to manage refugee expectations relating to resettlement are also being developed.

Recent remedial efforts have addressed the backlog of pending and partially completed resettlement files. All pending cases have been reviewed both internally and in co-operation with the relevant resettlement country government partners. Standard operating procedures for both resettlement and refugee status determination have been developed and are in the process of being implemented, together with a similar exercise for the Regional Hub.

A nation-wide refugee registration exercise is planned for the third quarter of 2003, and should enable UNHCR to more effectively and credibly identify refugees in need of resettlement. In anticipation of this exercise, and in the interest of addressing the resettlement needs of refugees in Ghana, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Accra, in close co-operation with the Accra Regional Resettlement Hub, has established resettlement planning figures for the Liberian, Togolese and Sierra Leonean refugees in Ghana.

UNHCR anticipates the identification of 600 Liberian refugees in need of resettlement from Ghana in 2004 due to their legal and physical protection needs and other special needs. Many will likely be women-at-risk, unaccompanied minors and survivors of violence. A certain number of refugees with a lack of local integration prospects will also be identified during the relocation of the Budaburam refugee settlement later in 2003. A number of these refugees have been in Ghana for over a decade, cannot return to Liberia for fear of persecution, and have not been able to integrate in Ghana. UNHCR also anticipates submitting 425 Togolese refugees for resettlement in 2004, including ex-military, women-at-risk and members of the opposition currently located in Accra, Krisan camp and the Volta region. Finally, some 500 Sierra Leonean refugees are believed to be in need of resettlement both due to their legal and physical protection needs and their lack of local integration prospects in Ghana. The group also includes the widows of rebels in Sierra Leone who have been the victims of physical and sexual abuse.

In total, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Accra, with the support of the Accra Regional Resettlement Hub, plans to submit 1,525 persons for resettlement from Ghana in 2004.

Refugees in Guinea

Guinea hosts approximately 181,597 refugees, including 119,845 Liberians, 59,417 Sierra Leoneans, and 125 of other nationalities.

Guinea is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, as well as to the 1969 OAU Convention. A national refugee law was promulgated in August 2000. While the law is not fully implemented, an Eligibility Committee functions on the basis of an agreement signed between the Government and UNHCR.

A significant number of Sierra Leonean refugees are expected to repatriate in 2003 and 2004 under UNHCR’s voluntary repatriation operation. UNHCR’s Branch Office in Conakry projects that out of the total caseload, 32,000 will opt to return, leaving a residual caseload made up of those unable to return for 1951 Convention reasons or who by virtue of their past experiences could not be expected to return. UNHCR will actively seek the resettlement of those within the residual caseload that meet the criteria for resettlement.

Guinea has hosted Liberian refugees in the Nzerekore region since the outbreak of the Liberian civil war in 1990. The present Liberian refugee population is made up of a residual caseload of refugees who opted not to repatriate during UNHCR’s voluntary repatriation exercise, which was concluded in 1998. Many of these refugees have a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of their political opinion, ethnicity or other Convention grounds, and are unable to return to Liberia for the foreseeable future.

25 Since December 2001, Guinea has received a number of refugees fleeing the ongoing conflict in Lofa and Bong Counties in Liberia. While the Guinean border with Liberia remains officially closed for commercial traffic, asylum seekers were allowed to cross during the early part of 2002. During the second half of 2002, however, reports of refoulement at the border entry points and the abuse of refugees by border authorities and rebel groups were regularly reported. In order to avoid abuse or rejection at the border, asylum seekers have remained for long periods in the bush until they felt it was safe to cross into Guinea. A significant number of those entering are survivors of violence and abuse, including sexual abuse.

Guinea is presently hosting a significant number of Liberian refugees who are victims of double flight. Some of these refugees had previously found asylum in Sierra Leone, but were displaced several times within the country due to the civil war, and finally forced to flee to Guinea. UNHCR’s Branch Office in Conakry plans to submit 300 refugees for resettlement from this group, based on their protection needs and lack of local integration prospects. Since December 2002, Liberian refugees who had previously enjoyed asylum in the Danane region of Côte d’Ivoire have been granted temporary protection in Guinea until such time as they can return to Côte d’Ivoire. Given the rising levels of xenophobia in Côte d’Ivoire, particularly towards Liberian refugees, however, the prospects for the return of these new arrivals does not seem likely in the foreseeable future. They are likely to remain in Guinea until such time as a durable solution for them can be found. UNHCR’s Branch Office in Conakry estimates that between 3,000 and 5,000 Liberian refugees from Côte d’Ivoire will be in need of resettlement due to their experience of multiple flights, their protection needs, and their lack of local integration prospects in Guinea.

The deterioration in the security situation in Guinea in 2000 – 2001, when many refugees were victims of abuse, violence and sexual harassment, led to an increased focus on resettlement. The asylum climate in Guinea has improved significantly with the transfer of refugees from the precarious, insecure border areas to new camps, coupled with UNHCR’s efforts to maintain the civilian and humanitarian nature of these camps. Security has been stepped-up in the camps to improve the protection of women and children. While these initiatives address their physical security needs, addressing issues relating to their continued vulnerability and exploitation remain major challenges.

In light of these conditions, and based on a review of resettlement needs in Guinea, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Conakry has identified a number of specific categories of refugees in Guinea in need of resettlement.

Among the Liberian refugees, 350 Liberian Krahn are believed to be in need of resettlement in 2004. These refugees have been found to have a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Liberia due to their political opinions and ethnicity. After over 10 years in Guinea, and given current local conditions, these refugees are also unable to pursue local integration. Resettlement is consequently the only viable durable solution.

A number of women-at-risk resettlement cases will also be submitted in 2004. Despite efforts to improve their safety, cases of rape in the camps continue to be reported. Women-at- risk also include those lacking support structures and those with imputed political opinions.

Resettlement will also be needed for a number of cases of survivors of violence. These individuals have been singled-out for their actual or imputed political opinion and subjected to human rights violations. While both local integration and repatriation have been pursued

for many, not all will be able to pursue these solutions given their ongoing need for physical rehabilitation and trauma counselling. Within this category there are refugees who are survivors of violence further to events in Guinea, and refugees who are survivors of violence in their country of origin. For each category, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Conakry estimates a resettlement need of between 300 and 700 refugees, based on the fact that neither repatriation nor local integration are viable durable solutions, and given that the facilities necessary to address their special needs do not exist in Guinea.

A number of refugees also continue to face particular legal and physical protection needs in Guinea, stemming from their proximity to their country of origin and by virtue of previous positions they held in the government or various political associations. Refugees are also repeatedly rounded-up by Guinean elements and detained on spurious charges of espionage, threats to state security or collaborating with rebels from Liberia or Sierra Leone. During detention, many are beaten or roughly treated.

UNHCR has also identified significant resettlement need among Liberian refugees who lack local integration prospects. This category includes those refugees who could not repatriate due to their political opinions, their ethnicity (especially Krahns and Mandingos), or due to the insecurity in the areas of return, namely Lofa County. While the vast majority have made very real attempts to locally integrate, repeated displacement, both within Sierra Leone and Guinea, coupled with harassment, abuse and language difficulties, have made the prospects for local integration bleak.

UNHCR is also considering the resettlement needs of a number of separated children. Following best interest determinations, a small group of separated children, some ex- combatants, may also be in need of resettlement. Initial discussions with agencies involved in their care in Guinea suggest that many will be unable to return and successfully reunite with their families and their communities.

Finally, resettlement UNHCR also anticipates identifying approximately 70 Ivorian refugees, 150 Rwandan Hutus with a history of double flight, and 70 Burundian Tutsi as being in need of resettlement from Guinea in 2004 due to their legal and physical protection needs.

In total, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Conakry plans to submit 4,540 refugees for resettlement from Guinea in 2004, including group submissions. 4,250 of these refugees will be Liberian, where the remaining 290 will be Ivorian, Rwandan or Burundian.

Refugees in Liberia

Liberia is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, as well as to the 1969 OAU Convention. The 1993 Liberia Refugee Act and a number of declarations and bi-lateral agreements between the government and UNHCR have further developed the legal framework for the protection of refugees in Liberia. The seven-year civil war in the 1990s, on-going military conflict between government forces and dissidents in certain parts of the country, and the combined effect of poor governance and a failing economy have, however, resulted in incidents of refugee harassment, extortion, and looting of refugees’ property have been reported.

27 The problems of refugee protection in Liberia have been compounded in recent months by the Ivorian crises, beginning with the attempted coup in September 2002. The fighting resulted in an influx of Liberian returnees, Ivorian refugees and citizens from third countries into Liberia. More than 75,000 persons have entered Liberia from Cote d’Ivoire since the beginning of hostilities.

Given that Liberia and Sierra Leone share a common culture, languages and, to a certain extent, traditions, the local integration of Sierra Leonean refugees into Liberian society should not have been problematic. The efforts have, however, been frustrated by the socio- economic conditions in Liberia, where the unemployment rate is one of the highest in the world and which lacks basic social infrastructure. Given the recent positive developments in Sierra Leone, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Monrovia believes that repatriation will be the most appropriate durable solution for the majority of these refugees. This position notwithstanding, there are still some specific cases within the Sierra Leonean refugee population that will be in need of resettlement for reasons of protection or family reunification.

Liberia also hosts refugees from a range of different nationalities, including Palestinian, Togolese, Rwandan, Iraqis, Congolese (DRC) and Sudanese. Apart from the general socio- economic and political situation in Liberia, issues of culture, language and nationality further compound the local integration prospects of these refugees, making local integration almost impossible.

The recent upsurge in fighting in Liberia, especially around Monrovia, has seriously jeopardised the safety and security of thousands of refugees. UNHCR has received worrying reports of widespread incidents of refugees being subjected to violence, intimidation and extortion. As a result of the rapidly deteriorating security situation, UNHCR’s Liberia Country Team has been evacuated to Abidjan, which has necessarily resulted in a suspension of UNHCR’s resettlement activities for refugees in Liberia.

Prior to the recent escalation of the conflict in Liberia, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Monrovia had reported that 215 refugees were in need of resettlement, but that limited staffing would enable the Office to submit only 30 refugees for resettlement from Liberia in 2004. UNHCR will not, however, be able to either reassess or address this resettlement need until conditions in Liberia stabilise and UNHCR’s Liberia Team is able to return to Monrovia.

Refugees in Nigeria

Nigeria is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, as well as to the 1969 OAU Convention.

Nigeria hosts an estimated 7,355 refugees of whom 1,792 are Liberian and 1,877 are Sierra Leonean. These refugees are accommodated primarily at Oru Refugee Camp, Ijebu-Oru, and in Lagos. In addition, some 3,000 Chadian refugees are located in the Northern part of the country. It is estimated that 70% of the entire refugee population is composed of women, children and adolescents.

Of the 1,792 Liberian refugees in Nigeria, 1,705 are accommodated in the Oro refugee camp. A smaller number of recognized refugees live in Lagos, Port-Harcourt, Enugu and very

few in the Northern part of the country. The majority of these refugees belong to the Krahn ethnic group and originate mainly from Grand Gedeh county. Nigeria has been receiving new arrivals in the past two years from Lofa, Bong and Cape-Mount counties. Mandigos, Loma and Krahn constitute the buk of the Liberian refugee population.

In light of the on-going conflict in Liberia, no organized repatriation is anticipated in the foreseeable future. A very limited number of individuals may, however, opt for spontaneous return. Apart from the general conditions of insecurity, a significant number of the Liberian refugees in Nigeria would have a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Liberia on account of their involvement in political activities prior to the civil war and their close family ties with opponents of the Taylor regime.

In 2002, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Lagos encouraged refugees to pursue self-sufficiency. Revolving loans were provided, but only a few groups were able to take advantage of these opportunities. It has been concluded that another durable solution will need to be identified for the rest of the refugee population in Nigeria.

UNHCR estimates that 60 Liberian refugees will be identified as being in need of resettlement as women-at-risk and as refugees with a lack of local integration prospects in 2004.

The majority of Nigeria’s 1,877 Sierra Leonean refugees reside in refugee camps. The majority of the Sierra Leonean refugees originate from regions of Sierra Leone formerly under the control of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). Voluntary repatriation is being promoted for these refugees, through information campaigns designed to inform refugees on conditions in their region of origin. Given the improvement of conditions in Sierra Leone, it is anticipated that up to 800 Sierra Leonean refugees will chose to repatriate in 2003.

UNHCR will only consider the resettlement of Sierra Leonean refugees from Nigeria in urgent and compelling cases. Resettlement needs are, however, envisioned for refugees with security concerns, for unaccompanied minors whose parents or guardians cannot be traced, and for refugees unable to return due to severe trauma. UNHCR believes that 30 Sierra Leonean refugees will be submitted for resettlement from Nigeria in 2004.

Resettlement is also being actively considered for other nationalities who are unable to repatriate or locally integrate. In particular, Sudanese, Congolese, Chadian, Rwandan, Ethiopian and Togolese refugees are being considered. In total, UNHCR hopes that 100 refugees from these nationalities will be submitted for resettlement in 2004.

While resettlement forms an integral part of UNHCR’s response to the protection needs of refugees in Nigeria, resource constraints continue to be a major obstacle to case identification and processing. In total, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Lagos plans to submit 190 persons for resettlement from Nigeria in 2004.

Refugees in Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone hosts an estimated 63,893 refugees, the overwhelming majority of whom are Liberians. More than 50,000 fled to Sierra Leone in 2002. Given the on-going fighting in Liberia, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Freetown has a contingency plan for some 50,000 new

29 arrivals in 2003. Close to 70% of the Liberian population currently lives in refugee camps located in the Southern Provinces. The others reside in border areas or urban settings. However, in-line with government policy motivated by security concerns, new refugees (those who arrived in 2001 and later) should be accommodated in camps rather than border communities. UNHCR is co-operating with the government to carry out a mass information campaign and help this population to move to the camps. Consequently, UNHCR anticipates that the percentage of refugees living in the camps will increase.

Sierra Leone is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, as well as to the 1969 OAU Convention. Although carried out generously in practice, provisions for refugee protection are not yet adequately reflected in domestic legislation. In the absence of legislation or government procedures for determination of refugee status, UNHCR continues to fulfil this role. As Sierra Leone moves towards a state of lasting peace and normality, UNHCR has urged the Government to assume responsibility for the determination of refugee status and other related matters. UNHCR has prepared draft national legislation, which is currently being reviewed by the Sierra Leonean Government.

An individual screening exercise of the residual caseload was carried-out at the completion of the voluntary repatriation operation to Liberia. This exercise is in its final stages of completion. More than 500 refugees have been identified to date as being in need of resettlement.

