ANNUAL TRIPARTITE CONSULTATIONS ON RESETTLEMENT Geneva, 15 – 16 June 2004

______

UNHCR

PROJECTED GLOBAL RESETTLEMENT NEEDS

2005

Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2005

Table of Contents

Table of Preliminary Projections ------3 Introduction ------6

AFRICA ------9

Great Lakes ------10 in Burundi Refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Refugees of the Republic of Congo (ROC) Refugees in Rwanda Refugees in Tanzania

East and Horn of Africa ------19 Refugees in Djibouti Refugees in Eritrea Refugees in Ethiopia Refugees in Kenya Refugees in Refugees in Refugees in Uganda

West and Central Africa ------32 Refugees in Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger and Togo Refugees in Cameroon Refugees in the Central African Republic (CAR) Refugees in Côte d’Ivoire Refugees in Gabon Refugees in Gambia Refugees in Ghana Refugees in Guinea Refugees in Guinea-Bissau Refugees in Mali Refugees in Nigeria Refugees in Senegal Refugees in Sierra Leone

Southern Africa ------48 Refugees in South Africa, Swaziland and the Indian Ocean Islands Refugees in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi

THE AMERICAS ------53

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 ------58

South Asia ------58 Refugees in Refugees in Refugees in

1

East Asia ------62 Refugees in Cambodia Refugees in the People’s Republic of (including Hong Kong SAR) and Mongolia Refugees in Refugees in Malaysia Refugees in Thailand

EUROPE ------70

Eastern Europe ------70 Refugees in Refugees in Belarus Refugees in Refugees in Russian Federation Refugees in Ukraine

South-Eastern Europe ------77 Refugees in Albania Refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina Refugees in Croatia Refugees in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fyROM) Refugees in Serbia and Montenegro (SCG)

Southern Europe ------83 Refugees in Turkey Refugees in Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) Refugees in Malta

CASWANAME ------88

Central Asia ------89 Refugees in Kazakhstan Refugees in Kyrgyzstan Refugees in Tajikistan Refugees in Turkmenistan Refugees in

South-West Asia ------95 Refugees in Refugees in

North Africa and The Middle East ------98 Refugees in Egypt Refugees in Jordan Refugees in Lebanon Refugees in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain Refugees in Syria Refugees in

Appendix: Projected Global Resettlement Needs by Country of Origin ------106

2

UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2005

Sub- Country of Asylum** Individuals in Capacity Potential Region* need of to Process Group Resettlement*** Individual Submissions **** Needs

Africa

Great Lakes Burundi 500 500 Democratic Republic of 400 400 Congo (DRC) Republic of Congo (ROC) 420 80 ????? Rwanda 1,220 595 ????? Tanzania 1,200 1,200 ????? East and Djibouti 100 100 Horn of Africa Eritrea 590 235 ????? Ethiopia 720 570 ????? Kenya 2,050 2,050 ????? Somalia 390 390 Sudan 1,000 1,000 Uganda 820 510 ????? West and Benin 90 45 Central Africa Burkina Faso 35 35 Cameroon 495 200 ????? Central African Republic 100 25 (CAR) Côte d’Ivoire 450 450 ????? Gabon 1,000 300 Gambia 20 20 Ghana 300 300 ????? Guinea 1,700 1,700 ????? Guinea-Bissau 10 10 Mali 40 40 ????? Niger 15 15 Nigeria 150 150 ????? Senegal 200 200 ????? Sierra Leone 600 500 ????? Togo 30 30 Southern Indian Ocean Islands 20 20 Africa (Madagascar, The Comoros, Seychelles, Mauritius) Malawi 500 100 South Africa and Lesotho 250 150 Swaziland 15 15 Zambia 820 400 ????? Zimbabwe 500 150 Africa TOTAL: 16,750 12,485

3

The Americas

Costa Rica 525 525 Cuba 35 35 Ecuador 720 620 Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua 15 15 and Belize Peru 220 120 Venezuela 180 180 Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay 10 10 The Americas TOTAL: 1,705 1,505

Asia

South Asia Bangladesh 5 5 India 200 200 Nepal 20 20 ????? Sri Lanka 60 60 East Asia Cambodia 170 170 People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong SAR 367 367 Indonesia 250 250 Malaysia 2,150 800 Thailand 820 250 ????? Asia TOTAL: 4,042 2,122

Europe

Eastern Europe Armenia 3 3 Azerbaijan 360 360 Belarus 18 18 Georgia 200 200 Russian Federation 750 750 Ukraine 650 250 South-Eastern Albania 40 40 Europe Bosnia and Herzegovina 150 150 Croatia 15 15 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fyROM) 50 50 Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) 350 350 Southern Europe Turkey 2,500 2,500 ?????

Cyprus / Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) 10 10 Malta 50 50 Europe TOTAL: 5,146 4,746

4

CASWANAME

Central Asia Kazakhstan 45 45 Kyrgyzstan 120 120 Tajikistan 600 600 Turkmenistan 50 50 Uzbekistan 400 400 South-West Asia Iran 2000 1300 Pakistan 690 690 North Africa and the Middle Egypt 1,750 1,750 East Jordan 450 450 ????? Lebanon 550 550 Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and 380 380 Bahrain Syria 725 725 Yemen 1423 200 CASWANAME TOTAL: 9,183 7,260 36,826 28,118 GLOBAL TOTAL:

* 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.

**** Potential Group Submissions: Shaded areas indicate countries of asylum where UNHCR has preliminarily identified caseloads which may be further reviewed for potential submissions as groups .

5 GLOBAL RESETTLEMENT NEEDS IN 2005

Introduction

This report provides an overview of UNHCR’s projection of both resettlement needs among populations of concern to UNHCR, as identified by UNHCR Field Offices, and anticipated resettlement submissions for 2005. 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 own 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 2005, 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 criteria that would best apply to the caseload, 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 2005 needs projection has been expanded to include the identification of caseloads with potential for group submission. In an effort to operationalise resettlement as a durable solution and to increase resettlement referrals, UNHCR has developed and issued a methodology for group resettlement, which is a system for identifying and profiling refugee groups in need of resettlement. Several large caseloads that have been preliminarily identified by the field will be reviewed with respect to their potential for submission as groups in 2005.

The figures specified in this report are the total number of individual persons in need of resettlement UNHCR anticipates submitting for resettlement from a given country in 2005. 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.

6

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 may 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 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.

Ten new professional resettlement posts were established in 2004, including positions in Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Egypt and the Russian Federation. While these posts were only established temporarily, they are helping further the goals of diversification and access. Extension of some posts established in 2003, and the regularization of previous temporary posts have also been implemented in 2004. This level of staffing must, however, be maintained, and even increased, if the resettlement need of refugees is to be effectively addressed.

The UNHCR resettlement operations continue to rely on the close cooperation of the UNHCR / ICMC deployment scheme to provide staff in resettlement operations. As of May 2004, there has already been 42 staff, largely from the NGO sector, who have been deployed throughout the world.

In addition to the needs identified in this document, new resettlement opportunities 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 and managerial tools, rather than as an authoritative document. It must further be noted that the projections herein may not capture resettlement activities carried out by individual 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.

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.

The projected numbers in the table at page four reflect the number of refugees in need of resettlement according to current location, rather than country of origin of the refugees. The “Individuals in Need of Resettlement” column refers to those persons who will be processed on an individual basis, with the next column “Capacity to Process Individual Submissions” indicating the current office capacity to address the individual needs identified. A third column,

7 new to the 2005 Projected Global Resettlement Needs document, indicates the presence of a potential group submission from a given country. This number may be made up of more than one group of refugees. Further information on these groups may be found under each country report.

To see an estimation of the number of refugees belonging to a specific caseload broken down by their current location, please refer to Appendix 1. Due to categorizing some resettlement needs under “others” when the origin of the caseload has not been specified by the field office, it should be noted that the total figures in Appendix 1 do not necessarily match those of Table I.

8

AFRICA

Projected needs: 16,750 persons / Processing capacity: 12,485 persons

Making resettlement a viable and meaningful component of comprehensive protection strategies in Africa continues to be a primary objective of UNHCR, both in Headquarters and in the field. Tangible progress has been made in the region in 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 implemented 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 provide co-ordination, support and monitoring of resettlement activities in the region. These three main functions of the Hubs 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 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. UNHCR is grateful to a number of resettlement countries for providing additional funds for resettlement activities, including the funding of additional staff.

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

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.

9

GREAT LAKES

Projected need: 3,740 persons / Processing capacity: 2,775 persons

Refugees in Burundi

Le Burundi est signataire d’une part de la Convention de 1951, et du Protocole de 1967. Il est aussi signataire de la Convention de l’OUA, de 1969. La législation nationale burundaise sur les réfugiés repose sur un certain nombre de textes juridiques relatifs à l’immigration. En l’absence d’une loi spécifique sur les réfugiés, le HCR appuie le Gouvernement pour l’élaboration d’une loi d’asile conforme aux normes de la protection internationale. Le premier avant-projet est en cours de révision.

Selon les sources gouvernementales, la population réfugiée au Burundi est estimée à 40 000 personnes. En vue d’avoir des statistiques fiables et de connaître, le cas échéant, la proportion exacte des réfugiés et personnes pouvant relever de son mandat, le HCR en collaboration avec le Gouvernement a commencé, au cours du mois d’avril 2002, une opération d’enregistrement et de screening. Actuellement, les réfugiés dûment enregistrés au niveau du UNHCR Bureau Burundi et ayant fait l’objet du screening sont estimés à 3255 personnes.

La plupart sont de ces personnes Congolaises arrivées par vagues successives, les plus grandes périodes de flux étant entre 1964-1967 (instauration du monopartisme et chasse aux lumumbistes), 1996-1998 (guerre civile en République Démocratique du Congo et chute du régime Mobutu) et octobre 2002 (offensive de la coalition des Mayi Mayi et de factions favorables au Commandant Masunzu contre les forces du RCD, suite au départ des troupes rwandaises et burundaises à l’est du Congo).

Parmi les réfugiés Congolais on trouve les Banyamulenges. Les Banyamulenges ont commencé à fuir la RDC en 1998, suite aux combats qui s’y déroulaient entre miliciens Mai-Mai, troupes RCD et leurs alliés. A l’époque, près de 1.500 Banyamulenges avaient pris la direction de Bujumbura pour s’y réfugier. Au début, ils n’avaient demandé aucune assistance du HCR, ni alerté le bureau sur leur problèmes particuliers de protection. Au début de l’an 2000, par contre, ces groupes ont commencé à se plaindre de persécutions sélectives les poussant à quitter en masse le Sud Kivu.