For the new arrivals, UNHCR spent the majority of last year in an emergency phase constructing camps and transporting refugees from border areas. Measures to identify extremely vulnerable individuals and separated families have been incorporated into registration and screening processes. It is envisaged that resettlement training will be conducted this year for UNHCR staff and partners to improve identification procedures and establish referral systems for potential resettlement cases. More specialised training will be held for partners working with survivors of violence to ensure that case assessments include an examination of resettlement needs.

There is a known caseload of former combatants, whose refugee claims are currently being closely examined in accordance with UNHCR guidelines. Those determined to be in need and deserving of refugee status may equally be eligible for resettlement due to their legal and physical protection needs. The Sierra Leone Government, which has taken a neutral position in the Liberian conflict and has national security concerns, is not always able to protect these individuals’ basic human rights. The porous border with their country of origin is an element of concern. Additionally, due to the belief that Liberians brought the war to Sierra Leone, these individuals face discrimination in public areas and are extremely limited in being able to locally integrate.

A significant portion of the refugee population concerns female-headed households and women-at-risk. Despite efforts to decrease protection risks in accessing assistance and services and empowerment programmes either in place or being established, many females remain in precarious positions, and may consequently be in need of resettlement.

Cases of gender persecution and other survivors of violence and torture continue to be documented on a relatively high scale in Liberia. Services to respond to the majority of survivors’ needs are in place, however, there will be individuals who required more

specialised assistance than that which can be provided in Sierra Leone and may consequently be submitted for resettlement.

Options for local integration are extremely limited in Sierra Leone, which is currently in a recovery phases after a decade-long civil conflict. Social and economic infrastructures, which were among the world’s poorest even before the crisis, have been devastated by the war. To respond to the situation, the High Commissioner for Refugees’s 4Rs project1 will be piloted in Sierra Leone. The concept of refugees as agents of development also factors into this pilot project along with other links being made with developmental actors. Such an approach may not, however, address all refugees’ circumstances. This is particularly true for individuals, for whom prospects for voluntary repatriation in the near future seem dim and who have been repeatedly displaced since the beginning of the Liberian conflict.

Opportunities for Liberians are further limited by xenophobia resulting from the history of the start of the Sierra Leonean war at the Liberian border. A number of refugees may therefore be submitted for resettlement due to their lack of local integration prospects.

While over 8,000 refugees are estimated to be in need of resettlement, limited staffing means that UNHCR’s Branch Office in Freetown plans to submit 500 refugees for resettlement from Sierra Leone in 2004.

1 Repatriation, Reintegration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction.

31 SOUTHERN AFRICA

Projected needs: 2,972 persons / Processing capacity: 932 persons

Refugees in Angola

Angola hosts approximately 10,921 refugees. The majority of these refugees are from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) who fled the conflict in Katanga province in the 1970s and were granted prima facie status.

Angola is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. In 1990, the Angolan Parliament adopted national refugee legislation. This law created the Committee for the Recognition of the Right of Asylum (COREDA). The legislation also grants recognized refugees the right for employment. Opportunities are, however, rare and local integration prospects are therefore limited.

During the 27-year Angolan civil war, more than three million Angolans, 25 percent of the entire population, were displaced by the conflict. Refugees in Angola have also been affected by the conflict and become secondarily displaced within Angola. Though peace has been restored throughout the country since the signing of the cease-fire agreement between the government and UNITA in April 2002, the humanitarian situation in Angola is critical and is expected to remain so for some time.

A comprehensive approach to the durable solutions needs of the Congolese refugees in Viana and Kifangondo camps is being given serious consideration. Pending developments in local integration and repatriation prospects, resettlement is likely to play a key role in finding a durable solution for this refugee population. In the meantime, however, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Luanda anticipates submitting 200 refugees for resettlement from Angola in 2004.

Angola also hosts 402 Congolese cases of various ethnic backgrounds and mainly from Kinshasa. The majority of these refugees fled persecution by the former Mobutu regime in then-Zaire, and later from persecution by the Kabila regime in the late 1990s. Although repatriation prospects have recently improved, many refugees express a deep reluctance to return to the DRC. Based on the limited resources available for resettlement, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Luanda anticipates submitting only 50 refugees from this group for resettlement from Angola in 2004.

In total, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Luanda plans to submit 255 persons for resettlement from Angola in 2004.

Refugees in South Africa, Namibia and Mozambique

The Republic of South Africa is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention.

South Africa hosts a diverse and complex refugee and asylum caseload. South Africa’s asylum system has proven to be susceptible to unfounded claims by economic migrants who

abuse the asylum system as a means of remaining in South Africa. UNHCR’s Regional Office in Pretoria is therefore faced with a significant challenge in trying to convince the South African government to improve its asylum system, and resettlement planning must be sensitive to these concerns.

These challenges notwithstanding, UNHCR believes that a number of Rwandan, Burundian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Sudanese and Congolese (DRC) refugees face protection problems that may only be resolved through resettlement.

Specifically, UNHCR is concerned about the situation of a number of Rwandans in mixed marriages. Many of these refugees arrived in South Africa between 1996 and 2002. While most of them would likely face persecution if returned to Rwanda, many of these refugees also face threats from the Rwandan diaspora in South Africa. A number of non-inclusion and exclusion issues will need to be resolved before this group may be submitted for resettlement.

South Africa has also received, in recent years, a number of Rwandan Hutu refugees. The majority of these refugees are male farmers, businessmen, and former members of the military and militia in Rwanda who allegedly fear persecution by Rwandan agents active in South Africa. Their legal and physical security concerns are compounded by the South African government’s inability to ensure their security. Should these security concerns be confirmed, resettlement may prove to be the only viable durable solution for these refugees, subject to confirmation of their non-excludability.

The Burundian refugees in South Africa include refugees from the 1993 upheavals and refugees fleeing the on-going conflict in Burundi. The majority of the new arrivals are students and young intellectuals. Many are young males, and a case-by-case assessment is required to determine their prospects of return or need for resettlement.

South Africa also hosts a number of Ethiopian/Eritrean mixed marriages. The refugees will likely be submitted for resettlement as their asylum applications have been rejected by South Africa. Given their background, they cannot return to either Ethiopia or Eritrea, and they are in a condition of de facto statelessness.

Resettlement needs have also been identified within the population of Sudanese refugees, many of whom are students and intellectuals. Many of these refugees complain of discrimination in South Africa due to their physical appearance. The current levels of xenophobia in South Africa makes access to education and employment very difficult for foreigners, and local integration therefore remains unlikely. Given the uncertainty surrounding the Sudanese peace process at this stage, and the clear difficulties associated with repatriation for the foreseeable future, resettlement may be the only viable durable solution for these refugees.

As with the Rwanda and Burundian refugees in South Africa, many of the Congolese refugees in South Africa are human rights activists and civil servants who fled rebel-held areas in the DRC. Former members of armed groups, such as the Mai Mai, will certainly require resettlement once thorough consideration is given to the possible application of the exclusion clauses.

UNHCR’s resettlement activities in South Africa have increasingly focused on specific vulnerable groups. These vulnerable categories cover all nationalities and groups described

33 above, and their definition depends more on the specific circumstances of their stay in South Africa. These groups include female-headed households, where refugee women not been able to become self-sufficient while caring for their children. Resettlement activities have also focused on chronically ill or disabled refugees who do not have access to local support structures and who UNHCR is not able to support due to funding constraints. Finally, UNHCR is concerned about the condition of a number of vulnerable youth who are in need of resettlement due to their lack of local integration prospects.

UNHCR’s Regional Office in Pretoria also has responsibility for the resettlement of refugees from Namibia, where UNHCR has identified a small number of Congolese and Burundian refugees in need of resettlement for protection reasons and due to their lack of local integration prospects. UNHCR anticipates submitting 7 persons for resettlement from Namibia in 2004.

In addition, UNHCR’s Regional Office in Pretoria has responsibility for the resettlement of refugees from Mozambique, where a number of Sudanese refugees are being considered for resettlement in 2004 due to their lack of local integration prospects. A more thorough screening of resettlement need is anticipated for the Congolese (DRC), Burundian, Rwandan and Angolan refugees in Mozambique once UNHCR is able to address the backlog in refugee status determination.

In total, UNHCR’s Regional Office in Pretoria plans to submit 207 refugees for resettlement from South Africa and Namibia in 2004.

Refugees in Zambia and Zimbabwe

Zambia hosts approximately 286,662 refugees, of whom 224,718 are Angolan and 52,585 are from the DRC, 4,955 are Rwandan, 2,229 are Burundian, 893 are Somali, 770 are Ugandan and 313 are of other nationalities.

Zambia is a party to the 1951 Convention, though it maintains reservations with regard to employment and freedom of movement. Zambia is also a party to the 1969 OAU Convention. Zambia’s National Eligibility Committee adjudicates individual cases using both instruments. Prima facie status is granted to refugees arriving in border areas and in mass influx situations.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Lusaka is concerned about the situation of about 100 Tutsis refugees from the DRC. They are mainly Bayamulenge, Bembe and some of mixed marriage ethnicity who fled targeted violence in Eastern DRC. UNHCR believes that all 100 refugees are in need of resettlement. There is a second group of 2,000 Congolese refugees planned for resettlement submission in 2004 due to their legal and physical protection needs. This is a group that formerly had the right to reside in urban areas, but have now been confined to rural areas. They risk detention if they do not comply with the new regulations. While all 2,000 of these refugees are believed to be in need of resettlement, current staffing levels will mean that only 400 refugees from this group will be submitted for resettlement in 2004.

Resettlement is not being considered for the majority of the Angolan refugees during the on- going repatriation exercise. UNHCR’s Branch Office in Lusaka anticipates, however, that a total of 40 high-profile ex-UNITA refugees will be submitted for resettlement in 2004. Their need for resettlement is rooted in their strong political involvement in the Angolan war and

their consequent mistrust of the current government. These conditions would further complicate their repatriation.

In addition, 200 refugees of various nationalities are also in need of resettlement due to their protection needs and vulnerability in Zambia. Current staffing levels will, however, only allow for 60 refugees to be submitted for resettlement from Zambia.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Lusaka also has responsibility for the resettlement of refugees from Zimbabwe, where a number of urban Congolese (DRC), Burundian and Sudanese refugees may be identified as being in need of resettlement in 2004. Limited staffing will, however, significantly limit UNHCR’s ability to refer resettlement cases from Zimbabwe in 2004.

In total, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Lusaka has identified approximately 2,540 refugees in need of resettlement from Zambia. Due to limited capacity, however, UNHCR anticipates the submission of only 500 refugees for resettlement in 2004.

THE AMERICAS

Projected needs: 1,590 persons / Processing capacity: 890 persons

NORTHERN AND CENTRAL AMERICA

The Northern and Central America region has not traditionally been a region from where resettlement has taken place. Local integration has proven in the past to be the most appropriate solution to regional refugee problems. At present, the main destabilising factor in the region is the conflict in Colombia, which continues to cause displacement, both internally and to neighbouring countries. Resettlement from the region has increasingly become an effective protection tool for particular refugees, primarily from Colombia, who face physical and legal protection needs or other urgent protection concerns.

Refugees in Costa Rica

Costa Rica hosts 12,427 refugees, including 7,326 Colombians, 2,635 Nicaraguans, 1,107 Cubans, 790 Salvadorans, 236 Peruvians, and 333 of other nationalities.

Costa Rica is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. In 1983, Costa Rica also adopted refugee status determination procedures.

Refugee movements resulting from the conflict in Colombia have had a significant impact on Costa Rica. The number of asylum claims filed in Costa Rica by Colombian applicants has risen from 88 asylum claims in 1999 to 5,018 claims in 2001. Following the establishment of a visa requirement for Colombians travelling to Costa Rica in April 2002, the number of Colombian asylum applications fell by 28% in early 2003. To the end of May 2003, Costa Rica received an average of 180 asylum claims a month from Colombian nationals.

The main goal of the Costa Rica Programme for Refugees is the local integration of new Colombian refugees, a goal that the country has traditionally been able to achieve. The economic difficulties faced by Costa Rica throughout 2002 have, however, posed difficulties for the integration of refugees into the labour market. Moreover, the higher levels of education among Colombian refugees, as compared to other Central American refugees, does not facilitate their integration as local opportunities for jobs are mainly for unskilled labourers. In light of these conditions, local integration is becoming a less viable durable solution for educated Colombian refugees.

While resettlement has not been a traditional feature of Costa Rica’s protection regime, the new conditions have resulted in a gradual deterioration of security for refugees. In response, UNHCR has expanded its capacity to use resettlement as a means of addressing the protection needs of individual cases. At the beginning of 2003, UNHCR’s Office in Costa Rica established a Resettlement Unit. By the end of April 2003, 26 refugees had been approved for resettlement to the United States. The Unit expects to process an additional 45 refugees per month in 2003.

It is expected that the security situation of Colombian refugees in Costa Rica may further deteriorate in 2004. UNHCR believes that as many as 600 refugees may be in need of resettlement from Costa Rica in 2004, due not only to their legal and physical protection needs, but also due to their vulnerability and their inability to locally integrate in Costa Rica.

Given limited resettlement capacity in the Office, however, UNHCR plans to submit 300 persons for resettlement from Costa Rica in 2004.

Refugees in Cuba

Cuba currently hosts two groups of refugees. The first group is comprised of students who travelled to Cuba on governmental scholarships, and were recognised as refugees sur place due to a fundamental change in their countries or origin. This has mainly affected Ethiopians of Eritrean descent. While these refugees enjoy legal temporary residence in Cuba for the duration of their studies, they do not have the option to remain permanently in Cuba. The second group is made up of Mandate refugees recognised after fleeing persecution in their home countries and entering Cuba with a tourist visa. These refugees are tolerated by the Cuban Government but have no legal status.

Cuba is not a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol. Asylum seekers who spontaneously arrive in Cuba with tourist visas, who are thereafter recognised under UNHCR’s Mandate, are protected from refoulement and granted provisional authorisation of stay until UNHCR can find a suitable durable solution. There is no legal framework for local integration for these refugees, nor material conditions to promote such a solution. Since no local integration opportunities exist, and given their inability to repatriate, resettlement is the only viable durable solution for these refugees.

During 2003, UNHCR has been actively seeking resettlement for 75 refugees. It is projected that UNHCR’s efforts will result in the identification of a resettlement solution for only 50% of these cases during 2003. Refugees in Cuba in need of resettlement are primarily extra- regional refugees, mostly from Africa and the Middle East.

UNHCR anticipates that approximately 55 persons will be submitted for resettlement from Cuba in 2004. This figue includes those refugees in Cuba who are unlikely to find a durable solution in 2003, estimated to be approximately 40 persons, in addition to new arrivals recognised under UNHCR’s Mandate during 2003 and 2004, estimated to be approximately 15 persons.

Refugees in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Belize

The principal durable solution for refugees in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Belize is local integration. The vast majority of long-staying refugees in these countries, namely refugees from other Central American countries, have opted for local integration, including permanent residency and in some cases generous programmes of naturalisation. Refugees of diverse nationalities have been able to enjoy legal and physical protection in these countries of first asylum. Therefore, local integration has been achievable for the vast majority of refugees in these countries.

37 There may, however, be a small group, primarily of extra-regional urban refugees, who lack local integration prospects. Many of these refugees have not been able to locally integrate due to serious barriers to economic self-sufficiency resulting from cultural and linguistic differences and the notable absence of a diaspora of certain nationalities in these countries. The challenges to local integration have become more pronounced as the refugee populations in these countries have become more heterogeneous, with the increased arrival of extra- regional refugees. Some special medical cases, whose specific needs are very difficult to meet in the first country of asylum, have also been identified.

UNHCR identifies resettlement need on an individual, case-by-case basis, and may refer vulnerable cases for resettlement when there is a sustained lack of local integration prospects and when no local solutions can be found.

UNHCR expects to submit up to 20 persons for resettlement from these six countries in 2004.

Refugees in Venezuela, Panama, Peru, Ecuador, Surinam and Guyana

The widening of the conflict in Colombia continues to cause massive population displacement, both internally and to neighbouring countries, and continues to pose specific challenges to Colombia’s neighbours as they try to respond to those displaced by the conflict.

In Ecuador, the government has maintained a liberal asylum policy and continues to grant refugees access to its territory and the asylum procedure. The growing number of monthly arrivals in 2003, with an average of 1,200 persons per month, has, however, put the asylum system in Ecuador under pressure and has resulted in a growing backlog of cases. By the end of April 2003, the backlog stood at more than 2,000. At the same time, the number of refugees in need of resettlement as an alternative durable solution, due to their vulnerability and protection needs, also increased.

By contrast, in Venezuela and Panama, the governments are reluctant to receive refugees from Colombia and the refugee institutions are either working ineffectively, as in Panama, or are non-existent, as in Venezuela. While there are no precise statistics on the numbers of refugees from Colombia that have entered these countries, UNHCR, in co-operation with the relevant state institutions, has registered more than 1,500 Colombian in 2002. Given the increasing number of arrivals in these two countries, UNHCR has decided to increase its presence in both countries to reinforce border monitoring activities, develop better operational responses to the needs of refugees, and to help alleviate the impact of refugee movements on the receiving communities. At the same time, UNHCR seeks to work with the authorities in both countries to strengthen their institutional capacity to respond to the needs of refugees and to develop effective asylum procedures.

UNHCR believes that many Colombian refugees may be in need of resettlement from the region due to their particular protection needs arising from their past individual persecution by factions in the Colombia conflict, the precarious security conditions in neighbouring countries, and the inability of these countries to provide effective protection. In addition to the expected increase in the number of both vulnerable and security cases of concern to UNHCR, the unfavourable economic and political situation in some of these countries may lead to a lack of local integration prospects for large numbers of refugees.

UNHCR further expects that resettlement needs will increase in 2004 as the situation in Colombia worsens. Resettlement countries should bear in mind the possibility of a serious deterioration of the situation in Colombia and a consequent rise in resettlement need.

UNHCR estimates that approximately 900 persons will be in need of resettlement from the region in 2004. 80% of UNHCR’s resettlement processing will be based out of Ecuador. The existing Resettlement Unit in UNHCR’s Liaison Office in Quito has a target of 350 resettlement submissions for 2003, based on its current operational capacity. The other 20% are cases to be processed from Venezuela and Panama (10% in each of these two countries) as a result of a more effective monitoring of the situation by UNHCR and its counterparts.

Given current resettlement capacity in the region, UNHCR plans to submit 500 persons for resettlement from the region in 2004. Resettlement submissions equal to the estimated need of 900 persons could only be attained if resettlement resources were increased.

39 SOUTHERN SOUTH AMERICA

Refugees in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay

Over the past decade, some countries in the region have shifted from being refugee-producing countries to refugee-receiving countries. Some states in the region now resettle refugees from other regions in the world as part of their commitment to the international response to the global refugee crisis. One of the main objectives of UNHCR’s Regional Office in Argentina is consequently to enhance the resettlement capacity of these states.

All six countries in the region are parties to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Of the six countries, however, only Brazil (since 1997) and Paraguay (since 2002) have enacted national refugee legislation.

The need for resettlement of refugees from the region is minimal. Resettlement is limited to very few cases with specific urgent security or protection needs that cannot be effectively addressed in the country of first asylum.

In Bolivia, some legal problems persist relating to government authorisation for the departure of resettled refugees. UNHCR and the government are working towards a solution of this matter.

Based on recent experience, UNHCR anticipates submitting very few exceptional cases for resettlement from the region. At present, UNHCR anticipates submitting only 15 persons for resettlement in 2004, primarily from Bolivia. It should, however, not be overlooked that a further deterioration of the conflict in Colombia may result in additional refugee movements in the region, and more refugees in need of resettlement, particularly those who have arrived in southern South America under the Swedish-Colombian temporary exit program.

ASIA

Projected needs: 1,870 persons / Processing capacity: 1,279 persons

SOUTH ASIA

Projected needs: 250 persons / Processing capacity: 250 persons

The region of South Asia includes India, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. None of these countries are a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol. These states have also not enacted national refugee legislation. Refugee law in the region is therefore virtually non-existent. This situation limits to a great extent, and often excludes completely, the possibility of local integration for refugees.

There are no indications that the countries in the region are considering any change in their response to refugees. There are, however, certain protracted refugee situations which are expected to be resolved through a combination of voluntary repatriation and local integration, such as the Bhutanese in Nepal or the Myanmarese Rohingyas in Bangladesh. For these groups, resettlement will be considered as a component of the durable solution strategy and will be limited to individual refugees who cannot repatriate for well-identified protection reasons.

There are also groups of urban refugees from a variety of countries in the main cities of the region for which resettlement remains the only viable durable solution. The resettlement submissions for 2004 with therefore predominantly represent urban refugees identified by the UNHCR local offices as being in need of resettlement.

Refugees in India

India is not a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol, and deals with refugees under ad hoc administrative procedures. Refugees recognised under the Mandate of UNHCR are treated by Indian authorities according to domestic laws governing foreigners.

Apart from Tibetans and Sri Lankans, who come directly under the jurisdiction of the Government of India as prima facie refugees, there are urban refugees falling within the Mandate of UNHCR whose status has been individually determined. Since India does not have a formal refugee protection regime, the legal status of Mandate refugees falls within the provisions of the Foreigners Act. As of 31 March 2003, some 12,240 refugees were recognised under UNHCR’s Mandate, including approximately 9,000 Indian Origin Afghans, 2,000 ethnic Afghans, 1,060 Myanmarese, 50 Iranians, 40 Somalis, 40 Sudanese, 20 Iraqis, and 30 other refugees of different nationalities.

Given that local integration is considered to be the most viable durable solution for Indian Origin Afghans, who constitute the bulk of the refugee population under UNHCR’s Mandate in India, resettlement is not being pursued for this refugee population. In contrast, voluntary repatriation is considered to be the most viable durable solution for ethnic Afghans, and

41 resettlement will only be considered for certain vulnerable groups, such as refugees associated with the previous Najibullah regime, those who are not expected to repatriate in the foreseeable future, and women-at-risk. Voluntary repatriation is also seen as the most appropriate durable solution for Myanmarese refugees, and no resettlement is pursued presently.

Given recent changes in Iraq, resettlement is not currently being considered for newly- recognised Iraqi refugees except in exceptional circumstances.

Resettlement remains the most viable durable solution for most other nationality groups, due to the limited prospects of both voluntary repatriation, given conditions in their country of origin, and local integration, given the lack of legal status for most refugees. Resettlement activities in 2004 will consequently concentrate on the resettlement needs of refugees from Iran, Sudan and Somalia. Resettlement will also be pursued for individual refugees who face a serious protection problem and for whom no local solution may be found.

UNHCR’s Office in New Delhi plans to submit 200 persons for resettlement from India in 2004. This total includes approximately 150 Afghans, 10 Iranians, 5 Iraqis, 20 Sudanese, 10 Somali and 5 persons of other nationalities.

Refugees in Nepal

Nepal is not a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol, and there is no domestic refugee legislation. The only refugees in Nepal for whom quasi convention-like regulations apply are the Tibetan refugees who arrived prior to 1 January 1990 and the estimated 103,000 Bhutanese refugees, accommodated in refugee camps. Tibetans arriving in Nepal after 1 January 1990 are allowed only to transit via Nepal en route to India. All other asylum seekers and refugees under UNHCR’s Mandate, primarily from China, Iraq, Sri Lanka and Mynamar, are considered illegal aliens and are subject to arrest and detention under current immigration laws. They have no rights and are in no position to find work or to locally integrate. The only viable durable solution for them is resettlement.

UNHCR expects that the number of refugees under its Mandate in Nepal will remain small, and that very few additional asylum seekers will arrive in the second half of 2003. UNHCR’s Branch Office in Kathmandu has recently changed its resettlement policy so that all Mandate refugees are now submitted for resettlement within one year of their date of recognition. Exit clearance procedures with the Nepalese authorities remain lengthy, and may delay the departure by several months after acceptance by a resettlement country.

Tibetans are presently not considered for resettlement as they are allowed to transit to India and seek asylum there.

Bhutanese who are recognised as refugees by the authorities are only allowed to reside in one of seven refugee camps in Eastern Nepal. They do not have the right to officially engage in gainful employment and depend on UNHCR’s assistance. For the time being, the most favoured durable solution for this group remains voluntary repatriation, closely followed by local integration for those who may not be allowed or able to return. As bilateral talks between the governments of Nepal and Bhutan are continuing in order to implement a repatriation programme, it may be premature to express an estimation on the numbers of

refugees who may be in need of resettlement. At the same time, there are indications from resettlement countries that resettlement opportunities would be made available in the event of the formulation of a comprehensive solution for the Bhutanese refugees.

Following a UNHCR investigation mission to the camps in the east of Nepal, several cases of sexual and gender based violence have been identified. The field presence has been strengthened and corrective measures have been put in place in order to ensure that the programmes respect the standard of integrity and efficiency. While resettlement remains a possible option for particular cases affected by the violence, no such need has yet been identified and local legal remedies have been pursued and effectively implemented in co- ordination with the refugee communities and the local authorities.

As of 31 March 2003, resettlement submissions have been prepared for 7 persons from China, Iraq and Sri Lanka but have not yet been accepted by a resettlement country. 3 persons from China and Mynamar are due to be submitted for resettlement in the course of 2003. Reports that 4 Mandate refugees and 1 asylum seeker have disappeared and possibly been refouled to China indicate that the protection environment in Nepal may be worsening and that UNHCR’s Branch Office in Kathmandu may have to submit additional cases for urgent resettlement consideration, depending on arrivals.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Kathmandu plans to submit 20 persons, mainly Chinese and Iraqis, for resettlement from Nepal in 2004.

In addition, it should be noted that 18 Iraqi asylum seekers arrived in Nepal in March 2003 and have subsequently approached UNHCR to request refugee status. Pending the outcome of the refugee status determination process and developments in Iraq, these persons may also be submitted for resettlement from Nepal in 2004.

Refugees in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka is not a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol, and there is no domestic refugee legislation. Given the absence of refugee law in Sri Lanka, UNHCR processes applications for refugee status under its Mandate. Given the lack of relevant legislation, both asylum seekers and refugees remain in the country illegally and have no right to work or other entitlements. An informal agreement with the Sri Lanka authorities requires that all refugees recognised by UNHCR must be resettled quickly, and that UNHCR is responsible for the care and maintenance of refugees pending their resettlement.

Only a limited number of persons have traditionally sought asylum in Sri Lanka. The majority of asylum seekers arriving are individuals whose intended final destination was not Sri Lanka, but rather Europe or Northern America. The main countries of origin are Iraq and Afghanistan. At the end of 2002, some 28 refugees and 13 asylum seekers were registered with UNHCR’s Branch Office in Colombo. These figures are generally in line with numbers of asylum seekers and refugees in previous years.

Given the change of circumstance in Iraq and Afghanistan, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Colombo expects to submit 30 persons for resettlement from Sri Lanka in 2004.

43 EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

Projected needs: 1,620 persons / Processing capacity: 1,029 persons

The East Asia and the Pacific region is characterised by the same legal restrictions as South Asia, due to the lack of local refugee legislation and the lack of participation of these countries in any international refugee instrument. These conditions do not allow for the local integration for refugees, and authorities request UNHCR to seek the resettlement of all refugees under its Mandate.

Resettlement will therefore remain the only viable durable solution for refugees living in urban and semi-urban situations through the region. While UNHCR is still considering voluntary repatriation as the primary solution to be pursued for the Myanmarese camp refugees in Thailand, resettlement remains a necessary durable solution for refugees who fall into particular vulnerable categories.

Refugees in China (including Hong Kong SAR) and Mongolia

Although the People’s Republic of China and Macao Special Administrative Region (SAR) are parties to both the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, there is no domestic refugee legislation, and refugees have no legal status in these territories. Furthermore, China’s accession to the 1951 Convention and its Protocol has not been extended to cover Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), and refugees in Hong Kong are thus not covered by the provisions of these instruments. Likewise, Mongolia is not a party to either the Convention or the Protocol.

UNHCR is involved with two distinct refugee populations in China. The largest is a group of some 300,000 Indo-Chinese refugees (mainly Sino-Vietnamese), who were received on a prima facie basis before 1989, and who have been granted permanent asylum by the Government of China. In general, this population is well integrated and not in need of resettlement.

The second group is that of the individual refugees. In the absence of government refugee status determination procedures, UNHCR determines refugee status under its Mandate in Mainland China, and Hong Kong and Macao SARs. The only obligation currently acknowledged by the authorities in these locations toward the individual refugees is temporary protection against refoulement. These refugees cannot pursue local integration. They have no right to employment, no access to local schools, and rely exclusively on UNHCR’s assistance. In Beijing, refugees who do not have proper documentation are obliged to live in one designated hostel in the city. The situation is equally precarious for a much more limited number of Mandate refugees in Mongolia. The only viable durable solutions available to these refugees are voluntary repatriation or resettlement

UNHCR’s Regional Office in Beijing plans to submit 14 persons of various nationalities for resettlement from China in 2004.