En plus de ces réfugiés Congolais, le UNHCR Bureau à Bujumbura a enregistré de rares cas de réfugiés Rwandais, Tanzaniens, Ougandais, Ethiopiens, Somaliens.

Les réfugies congolais (majoritaires) sont localisés principalement dans 3 endroits :

· Au niveau du camp de réfugié de Kinama à Gasorwe, en province Muyinga, qui abrite 1.700 réfugiés Congolais. · A Bujumbura mairie ou les cas des réfugiés urbains sont estimés à 25.106. · Au niveau de l’ancien site de transit de Ngagara (Bujumbura Mairie). Ce site comprend environ 700 réfugiés Banyamulenge.

10

Les eieux d’origine des Congolais sont les suivants: Gasorwe (including Sud-Kivu, Nord-Kivu, Shaba, Kasai-Oriental, Bandundu, Maniema, Equateur, Mubende, Katanga) (2.614), Cishemeye (10.302), et Réfugiés urbains (25.106)

La condition d’insécurité à l’Est de la RDC, et en particulier dans le Sud Kivu est l’obstacle majeur au rapatriement des réfugiés congolais vivant au Burundi qui sont, à grande majorité, originaires de cette région.

En considération du conflit burundais qui a causé un appauvrissement généralisé du pays et de ses habitants, les autorités burundaises ne sont pas prêtes, du moins de façon formelle, à faciliter l’intégration juridique et sociale des réfugiés au Burundi. Pour autant, les demandeurs d’asile et réfugiés sont bien tolérés. Ils peuvent trouver un emploi, et sont encouragés à entrer dans l’enseignement ou la santé, domaines dans lesquels le Burundi a un déficit de cadres compétents. Une nouvelle loi sur la nationalité est en vigueur au Burundi depuis 2001. Cette loi reconnaît la double nationalité et pourrait faciliter le processus de naturalisation. Néanmoins, cette loi ne fait pas allusion aux réfugiés, qui demeurent assimilés aux étrangers.

En l’absence d’une opération organisée de rapatriement volontaire et de toute perspective d’intégration locale, la principale catégorie de réfugiés pour laquelle le besoin de réinstallation est pressant est celle des personnes ayant un besoin urgent de protection. Nous trouvons dans cette catégorie les réfugiés à qui il est nécessaire d’accorder une protection physique et légale, du fait de menaces de refoulement qui pèsent sur eux. Setrouvent également parmi eux les Congolais qui ont fui les persécutions du fait de leurs opinions politiques ou de leur activisme en faveur de la promotion et du respect des droits de l’homme dans les territoires sous contrôle de la rébellion. Dans une moindre mesure, on compte aussi parmi eux d’anciens cadres administratifs (collaborateurs des services de sécurité et d’immigration). De plus, un certain nombre de personnes influentes du fait de leur appartenance aux milices mai-mai font également partie de ce groupe.

D’autre part, pour les anciens combattants, déserteurs ou vaincus de guerre identifiés qui ne tombent pas sous le coup de la clause d’exclusion, comme seule solution le HCR ne pourra envisager durable possible que la réinstallation, en considération du fait que le Burundi ne peut être pour eux, un pays sur d’asile.

Les Banyamulenge ont quitté le Rwanda depuis long temps et se considèrent désormais comme étant congolais. La population congolaise, par contre, à cause de leur origine, considère les Banyamulenge comme étant des rwandais. Si le problème relatif à la nationalité des Banyamulenge n’est pas réglé par le gouvernement actuel de la RDC, pourraient être considérés comme des potentiels cas de réinstallation, du fait des risques d’apatridie

Enfin, on compte également dans ce groupe des Rwandais déserteurs, les opposants politiques et/ou leurs dépendants proches dont les cas sont très sensibles et qui risquent d’être refoulés vers le Rwanda. De ce fait, la tendance serait de soumettre ces cas à une procédure de réinstallation d’urgence.

En plus de ces personnes, il existe des réfugiés vulnérables. Il s’agit de certains réfugiés handicapés ou malades, de réfugiés souffrant de troubles mentaux, de réfugiés victimes ou témoins de tortures ou autres sévices graves, de femmes réfugiées qui sont particulièrement fragilisées et qui nécessitent de soins particuliers en dehors du premier pays d’asile.

11 Avec l’installation d’un site unique des réfugiés à Gasorwe, le HCR entend poursuit l’exercice de screening des réfugiés. Ceci facilitera, entre autres, la soumission a la réinstallation de sans perspectives d’intégration locale.

D’autre part, les anciens réfugiés urbains, arrivés dans les années 1960 – 1980 et 1990 (Congolais souvent, et dans certain cas Rwandais et Somaliens) vont faire l’objet d’un réexamen individuel et une solution durable sera identifiée pour leur cas, allant peut-être parfois jusqu’à la réinstallation.

Le HCR Burundi compte ainsi soumettre à la réinstallation 500 personnes, selon les détails suivants : Critère de protection juridique et physique (100 personnes), Critère Médical (100 personnes), Critère Femmes à risques (100 personnes), Réunification de famille (50 personnes), et Manque de perspectives d’intégration locale (150 personnes).

Refugees in the Democratic Republic of Congo

As of the beginning of 2004, there were an estimated 234,000 refugees in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), including 123,500 Angolans, 45,000 Sudanese, 20,000 Rwandans, 20,000 Burundians, 6,500 Congolese (Republic of Congo) and 19,000 Ugandans.

Background In April 2003 the warring parties agreed to share power and signed the All Inclusive Agreement on the Transitional Government, meant to settle interim political arrangements while the country moves toward elections. This agreement and the subsequent swearing in of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in June 2003 are a significant step forward.

The transition however remains fragile. Parts of the east of the country remain in conflict and most of the former rebel groups appear to be preserving their military options should the transition process fail. In many parts of eastern DRC, such as Ituri, South Kivu and northern Katanga, the fighting between armed groups continues, with widespread human rights crimes including ethnic massacres, sexual violence, and recruitment of child soldiers.

Repatriation 2003 has also witnessed considerable improvement of the security and political situation in many countries neighbouring DRC that had in the past produced substantial numbers of refugees. In 2003 Repatriation operations took place to Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Rwanda and Angola, where 800, 2,755, 15,001 and 27,004 refugees respectively repatriated. Positive developments in Sudan and Burundi have led UNHCR offices in the region to prepare for possible voluntary repatriation in 2004 and 2005.

Angolan refugees Repatriation Between June and December 2003, 27,004 Angolan refugees voluntarily repatriated to Angola in organised and spontaneous manners from sites located in Kimpese and Kisenge. 540 refugees originating from Cabinda province were relocated to already-existing sites farther away from the border and registration for this group is being planned. In 2004, repatriation movements will continue from existing locations and will start currently from Ngidinga (Bas-Congo). Spontaneous departures will be facilitated from Kahemba (Bandundu province) and Kimvula

12

(Bas-Congo) as conditions prevailing in the respective areas of return are not yet conducive for organised repatriation (due to demining, rehabilitation and reconstruction needs).

Local Integration In 2005, in close consultation with DRC authorities, residual Angolan caseloads in Kisenge, Kimpese and Ngidinga will be assisted to locally integrate. Considering that Angolan refugees are already quite well integrated, including a significant number of marriages between refugees and the local population, many among the residual caseload are expected to ask for immigration documents or naturalisation.

Resettlement It is expected that there will be very few individual resettlement needs in general among the Angolan refugee population. A small number of cases, comprising some 20 persons falling under the legal and physical protection needs, survivors of violence and torture and women at risk criteria are anticipated.

BO Kinshasa is currently examining the situation of the Angolan refugee caseload in Tembo, Bandundu province. As these individuals have spontaneously settled in DRC, these refugees have never been provided with assistance or been registered. Protection missions will take place in 2004 to further assess the composition and situation of these individuals. Recent contacts with the refugees, however, indicated that the majority would opt to repatriate if UNHCR is involved in the process. This caseload has already been discussed during meetings of the Tripartite Commission on the voluntary repatriation of Angolan refugees and, because of its particular characteristics (political affiliation) it is expected that the voluntary return of a portion of the group (est. 200 persons) may not be possible. Moreover, because of the proximity of the border, their continuous stay in DRC could be jeopardised, and resettlement might be the only durable solution for this group.

Burundian refugees Out of the 20,000 Burundian refugees in DRC, an estimated 18,500 (some of which fled Burundi during the early 1970’s) are scattered in north and south Kivu, to which UNHCR has little or no access. Others are located in urban centres (Kinshasa, Lubumbashi, Goma, Bukavu) or in integration villages (Mbuji Mayi)

UNHCR currently facilitates voluntary repatriation to certain parts of Burundi. It is planned that promotion of voluntary repatriation will be undertaken in 2005, provided conditions conducive for a sustainable return are created. The refugees’ attitude toward repatriation varies: while there is little or no willingness to return on the part of refugees living in Kinshasa and Mbuji Mayi, 25% of the Burundian refugees in Lubumbashi have indicated their willingness to return. Refugees in Bukavu and Goma have also started considering repatriation.

Of the refugees choosing not to repatriate during 2005, it is expected that a few cases involving legal and physical protection needs, lack of local integration prospects, women-at-risk and family reunification will be identified and processed for resettlement. Fifty-five Burundian refugees will be resettled in 2005

Rwandan refugees Out of the 20,000 Rwandan refugees in DRC, an estimated 18,000 are scattered in north and south Kivu, Maniema and Province orientale, to which UNHCR has little or no access. Others

13 are located in urban centres (Kinshasa, Lubumbashi, Goma, Bukavu) or in integration villages (Mbuji Mayi).

The promotion of the voluntary repatriation of Rwandan refugees continues. 15% of the total refugee population has indicated its willingness to return to Rwanda. Among the refugees deemed as still being in need of international protection, it is expected that 30 persons will be identified for resettlement, and that these will fall under the legal and physical protection needs, lack of local integration prospects and women at risk criteria.

Sudanese refugees The vast majority of the Sudanese refugees in DRC are located in the Province Orientale where the 2nd phase of a registration operation is currently taking place. The availability of a refugee database at SO Aru later in 2004 will enable a better analysis of the composition of the group, including a better identification of durable solutions including resettlement. Despite the fact that voluntary repatriation of Sudanese refugees is foreseen in 2005 should conditions become conducive, 50 persons may be identified and processed for resettlement, primarily for reasons relating to legal and physical protection needs.