The refugees in Hong Kong SAR are mostly from various African countries, Sri Lanka and Pakistan (Ahmadi and Christian cases). In Mainland China, refugees are mainly from Iran

and Somalia and more than 12 different countries of origin. In total, almost half of the refugees are recognised under UNHCR’s Mandate.

UNHCR’s Sub-Office in Hong Kong anticipates that some 359 persons will be identified as being in need of resettlement in 2004, including 108 persons from various African countries, 226 Ahmadi/Christian Pakistanis, 14 Sri Lankans and 11 persons of other nationalities. Due to staffing constraints, however, the Office estimates that it will only be able to submit 300 persons for resettlement.

In total, therefore, UNHCR’s Regional Office in Beijing and Sub-Office in Hong Kong plan to submit approximately 314 persons for resettlement in 2003.

Refugees in Indonesia

Indonesia is not a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol. It does not have any domestic refugee legislation. Refugees are subject to penalties imposed under Indonesian law for illegal entry and overstay. Local integration is not possible for refugees in Indonesia, even with the support of the UNHCR. In addition, the Indonesian government has become increasingly intolerant of the continued presence of refugees on its territory, and has repeatedly requested UNHCR to facilitate their resettlement. Accordingly, it is expected that all pending cases that are granted refugee status under UNHCR’s Mandate will be referred for resettlement.

As of December 2002, there were 499 refugees recognised under UNHCR’s Mandate in Indonesia.

UNHCR’s Regional Office in Jakarta estimates that during 2003, the Office will recognise 95 refugees. The cases are predominantly Iraqis, with some Afghans, Iranians, Rohingyas (Myanmar), and a few Sri Lankans. Cases with family links in Australia or European countries will continue to be submitted to those countries for their resettlement consideration.

The refugee population handled by UNHCR in Indonesia prior to 2000 was approximately 30 cases. The refugee caseload expanded considerably due to the Australian-Indonesian Interception Program. As a result, thousands of Middle Eastern asylum seekers have been apprehended trying to travel to Australia by boat illegally and have been processed by UNHCR for refugee status and resettlement submissions.

The last intercepted boat was in October 2001, and no intercepted cases arrived in Indonesia in 2002. In 2003, the number of asylum seekers registering with UNHCR in Jakarta has been decreasing, which has led to a parallel reduction in resettlement need.

UNHCR’s Regional Office in Jakarta anticipates that 176 refugees will be in need of resettlement from Indonesia in 2004. This number corresponds to the backlog of recognised refugees not yet resettled, plus the number of asylum seekers likely to be recognised, and includes 53 Iranians, 70 Palestinian, 44 Myanmar (Rohingyas), 10 Sri Lankans and 9 refugees from various African countries.

45 Refugees in Malaysia

As of December 2002, there were 412 refugees in Malaysia, including 144 Acehnese Indonesians, 75 Myanmarese Muslims, 72 Myanmarese Chins, 36 Afghans, 25 Somalis, 26 Iraqis and a few of other nationalities. In addition, there are some 45,100 Muslims from Southern Philippines and 5,100 Muslims from Myanmar (Rohingyas), who are considered to be persons of concern to UNHCR.

Malaysia is not a party to the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol and has no national legislation dealing with refugees. Refugees and asylum seekers are generally treated as illegal immigrants. Once refugees or asylum seekers are detained, the immigration authorities will release them only for the purpose of resettlement. The asylum situation further deteriorated in 2002 when a new immigration law was introduced. Resettlement activities have consequently become more crucial as it remains the only means of avoiding the refoulement of detained refugees. In addition, the authorities expect the rapid resettlement of all refugees recognised under UNHCR’s Mandate. In view of the precarious asylum conditions in Malaysia, local integration opportunities remain highly improbable and resettlement continues to be a major tool to address protection concerns for recognised refugees.

Resettlement needs in Malaysia continue to grow in proportion to the increasing number of asylum seekers. The number of asylum applications received by UNHCR has increased significantly following the introduction of the new immigration law on 1 August 2002. As of December 2002, there were over 1,600 asylum cases awaiting an initial interview. Moreover, the resumption of the armed conflict between the Indonesian Army and the Free Ache Movement in May 2003 has caused a new wave of asylum seekers into Malaysia which is likely to dramatically increase the number of asylum seekers registering with UNHCR in Kuala Lumpur. Since mid-May 2003, and average of about 100 Achenese refugees per day have been approaching the Branch Office. If this trend is maintained, resettlement need will increase dramatically.

UNHCR anticipates the submission of a number of emergency resettlement cases, via the Resettlement Section in UNHCR Headquarters, in 2004. Many of these cases will be those of Acehnese who face immediate risk of deportation to Indonesia. Other nationalities who are detained as illegal immigrants also face imminent deportation.

Due to the reinforcement of the new immigration law, UNHCR believes that 695 persons will be in need of resettlement from Malaysia in 2004, including approximately 393 Myanmarese, 210 Indonesians, 19 refugees of African origin, 7 Chinese, 35 Iraqis, 12 Iranians, 5 Pakistanis and 4 Uzbeks. Due to staffing constraints, however, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Kuala Lumpur anticipates being able to submit only 234 persons for resettlement from Malaysia in 2004.

Refugees in Thailand

The majority of refugees in Thailand are from Myanmar. More than 110,400 registered persons reside in camps along the Thai-Myanmar border2 and approximately 1,408 ‘semi- urban’ refugees (i.e., individually-recognised Myanmarese refugees) live outside the camps.

2 In addition to these persons, there are currently an estimated 16,700 refugees residing in the camps along the border who are not registered by the Royal Thai Government.

In addition to these refugees, there are presently 349 refugees from 23 other countries residing in Thailand under the protection of UNHCR. UNHCR’s Branch Office in Bangkok receives between 1,000 and 1,400 new applications for refugee status every year. 1,093 applications are currently pending a decision. There also remains one camp for 34 Laotian refugees admitted to Thailand in the late 1970s and recognised prior to implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indochinese Refugees (CPA), though these persons have indicated they do not wish to apply for resettlement.

Thailand is not a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol, and there is no domestic refugee legislation. Refugees recognised by UNHCR under its Mandate are covered by Thailand’s generalised national legislation for foreigners. The only viable durable solutions available to refugees in Thailand are voluntary repatriation or resettlement, as the government does not allow the local integration of refugees.

Although eventual return is envisioned for the vast majority of refugees from Myanmar, UNHCR does not currently promote voluntary repatriation. Asylum seekers continue to cross the border from Myanmar as a result of armed conflict and human rights abuses, and there are few indications this trend will abate in the foreseeable future. In co-ordination with the government, very limited resettlement may be available for Myanmar refugees in 2003, based on identified criteria such as family reunification, security concerns, and vulnerability such as medical needs, women-at-risk, and unaccompanied minors. UNHCR makes no distinction between Myanmar refugees residing in camps and those who are ‘semi-urban’ when considering resettlement submission.

UNHCR also expects to see the number of urban (non-Myanmar) refugees increase in the coming years, particularly the number of refugees from African and the Middle East, following the general trend toward increased people smuggling and the movement of asylum seekers outside their regions of origin. The urban caseload is made up of refugees from 23 countries, many of whom have been under the protection of UNHCR for several years. As local integration is effectively not available in Thailand, and relatively few refugees have expressed a willingness to return to their country of origin, all urban refugees in the country are seen to be in need of resettlement due to their lack of local integration prospects.

Given UNHCR’s limited resettlement capacity in Thailand, priorities must be applied in order to ensure that refugees most in need of protection are considered first. Priority for resettlement will be given to family reunification, refugees in immigration detention, refugees with medical needs, and victims of violence and torture.

UNHCR estimates that 435 persons will be in need of resettlement from Thailand in 2004, including approximately 105 Myanmarese, 40 Cambodians, 40 Chinese, 10 Iranians, 25 Iraqis, 20 Sri Lankans, and 65 persons of other nationalities. Due to staffing constraints, however, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Bangkok anticipates being able to submit only 305 persons for resettlement from Thailand in 2004.

EUROPE

Projected needs: 5,641 persons / Processing capacity: 4,581 persons

EASTERN EUROPE

Projected needs: 1,866 persons / Processing capacity: 806 persons

The countries in the Eastern European region are generally characterised by very weak economies and high rates of unemployment. An unfortunate consequence of these conditions has been the emergence of widespread xenophobia, which targets non-European refugees as the scapegoat of the prevailing social and economic problems. Racist attacks on refugees, often with fatal consequences, have increased in the recent past. Particularly in the Russian Federation, gangs of youths have attacked and murdered refugees, especially those of African origin. Perpetrators of such acts are often not arrested or otherwise punished for their crimes. A climate of impunity surrounds racist and xenophobic activities, creating conditions for more violent attacks against refugees.

Despite UNHCR’s local capacity building efforts, most countries in the region do not have proper asylum systems in place, although they may have acceded to the international refugee instruments, such as the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Even when asylum systems are formally in place, like in the Russian Federation, asylum seekers have to wait up to two years for the processing for status determination. During this period, they remain unregistered, with the status of illegal aliens. They suffer harassment from police officers and are often arrested and fined for lack of proper documents.

The vast majority of the refugees in the Eastern European countries are former students, military officers, and other professional cadres, who were sent to the former USSR for training by their respective pro-Moscow regimes of Africa and Asia. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new governments in Africa and Asia more inclined to Western ideologies, this category of refugees found it impossible to return to their respective countries of origin.

Although most of the refugees have been living in the region for many years and have achieved a certain level of integration, they remain, in practice, outside the basic social and economic sphere. Children do not have access to basic education, and medical care is not provided to refugees who are not officially registered.

The main focus of UNHCR’s activities in the region remains the capacity building of local asylum systems and the reinforcement of the implementation of local refugee legislation. UNHCR is, however, also engaged in facilitating the resettlement of refugees mainly from the Russian Federation, and to a lesser extent from Moldova and Ukraine, due to the prevailing situation of physical insecurity for refugees in that country and the legal obstacles that block efforts at local integration. As the general situation does not seem to be rapidly improving, UNHCR is planning to continue its resettlement activities from these countries and especially from the Russian Federation.

Refugees in Armenia

Armenia hosts an estimated 260,000 refugees. The vast majority are ethnic Armenians who fled Azerbaijan between 1988 and 1992, and who were recognised on a prima facie basis at the time of their arrival. The refugee population also includes a handful of Sudanese, Somalis, and Iraqis, recognised as refugees under Armenia’s 1999 Law on Refugees.

Additionally, there are approximately 11,000 ethnic Armenians displaced from various countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) who are not recognised as refugees nor given any official status. Another 48,000 displaced persons from Nagorno- Karabakh are also in Armenia. The government does not recognise this group as refugees and encourages them to return home.

Armenia is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. It also has a national legal framework for asylum and refugee protection, although further improvements are necessary to bring these structures up to international standards. The Law on Refugees limits the duration of refugee status to three years. This has not yet caused any concerns for UNHCR but may, in the future, have serious consequences for newly recognised refugees.

The government pursues a policy of local integration for Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan, who enjoy nearly all the same rights as citizens. There is no immediate risk of refoulement or any other protection-related problems for this population.

While newly recognised refugees do not face any immediate protection problems, they do lack local integration prospects given the socio-economic situation of the country and the discrimination they face.

UNHCR’s Office in Armenia has, in recent years, been using resettlement on a very limited scale and primarily in response to urgent and emergency protection needs. Notwithstanding the prevailing conditions, UNHCR does not expect resettlement due to a lack of local integration prospects to be pursued in Armenia in near future. Nor does UNHCR see a significant need for more regular resettlement missions to the country. Provided that the current situation continues to hold next year, UNHCR expects a similar level of protection- driven resettlement, primarily on an emergency or urgent basis, for the year 2004.

UNHCR’s Office in Armenia expects to submit only 3 persons for resettlement from Armenia in 2004.

Refugees in Azerbaijan

The population of urban refugees in Azerbaijan, originating both from within the CIS and from other regions, decreased gradually in 2002. During this period, only 1,838 persons were registered by UNHCR’s Branch Office in Baku. This was a decline from 2001, when the Office registered 3,539 persons. Refugees in Azerbaijan are mainly Afghans and ethnic Chechens from Russian Federation, followed by much smaller numbers of Iranians and Iraqis. UNHCR’s Branch Office in Baku has an active caseload of 8,116 refugees.

49 Azerbaijan is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. While the legislation to establish national asylum procedures was developed in November 2000, the structure is not yet functioning. UNHCR’s Branch Office in Baku is engaged in capacity-building and training of the refugee status determination unit of the State Committee for Refugees to ensure fair implementation in line with UNHCR standards. UNHCR will continue to conduct refugee status determination until the unit is operational.

Some Afghan refugees have now decided to voluntarily repatriate to Afghanistan, given the change of circumstances in that country. Up to 22 families have already returned, and 5 other families have indicated their desire to return.

Resettlement will, however, remain to most viable durable solution for the majority of refugees. Refugees who enter Azerbaijan illegally could be subject to arrest, detention and expulsion. Resettlement has proven to be an essential tool to respond to the legal and physical protection needs of such cases, in addition to the special needs of vulnerable refugees that cannot be met in Azerbaijan.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Baku plans to submit 195 persons for resettlement in 2004, including approximately 120 Afghans, 40 Iranians, 25 Russians (Chechen) and 10 Iraqis.

Refugees in Belarus

Belarus is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. The new Law on Refugees, reflecting the relevant international obligations, will enter into force in July 2003. In the meantime, however, the restrictive policy of granting refugee status, and the lack of subsidiary protection mechanisms, leads to the rejection of bona-fide refugees from the state’s protection. Although deportations to the countries of origin are not carried out by the authorities due to the lack of financial resources, unduly rejected refuges have acute legal and physical protection problems that can often only be address through resettlement. In addition, a limited number of vulnerable recognised refugees, assessed on a case-by-case basis, will need resettlement due to their lack of local integration prospects.

Belarus hosts around 600 refugees recognised by the government. In addition, some 83 asylum seekers were registered as a persons of concern to UNHCR in 2002 following the ill- founded rejection of their cases by the government.

Local integration for unduly rejected refugees is not feasible until the domestic legislation on subsidiary protection comes into effect. Where the circumstances of an individual case indicate that resettlement is the most appropriate durable solution, UNHCR determines the eligibility of the individual for Mandate refugee status. NGO implementing partners, running assistance and legal counselling projects, also assist UNHCR in identifying vulnerable refugees.

The main group of concern consists of Afghan refugees. The majority of them have reasonable future prospects for voluntary repatriation or local integration. Resettlement is pursed only in exceptional circumstances to address the special needs of refugees who were unduly rejected by the government or who are unable to integrate due to their vulnerability.

UNHCR’s Office in Belarus plans to submit some 41 persons for resettlement in 2004, including approximately 32 Afghans, 3 persons of African origin, and 5 Iraqis

Refugees in Georgia

Persons of concern to UNHCR’s Branch Office in Tbilisi include 4,171 asylum seekers from Chechnya in the Russian Federation, 3 from Afghanistan and 13 from Azerbaijan. Chechen refugees have been recognized on a prima facie basis and are located primarily in the Pankisi Valley, in north-eastern Georgia.

Georgia is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. National refugee law was adopted in 1998, but no legislation has been developed to determine the refugee status of asylum seekers. The structures that are in place are poorly equipped and lack the capacity to assess the claims of individuals seeking asylum in Georgia. While training has been provided, staff responsible for determining refugee status lack practice in a country where only a handful of individuals are recognized as refugees.

Repatriation is not feasible for refugees from Chechnya and local integration seems possible only for Chechens of Kist origin who have family ties in the Pankisi Valley. Resettlement therefore remains the only viable durable solution for the majority of refugees.

UNHCR is planning to undertake a screening exercise of registered refugees with a view to proposing a comprehensive durable solutions strategy for the Chechen refugees, including voluntary repatriation, relocation within Georgia and resettlement. If the exercise proceeds according to plan in the coming months, the overall projection for resettlement submission for Georgia in 2004 could reach 900 persons. Additional resources will, however, be required to process this number for resettlement.

Given current resettlement capacity in the Office, however, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Tbilisi estimates that it will be able to submit only 150 persons for resettlement from Georgia in 2004.

Refugees in the Russian Federation

As of 31 September 2002, the Russian Federation hosted some 14,376 recognised refugees. 97% of these refugees originate from CIS countries, mainly from the Caucuses and Central Asian republics, and 3% from other regions, mainly Afghanistan, Africa, the Middle East and China. 742 asylum applications are officially pending, while thousands are on waiting lists to submit claims. There are approximately 100,000 Afghans currently in the country, some of whom are refugees sur place. The huge decrease in the number of refugees, down from 235,000 in 1998, primarily reflects the simplified procedures principally for ethnic Russians to acquire either Russian citizenship or forced migrant status.

Over the last ten years, the Russian Government has taken several steps to establish an asylum system. These steps included ratifying the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, passing national refugee legislation, and establishing an administration in charge of managing migration and determining refugee status (the Federal Migration Service was incorporated under the Ministry of the Interior in 2001). Refugee status determination started before the

51 1993 refugee law to address the situation of millions of persons forced to relocate from CIS and Baltic countries to Russia. For asylum seekers from other regions, the procedure started only in 1997, resulting in a backlog of applications which, to date, has not been resolved.

While awaiting status determination, asylum seekers are considered illegal aliens and may be subject to harassment by law enforcement agencies, including fines, administrative detention, threats of eviction, and risk of deportation. Growing xenophobia towards non-Slavic people has aggravated this precarious situation. African refugees, in particular, face serious legal and physical protection problems, which significantly limit their chances of local integration. In addition to the lack of access to employment, education and health care faced by most non- CIS asylum seekers, Africans, both women and men, are the frequent victims of racially motivated assaults.

Since 1995, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Moscow has been implementing a voluntary repatriation programme for non-CIS refugees, primarily for Africans and Georgians. For a variety of reasons, the Georgian repatriation movement has slowed considerably and UNHCR’s focus for these refugees has shifted to local integration.

Asylum seekers registered with UNHCR’s Branch Office in Moscow are identified and referred for resettlement through an internal referral mechanism comprised of staff from the Protection, Resettlement, and Community Services sections of the Office. The mechanism also benefits from the input of relevant implementing partners. The majority of cases determined to be of concern to UNHCR and in need of resettlement originate from various countries in Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Moscow plans to submit 377 persons for resettlement from the Russian Federation in 2004, including approximately 223 Afghans, 118 refugees of African origin, and 36 persons of other nationalities, mainly Iraqis and Myanmarese.

Refugees in Ukraine

Ukraine hosts 2,966 recognised refugees. 1,570 of these refugees originate from Afghanistan, many having been associated with the Najibullah regime and having long-lasting links with Ukraine as former students or military trainees. 825 persons refugees originate from other CIS countries, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Russian Federation (Chechnya), and Georgia. Finally, Ukraine hosts 338 refugees originating in African countries, including from the Republic of Congo, Sudan, Angola and Ethiopia. The biggest groups of asylum seekers currently pending procedures originate from Afghanistan, Iraq, Angola, Sri Lanka, Russia, Somalia and Iran.

Ukraine acceded to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol in January 2002. A first Refugee Law was adopted in 1993, with implementation commencing in 1996. In June 2001, a new, much improved, Refugee Law was adopted. While application of the 1993 Law ceased in August 2001, implementation of the 2001 Law only slowly commenced over the second half of 2002. Therefore, many newcomers’ asylum applications as well as documentation needs are not yet being addressed, resulting in increased vulnerability of refugees to police harassment.

The current economic and social situation in Ukraine does not favour local integration. Many refugees are faced with the same, often severe, social and employment difficulties as the local population, while refugee-specific bureaucratic and cultural obstacles, including discrimination, xenophobia and racism, create additional problems for some refugees. These circumstances had lead to the (mostly illegal) onward migration of even recognised refugees. Of the 5,174 refugees recognised since the introduction of status determination in 1996, only 2,966 continue to reside in Ukraine.

The situation is, however, somewhat different in the Afghan community, where a high percentage of refugees already resided in Ukraine for several years before claiming asylum, meaning that many already achieved a degree of local integration before being granted refugee status.

Resettlement needs will depend on progress in the implementation of the 2001 Refugee Law, both in relation to status determination for those pending procedures and local integration possibilities for those already recognised as refugees. It is hoped that local integration can be facilitated as a durable solution for a majority of refugees. At the same time, developments in Afghanistan, Angola, the Republic of Congo and Sri Lanka may increase the possibility of voluntary repatriation as a durable solution for some refugees.

Even if the implementation of the Refugee Law progresses well, however, UNHCR’s Office in Ukraine expects that a limited number of cases rejected by the government, but deemed to be in continued need of international protection, and recognised refugees will need to be considered for resettlement due to individual legal, social, and medical factors. UNHCR’s Office in Ukraine hopes to have the resources necessary to comprehensively reassess and process resettlement needs on an on-going basis.

UNHCR’s Office in Ukraine estimates that 350 persons will be in need of resettlement from Ukraine in 2004, including approximately 120 refugees of African origin, 130 Afghans, and 100 persons of other nationalities. Due to staffing constraints, however, the Office only has the capacity to submit 40 persons for resettlement in 2004.

53 SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

Projected needs: 710 persons / Processing capacity: 710 persons

The UNHCR resettlement program in the former Yugoslavia began in October 1992 in Croatia when UNHCR made an appeal to resettle over 4,000 ex-detainees in Bosnia and Hercegovina. The release of the detainees had been conditional on their resettlement to third countries. From 1992-1995, resettlement countries responded very generously to UNHCR’s appeals for resettlement quotas for refugees out of the former Yugoslavia and resettlement was used not only as a protection tool but also a burden sharing mechanism to provide asylum to thousands of Bosnian refugees fleeing persecution. During this period, more than 30,000 refugees were resettled under UNHCR auspices from Croatia. In 1996, with the mass influx of refugees arriving in Yugoslavia from Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina, UNHCR embarked on a resettlement program for Krajina Serb refugees out of Yugoslavia which mainly focused on mixed marriages, victims of violence and torture, ex-detainees, and family reunification cases.

Since the Dayton Agreement, however, UNHCR has concentrated on repatriating the overwhelming majority of refugees from the region, and resettlement activities have consequently been gradually reduced. Indeed, since 2001, resettlement has been gradually phased-out of the UNHCR protection framework for refugees originating from within the region. Mandate refugees originating from outside the region will, however, be considered for resettlement until efficient and effective asylum systems are developed in the succeeding states.

The largest number of refugees in Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fyROM) are from Kosovo who fled that area during the crisis in 1999. They are ex- beneficiaries of Temporary Humanitarian Assisted Persons (THAP) and are mainly of Serb, Roma or Egyptian (RAE) minority ethnic origin, in the case of those in fyROM, or ethnic Albanian or Roma, in the case of Albania. Asylum procedures in fyROM and Albania have only recently been established. These two countries have very low asylum support capacities and their respective national legislation do not include complimentary forms of protection. In addition, their ability to provide effective protection to refugees is frustrated by their lack of socio-economic infrastructure and the difficult economic situation faced by these two countries. Due to these conditions, the need to resettle some of the residual THAP cases has been foreseen for 2004.

A significant number of refugees in Albania and fyROM cannot return to their country of origin due to their perceived affiliation with the former Serb regime in Kosovo and consequent risk of persecution by non-state Kosovo Albanian agents. Many of them have a previous history of persecution that justifies asylum due to compelling humanitarian reasons. Resettlement need is compounded by the fact that the Macedonian government is reluctant to enhance THAP standards of protection that would facilitate self-reliance of this group as well as the inherent lack of social and institutional capacity to support local integration of recognised asylum seekers.

Refugees in Albania

Albania currently hosts 150 asylum seekers who were ex-beneficiaries of the Temporary Humanitarian Assisted Persons (THAP). In 2002, the Albanian Government terminated the temporary protection status and many of the refugees have subsequently applied for asylum. The majority of the cases are ethnic Albanians from Kosovo and Romas. There are a few third country nationals, mostly from Iraq and Turkey, but also from Morocco, India and Moldova.

Albania is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. The national asylum law includes not only Convention status for refugees but also ensures the basic rights of those granted temporary protection or humanitarian status. There are, however, still significant gaps in the implementation of the asylum law that hinder efforts at local integration. The asylum structures are not yet fully operational after over a year of restructuring. Local integration has been promoted for the past two years with very limited success. The situation may improve somewhat with a new law on the integration of persons granted asylum, which is currently being discussed in Parliament.

It cannot, however, be expected that the state will provide the resources for integration, given that Albania suffers from poor levels of social, political and economic security, with minimal infrastructure and weak institutions. The local population remains vulnerable, and tries to survive on salaries and state pensions that are insufficient to maintain a decent standard of living. Many Albanians depend on remittances from abroad to survive. The security situation in some parts of the country remains volatile, with organised crime continuing to pose security threats.

Albania’s long history of political and social exclusion has meant little experience in accepting and integrating people from other cultures. The notion of human rights in general and refugee protection in particular has yet to find broad acceptance in the general population, the government or civil society.

In 2002-3, UNHCR interviewed 90 former THAP beneficiaries to identify the most vulnerable persons for possible resettlement submission. A total of 68 persons were determined to be of concern to UNHCR and 27 refugees were identified as being in need of resettlement. These were primarily women-at-risk, survivors of violence or torture, and medical cases.

Local integration of non ethnic-Albanians has proven to be almost impossible, and resettlement may prove to be the only means to ensure their protection. Nevertheless, UNHCR is exploring new approaches to integration, particularly in light of the expected legislation regulating the access by refugees to the labour market, education and health. While new legislation may make a difference, the overwhelming social and economic difficulties in Albanian may make the challenge of local integration insurmountable.

It is also important to note that many refugees from third countries had not intended to come to Albania. Many have been stuck in Albania, or abandoned by smugglers, while en route to Europe via Italy. A significant number of these refugees have family links, of varying degrees, in Western European countries.

55 UNHCR’s Branch Office in Tirana expects to identify and submit a limited number of refugees for resettlement from Albania in 2004. It is anticipated that this number will not exceed 40 persons.

Refugees in Bosnia and Hercegovina (BiH)

There are three major groups of refugees in Bosnia and Hercegovina (BiH). The first group includes the 3,000 refugees from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now called Serbia and Montenegro – SiM) who arrived in BiH in 1998 and in 1999, at the time of the NATO air strikes. The second includes the approximately 22,000 ethnic Serbs from Croatia. The third group includes 20 refugees recognised under UNHCR mandate coming from SiM, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fyROM), Iraq and Iran.

The first group is protected under the Instruction on the Temporary Admission (TA) to Bosnia and Herzegovina of Refugees from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which provides for temporary admission, on a prima facie group, basis to those persons from SiM who had sought protection in BiH before 21 November 2001. In 2002, BiH authorities undertook a verification exercise of SiM refugees in BiH. Temporary admission (TA) cards were extended for 12 months, until mid-2003, for those who approached the BiH authorities for verification. BiH authorities have expressed their intention to extend TA status to the refugees from Kosovo. Refugees from Serbia and Montenegro are expected to repatriate voluntarily or to undergo an individual refugee status determination. Croatian Serbs were registered and allowed to apply for refugee status through a re-registration exercise carried out in Republika Srpska (RS) in 2000. In the end, UNHCR received 543 asylum applications, of which 51 were recognised under UNHCR’s Mandate.

The BiH is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. In addition, the Law on Immigration and Asylum was adopted in December 1999 but is currently under substantial review, and the institutional distribution of responsibilities between the various Ministries is also being modified. The law entailed a complete institutional and structural reform of the previous legislation in force in the Republic of BiH, but this reform has not yet taken place. Institutions foreseen by the Law, including a functioning asylum unit and appeals panel, have not yet been established. This task is further frustrated by the fact that the relevant Ministry is seriously under-funded and does not have the necessary capacity or expertise. In the absence of such structures, UNHCR undertakes refugee status determination under its Mandate.

The refugee population in BiH has stabilised in recent months, and it has become clear that many of the remaining refugees lack local integration prospects in the country of asylum. While the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees (MHRR) provides minimal assistance to those in government centres, employment is not permitted, thereby undermining the possibility of local integration. The very poor economic situation in the country of asylum and the almost non-existent integration assistance, have combined to frustrate many attempts by individual refugees to integrate locally. Given their inability to return to their country of origin, resettlement remains the only viable durable solution for refugees recognised under UNHCR’s Mandate.

The situation of refugee women and children has become a particular concern to UNHCR as many suffer from trauma resulting from events in their country of origin and the experience of displacement. UNHCR continues to identify refugees from SiM with protection concerns,

such as woman-at-risk cases, survivors of violence, and mixed marriages, and refer them for resettlement.

In contrast, almost all of the remaining 22,000 Croatian Serbs have expressed their willingness to locally integrate in the RS or return to Croatia.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Sarajevo plans to submit 120 persons for resettlement from Bosnia and Hercegovina in 2004.