Ugandan refugees Uganda refugees in DRC are located in Boga, in eastern DRC. Access to the group by UNHCR SO Aru is difficult because of the prevailing security conditions. A delegation composed of MONUC, humanitarian agencies and the Ituri special assembly visited Boga in February 2004. Should MONUC decide to deploy a military contingent to this location, UNHCR will be able to regain access to the refugees and identify durable solutions for them in 2004 and 2005. Possible repatriation of the group, among others, will be assessed. No resettlement of the Ugandan refugee population in 2005 is foreseen at this time.

Urban refugees Apart from the Angolan, Rwandan and Burundian refugee populations, 497 refugees of other origins fall under UNHCR’s mandate in Kinshasa. A census operation is scheduled to take place during the first half of 2004, and this will enable the office to update the database and better analyse the composition of the various groups in view of the identification of durable solutions.

Voluntary repatriation of the Congolese (ROC) refugees is ongoing. It is however expected that among the remaining caseload, a number of political opponents might not be able to return to Congo in 2005. Given the proximity of the two Congolese capitals, resettlement of some cases might prove to be the only durable solution.

Among the refugees of other origins, it is expected that a few cases will be identified as in need of legal and physical protection or family reunification, or as women at risk or survivor of violence and torture. In view of the existing medical facilities in DRC in general and in Kinshasa in particular, a few medical needs might be processed for resettlement. 45 persons are anticipated to be resettled from Kinshasa in 2005.

In total, 400 refugees will be resettled from DRC in 2005. With the deployment in 2004 of an ICMC consultant, it is expected that BO Kinshasa will have the capacity to identify and process all cases.

14

Refugees in the Republic of Congo

The Republic of Congo (ROC) hosted approximately 90,400 refugees at the beginning of 2004, comprising of 80,000 Congolese refugees (from Democratic Republic of the Congo-DRC, the majority coming from the Equateur Province and currently living in the north-eastern area of ROC), 6,000 Rwandan refugees, 3,800 Angolan refugees, 350 Central Africans and some 250 refugees of various nationalities. The refugee census which started in December 2002 in the Republic of Congo had not been finalized by the end of 2003.

The Republic of Congo is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, and the 1969 OAU Convention. The Republic of Congo has not adopted comprehensive legislation relating to asylum. However, the CNAR (Comité National d’Assistance aux réfugiés) has been established in December 1999 as UNHCR’s government partner to deal with refugee issues. Refugee status determination interviews are conducted jointly by UNHCR and the governmental Eligibility/Appeal Commissions.

Despite new agreements “accords de réaffirmation des accords de cessez-le-feu et de cessation des hostilités” signed on 17th March 2003, between the Congolese Government and the Ninja rebel movement of Pasteur Ntoumi, the political situation remains uncertain by the end of 2003, with Pasteur Ntoumi refusing to return to the capital and the militia not disarmed. There have also been reports of insecurity and serious human rights violations. The socio-economic situation in the Republic of Congo is still very precarious and allows little opportunities for refugees to locally integrate.

There has been development in the Democratic Republic of Congo in view of the recent formation of a national Transitional Government by the Government, major rebel groups and members of the unarmed political opposition and civil society, in accordance with the new Transitional Constitution. Elections are expected to be held in two years time. If this positive trend continues, it may put an end to a long-running conflict, which would allow UNHCR to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of Congolese refugees to the north-eastern part of Congo in 2004-2005.

UNHCR will organize the voluntary repatriation of Angolan refugees except for those originating from Cabinda. Return of Angolan refugees from this area will be dependent on an improvement of the political situation in that region, currently deemed to be problematic with the on-going war between the local rebel movements and the Angolan army.

Since 15TH March 2003, when a new government was established in Central Africa Republic following a coup d’état which overthrew the popular regime, many refugees from Central Africa have returned spontaneously or with UNHCR’s assistance. All refugees from this region are expected to have returned by June 2004. As regard the Rwandan refugees, UNHCR Brazzaville will intensify efforts to promote and organize an assisted voluntary repatriation programme in the course of 2004.

UNHCR’s Office in Brazzaville anticipates resettling a small number of DRC refugees on legal and physical grounds, due to the security threats faced from the presence of DRC security agents in ROC, Interahamwe and Forces Armees Rwandaises members. Congolese of Tutsi origin or in mixed marriages, and opponents of the current DRC regime (including, among others, students, journalists, members of opposition parties, human rights activists, ex FAZ, relatives to ex Chief of State Mobutu) are particularly targeted. The signing of the security/defense

15 agreement between ROC, Angola and DRC in January 2003, in an effort to strengthen security at the border between these countries, DRC refugees may possibly risk refoulement if the situation remains unchecked. A limited number of women-at-risk will also be submitted for resettlement consideration.

UNHCR may also need to consider the resettlement needs of some Rwandan refugees (mostly Hutu) who are opponents to the Rwanda current regime and who are unable to return, will undergo individual refugee status determination after the large-scale voluntary repatriation process.

A small number of Angolan refugees from Cabinda will also need to be resettled on grounds of legal and physical protection. Refugees who are hosted in the region of Niari (Malolo, Kimongo) have reportedly been victims of incursions from members of the Angolan army. With the signing of said the tripartite security agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Republic of Congo and Angola as stated previously, some refugees from Angola may risk refoulement to Cabinda.

UNHCR will also promote the resettlement of urban refugees of various nationalities (Burundians, Sudanese) due to lack of local integration prospects.

To this end, UNHCR Brazzaville has identified some 420 refugees in need of resettlement, comprising of 280 Rwandan refugees, 95 DRCongolese refugees, 25 Angolan refugees and 20 Burundian refugees. However, due to limited human resources, UNHCR Brazzaville may not be able to submit more than 80 persons in 2005 without additional support through the deployment of a Resettlement Consultant (ICMC resettlement deployee) for a period of three months. It is proposed that the incumbent of this position could provide support to both UNHCR Brazzaville and UNHCR Kinshasa.

Refugees in Rwanda

Rwanda hosts approximately 38,000 refugees, mainly Congolese (DRC) and Burundian. Another 2,900 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 took place in 2003. UNHCR provides 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. As of 01 of January 2004 UNHCR has stopped registration of new asylum seekers, this being done by the National Refugee Council.

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,

16

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. The current population of the camp is 754 persons, of whom 396 are long-stayers. 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 290 persons for resettlement from Kigeme Camp in 2005.

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 of potential persecution if forced to return. Until fairly recently, the Banyamulenge were thought to be safe in the east as they were seen as allies of RCD-G and of Rwanda, not least since Rwanda and Uganda claimed that they became involved in the conflict in order to protect the Banyamulenge from persecution by the Kinshasa government. However, after a shift of alliances, the Banyamulenge appear now to be persecuted by the Rwandese troops because of their perceived or real opposition to a Rwandan presence. The issue of the disputed nationality of the Banyamulenge is another linked concern, as a result of which affected persons may be in continued need of international protection. While a regional review of, and approach to, this caseload is required; UNHCR Kigali will explore the possibility of group resettlement due to a lack of local integration prospects.

UNHCR also envisages the referral of 530 persons from Kiziba and Gihembe Camps including 330 Banyamulenge / Tutsi and 200 refugees of other ethnicities including Bacongo, Mushi and Bembe, based mainly on legal and protection needs and lack of local integration prospects, in 2005.

UNHCR Kigali also receives an average of 10 letters a day from urban refugees, requesting resettlement. While resettlement needs for urban refugees are estimated at around 400 persons, office capacity would allow the referral of only 200 persons in 2005, primarily Congolese (Bacongo, Mushi, Bembe) and Burundian (Hutu). Resettlement priority is given to refugees with a history of individual persecution, victims of torture and/or with legal and physical protection needs. Other prioritised profiles will include women-at-risk and those lacking local integration prospects.

17 In total, while almost 1,220 refugees have being identified as being in need of resettlement, UNHCR Kigali estimated in 2005 that it would be able to submit 595 refugees for resettlement from Rwanda in 2005. This number may be revised following a more in-depth analysis of the durable solutions needs of camp-based refugees as well as depending on the office capacity to identify resettlement cases in 2004.

Refugees in Tanzania

With a total refugee population of 459,141 as of March 2004, Tanzania continues to host the largest refugee population in Africa. Burundian refugees comprise the largest number at 301,772 followed by Congolese refugees at 151,875, Somalis at 3,369, Rwandans at 23, and other nationalities including Kenyans, Ethiopians, Ugandans, Sudanese, and mixed nationalities at 2,102.

Burundians and Congolese refugees are still given prima facie refugee status while refugees from all other countries have to go through individual status determination procedures carried out by Tanzania’s National Eligibility Committee (NEC).

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

Tanzania has a long history of hosting refugees. In the past asylum policies were for the most part generous but with the passage of the Refugees Act in 1998 the rights of refugees became severely restricted. In 2003 a number of refugees were denied asylum and refouled, and the Government rounded up what were referred to as “illegal immigrants”, i.e., Burundians and Rwandans living in Tanzanian villages.

Generally, Tanzanian laws and policies dictate that refugees reside in designated areas in Western Tanzania. Once registered, they are given a permit to travel to Western Tanzania to live in one of the 13 refugee camps where their freedom of movement, work and educational opportunities are extremely limited.

As the Government of Tanzania is not considering local integration for refugees there are only two durable solutions; voluntary repatriation and resettlement. One exception has been for a group of Somali refugees who have been allowed to apply for citizenship and provided with land in Chogo settlement.

Prospects for voluntary repatriation have improved greatly in particular for Burundian refugees. An increase in the number of Burundians facilitated to return and those returning spontaneously have occurred. It is foreseen that promotion of voluntary repatriation will commence this year as Burundi stabilises and elections are planned for November 2004.

BO Tanzania recognizes that even as plans for voluntary repatriation are underway, there are groups and individuals who will be unwilling to return to Burundi including the 1972 Burundian caseload. This is a protracted group that has no effective ties to Burundi and has lost claims to their property. Many in this group are children or adults who were born in Tanzania, have never visited their country of nationality and have no ties there.

18

The component of the 1972 Burundian caseload that is targeted for group resettlement comprises approximately 10,000 individuals who are currently registered by UNHCR and reside in one of the refugee camps in Tanzania. Processing will begin in 2004, with the remaining caseload being finalized in 2005. It is expected that 6,000 Burundians from this group will be submitted in 2005.

Individuals from the Burundian residual caseload determined to be in need of continued protection including political leaders, victims of ethnic persecution, long -stayers and educated Hutus will also be considered for resettlement in 2005 assuming that UNHCR starts to promote voluntary repatriation. 500 persons are expected to be in need of resettlement in 2005 including survivors of violence and torture, women at risk, legal and physical protection needs and lack of local integration prospects.