Refugees in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fyROM)

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fyROM) currently hosts 26 Mandate refugees and 81 asylum seekers. It also hosts 2,5000 ex-beneficiaries of fyROM’s programme for Temporary Humanitarian Assisted Persons (THAP) from Kosovo, and mainly of Serb, Roma or Egyptian (RAE) minority ethnic origin. The refugee population is characterized by large families with a high proportion of minor dependent children.

A substantial number of the asylum seekers cannot return to their country of origin due to the prevailing situation affecting minorities in Kosovo that threatens their personal security and freedom. The THAP status entails limited rights and the Macedonian government seems reluctant to enhance THAP standards of protection that would facilitate the self-reliance of this group. On the contrary, it is anticipated that the Macedonian authorities will terminate THAP status based on the government’s belief that the situation in Kosovo has improved sufficiently and motivated by the continued deportation of minorities to Kosovo by European countries.

Given that the majority of refugees hold the same Federal citizenship as the local population, are fluent in at least one local language, and could potentially settle with the local Roma community, it may be expected that the prospects of local integration for refugees in Macedonia would be high. Macedonia authorities are, however, reluctant to facilitate local integration given the group’s low prospects of self-sufficiency and their high fertility rate, which would contribute to the growth of the minority population in Macedonia. The authorities are also concerned about the possible pull factor if integration were promoted, the financial burden it will put on the state and the lack of existing socio-economic infrastructure in the country.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Skopje expects to identify and submit no more than 50 persons for resettlement from Albania in 2004.

Refugees in Serbia and Montenegro

There are approximately 345,000 registered refugees in Serbia and Montenegro (SiM). Most of the refugees are ethnic Serbs who sought refuge in SiM from Bosnia and Croatia. They are prima facie refugees and were granted refugee status by Office of the Commissioner for Refugees.

Local integration and voluntary repatriation are likely to be the durable solution for the majority of the refugee population. However, SiM still faces serious economic and

57 humanitarian challenges after years of international isolation, the effects of war and mismanagement by the previous regime. A sizeable portion of the refugee population remains marginalised and unable to return home because of difficulties associated with regaining possession of their homes in Croatia. Despite the adoption by the government of the National Strategy for Resolving the Refugee Problem, the plan of action is highly dependent on donor interest, which has been decreasing. Refugees are the last segment of the population to benefit from any positive trend and are competing with the 200,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Kosovo, who receive priority for assistance and integration in communities in Serbia. Levels of unemployment in the country are extremely high and refugees cannot find work to support their families. They are also faced with a diminishing system of assistance, benefiting only the very old and very young.

Due to the change of circumstances and general improvement of the political situation in the region as a whole, UNHCR began scaling-back its resettlement activities in the region in 2001. Repatriation to Croatia has been on-going and, despite some legal and administrative obstacles, the Croatian authorities have shown sustained commitment to resolving problematic issues relating to return.

Resettlement has, however, been identified as the most appropriate durable solution for a limited number of refugees in SiM. Resettlement will also be used strategically in 2004 as a means of encouraging current efforts to build the institute of asylum in SiM. The categories of persons that will be submitted for resettlement include persons of mixed ethnicity or in mixed marriages, women-at-risk, ex-detainees, survivors of violence and torture, and stateless refugees.

Resettlement is also seen as the only durable solution for refugees originating from outside the region, as SiM does not have legislation regulating their status and it is not expected that they would be able to integrate locally. The SiM authorities continue to depend on UNHCR to conduct refugee status determination and identify resettlement possibilities for refugees from outside the region. It is expected that the number of asylum seekers from outside the region will continue in the coming years as the Balkans is increasingly becoming a transit route for persons in need of international protection.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Belgrade plans to submit 500 persons for resettlement from Serbia and Montenegro in 2004.

SOUTHERN EUROPE

Projected needs: 3,065 persons / Processing capacity: 3,065 persons

Refugees in Turkey

Turkey is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, but has maintained the geographic limitation of Art. 1B(1) of the 1951 Convention. Turkey has consequently limited its obligations only to persons having a well-founded fear of persecution “as a result of events occurring in Europe”.

The Asylum Regulation adopted in November 1994 remains the only national legislation in force for processing individual asylum claims in Turkey. The Regulation has brought clarity as to what actions are to be taken by the asylum seekers and by Government officials with regard to asylum claims and refugee status. Under the 1994 Regulations, non-European refugees can only be granted temporary asylum in order to seek a permanent solution in a third country.

The Turkish Government and UNHCR maintain parallel refugee status determination procedures for asylum seekers in Turkey. The Government applies the 1994 Asylum Regulations for purposes of providing temporary stay for non-European refugees while UNHCR contributes an opinion for the government eligibility determination and submits recognised cases to third countries for resettlement.

As the vast majority of refugees recognised by UNHCR’s Branch Office in Ankara are non- Europeans, primarily from Iran and Iraq, and in the absence of local integration and repatriation prospects, resettlement remains the only viable durable solution for refugees under UNHCR’s Mandate in Turkey. It is foreseen that resettlement will continue to be an essential protection tool.

There are 39 European refugees, including 18 Bosnians, 12 Kosovars and 9 Yugoslav Sandjakis, still living in the Gazi Osman Pasa guesthouse for whom resettlement will not be pursued since all of them have the options of local integration. The Turkish Authorities are ready to issue residence permits to those who wish to remain in Turkey although some are contemplating return to their country of origin.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Ankara has an active caseload of 4,898 persons, of which 60% are women and children.

UNHCR has noted with concern the unwillingness of some resettlement countries to consider the resettlement needs of certain profile groups, including single men of military age from Iran and Northern Iraq, former military officers from Iraq, and persons previously affiliated with the intelligence services in their country of origin. UNHCR encourages resettlement countries to consider the needs of these profile groups, and to apply flexible criteria when selecting refugees for resettlement.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Ankara plans to submit approximately 3,000 persons for resettlement from Turkey in 2004, including some 2,575 Iranians, 275 Iraqis, 60 Afghans, 25 Uzbeks, 20 Chinese, 20 Somalis, 15 Palestinians, and 10 persons of other nationalities.

Refugees in Cyprus

Cyprus currently hosts approximately 189 refugees, of whom 2 have been accepted for resettlement and are awaiting their departure to Ireland. An additional case has been submitted for resettlement and is awaiting a decision. In addition, a few other refugees are under consideration for resettlement.

Cyprus is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. The government has assumed full responsibility for status determination and refugee matters since 1 January 2002, with applications lodged prior to that date remaining with UNHCR for processing. The government considers status determination decisions taken by UNHCR as decisions of the government, as reflected in the amendments to the Refugee Law of February 2002. Given these new asylum arrangements, the fact that Cyprus will soon become an EU member state, and the very recent amendments to national legislation that enhance the rights of refugees in Cyprus, UNHCR’s focus has shifted from resettlement to local integration.

Based on these positive developments, UNHCR plans to submit only 5 persons for resettlement from Cyprus in 2004.

The self-proclaimed “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (TRNC) is not a party to the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol. In the TRNC, refugees are only tolerated temporarily until UNHCR resettles them. No protected status or rights are granted during this period. UNHCR will therefore pursue resettlement for all refugees in the TRNC. Asylum seekers who arrive illegally are not allowed to remain pending the assessment of their refugee claim and are deported to their country of origin after having served a sentence for illegal entry. UNHCR continues to advocate for a change in this policy.

As the number of persons arriving legally is very limited, UNHCR expects that no more than 10 persons will be submitted for resettlement from the TRNC in 2004. This number may, however, increase significantly if UNHCR is able to convince the TRNC to change its asylum policy.

Refugees in Malta

Malta experienced a significant and unexpected influx of irregular migrants and asylum seekers in 2002 and early 2003. Of the over 2,000 arrivals, some 500 persons were asylum seekers. Given the size of Malta and the high population density, this influx has constituted a significant problem for the government, and may, for a number of reasons, lead to a rise of xenophobia among the local population.

The sheer number of ‘new’ and ‘old’ recognised refugees may also present a problem for Malta. The ‘limited absorption capacity’ of the country is often cited as a reason for not accepting more refugees. While the true limits of Malta’s capacity may be debated, the perception of the problem in Malta is real. This shift in opinion is particularly affecting a number of long-staying refugees under UNHCR’s Mandate who have not yet integrated. Included in this group are a number of vulnerable refugees, including women and children.

It is also important to note that many refugees had not intended to come to Malta. Many have been stuck in Albania, or abandoned by smugglers, while en route to Europe via Italy. A significant number of these refugees have family links, of varying degrees, in Western European countries.

The combination of these factors has led UNHCR to consider the resettlement need of refugees in Malta. While UNHCR has encouraged Malta to explore alternative solutions to this problem, both bilaterally and through the European Union, UNHCR anticipates the need for a small number of resettlement cases from Malta in 2004. Such resettlement activities would not only support the Government of Malta’s efforts to ensure the protection of refugees, thereby enhancing the prospects of asylum for those refugees not resettled, but would provide a durable solution for refugees who would otherwise be vulnerable.

It should also be noted that with the entry of Malta into the European Union, a new migration route into Europe will be opened, and the numbers of arrivals may increase. In this light, and given the current conditions in Malta, it is hope that an inter-EU burden sharing arrangement may be devised to support Malta.

In total, UNHCR plans to submit 50 persons for resettlement from Malta in 2004.

61 CENTRAL ASIA, SOUTH WEST ASIA, NORTH AFRICA, and MIDDLE EAST (CASWANAME)

Projected needs: 11,687 persons / Processing capacity: 10,187 persons

The CASWANAME region hosts one of the largest numbers of individually mandated refugees in need of resettlement in the world. This is largely due to the fact that the majority of states in the region have not acceded to the 1951 Convention or relevant regional instruments, such as the 1969 OAU Convention in the case of North African countries. The fragile, and sometimes volatile, asylum institutions in many of the countries in the region have necessitated the use of resettlement for purposes of protection. Many of the asylum countries do not provide refugees with guarantees against refoulement, and there are no legal provisions or procedures for the granting of asylum or local integration. With the exception of refugees from Afghanistan and, recently, to a very limited extent, from Iraq, there are no short-term prospects for voluntary repatriation for the other refugees. Resettlement, therefore, often remains the only viable durable solution for refugees in this region.

In recent years, the number of asylum seekers approaching UNHCR offices in the Middle East has increased and UNHCR has progressively incorporated resettlement as a component of its protection framework for most of the countries in the region. From 1999 until 11 September 2001, the number of refugees originating from the Middle East processed by UNHCR for resettlement increased by more than 100% annually, with an equivalent increase and enhancement of UNHCR resettlement capacity in the region in order to ensure quality and timely resettlement submissions. In addition to embarking on harmonising eligibility criteria for the identification of cases, UNHCR has also improved the accessibility of resettlement to refugees needing this solution, thereby reducing the possibility of secondary movement within or from the region.

The events of 11 September 2001 have dealt a major blow to the resettlement prospects of refugees from the region. Specifically, enhanced security checks on Iraqis and other refugees of Arab ethnicity have resulted in long delays in the resettlement process and, in the case of the Iraqis, the suspension of processing. Other nationalities of a certain religious denomination were also affected because of the national security concerns of resettlement countries. The net effect, therefore, is the considerable delay and significant reduction of processing and admissions of refugees from the region for 2002 and for most of 2003.

The changed situation in Iraq following the March-April 2003 conflict has also resulted in a major change of the refugee and resettlement landscape in the Middle East. It further aggravated the resettlement impasse and contributed to more delays and, for most resettlement countries, suspension of resettlement processing. Due to the changed circumstances in the Iraq, the basis for the resettlement applications of previously recognised Iraqi refugees were put into question by some resettlement countries or kept on hold pending possible repatriation to Iraq. While UNHCR is encouraged by the positive changes taking place in Iraq, the overall security, political, social and economic situation is the country is still very fluid and volatile, and would not allow for the safe and dignified return of Iraqi refugees. It is therefore believed that resettlement remains an important possible durable solution for many refugees in the region.

CENTRAL ASIA

Projected needs: 647 persons / Processing capacity: 647 persons

Refugees in Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan hosts approximately 16,445 refugees. The majority of the refugees are Chechens (13,695), with a smaller number of Afghans (2,250), and 500 of other nationalities, mainly Chinese Uighurs, Tajiks and Palestinians. Despite the country’s accession to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the refugee protection regime has several critical gaps. The government maintains an asylum policy that excludes citizens from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) from the asylum procedure, thus, denying official recognition to Chechens and Tajiks. Uighurs from China are also excluded from the asylum procedure. National refugee status determination is also limited to Almaty, thus, asylum seekers residing in other parts of the country cannot have their claims examined. So far, only 530 persons, primarily Afghans, have been recognised by the government as refugees.

Refugees cannot be naturalised nor obtain permanent residence permits. Coupled with the legal barriers, the lack of employment, health services and shortage of housing and food create an environment where local integration is not a realistic option. For Chechen refugees, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Almaty is trying to re-negotiate an agreement with the authorities to provides de facto refugee status and permission to stay in the country pending improvement of the situation in Chechnya. Following the terrorist attack on the Moscow theatre and the increasing concerns with their national security, the Kazakh authorities denounced this agreement, which led to alleged deportations of Chechen nationals from Kazakhstan and the refusal to renew their residence permits.

Tajik refugees have the option of repatriation and UNHCR has facilitated return to Tajikistan since 2000. For Afghans, voluntary repatriation had started for a very limited number, while most refugees have adopted a wait-and-see approach. Although most Afghan refugees in Kazakhstan do not face serious protection problems, they have no prospect for local integration.

The situation is most fragile for the Chinese Uighur refugees due to Kazakhstan’s delicate relations with China and because they are neither CIS citizens nor admitted to the national asylum procedure. UNHCR has urged the Kazakh authorities to tolerate the stay of most Chinese Uighur refugees pending their possible resettlement.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Almaty uses resettlement primarily to address the needs of refugees with legal and physical protection needs and medical needs. Hence, the main target groups are the Chinese Uighurs and Afghans. The latter group includes medical cases and those that were denied refugee status in Kazakhstan on the basis of a misapplication of the ‘third safe country’ principle.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Almaty expects to identify and submit not more than 60 refugees for resettlement from Kazakhstan in 2004.

63 Refugees in Kyrgyzstan

There are approximately 7,650 registered refugees in Kyrgyzstan. Most refugees are from Tajikistan (6,884) and Afghanistan (749), with small numbers from Iran and Pakistan (10) and China (10). The majority of asylum seekers in Kyrgyzstan are from Afghanistan and Chechnya. Currently there are about 81 pending cases of Afghan asylum seekers. The total number of registered Chechen asylum seekers is 506.

Kyrgyzstan is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. A national Refugee Law was adopted on 25 March 2002. The newly adopted Law is in compliance with international standards and eliminates shortcomings of the Temporary Provisions on Refugees, such as misapplication of ‘safe third country’ principle and the need to apply for refugee status within 3 days of arrival.

There are limited local integration prospects for refugees coming from different cultural backgrounds and outside the Central Asian region. Kyrgyzstan has not traditionally welcomed immigrants in large numbers and, moreover, lacks the basic economic resources to integrate refugees. Security concerns also play a role in integration prospects. Given these factors, there are very limited prospects for the local integration for Afghan, Chechen and Chinese Uighur refugees. The prospects for Tajik refugees, most of whom are ethnic Kyrgyz, are, however, much better.

Resettlement activities are focused primarily on refugees with physical and legal protection needs, medical cases, single and elderly refugees without extended family support, women-at- risk, survivors of torture and violence, family reunification cases and refugees recognised under the 1951 Convention with a lack of local integration prospects.

Voluntary repatriation may be a viable option for some Afghan refugees later in the year. Even if repatriation does become viable, resettlement will remain an appropriate protection response for a limited number of Afghan refugees for whom neither repatriation nor local integration is a viable option. In particular, resettlement will be necessary for refugees with certain political associations and for special groups such as Afghan educated women and Afghan women heads of households with no male support.

Resettlement will be promoted for Chechens only in the case of a few individuals with legal and physical protection needs.

Chinese Uighur do not have access to refugee status determination procedures due to political considerations of the local Government. The Kyrgyz and Chinese governments have signed bilateral agreements that make it difficult for the Kyrgyz authorities to grant asylum to Uighurs. UNHCR therefore grants refugee status under its Mandate to those in need of international protection. A few cases threatened with refoulement have been submitted for resettlement in previous years. If the situation in the Xinjang Autonomous Region of China deteriorates, it is likely that asylum seekers will increase, as will the numbers of resettlement submissions.

UNHCR plans to submit 240 persons for resettlement from Kyrgyzstan in 2004.

Refugees in Tajikistan

The majority of refugees and asylum seekers in Tajikistan are from Afghanistan (approximately 3,500), with a smaller number of individuals from Iraq and Iran.

Tajikistan is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. The national refugee body, State Migration Service (SMS) in the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, undertakes registration and refugee status determination procedures. Following the adoption of two Government Resolutions in July 2000 and a restrictive Refugee Law in 2002, however, the protection environment for refugees in Tajikistan has deteriorated significantly. The suspension of asylum procedures, coupled with reports of arbitrary arrest, detention and refoulement has resulted in a dramatic increase in resettlement requests from Afghan refugees.

The situation had improved somewhat by early 2003, with the resumption of asylum procedures. UNHCR hopes that this improvement may enhance local integration prospects for some refugees. Coupled with an increased possibility of repatriation for Afghan refugees, it is anticipated that resettlement needs will be lower in 2004.

As part of its search for durable solutions, UNHCR Tajikistan will continue to submit cases for resettlement of individuals, both Afghans and others, who have legal and physical protection needs and lack local integration prospects. The majority of cases will likely be women-at-risk, medical cases, victims of violence and torture, refugees with links to former communist regimes whose prospects of return are limited and who face a risk of detention and possible refoulement.

UNHCR plans to submit not more than 50 persons for resettlement from Tajikistan in 2004.

Refugees in Turkmenistan

Turkmenistan hosts 12,000 prima facie Tajik refugees, 859 prima facie ethnic-Turkmen Afghan refugees, 404 Afghan Mandate refugees (mostly ethnic Hazara, Uzbek and Tajik), 146 ethnic-Armenian Azeri Mandate refugees, and 10 Mandate refugees from Chechnya.

Turkmenistan is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. A National Refugee Law was adopted in 1997, but significant implementation took place only in 2002 (the sole exception being the provision relating to the establishment of a National Refugee Office). UNHCR established a Liaison Office in Turkmenistan in July 1995. UNHCR undertakes the refugee status determination of all asylum seekers who approach the Office and the Turkmen Government respects UNHCR decisions on individual claims. It should further be noted that UNHCR’s Liaison Office in Ashgabad has recently shifted from a prima facie approach to a policy of individual refugee status determination for asylum seekers from Tajikistan.

Since Turkmenistan may be considered to be a safe country of asylum, given that refugees are able to benefit from both effective protection and enjoyment of their socio-economic rights, resettlement needs are assessed on a case-by-case basis. In light of recent developments in Afghanistan, UNHCR’s Liaison Office in Ashgabat emphasises voluntary repatriation as the most appropriate durable solution for Afghan refugees. Resettlement is being considered only as a solution for any eventual residual population.

The Tajik prima facie refugees are, in general, locally integrated mainly in rural areas in Turkmenistan. Voluntary repatriation is also the most appropriate durable solution option for these refugees at this time. A limited number of refugees, may however be identified as needing resettlement in the future if they are unable to locally integrate or repatriate.

UNHCR’s Liaison Office in Ashgabad currently pursues resettlement only for refugees with certain profiles. The Office considers resettlement for refugees denied legal status in Turkmenistan on account that their presence could be considered to be “embarrassing” by the Turkmen authorities. Resettlement is also considered for refugees who lack local integration prospects, especially Azeri refugees of Armenian ethnicity. Resettlement is also considered for refugees with special needs that could only be met through resettlement, especially victims of violence and torture, refugees with legal and physical protection needs, unaccompanied minors, women-at-risk and medical cases.

UNHCR’s Liaison Office in Ashgabad plans to submit 47 persons for resettlement from Turkmenistan in 2004.

Refugees in Uzbekistan

There are 4,100 recognised Mandate refugees and asylum seekers currently registered with UNHCR in Uzbekistan. The vast majority of the refugees are Afghan, although individual cases from other countries, including Iraq and North Korea, have also been registered. An additional 5,000 unrecognised Afghans are estimated to be in the country.

Uzbekistan is not a party to the 1951 Convention and has not adopted any national legislation or procedure regarding asylum seekers and refugees. With refugees not being a priority for the government, particularly given its preoccupation with national security concerns, refugee status determination procedures have been carried-out by UNHCR since 1994. Recognised Mandate refugees are issued a refugee certificate. This certificate aims to protect refugees from arrest, detention, deportation and refoulement. Notwithstanding possession of this certificate, however, detentions and deportations for lack of visa and registration still occur, although on a much lesser scale.

2003 has seen the continuation of a recent improvement in the protection situation for asylum seekers and refugees in Uzbekistan. Cases of detention and deportation continue to decline. Government officials frequently refer to resettlement as proof of UNHCR’s willingness to appreciate the special situation of the country and specific concerns of the government.

The changing circumstances in Afghanistan have not resulted in increased repatriation prospects for the majority of Afghan refugees in Uzbekistan, due mainly to their links with the Najibullah regime and consequent fear of persecution if returned to Afghanistan. Furthermore, prospects of local integration for refugees remain low, even for refugees who marry Uzbek nationals.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Tashkent will continue to use resettlement both as an important protection tool and as a durable solution for refugees who can neither locally integrate nor return to their country of origin for the foreseeable future. Various particular groups at risk identified for resettlement include refugees with links to the former communist regimes,

particularly those with physical and legal protection needs, women-at-risk, urgent medical cases, and traumatised victims of violence and torture.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Tashkent plans to submit 250 persons for resettlement from Uzbekistan in 2004.

67 SOUTH-WEST ASIA

Projected needs: 3,000 persons / Processing capacity: 2,500 persons

Refugees in Iran

According to the Bureau for Aliens and Foreign Immigrants Affairs (BAFIA), Iran is currently hosting more than 2.1 million foreign aliens, of whom about 1.9 million are Afghans and 200,000 are Iraqis. Seventy percent of the Afghan refugees live in urban areas.

Iran is party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, but has no domestic refugee legislation. It maintains a reservation to Article 17 of the 1951 Convention, limiting employment opportunities for refugees. Between 1979 and 1992, Iran issued cards to Afghans and Iraqis describing the holder as a mohajer, meaning migrant. In 2000, UNHCR and the Government of Iran conducted a joint programme to screen cases of undocumented persons. At that time, about 80,000 persons were accepted as refugees and another 133,000 persons returned under a voluntary repatriation programme. During the first half of 2001, BAFIA conducted a broad registration program and issued BAFIA Registration Certificates that now form the sole documentary requirement for the issuance of exit permits for resettlement.

Since the repatriation to Afghanistan began in April 2002, some 377,000 Afghans have voluntarily returned. An additional 500,000 persons are expected to repatriate in 2003. Despite positive changes in Afghanistan, however, a significant number of Afghans are unable or unwilling to return. In addition, conditions for local integration are not conducive as residence permit and employment are not allowed, nor are medical and educational services provided. UNHCR, therefore, considers resettlement from Iran as an important component of its overall protection strategy for a limited number of, mostly Afghan, refugees as well as an expression of international solidarity with the government of Iran who has hosted millions of refugees for many years.

UNHCR’s resettlement activities in Iran remain focused on responding to the protection needs of refugees with specific profiles. These profiles include woman-at-risk cases, family reunification cases, urgent medical cases, and cases with links to the Najibullah regime. Special consideration is also given to refugees who are opposed to the Mujahedin or sections of the interim government for political, ethnic or religious reasons, and who would be, for these reasons, at-risk if returned to Afghanistan.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Tehran plans to submit 1,500 persons for resettlement from Iran in 2004. Given additional resources, however, and based on request and acceptance rates, UNHCR could submit up to 2,000 persons for resettlement in 2004.

Refugees in Pakistan

Pakistan has hosted a large population of Afghan refugees since the 1980s. These refugees have arrived in Pakistan in multiple waves, the most recent wave following the events of 11 September 2001. UNHCR estimates that there are now well over a million Afghan refugees in camps, refugee settlements and urban areas in Pakistan. There are also some 900 refugees of other nationalities (mainly Somalis, Iraqis and Iranians) recognised under UNHCR’s Mandate.

Pakistan is not a party to the 1951 Convention and has no national legislation on refugees. Although the government has generously hosted large numbers of refugees on its territory for many years, it clearly stated that it has no policy of local integration and that ultimately all refugees are expected to return to their country of origin. Since 1998, the government considers newly arrived Afghans as illegal migrants. Afghans may be arrested and detained by the authorities under the Foreigners Act. The Government of Pakistan also considers all non-Afghan refugees to be illegal migrants and their presence is tolerated only until UNHCR can facilitate their resettlement.

Since 1 March 2002, some 1.55 million refugees have voluntarily returned to Afghanistan. It is expected that some 600,000 will repatriate in 2003 and a smaller number in 2004. In light of the on-going large-scale repatriation operation, resettlement activities are being undertaken in an extremely cautious manner in order not to undermine the return process. Therefore, refugee status determination procedures are carried-out further to new guidelines developed by UNHCR’s Department of International Protection in July 2002. From April 2002, UNHCR also conducts regular consultations with resettlement countries on the continued need of maintaining resettlement as a component of the UNHCR protection framework for refugees in Pakistan. These meetings provide a forum to continuously and realistically assess the resettlement needs and procedures.

During 2004, women-at-risk, refugees with legal and physical protection needs, family reunification cases and survivors of violence and torture will be given priority for resettlement submission. Non-Afghan refugees with legal and physical protection needs, who are survivors of violence and torture, and who lack local integration prospects will also be submitted for resettlement.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Islamabad plans to submit 1,000 persons for resettlement from Pakistan in 2004.

69 NORTH AFRICA and the MIDDLE EAST

Projected needs: 8,040 persons / Processing capacity: 7,040 persons

Refugees in Egypt

Egypt hosts an estimated 13,600 refugees and 7,200 asylum seekers from 28 nationalities. The three largest refugee populations originate from Sudan, Somalia and Yemen.

Egypt is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, with reservation to articles 12 (1) (personal status), 20 (rationing), 22 (1) (access to primary education), 23 (access to public relief and assistance) and 24 (labour legislation and social security). Egypt is also a party to the 1969 OAU Convention, but it has yet to be ratified.

Under a 1954 agreement between UNHCR and the Egyptian Government, UNHCR conducts individual refugee status determination for all applicants. The agreement also commits UNHCR to take “every possible measure” to resettle refugees residing in Egypt, as well as to provide assistance to the most destitute refugees. There are no specific provisions in domestic legislation for the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. Recognised refugees are granted a six-month renewable residence permit with the understanding that UNHCR will refer for resettlement those that meet the resettlement criteria of both UNHCR and the individual resettlement countries.

The many reservations made by the Egyptian Government to the 1951 Convention constitute serious legal barriers to the local integration of refugees, including limited access to the labour market and public schooling. Furthermore, the increasingly crowded and poor conditions in which refugees must live have led to a marked increase in health problems amongst refugees, particularly the transmission of infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. The Egyptian authorities have also requested that the access to a “protection space” in Egypt, through the relative ease with which refugees are issued entry visas, be balanced by equitable burden sharing on the part of the international community through resettlement. Due to such considerations, efforts to promote local integration of refugees are not viewed favourably by the Egyptian Government and, as a result, this durable solution is not currently pursued as a viable option for most refugees.

The majority of refugees in Egypt originate from countries or areas where the security situation is not conducive to their safe return. In spite of returns of Somali refugees from other countries to Somaliland, most Somali refugees registered with UNHCR’s Regional Office in Cairo come from regions of that country in which instability still prevails. Likewise for Sudanese refugees, although there has been cautious optimism regarding the Machakos Peace Process, most have expressed scepticism regarding the likelihood of their safe return in the near future. For 2003, only some 150 persons are expected to repatriate.

Given the rise in xenophobia towards some refugee communities, the lack of prospects for legal employment, and an increasingly precarious security situation for refugee in Egypt, resettlement remains the main durable solution for most refugees given their particular vulnerability in Egypt. Particular attention is given to resettlement for survivors of torture, medically-at-risk individuals, single women/single female heads of household, and

unaccompanied minors. Resettlement is also used as an emergency protection tool for some 30-40 cases per year that are threatened with refoulement or prolonged detention.

Approximately 73% of the resettlement cases will be Sudanese refugees, whereas 20% will be of Somali origin.

Assuming that present processing capacity and other variables remain constant, UNHCR’s Regional Office in Cairo plans to submit 3,000 persons for resettlement from Egypt in 2004.

Given additional resources, however, and based on request and acceptance rates, UNHCR could submit up to 4,000 persons for resettlement in 2004.