Prospects for voluntary repatriation of Congolese refugees still remain limited and for some of this population with legal and physical protection needs, resettlement will be explored as a durable solution. Resettlement will also be considered for ethnic minorities including Banyamulenge, Twas, Hutus and Tutsis from the Great Lakes region and refugees in mixed marriages especially Hutu and Tutsis, which often puts them at risk within the refugee community. Approximately 200 Congolese refugees will be identified and processed for resettlement in 2005.

The position of the Government of Tanzania is that Rwanda is safe. Rwandans therefore, are no longer given asylum in Tanzania. Rwandan refugees are allowed to stay in Tanzania temporarily under UNHCR Mandate until they are moved to another country. Thus, resettlement will be the only solution for a certain number of Rwandans seeking asylum in Tanzania. Submissions of Rwandans, and some Burundis will be made under survivors of violence and torture, women at risk, children, legal and protection needs, and lack of local integration grounds. It is estimated that 500 refugees will be in need of resettlement from these groups in 2005.

In 2005, it is estimated that 7,200 refugees will be in need of resettlement including the 1972 Burundian caseload to be submitted as a group. With the current capacity maintained, UNHCR will be able to identify and submit 2,500 persons. However, this number could either increase or reduce after carrying out the identification and verification exercise of the 1972 Burundian caseload and if the capacity of the office is increased.

EAST AND HORN OF AFRICA

Projected needs: 5,670 persons / Processing capacity: 4,855 persons

Refugees in Djibouti

Djibouti currently hosts 23,000 persons of concern to UNHCR and all of these individuals are now hosted in camps (Ali-Addeh, Holl-Holl, and Aour-Aoussa). The vast majority of the caseload (approximately 22,500) is Somali in origin and the rest is Ethiopian with a very small number of Eritreans. 80 % of the Somali caseload is currently part of the voluntary repatriation program that is underway to Somaliland. This program, which begun in 2002, was recently

19 reactivated and is in full force with seven convoys already departed and three convoys a month planned for the rest of the year.

The Government of Djibouti has ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 Protocol, but has neither signed nor ratified the 1969 OAU Convention on Refugees, or the 1954 and 1961 Statelessness Conventions. In practice, however, the OAU Convention was implemented to several instances of refugee influxes from neighbouring countries. In addition to this, Djibouti is also party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the OAU Charter on the Rights and Welfare of Children, as well as the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women of 18 December 1979. The national refugee legislation grants refugees most of the rights foreseen in the 1951 Convention, but in practice few of the rights are enjoyed by the refugees.

In 2003, the major development in Djibouti was the forced transfer to a site (Aour Aoussa) outside the City of Djibouti of all illegal migrants, including asylum seekers/refugees. This event took place in September 2003. Prior to this, many refugees and asylum seekers were self- reliant and were de-facto integrated into the local society. Since September 2003 and the aforementioned transfer, every individual of concern to UNHCR became completely dependant on our assistance. Approximately 4,500 people, mostly from Southern Somalia, were added to UNHCR Djibouti's caseload as a result of the events of 2003.

By 2005, as a result of the ongoing voluntary repatriation program, the office predicts that our caseload will be brought down to approximately 16,000. Of this figure, about 6,000 will be South-Central Somalis (predominantly Hawiye, Darod, Sheekhal and Dighil), for whom repatriation will not be an option. Local integration will also not be achievable for the group due to the depressed economy and newly established policies of the Government of Djibouti to disallow any possibility of self-reliance. The group will also be limited in their movements and will continue to be camp-based. Therefore, resettlement will necessarily be considered for approximately 40 persons. This figure approximately corresponds to the number of most vulnerable individuals with no potential to lead a normal life in the host country without undue hardships or the capacity to return to Southern Somalia where peace and stability are still not secured. The targeted group will include persons with special protection and/or medical needs.

Another group that will be object of our attention, for resettlement purposes, will be the Ethiopian residual caseload that has been present in Ali-Addeh for at least the past decade. While the office will continue to encourage members of the groups to repatriate where viable, resettlement may also be used as a strategic tool to bring an end to this protracted situation. At present there are 227 Amhara Ethiopians, 103 Oromo Ethiopians, and 32 Tigre Ethiopians, though this number may decrease somewhat as there are still some cases willing to voluntarily repatriate. The residual caseload estimated for resettlement needs in 2005 is 40 cases, consisting of 60 persons. Priority will be given to single female heads of households and individuals with special protection and /or medical needs.

In total, the office foresees the need for approximately 700 refugees (including 40 Somalis and 60 Ethiopians) being submitted for resettlement in the year 2005. UNHCR Djibouti has the capacity to process these cases.

20

Refugees in Eritrea

Eritrea currently hosts approximately 4,100 refugees and asylum seekers, out of which approximately 3,900 refugees are camp-based and 200 persons are urban refugees or asylum seekers. These refugees (and asylum seekers) are entirely dependent on UNHCR’s assistance, which is supported by an Eritrean government implementing partner, Office of Refugee Affairs (ORA) (mainly for the camp based population). The population is comprised of 3,261 Somalis in Emkulu camp and 622 Sudanese residing in Elit camp. The remaining 175-200 persons are urban refugees and asylum seekers of primarily Ethiopian and Sudanese origin who live independently or at the Haz Haz transit center.

Background Eritrea is one of two African countries not to have acceded to either the 1951 Convention or the 1969 OAU Convention. It also lacks national refugee legislation, written administrative procedures and a coherent policy for dealing with refugees. Only Somalis and Sudanese living in the two designated camps are recognised as refugees by the Eritrean government, which conducts a type of prima facie determination to ascertain whether the is eligible for camp assistance. Other nationalities, such as Ethiopians, are not recognised as refugees, and are treated by the government as illegal aliens or temporary residents. 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 freedom of movement and employment opportunities, is compounded by the reluctance of the government to even discuss local settlement. This effectively excludes the possibility of local integration for refugees in Eritrea. The acquisition of a temporary residence permit, which some Ethiopians have, is not always an indication of local integration or a durable solution.

Voluntary repatriation, however, remains a viable durable solution for an estimated 500 refugees from Sudan, should conditions become conducive and Northern Somalia in 2005.

Resettlement, therefore, is the only durable solution for those camp- based and urban refugees who fulfil the resettlement criteria.

UNHCR resettlement planning in Eritrea is focused on the submission of a total of approximately 590 persons for 2005, in a push to achieve durable solutions for the refugees in the country. UNHCR introduced a comprehensive registration system at the end of 2003 which is facilitating the case management of the refugees and asylum seekers, and through which a substantial amount of information is now available, e.g. area of origin, ethnicity, demography, family units, identification, etc. After voluntary repatriation is carried out in 2004, UNHCR estimates that 300 Somali refugees in Emkulu camp will be in need of resettlement. These refugees belong to different minority ethnic groups and are comprised of women-at-risk and protection related cases for whom voluntary repatriation is not an option, and who risk becoming part of a protracted refugee situation.

UNHCR also anticipates identifying approximately 200 Sudanese refugees in Elit Camp as being in need of resettlement in 2005, including 40 women-at-risk and 160 persons who would be submitted under legal and physical protection needs criteria, for reasons such as forced marriage and forced recruitment. Given these protection concerns, UNHCR believes that

21 resettlement is the only viable durable solution. Following individual screening, it is anticipated that a significant part of the Sudanese caseload may prove not to be of concern to UNHCR as they have entered or remained in Eritrea for reasons which are not refugee-related.

UNHCR Eritrea is also dealing with about 200 urban refugees and asylum seekers in Asmara. These are mainly of Ethiopian origin but also include persons of other nationalities who are not permitted to enter the camps, and therefore do not receive protection from the Eritrean government. These persons undergo individual refugee status determination by UNHCR, and those found to be refugees and who also fulfil resettlement criteria will be individually submitted for resettlement. Among these cases are stateless persons who have protection concerns. UNHCR anticipates the need for submitting 90 urban refugees, of whom approximately 25 present complex nationality issues. The other 65 refugees face serious protection concerns, such as risk of detention, forced recruitment, security issues, limited freedom of movement, etc. UNHCR intends to focus its resettlement activity on the submission of these cases due to the limited possibilities of assistance and their more urgent protection issues.

In total, UNHCR Asmara has identified 590 refugees as being in need of resettlement, but anticipates the submission of only 235 refugees for resettlement from Eritrea in 2005, unless additional resettlement processing assistance is made available either in terms of missions from the Nairobi resettlement Hub or under the UNHCR / ICMC resettlement deployment scheme.

Refugees in Ethiopia

Background

As of 1 January 2004, Ethiopia hosted a total of 130,274 refugees. Of these, 94,899 are from Sudan, 28,276 from Somalia and 6,754 from Eritrea. Sudanese refugees are almost all located in camps in western Ethiopia (Fugnido, Dimma and Bonga camps near Gambella; Sherkole and Yarenja camps near Assosa), Somali refugees in eastern Ethiopia (at Hartischek and Kebrebeyah camps near Jijiga) and Eritrean refugees (in Wa’ala Nhibi camp – being moved to Shimelba camp near Shire Enda Selassie in the north ). There is also a mixed urban caseload of 482 refugees from Djibouti, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, , Angola, Czech Rep., , Kenya, South Africa, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda and Yemen. The Sudanese and Somali refugee populations 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 made 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 preclude local integration as a viable durable solution for refugees in Ethiopia. Voluntary repatriation is ongoing for refugees from Northwest Somalia. Sudanese refugees Resettlement of Sudanese refugees is currently severely constrained for reasons relating to violence and insecurity. Three out of the five camps have been, and are likely to continue to be, inaccessible to UNHCR staff for prolonged periods. Moreover, given the current peace

22

negotiations, voluntary repatriation may become a possibility by 2005. Consequently, UNHCR anticipates that around 200 Sudanese refugees in Ethiopia will be in need of resettlement in 2005, either on medical grounds, or because voluntary repatriation will not be an option for them due to specific vulnerabilities, such as women-headed households, survivors of torture, and victims of violence in the camps. Somali refugees

As regards Somali refugees in Ethiopia, given the on-going voluntary repatriation to Northwest Somalia, only refugees from Southern Somalia (defined as south of Galkayo) would be considered for resettlement in 2005. In the course of 2004, UNHCR plans to consolidate all remaining southern Somali refugees into one camp. The number of refugees from southern Somalia is then expected to stand at approximately 14,000 individuals. Within this group, UNHCR Addis Ababa estimates that some 20 refugees may be in need of resettlement as women-at-risk, for family reunification purposes, or due to medical needs. Eritrean refugees in Ethiopia Kunama

The 4,000 Eritrean Kunama refugees currently in Wa’ala Nhibi camp will be offered a possibility to voluntarily repatriate in 2004/2005. In case voluntary repatriation is not opted for by the majority of these refugees, resettlement might be considered as an alternative durable solution, possibly on a group basis. The Kunama arrived in Ethiopia in the wake of the retreating Ethiopian army in 2000-2001, fearing retribution from the Eritrean Government for having stayed under Ethiopian occupation. UNHCR in Ethiopia and Eritrea are of the opinion that before considering resettlement for this particular group, an opportunity for voluntary repatriation should be offered. Two bilateral agreements (Ethiopia-UNHCR) and (Eritrea- UNHCR) are currently (Spring 2004) under preparation, and it is hoped that voluntary repatriation opportunities can be made available during 2004. Tigrigna

UNHCR believes that amongst the more than 3,000 Eritrean Tigrigna refugees in Ethiopia there may be some cases in need of resettlement consideration due to their legal and physical protection needs, their experience as victims of torture, their medical needs and lack of local integration prospects. With the current office capacity some 300 Eritreans refugees could be processed. Urban refugees – Addis Ababa

Given the absolute lack of local integration prospects in Ethiopia, urban refugees face considerable hardship. UNHCR Addis Ababa anticipates the identification of some 200 refugees from the urban refugee population of 482 for resettlement in 2005, for reasons related to lack of local integration prospects and, in some cases, medical needs. However, the office only has the capacity to process some 50 refugees. Projections for resettlement needs from Ethiopia in 2005 are for the resettlement of 720 persons including: 200 Sudanese, 20 Somalis, 300 Tigrigna Eritreans, and 200 urban refugees. UNHCR has the current capacity to process 570 out of this total on individual RRF submissions. In addition, subject to further preparatory work, the possible group resettlement of 4,000 Eritrean Kunama refugees will be considered.

23

Refugees in Kenya

The Republic of Kenya hosts approximately 240,000 asylum-seekers and refugees. The majority of the refugees come from Somalia and Sudan, and receive UNHCR protection and assistance in the Dadaab and Kakuma refugee camps. A sizeable number of Ethiopian refugees also reside in the camps, though many opt to stay in Nairobi. Kenya also hosts smaller numbers of refugees from countries such as Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda.

The UNHCR operation in Kenya comprises HCR Representation in Nairobi, Sub-Office in Dadaab and Sub-Office in Kakuma. The two Sub-Offices assist about 225,000 refugees. The Sub-Office in Dadaab maintains operational oversight for Dagahaley, Hagadera and Ifo refugee camps, which host about 135,000 – mainly Somali – refugees. The Sub-Office in Kakuma covers three camps (Kakuma I, II and III), which host approximately 90,000 – mainly Sudanese – refugees.

The number of urban-based asylum-seekers and refugees is estimated at 15,000, the majority residing in Nairobi without authorization or official. A minority of refugees in Nairobi receive services from UNHCR and its urban-based implementing partners. In compliance with the government’s encampment policy, these services are kept to a minimum and focus on critical interventions (i.e. protection, medical and community services) as well as registration of new arrivals.

Political and legal framework

The Republic of Kenya is a party to the 1951 Convention, its 1967 Protocol and the 1969 OAU Convention. In addition, it has ratified other international instruments protecting human rights. However, since 1991, there has been a de facto “suspension” of Convention recognition for all new refugee arrivals, who are therefore only recognised by UNHCR under its mandate and do not enjoy 1951 Convention standards of treatment. In the absence of specific refugee legislation, the government applies the Aliens Restrictions Act among others in an ad-hoc way of dealing with refugees.

Given the recent changes in the political landscape in Kenya, it is hoped that opportunities will evolve to a more constructive vision on the refugee policy. In particular, the anticipated adoption of a Refugee Law and the institutionalisation of a Department of Refugee Affairs would be useful in defining the environment for the UNHCR refugee program and the search for durable solutions.

Encampment policy

The Government of Kenya has imposed an encampment policy, whereby refugees are required to reside in either Dadaab or Kakuma refugee camps. The establishment of the encampment policy followed the mass arrivals of refugees in the 1990s from Somalia and Sudan. Refugees who move outside the refugee camps without proper authorization may be arrested and charged under the Aliens Restrictions Act with the offence of "unlawful presence in Kenya". This offence carries a term of imprisonment with an order for repatriation upon completion of the sentence. Ordinarily, it takes an intervention by UNHCR to secure the release of the refugee concerned and the waiver of the repatriation order.

24

Local integration

At present, local integration of refugees into the Kenyan community is not possible, owing to the policy of encampment and the lack of authorisation for refugees to engage in gainful employment or other forms of self-reliance. In any case, employment opportunities are scarce given Kenya’s economic situation. It is, however, hoped that new avenues and possibilities will become available by 2005 with the anticipated adoption of the Refugee Law. These avenues would be explored in a comprehensive way; that is, while ensuring protection of individual refugees by way of resettlement, UNHCR would seek to reinforce other durable solutions benefiting the larger refugee population.

Refugees mainly receive UNHCR protection and assistance in Dadaab and Kakuma refugee camps. These camps are situated in semi-arid to arid regions, where the environment is barely able to sustain the local population. Hence, the host communities are adamant to prevent any activity by refugees that might negatively affect their fragile environment and economic markets, such as livestock rearing and agriculture. The limited access refugees have to the local and national economic activities, combined with very poor resource base in and around the refugee camps, constitute serious constraints on refugees to attain any level of self-sufficiency. Therefore, the refugees are completely reliant on relief assistance.

Voluntary repatriation

Although peace negotiations for both Somalia and Sudan, the two main refugee-producing neighbours of Kenya, continue to give hope for tangible developments in 2005, they have not reached the stage that will set conditions conducive to organised voluntary repatriation of the majority of the refugees. Considering the current pace of progress, it is not anticipated that substantial numbers of refugees will be able to repatriate by 2005.

Resettlement in 2005

Although the resettlement activities in Kenya during 2005 will provide effective critical coverage, the question of resources remains an important factor when considering the operational needs to meet the required targets. The main challenge is the capacity of the Office to balance the competing demands to: (i) respond to individual resettlement needs; and, (ii) implement group resettlement initiatives, which has a concomitant impact on resources (human and financial), including operational coverage in other critical areas of protection delivery. Nevertheless, group resettlement remains an important factor in determining how to address the resettlement needs in 2005.

For 2005, resettlement will serve as a vital tool of protection for many refugees and will be used as a durable solution for refugees for whom other solutions are not feasible. For many refugees in Kenya, resettlement is, possibly, the only appropriate form of protection. For many others, it is the only viable durable solution. At the same time, it is important for the Office to recognize the impact of resettlement on other areas of protection delivery; especially in a climate of improved and evolving prospects for voluntary repatriation and, indeed, local integration for specific groups of refugees.

Although there may be a reduction of resettlement of refugees of nationalities for which repatriation activities are on-going, the need for protection and durable solutions through

25 resettlement remains high among refugees. The policy priorities related to women and gender equality, children and adolescents, and refugees with special needs have been integrated into the resettlement process.

In 2005, increased attention will be given to resettlement from Dadaab and Kakuma refugee camps, where conditions are more arduous than in Nairobi. The resettlement activities of the HCR Representation in Nairobi will therefore focus on urgent protection cases and individuals unable to reside in the camps for protection-related reasons (est. 300 persons).

In Dadaab and Kakuma refugee camps, priority attention will be given to refugees in need of physical or legal protection, vulnerable individuals (e.g. women-at-risk, survivors of violence and those requiring resettlement on medical grounds) and family reunification. While resettlement submissions are expected to comprise an increasing number of Somali (est. 200 persons) and Ethiopian refugees (est. 450 persons), attention will be given to specific groups whose situation may warrant resettlement consideration; for example, vulnerable women and individuals in protracted refugee situations, who are in need of durable solutions. Possible group submissions of Somalis from Kakuma (1,300 persons) and from Dadaab (2,000 persons) are being examined. It is anticipated that there will be a continued need for the resettlement of vulnerable Sudanese refugees (est. 700 persons).

There will also be a resettlement need for a number of urban based refugees (est. 400 persons) facing legal and physical protection problems, survivors of violence or torture, and women at risk. A number of these submissions will be urgent or emergency cases.

The overarching goal for UNHCR’s resettlement activities in Kenya for 2004-2005 is to enhance and reinforce resettlement delivery with particular attention to priority cases and the strategic use of the group resettlement methodology. The objectives to achieve this goal will build upon the activities of 2004 and through increased attention to operational priorities, planning and coordination with resettlement stakeholders, including resettlement country governments, IOM, NGOs and synergy within UNHCR operations. A decentralized case-identification model will be maintained and creative approaches explored to diversify the role of key stakeholders in the process, including refugees.

In total, UNHCR’s Branch Office in Nairobi anticipates approximately 2,050 individual refugee submissions and the possibility of up to 3,300 persons in group submissions for a total of 5,350 persons for resettlement in 2005.

Refugees in Somalia

As of January 1, 2004 the refugee population in Somaliland consisted mainly of Ethiopians (329), and a small number of Eritreans, Angolans, Burundians, Chadians, Iraqis, Rwandans, Sudanese, and Ugandans. The number is almost evenly split between men and women.

Because of security conditions that have resulted in the evacuation of staff in recent months and that make operations difficult, the northwest of Somalia, ‘Somaliland,’ is the only region of the country in which UNHCR maintains international staff and is the only zone in which UNHCR practises resettlement. The UNHCR Sub Office in Hargeisa liaises with the Protection Unit of UNHCR Somalia, based in Nairobi, to ensure that resettlement activities are facilitated.

26

‘Somaliland’ is a self-declared republic and, as such, is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Although the local authorities have declared their adherence to international laws, their capacity to abide by them is limited, as evidenced by the occurrence of arbitrary arrests.

UNHCR considers that the vast majority of the urban refugee population in Somaliland cannot be voluntary repatriated. Conditions of asylum in Hargeisa are extremely difficult, and the overall negative perception of foreigners, allied to economic and political instability, as well as the limitations on freedom of religion and cultural practice, increases their protection needs and renders their local integration impossible. Moreover, the 23 October 2003 Presidential Decree regarding the expulsion of “illegal Foreigners” produced a general aggravation of the situation with regard to asylum seekers and refugees. For this reason, UNHCR promotes resettlement as a durable solution for recognised refugees.

UNHCR Somalia continues to receive asylum seekers, mostly from Ethiopia but also from Angola, Burundi, Chad, Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan, and Uganda. The majority of the caseload is comprised of Ethiopians, and among this group may be found individuals with past political affiliation with the Mengistu regime and other opposition groups, together with ex-military personnel and family members of political dissidents, victims of violence, as well as those who were coerced into military activities, the army or other organised groups. Given a predicted continuation of existing conditions, resettlement will continue to be the main durable solution supported in Somaliland in 2005.