Refugees in Iraq

Prior to the conflict in Iraq in early 2003, the country hosted approximately 133,854 refugees. Approximately 100,000 of these refugees were Palestinians who were well integrated into the Iraqi community and were generally assisted by the Government of Iraq. Iraq also hosted 20,232 Iranian refugees and 13,229 refugees from Turkey. The majority of the 12,065 Iranian Kurdish refugees live in Al-Tash camp, some 150 km west of Baghdad. They were recognised on prima facie basis both by the Government of Iraq and UNHCR more than 20 years ago. The second group of 2,583 Iranian Kurdish refugees lives in Northern Iraq under Kurdish control. Most of them arrived in the 1980s and were, until 1997, recognised prima facie refugees by Iraq and UNHCR. After 1997, all new arrivals underwent an individual refugee status determination procedure by UNHCR. The third group of Iranian Shiite Muslims refugees are of Arab origin and fled to Iraq 17 to 18 years ago. They were granted full protection by Iraq and were settled in the southern provinces, where their self-sufficiency was promoted through such activities as agriculture and small businesses.

The nature and magnitude of the refugee population displaced by the recently concluded war in Iraq is not yet fully known. For security reasons, UNHCR has not been able to establish a full presence in Iraq. By end-May 2003, more than 1,000 Iranian refugees from Al-Tash camp had moved to the no-man’s land (NML) between the border of Jordan and Iraq. There were also unconfirmed reports of other movements out of Al-Tash. UNHCR is aware that many of the refugees in the NML want to be resettled to a third country as a result of their experience in Iraq. Concerned about a possible pull-factor, however, UNHCR will not support resettlement from NML at this time.

Iraq is not a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol. Nevertheless, the former government of Iraq had played a strong traditional role in providing legal and physical protection to refugees. The Political Refugee Act of 1971 approved by the Revolutionary Command Council provides the basic legal framework for asylum in Iraq. The refugee definition is restrictive and based on military and political grounds only, but it provides for a range of rights including access to health and education, employment and documentation. Due to the difficult economic situation and the deterioration of the quality of life, however, employment opportunities, even for nationals, are limited.

Under the framework of the bilateral agreement on voluntary repatriation between Iraq and Iran, 2,226 Iranian refugees from Al Tash had applied for voluntary repatriation before the war. It is expected that more refugees will apply for repatriation in 2003 and 2004.

The establishment of UNHCR’s full presence in Northern Iraq and the stabilisation of the security situation would allow the Office to facilitate the resettlement of Iranian refugees hosted in that region who are in need of resettlement for protection reasons.

From 2002 until mid-2003, and due to the difficult security situation in Iraq, only one resettlement country – Finland – was able to send a selection mission to Iraq. Because of this, very few refugees were selected and able to resettle.

Given permissive security conditions, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Baghdad plans to submit 600 persons for resettlement from Iraq in 2004.

Refugees in Jordan

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Amman has a registered population of approximately 1,000 refugees. More than 80% of these refugees are from Iraq. Other nationalities include Syrians, Sudanese, Somalis, Egyptians, Chechens and Bedouins. There are also an estimated 150,000 Iraqis in Jordan, including asylum seekers and individuals benefiting from temporary protection due to recent events in Iraq.

Jordan is not a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between UNHCR and the Government, signed in 1998, only provides for temporary protection in the country for refugees whose status is determined by UNHCR. Refugees are granted only 6 months’ residence in Jordan, making local integration impossible and timely resettlement a significant priority.

The overthrow of Suddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq has opened the possibility of future voluntary repatriation for Iraqis in Jordan, as well as from Syria and Lebanon, and has made UNHCR’s strategy for identifying durable solutions for Iraqi refugees more complex. The continuing uncertainty as to the nature of the new government in Iraq, the general lack of peace and order in the country, as well as intermittent fighting in some parts of the country, however, continue to hinder the voluntary return of many Iraqis.

UNHCR does not consider the situation in Iraq to be conducive to voluntary repatriation at this point in time.

While voluntary repatriation will be the eventual option for the vast majority of Iraqi refugees in Jordan, as well as Syria and Lebanon, a significant number of Iraqi refugees in the region will not be able to return. Such refugees include those who are survivors of violence and torture, victims of gender-based persecution and refugees who fled social or religious- based persecution. Return would also be problematic for vulnerable refugees, especially women-at-risk and refugees with particular medical needs, and members of minority groups such as the Bedouin from Kuwait with or without Iraqi passports, persons of Syrian origin with Iraqi passports and Iraqi nationals with Syrian citizenship. Finally, repatriation would not be a viable option for refugees that may be perceived as supporters of the former regime due to positions they held either in the military, government or Baáth party, who could fear future persecution, especially by non-state agents.

Refugee status determination for Iraqi asylum seekers will be resumed if the temporary protection of Iraqi nationals that started in March 2003 ends during this year. As a result, additional Iraqi refugees are expected to be recognised based on their fear of future persecution if returned to Iraq, thereby creating additional resettlement need in 2004.

Resettlement will also be pursued for third country nationals recognised under UNHCR’s Mandate, with the exception of Chechens.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Amman plans to submit 1,000 persons for resettlement from Jordan in 2004. These submissions will mostly include Iraqis recognised both before and after the war, in addition to other nationalities who have been identified throughout 2003.

Refugees in Lebanon

Lebanon hosts approximately 3,900 refugees. The majority of these refugees are Iraqi and Sudanese. The Iraqi refugee population consists primarily of those whose resettlement applications in 2001–2003 were put on hold due to the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 events as well as the conflict in Iraq in 2003. While the conditions that gave rise to their initial fear of persecution have changed, the situation in Iraq is still fluid. It is believed that many Iraqi refugees still cannot return to Iraq due to either their membership in a particular social group, their religion, ethnicity, or demonstrated vulnerability. The Sudanese refugees registered with UNHCR’s Regional Office in Beirut are mainly single men. They are primarily draft-evaders and deserters, members of vulnerable ethnic groups (especially Dinka, Nuba, and Shuluk), or members of or affiliated with the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement, Umma party, or other opposition groups. Refugees of other nationalities come from Afghanistan, Algeria, and 18 other countries in addition to a small number of stateless persons

In addition, there are an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 Iraqis in Lebanon, including asylum seekers and individuals benefiting from temporary protection. Approximately 1,000 to 1,500 Iraqis arrived in Lebanon between January and May 2003 as a result of the recent war in Iraq

Lebanon is not a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol. Although there is a provision allowing for political asylum in the Lebanese law governing the status of foreigners, there is no full-fledged national refugee law with practical procedures. Recognition under UNHCR’s Mandate is, therefore, the only legal status afforded to refugees in Lebanon. The Lebanese government, however, does not recognise this status, seriously undermining the viability of local integration as a durable solution. The situation is further compounded by pressure from the authorities to find durable solutions for refugees within a one-year period from the recognition date. Given the inability of most refugees to return to their country of origin and their inability to locally integrate in Lebanon, resettlement is the only viable durable solution for many refugees in Lebanon.

The protection situation over the past few years has strained UNHCR’s resettlement activities in Lebanon. The impending signature of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Lebanese authorities and UNHCR should, however, lead to a substantial improvement of the situation of refugees and other persons of concerns to UNHCR. The MOU will require resettlement of refugees within 6-9 months from the recognition date.

73 The overthrow of Suddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq has opened the possibility of future voluntary repatriation for Iraqis in Lebanon, as well as from Syria and Jordan, and has made UNHCR’s strategy for identifying durable solutions for Iraqi refugees more complex. The continuing uncertainty as to the nature of the new government in Iraq, the general lack of peace and order in the country, as well as intermittent fighting in some parts of the country, however, continue to hinder the voluntary return of many Iraqis.

UNHCR does not consider the situation in Iraq to be conducive to voluntary repatriation at this point in time.

While voluntary repatriation will be the eventual option for the vast majority of Iraqi refugees in Lebanon, as well as Syria and Jordan, a significant number of Iraqi refugees in the region will not be able to return. Such refugees include those who are survivors of violence and torture, victims of gender-based persecution and refugees who fled social or religious- based persecution. Return would also be problematic for vulnerable refugees, especially women-at-risk and refugees with particular medical needs, and members of minority groups. Finally, repatriation would not be a viable option for refugees that may be perceived as supporters of the former regime due to positions they held either in the military, government or Baáth party, who could fear future persecution, especially by non-state agents.

Given the lack of local integration prospects for all refugees in Lebanon, resettlement will be pursued as the most appropriate durable solution for many of these refugees. Resettlement will also be pursued for third country nationals recognised under UNCHR Mandate.

Assuming that the current conditions in Iraq continue through the rest of 2003, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Beirut plans to submit 1,200 persons for resettlement from Lebanon in 2004.

Refugees in Saudi Arabia

At the end of first quarter 2003, there were 5,123 Iraqi and 110 Afghan refugees in Rafha camp. Following the cessation of hostilities in Iraq, more than 470 Iraqis have approached UNHCR and requested immediate assistance to repatriate to Iraq. Almost all of them are Shiites from southern Iraq.

Saudi Arabia is not a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol. There is no national constitutional or legislative provision for granting asylum to refugees. Nevertheless, UNHCR’s efforts have so far led to the expansion of its Mandate to categories of refugees other than Iraqis in Rafha Camp, who were at the time granted asylum on a very exceptional basis.

Almost all of the refugees in Rafha have been in a virtual state of confinement in the camp for over a decade. The lack of durable solutions has significantly contributed to a sense of frustration and despondency among the refugee population.

In the aftermath of the conflict in Iraq, most of the 5,000 refugees have expressed the desire to eventually return to Iraq once the situation in the country stabilises. There are, however, some 200 refugees who have indicated that they still wish to be resettled. Most of them have relatives in resettlement countries.

UNHCR plans to submit 200 persons for resettlement from Saudi Arabia in 2004.

Refugees in Syria

The number of recognised urban refugees in Syria is approximately 2,500, of which 59% are Iraqis, 15% Afghans, 14% Somalis while the remaining 12% are Yemenis, Sudanese and other nationalities. An additional 93 prima facie refugees reside in Hasake province in Northeast Syria of whom 50 are in El Hol camp. As a result of the recent war in Iraq, approximately 70,000 Iraqis arrived between January and May 2003. Most live either with host families or in private accommodation in urban areas. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 Iraqis are currently in Syria as asylum seekers or beneficiaries of temporary protection.

A significant number of the pre-2003 Iraqi refugees were previously residing in other asylum countries, such as Iran or Rafha camp in Saudi Arabia. Other categories of Iraqi refugees include the Feili Kurds, Iraqis of Iranian origin and the asylum-seekers from Southern Iraq. The claims of the Feili Kurds are generally based on nationality questions, stemming from the deportation of many members of the group in the 1970s and 1980s. The Iraqis of Iranian origin are mainly Shi’a Arabs who feel a closer affinity with Iran due to their religion. Male members of this group did not perform military service under the Saddam regime. Many of them were naturalised decades ago, but documents of nationality issued by the government of Iraq indicated their origin as Iranian, which lead to their deportation. Refugees from Southern Iraq are mainly Arabs and Shi’as. They generally faced severe economic and social difficulties, and complained of the former regime’s discrimination against them on religious grounds. Many of them claimed to have participated in the 1991 uprising in Southern Iraq, which was brutally repressed by the Saddam regime.

Syria is not a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol and there is no governmental structure in charge of refugee issues or domestic asylum procedures. Until November 2001, Arab nationals in Syria enjoyed visa-free entry and unlimited stay. Following new immigration regulations, all foreigners are now limited to a three month stay and residence permits are given only on certain conditions and for a limited period. This new regulation directly affects asylum seekers and refugees whose asylum applications may be pending or who may be in the process of being resettled. UNHCR is currently negotiating a special right to remain for asylum seekers and refugees, including subsequent protection from refoulement or deportation, with the Syrian authorities. In the interim, however, resettlement from Syria will become even more important and rapid processing of resettlement cases, including security clearance. will be crucial.

The overthrow of Suddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq has opened the possibility of future voluntary repatriation for Iraqis in Syria, as well as from Lebanon and Jordan, and has made UNHCR’s strategy for identifying durable solutions for Iraqi refugees more complex. The continuing uncertainty as to the nature of the new government in Iraq, the general lack of

75 peace and order in the country, as well as intermittent fighting in some parts of the country, however, continue to hinder the voluntary return of many Iraqis.

UNHCR does not consider the situation in Iraq to be conducive to voluntary repatriation at this point in time.

While voluntary repatriation will be the eventual option for the vast majority of Iraqi refugees in Syria, as well as Lebanon and Jordan, a significant number of Iraqi refugees in the region will not be able to return. Such refugees include those who are survivors of violence and torture, victims of gender-based persecution and refugees who fled social or religious- based persecution. Return would also be problematic for vulnerable refugees, especially women-at-risk and refugees with particular medical needs, and members of minority groups. Finally, repatriation would not be a viable option for refugees that may be perceived as supporters of the former regime due to positions they held either in the military, government or Baáth party, who could fear future persecution, especially by non-state agents.

Voluntary repatriation for non-Iraqi refugees in Syria has proven not to be a viable durable solution given the volatile conditions prevailing in their respective countries of origin.

Given the lack of local integration prospects for all refugees in Syria, resettlement will be pursued as the most appropriate durable solution for some of these refugees. Resettlement will also be pursued for third country nationals recognised under UNCHR Mandate.

Assuming that current conditions in Iraq continue through the rest of 2003, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Damascus plans to submit 1,000 persons for resettlement from Syria in 2004.

Refugees in Yemen

Yemen hosts approximately 93,300 refugees and persons of concern to UNHCR, including 90,000 Somali refugees. The remaining refugees include 1,700 Ethiopians and 1,600 other individuals of various nationalities including Iraqis, Eritreans, Sudanese and Palestinians. UNHCR and the government are jointly undertaking a nation-wide registration of refugees, with the intention of providing legal status to refugees and asylum seekers in the country.

Yemen was one of the first states in the Arab world to sign the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. The Refugee National Law, which is supposed to provide full protection to asylum- seekers and refugees, has, however, not yet fully implemented.

The majority of the Ethiopian refugee population has been in Yemen for over a decade. Most of these refugees are of Oromo origin. Others are former members of the Ethiopian navy that fled Ethiopia during the conflict in the early 1990s. The on-going registration is hoped to provide these refugees not only with legal status, but the legal basis upon which to prusue local integration as a durable solution. Given the very poor economic conditions prevailing in the country, however, the government cannot be expected to provide support for the

integration of these refugees through improved job opportunities or other income generating activities. UNHCR will closely monitor and assess their situation in the coming months.

UNHCR’s resettlement activities in Yemen are relatively small and UNHCR’s Office in Yemen uses resettlement primarily as a means of addressing the protection needs of individual refugees. A limited number of cases will also be submitted for refugees who lack local integration prospects.

UNHCR’s Office in Yemen plans to submit 40 persons for resettlement from Yemen in 2004.