With the continued support of the Regional Resettlement Hub, UNHCR Hargeisa plans to submit around 390 refugees for resettlement from Somaliland in 2005. The official categories for resettlement, pursued in 90% of cases, will be legal and physical protection needs combined with lack of local integration prospects.

Refugees in Sudan

In January 2004, Sudan hosted approximately 140,000 refugees, including more than 100,000 Eritreans, 15,000 Ethiopians, 8,000 Ugandans, 5,000 Chadians, more than 1,500 Congolese from DRC as well as a small number of refugees from a number of other countries in the region. Several hundred Somalis are believed to have been issued with refugee identification by the government of Sudan but this population is not well known to the office.

About one third of the refugees, almost all Eritreans, reside in camps located in eastern Sudan. The camps in eastern Sudan continue to undergo a process of consolidation primarily as Ethiopians and Eritreans have repatriated and others have been resettled. The Ethiopian and Somali refugee communities live almost exclusively in urban areas, primarily in Khartoum along with a fair proportion of Ugandans. The Chadian population is located in villages around El Geneina in West Darfur State and the Congolese and majority of Ugandans are found in south Sudan, primarily in and around Juba.

New arrivals, mainly from Eritrea (primarily military deserters/draft evaders) and Ethiopia (largely students, political dissidents of Oromo or Amhara ethnicity), continue to seek asylum in Sudan. In the first quarter of 2004, more than 700 new arrivals had been registered by UNHCR.

27 In addition to the large refugee population, an estimated 4,000,000 Sudanese are internally displaced in Sudan as a result of the conflicts in the south in Darfur, while some 600,000 refugees from Sudan are to be found in neighbouring countries.

Background Sudan is party to the 1951 Convention and Protocol as well as the 1969 OAU Convention. Sudan has had a National Asylum Act since 1974, although an effective national asylum procedure remains to be established. Generally, there is respect for the principle of non- refoulement but cases of forced deportation have become known to UNHCR. In 1998 the government of Sudan (GoS) banned all political activities by refugees, and subsequently many Ethiopian refugees who had prominent and active political profiles have been detained for various lengths of time before generally being released with informal threats of deportation and/or with a requirement to report regularly to the security apparatus.

Refugees in Sudan have traditionally been recognized on a prima facie basis by the Office of the Commissioner of Refugees (COR). More recently, however, individual status determination has been conducted through two joint UNHCR/GoS screening programs established to implement the “ceased circumstances” clause relating to the cessation of refugee status for those Ethiopians who fled their country of origin prior to 1991, and in relation to those Eritreans who left Eritrea in connection with the war of independence, which ended in 1991 and/or during the border war with Ethiopia from 1998 to 2000.

Resettlement from Sudan in 2005 UNHCR Sudan is seeking to implement a more balanced approach to durable solutions in 2005. This will involve a renewed focus and emphasis on local integration. Discussions with the GoS regarding cooperation in implementing Development Assistance to Refugees (DAR) and Development through Local Integration (DLI) schemes are envisaged in the near future. However, a number of significant legal/political, economic and social obstacles to local integration remain to be overcome. In particular, issues such as residency/citizenship, employment and education opportunities have to be addressed.

Repatriation options will also continue to be pursued for Congolese and Ugandans and it is envisaged that the repatriation of Eritreans will cease by the end of 2004.

In 2005, resettlement activities will focus primarily on the large populations of Eritrean and Ethiopian refugees.

Several categories are noteworthy of comment. Refugees are susceptible to harassment by security personnel because of their political activities (perceived or real); refugees living in the urban areas are vulnerable to frequent arrests and detention, mainly due to lack of documentation, which could lead to the penalty of deportation; refugee women are often particularly at-risk, exposed to abuse and discrimination on account of their status as refugees and/or religion. Various forms of violence against refugee women and girls continue to be reported to UNHCR, including FGM, rape, and physical violence. Victims of such violence often have no access to effective protection mechanisms including legal redress.

UNHCR prioritises vulnerable cases for resettlement on protection grounds. Such cases may include single female/female-headed households and unaccompanied minors, who often have a combination of outstanding protection concerns and lack of local integration prospects, which

28

comprise insecure accommodation, lack of effective access to government services, including legal protection, education and employment opportunities. The government of Sudan has in the past been reluctant to expand the involvement of NGOs with refugees beyond a focus on issues related to health. UNHCR is exploring the possibility of additional partnerships with NGOs for both camp and urban areas. In particular, the provision of outreach services, community development, and prevention and response to Sexual and Gender Based Violence (SGBV) are being examined. In this connection, there is a possibility that such NGOs could assist in the identification of vulnerable cases for intervention by Community Service and Protection staff as appropriate, and some of these cases may have resettlement outcomes.

Resettlement will also be used as a durable solution. The primary focus of this type of resettlement will be the large number of camp-based Eritreans, some of whom have lived in camps for over thirty years. In pursuing resettlement on durable solutions ground, UNHCR will aim to use resettlement strategically and in the spirit of burden-sharing.

Eritrean refugees The number of Eritrean refugees has decreased significantly through the implementation of the cessation clause, which came into force on 31 December 2002. It is estimated that by the conclusion of the ongoing screening exercise, currently scheduled for October 2004, a total of some 80,000 Eritrean refugees will remain in need of international protection. However, developments in Eritrea may result in changes to this number. It is envisaged that the vast majority of cases for resettlement for the purpose of providing a durable solution will be drawn from this caseload and submitted on a group basis. Sub-groups are however, yet to be identified.

As noted previously, and in addition to the above, there is a steady influx of new Eritrean arrivals comprised primarily of male deserters from the army or those avoiding the mandatory military service in Eritrea.

Ethiopian refugees By June 2004, it is expected that about 300 pre-1991 Ethiopian refugees who remain in Sudan will have been submitted for resettlement consideration to third countries. This will leave a residual group of some 14,000 Ethiopian refugees who arrived in Sudan after 1991. Comprehensive solutions to the problems of this group are under consideration and resettlement may play a role in this, however primarily to respond to protection needs.

Chadian, DRC, Somalian and Ugandan refugees UNHCR anticipates that by 2005 the majority of the refugees from Chad and DRC will have repatriated to their countries of origin and thus they will not figure among the resettlement needs for 2005. Similarly, apart from exceptional individual cases, durable solutions other than resettlement will be pursued for the Ugandan and the Somali refugee populations.

UNHCR anticipates that in 2005, a total of 1,000 refugees will be put forward for resettlement in Sudan. 800 individuals will be submitted for resettlement as a durable solution and another 200 individuals will be submitted under the legal and physical protection needs and women-at-risk criteria. These figures are based on a reasonable estimate of office capacity to process cases on current personnel strength and forecast of protection needs in 2005. Should current personnel strength not be maintained, however, added assistance will be required to produce these figures.

29 Refugees in Uganda

Uganda currently hosts in excess of 200,000 refugees, including Sudanese (178,281), Congolese (11,540), Rwandans (12,200), as well as Somalians (200), Eritreans (50), Ethiopians (100), mixed Eritrean/Ethiopians (50), and Burundians (270).

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

UNHCR’s Representation in Kampala will focus its 2005 resettlement activities on the needs of Sudanese and Congolese refugees in Uganda. The total population of Sudanese refugees in Uganda is 178.2811. The majority of these refugees are Christians from Eastern and Western Equatorial states and belong 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).

Although there are ongoing peace negotiations in Machakos, Kenya between the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M), there is currently no resolution to the conflict and the ability to return home in safety currently does not exist for Sudanese refugees. Given that most refugees are Equatorians, and considering their history of conflict with the Dinka-dominated SPLA, there remains a high risk of inter-ethnic conflict if they returned, which greatly reduces the prospects of voluntary return to Sudan in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the protection environment for Sudanese refugees in Uganda is still precarious. A significant number of documented cases of abduction 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, have been documented. In addition, insecurity is a significant problem for refugees in the north of Uganda, where refugee settlements are located in areas where the Lords Resistance Army has been increasingly active in recent months. Women refugees are particularly vulnerable, and are at risk of exploitation and abduction by both the SPLA and the Lords Resistance Army. The legal and physical protection of these refugees cannot therefore be ensured in Uganda.

UNHCR Uganda Representation estimates that around 30 cases/150 persons of the above ethnic Sudanese groups will be resettled from Uganda in the course of 2005. In addition, UNHCR estimates that around 4 cases/20 persons of Sudanese with Arabic or mixed Arabic/southern Sudanese ethnicity of the approximately 200 urban-based refugees may fulfil resettlement criteria in the course of 2005, due to their legal and physical protection needs. Arabic Sudanese are usually excluded from the Sudanese community and have no possibility to live in a settlement with other Sudanese.

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 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.

1 As of January 2004.

30

UNHCR is also concerned about the condition of Uganda’s 11.5402 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 the rebel factions, such as RCD- Goma, often meet in Kampala and in Uganda, many of the refugees fear to stay in Uganda. Rebel agents/collaborators representing factions that the refugees initially fled are from time to time reported to be present in Kampala and Uganda. 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/or 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 DRC clearly illustrate, the prospects for conditions permitting repatriation to the Eastern DRC are very slim.

As a result, neither local integration nor voluntary repatriation appears to be viable durable solutions for Congolese refugees in Uganda at this time or in the foreseeable future.

UNHCR estimates that around 40 cases/200 urban based Congolese will be resettled in the course of 2005. Of the settlement based Congolese UNHCR estimates that around 33 cases/ 140 persons will be resettled during 2005.

If relocation to other settlements is not possible for the Congolese refugees settled in Nakivale refugee settlement, UNHCR may explore the opportunity of submitting the estimated 1250 Congolese refugees as a group in need of group resettlement in accordance with the principle of ‘strategic use of resettlement’, in order to close down Nakivale refugee settlement as both the Rwandans and Somalis refugee populations there are expected to leave this settlement during 2004/2005.

Moreover, if the transitional Congolese government does not grant citizenship to the Congolese of Rwandan extraction from the Kivu region and elsewhere in the eastern DRC, thus allowing the Banyamulenge Tutsi’s to return to DRC, UNHCR may consider resettling the estimated 1000 Banyamulenge refugees as a group in need of resettlement.

Moreover, through a protection mapping exercise planned for 2004, it may be possible for UNHCR to actively identify potential groups of vulnerable refugees in need of resettlement that could be processed in 2005.

Finally, UNHCR will continue to submit small numbers of Rwandans (40), Somalis3(100), Eritreans(50), Ethiopians(20), mixed Ethiopians/Eritreans(50) and Burundians(50) on an individual protection basis, bearing in mind the facilitated and promoted voluntary repatriation to these countries. This may amount to 61 cases/310 individuals.

2 As of January 2004. 3 The urban based residual caseload of the 2004 group resettlement submission of Somali refugees in Nakivale. Though it is very difficult to make an estimation of how many of the residual caseload that are in need of resettlement, UNHCR estimates that around 100 persons may be eligible.

31 In sum, without the above-mentioned two potential groups as well as any other groups who may be identified through the 2004 protection mapping exercise, UNHCR’s Representation Kampala estimates that about 820 individuals may be in need of resettlement, though the current office capacity is to submit 510 individuals. If the two groups mentioned in the foregoing narrative are also submitted this total would rise to 3,070.

WEST AND CENTRAL AFRICA

Projected needs: 5,235 persons / Processing capacity: 4,020 persons

Refugees in Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger and Togo

UNHCR Benin in Cotonou covers the operations in Benin, Burkina Faso, Togo and Niger. At the beginning of 2004 the four countries combined were hosting 18,223 refugees. For 2005, the total population of concern to UNHCR in these countries is estimated to be 19,900.

The four countries are parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1967 Protocol and the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention. They also have domestic laws protecting refugees and organising the refugee status determination procedure. They are relatively stable countries and refugees generally enjoy civil, social and economic rights. This situation led UNHCR to start, in Benin and Burkina Faso, a regional resettlement pilot project that has received 152 refugees since its inception in 1998.

The refugee population in these countries mainly originate from Ghana, Rwanda, 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, in Benin. Other refugees live in the rural areas of Northern Togo (Prefectures of Bassar, Dankpen and Sotoboua) and in the Eastern part of Niger (Gouré).

Given the relative stability in these countries, UNHCR RR Benin is planning to resettle, during 2005, only 125 refugees: 45 refugees from Benin (though this could include an additional 45 refugees if capacity permits), 35 from Burkina Faso, 30 from Togo and 15 from Niger.

The targeted populations for resettlement in these countries are mainly made up of refugees who can no longer avail themselves of the protection of the countries of asylum: high ranking politicians and other persons involved in politics who are not well seen by the host government. This situation arose previously in Benin during 2003 and 2004, as a result of which a solution was required for about 15 refugees (without their families) because of the government opinion that the presence of these individuals was undermining sound bilateral relations with the government(s) of their country of origin. Persons who have families in resettlement countries will also be submitted for resettlement under family reunification. The elderly, and other persons in situation of extreme vulnerability, including some refugees infected with HIV and survivors of violence, are among the targeted resettlement population.

32

Benin In Benin there are resettlement needs for Togolese (political opponents and ex-military, as well as students), Congolese from RoC (dignitaries from the former regime as well as Lari Southern Congolese who fled in 1997), Hutu from Rwanda (who fled human rights abuses in Rwanda when the Tutsis took over power in 1994), including ex-military personnel in the then Zaire, under the former Mobutu regime. Congolese from the DRC include civilians from the Kivu region and Kinshasa and a small residual Tutsi caseload evacuated from Kinshasa in 1999. From Chad there are a small number of opposition members and their families, who fled to Benin in 1984/85 together with the former president, Goukouni Weddeye. Also from Chad are political opponents and their families, students, human rights activists as well as ex-military who fled in 2000. The Nigerian caseload includes civilians of Ogoni ethnicity and their families, mainly former MOSOP activists and related political parties who fled persecution after the execution of Ken Sar Wiwa and his colleagues.

Burkina Faso In Burkina Faso there are resettlement needs for Chadian students, opposition members and human rights activists who fled individual persecution by the current regime. A small caseload of Hutu civilians from Rwanda are also in need having fled generalized violence in 1994. There are a few former dignitaries related to the government of Pascal Lissouba, and political opponents of the current regime of the RoC. They are generally of Lari ethnicity originating form the southern part of the country. From Burundi there are some Hutus, and mixed Hutu/Tutsi ethnicity and their families, who fled the prevailing insecurity during 1999. Finally, there is a small population of civilians from Kinshasa and areas affected by conflict in the DRC.

Togo Togo hosts Rwandan Hutu refugees having fled the generalised violence in 1994. There is large population (11,000) of ethnic Kokomba and Dakomba from Ghana who are largely self- sufficient and basically settled. A small number of civilians from Kinshasa and the Kivu region of the DRC may require resettlement, as will a few Burundian civilians of Hutu and mixed Hutu/Tutsi ethnicity and civilians from the RoC.

Niger A few refugees from the DRC (civilians, students, human rights activists and dignitaries of the former regime) fearing individual persecution are in need of resettlement, as are a few Rwandan civilian Hutus and their families. There is also a small refugee population of Chadians (civilians who are close to the former regime of Hissein Habre who fled into exile after Idris Deby took power).

Refugees in Cameroon

Cameroon hosts some 58.625 refugees including: 17,000 Nigerian refugees from Taraba state since January 2002 and 41.625 urban refugees, representing 39.361 Chadians, 996 Rwandans, 396 Central Africans, 307 Congolese of the Democratic Republic of Congo, 282 Burundians, 145 Congolese of the Republic of Congo, 145 Liberians and other nationalities in the main cities of Cameroon, in addition to 6.188 asylum seekers (mainly Congolese, Central Africans and Rwandans).

33 Cameroon is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. However, at the National level, the country has not yet drafted a bill on refugees nor established a National Eligibility Committee (NEC). There are only some provisions contained in law N° 97/012 of January 10, 1997 establishing conditions for the entrance, residence and exit of foreigners in Cameroon, and its decree of application N° 2000/286 of October 12, 2000, which provide a limited reference to refugees in connection with the issuing and renewing identity cards. It should be noted that refugee status determination is still conducted by UNHCR under its mandate pending the establishment of a National Eligibility Commission.

Most political systems of neighbouring countries and countries of the Great Lakes region generally remain fragile, most importantly the Republic of Congo (the political and social situation as a whole remains critical despite some progress in the ongoing peace process), the Central African Republic, Sudan and Burundi. As a result, UNHCR is unable to promote voluntary repatriation of many refugees currently in Cameroon.

Moreover, the social and economic situation of Cameroon, characterised by high levels of unemployment and declining household purchasing power, has undermined UNHCR’s effort to sustain local integration of refugees, and therefore leaves refugees in a vulnerable situation.

Given these conditions, some 495 refugees have been identified as being in need of resettlement. However, due to current office capacity UNHCR Yaounde plans to submit approximately 200 persons for resettlement from Cameroon in 2005, including, in order of priorities:

1. Extremely destitute/vulnerable families or individuals, from all refugee communities, who cannot achieve a degree of economic self-sufficiency due to lack of employment and lack of adequate social services.

2. Approximately 45 Women at risk without any male provider, and/or subjected to sexual abuses, as well as some 15 unaccompanied minors. There are no social structures to help and facilitate integration of either of these categories.

3. Some 75 refugees coming from neighbouring countries need to be resettled for fear of persecution by agents from their countries of origin. These would include refugees from Equatorial Guinea, Chad, CAR and DRC opposed to the then respective governments. Borders are porous, and border control as well as law enforcement bodies are not efficient enough to provide adequate information and physical protection.

4. Rwandans live in urban areas and do not face any serious problems of local integration. However, a few Tutsi or refugees born of mixed marriages would be eligible for resettlement as the Rwandan refugee community is mainly composed of Hutus, and the Tutsi or mixed Rwandans tend to be marginalized. In addition Banyamulenges (Tusti Rwandese who lived in Congo) are also marginalized by both the Rwandan and Congolese refugee communities and therefore often confronted with critical integration issues.

The majority of Nigerian refugees are in a local settlement situation. They are well integrated as the local population belongs to their ethnic group (similar in language and tradition). The durable solution for this refugee caseload is repatriation.

34

UNHCR has noted with concern the unwillingness of some resettlement countries to consider the resettlement needs of refugees with a certain profile, including single men or women and a number of refugees with medical care needs.

In total, 495 persons may be in need of resettlement, though the current office capacity could be limited to the submission of 200 persons only.

Refugees in the Central African Republic

There were some 46,000 refugees in Central African Republic (CAR) at the beginning of 2004, including refugees from Sudan, DRC, Rwanda, Chad and a few from Burundi and Liberia. However, this number is only an approximation as many, registered since 1997, have not yet undergone refugee status determination. The National Eligibility Commission was unable to process all pending asylum claims last year due to the March 2003 coup d’état and its subsequent insecurity and massive looting of refugee files.

CAR is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, in addition to the 1969 OAU Convention. However, due to the March 2003 coup d’état and the resulting instability, the country still does not have any national legislation on refugees. Given that the National Assembly has not yet been reactivated, it is doubtful that any progress on refugee legislation will be made before the presidential elections scheduled for 2005.

The destruction of the archives and refugee database of the National Refugee Commission (NRC), during the violence that followed the 2003 coup d’état, considerably hampered the UNHCR and NCR in their work to protect refugees in CAR.

The present political situation continues to have a significant impact on refugee protection and durable solution activities in the country. Due to acts of violence, even refugees such as those from Chad, who are considered to be relatively well integrated in CAR, are today asking for more protection. It is interesting to note that many "foreigners" having lived in CAR for a long time, are now approaching the NCR claiming security concerns.

In this context, UNHCR in Bangui reports that around 100 Rwandan refugees are in need of resettlement but, due to staffing restrictions and the lack of complete information on the concerned refugees, can submit only 25 Rwandan refugees for resettlement in 2005. This group is in need of resettlement due to their protection needs, resulting from the belief by CAR authorities that they were closely associated with former President Kolingba in his attempt to overthrow President Patasse in May 2001, and their lack of local integration prospects.

Regarding Congolese and Sudanese refugees, UNHCR has planned for a massive repatriation effort during 2004 and 2005. Some Chadian, Sudanese and Burundian refugees may also be in need of resettlement due to protection needs, but to date no cases have yet been identified.

At the present, UNHCR has identified 100 persons in need of resettlement, but anticipates the submission of only 25 persons for resettlement from CAR in 2005 due to limited staffing.

35 Refugees in Côte d'Ivoire

La planification de la réinstallation pour l’année 2005 tient compte du nombre des réfugiés par nationalité présents dans le pays d’asile et de l’évolution de la situation sécuritaire dans les pays d’origine et d’asile de ces réfugiés.

La réinstallation est un instrument de protection et une solution durable. Ces projections sont faites dans le but de répondre aux besoins spécifiques auxquels les différents groupes de réfugiés sont confrontés dans le pays d’asile ; leur vie, leur liberté physique, leur sécurité, leur santé et leurs droits fondamentaux sont en danger; ces réfugiés ne peuvent retourner dans leur pays d’origine dans un futur proche.

La crise politico-militaire dans le pays d’asile, qui a éclaté en septembre 2002 perdure et ne permet pas au HCR d’orienter ses objectifs dans le sens d’une intégration locale et durable des réfugiés qui s’y retrouvent. De plus, dans la plupart des pays d’origine des groupes ciblés , la situation sécuritaire bien que s’étant raisonnablement améliorée ne permet pas encore de promourvoir le rapatriement . Les différents accords signés entres les rebelles et le gouvernement n’ont pas encore permis de ramener la paix dans le pays ; le processus de Désarmément, Démobilisation et de Réinsertion (DDR) mis en place n’a pas encore connu de démarrage effectif.

Tant qu’il n ‘est pas conduit jusqu’à son terme, les élections générales prévues en 2005 semblent hypothéquées .L’ensemble de ces facteurs auront probablement un impact certain sur les objectifs du HCR et la protection à apporter aux réfugiés.

Le cas des réfugiés libériens : la participation avérée des libériens dans les deux camps en conflit et les exactions commises à l’endroit des populations civiles ont crée un sentiment de rejet de la population à l’égard de l’ensemble de la population réfugiée dans le pays d’asile. L’impossibilité pour ce groupe de bénéficier d’un asile sûr leur a valu d’être sélectionnés pour une réinstallation de groupe aux USA. Par ailleurs la situation au Libéria bien que s’étant améliorée demeure préoccupante. La profonde dégradation du tissu socio-économique, la prolifération des armes de guerre et l’absence d’un calendrier consensuel de sortie de crise sont autant de facteurs qui incitent les réfugiés à la prudence. Le début du rapatriement est certes prévu pour septembre 2004, mais il faut craindre que de précédentes expériences négatives et la crainte de représailles n’incitent certains groupes de réfugiés libériens à une attitude réservée.

Arrivés dans le pays d’asile il y a quatorze ans, il leur a été jusqu’à présent impossible d’y retourner en raison de la présence au pouvoir de l’ex président Charles Taylor . Ces réfugiés n’ont pratiquement plus d’attaches au Liberia et n’envisagent pas d’y retourner à brève ou à moyenne échéance. Ils représentent le groupe cible de réfugiés libériens pour une éventuelle soumission en 2005.

Le cas des réfugiés congolais- Brazzaville : Le processus de paix enclenché depuis quelques années au Congo connait des résultats mitigés ; les principaux leaders d’opinion n’y ont pas été associés et une partie du pays demeure occupée par les rebelles.

36

La plupart des réfugiés de ce pays qui ont trouvé asile en Côte d’ivoire n’envisagent pas d’y retourner à brève échéance, malgré la relative évolution qui a pu y être observée depuis deux trois ans.

De plus, les restrictions à l’emploi prévues par le pays d'asile actuel, la Cote d'Ivoire, ne permettent pas aux réfugiés d’obtenir un emploi et de devenir autonomes.

L’accès au système éducatif n’est pas ouvert à tous ; la crise qui perdure dans le pays d’asile ne permet pas la mise en place d’activités génératrices de revenus. Ils vivent dans un état d’indigence avancé. En raison de tout ceci, la promotion du rapatriement volontaire ne peut être envisagée pour ce groupe, et la réinstallation vers un pays tiers s’avère une solution appropriée pour le groupe des réfugiés du Congo Brazzaville qui n'ont pas de profil militaire.

Le cas des congolais-RDC : A l’instar du Liberia, un processus de paix sous l’égide des Nations Unies (la MONUC) est en cours dans le pays d’origine. Il n’a pas encore abouti au désarmement de l’ensemble des factions en conflit ; L’occupation par ces groupes armés et les exactions subséquentes des populations civiles font peser de réelles menaces sur les habitants, surtout dans l'est (Kivu et province orientale). La perspective de l’élection présidentielle en 2005 fait également peser des menaces sur la paix dans le pays.

Cette situation ne favorise pas le recours au rapatriement volontaire de ce groupe de réfugiés .

De plus, ce groupe rencontre des difficultés identiques à celles des autres réfugiés se trouvant dans le pays d’asile. Les restrictions à l’emploi prévues par la loi ivoirienne et la situation socio- politique dans leur pays d'asile actuel ne permettent pas aux réfugiés d’obtenir un emploi . Ils vivent dans le pays d’asile dans un état d’indigence avancé.

L’accès au système éducatif n’est pas ouvert à tous ; la crise qui perdure dans le pays d’asile ne permet pas la mise en place d’activités génératrices de revenus. En raison de tout ce qui précède, la réinstallation vers un pays tiers s’avère une solution appropriée pour le groupe résiduel qui pourrait ne pas se rapatrier.

Le HCR Côte d’ivoire compte ainsi soumettre à la réinstallation 450 personnes, selon les détails suivants: libériens (300), congolais- Brazzaville (100), et congolais-RDC (50) ; et 500 personnes sur base de groupe.

Refugees in Gabon

Avec le rapatriement volontaire envisagé d'environ 3500 réfugiés pour 2004, dont 3000 congolais (Brazzaville) et 500 d'autres nationalités, la population des réfugiés au Gabon à la fin de l'année 2004 sera de l'ordre de 12383 originaires de 24 nationalités différentes. Les Congolais (Brazzaville), avec environ 11 000 ressortissants constitueront de très loin, la communauté la plus importante de cette population. Conformément au ratio de l'année écoulée, en 2005, plus de 85 % de la population totale relevant de la compétence du HCR au Gabon continuera également de vivre en zone urbaine.

37 La recherche des solutions durables aux problèmes des réfugiés au Gabon revêtira en conséquence une importance particulière à l'heure où le HCR envisage un retrait de son programme en 2005. La situation en République demeure toujours précaire, notamment dans la région du Pool et du sud du pays (Niari, Lékoumou, Bouenza) d'où est originaire la majorité des réfugiés congolais au Gabon. Cette fragilité n'offre pas à ces réfugiés une perspective réelle de rapatriement volontaire. Malgré le lancement d'une opération à grande échelle en septembre 2001 avec la signature de l'Accord Tripartite entre les Gouvernements du Congo, du Gabon et le HCR, moins de 800 réfugiés congolais et un peu plus de 200 réfugiés d'autres nationalités pour un total de 1028 ont opté en 2003 pour le retour volontaire dans leur pays sur 3000 planifiés. Cette tendance se confirme en 2004 et se poursuivra probablement en 2005 en dépit de la projection d'un rapatriement volontaire de 7000 réfugiés, au regard de la persistance de leur réticence à opter pour le programme de rapatriement volontaire.

Les gages d'une intégration juridique, économique et sociale n'ont pas encore été donnés par les autorités gabonaises. Elle est encore au niveau de la réflexion et les négociations à peine entamées. La délivrance des documents d'identité viables et reconnus permettant une libre circulation et l'exercice d'activités économiques lucratives en l'occurrence n'a pas à ce jour obtenu l'agrément des autorités malgré les discussions menées depuis 2002 à ce sujet (toutefois en octobre 2003 à l'Excom, le Gouvernement gabonais s'est engagé à fournir aux réfugiés ces documents et des discussions sont en cours actuellement). En outre, bien que des possibilités légales soient données aux réfugiés d'opter pour la naturalisation, les procédures, longues et complexes, ne garantissent pas de résultats probants. Au plan économique et social, le Gabon connaît de sérieuses difficultés. Cette situation ne milite pas également en faveur d'un programme d'intégration locale, du moins à brève échéance.

Ces facteurs combinés de réticence des réfugiés au rapatriement volontaire et des difficultés d'intégration locale font de la réinstallation une solution durable privilégiée et la meilleure pour de nombreux réfugiés.

Comme en 2004, la Représentation du HCR Gabon envisage de réinstaller 300 réfugiés en dépit de la forte demande. S'agissant des Congolais (Brazzaville), 250 réfugiés devraient être réinstallés. Ils sont généralement d'ethnie Ndzebi, Kougni, Punu, Lari et Bembé. La presque totalité de ces réfugiés sont arrivés au Gabon entre 1997 et 1999 à la suite des guerres civiles successives qui ont eu lieu en République du Congo durant cette période. D'un haut profil éducationnel et professionnel, nombre d'entre-eux sont issus des mêmes régions que les anciens leaders du régime déchu (Pascal LISSOUBA et Bernard KOLELAS) dont ils partagent les idéaux politiques et qui ont toujours reçu l'autorisation de rentrer. La réinstallation est pour ce groupe de réfugiés une solution durable en raison de leur besoin de protection physique et légale et de l'absence de perspectives d'intégration locale. Les femmes à risque, les cas médicaux et quelques vieillards seront concernés par ce programme.

La Représentation a par ailleurs identifié 25 tchadiens qui seront soumis en 2005 à la réinstallation. Il s'agit d'une des plus vieilles communautés de réfugiés au Gabon généralement reconnus en vertu de la Convention de 1951. Cependant, en raison des difficultés d'intégration locale, des besoins de protection physique de légale, la réinstallation constitue également pour ce groupe la solution durable.

25 réfugiés ressortissants d'autres nationalités bénéficieront aussi en 2005 de la réinstallation. Ce groupe comprend des femmes à risque, des vieillards, des réfugiés ayant des besoins de

38

protection physique et légale ainsi que ceux n'ayant aucune perspective d'intégration locale au Gabon.

Au total, sur des besoins réels de réinstallation estimés à 1000 réfugiés dont la majorité sont des ressortissants congolais (Brazzaville), la Représentation du HCR Gabon soumettra à la réinstallation 300 réfugiés en raison des contraintes de personnel et budgétaires qui sont les siennes.

Refugees in The Gambia

There are approximately 7,000 refugees in The Gambia, the majority of whom originate from Sierra Leone. Others are from Liberia and Senegal (the Casamance region). Minuscule numbers are from several other African countries. The refugee population resides largely in the Banjul urban area with about six hundred residing in the two existing camps of Kerr el Hassan in Basse and Bambali.

The Gambia is a state party to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol. Draft refugee legislation still awaits enactment.

In 2005, UNHCR expects to submit 20 persons from Sierra Leone for resettlement. The majority of these are victims of violence or torture for whom voluntary repatriation is not realistic and for whom local integration prospects are minimal due to the protectionist trends in the local formal and informal employment/business sectors. Three individuals/persons will be in need of resettlement to Sweden for family reunification reasons.

Refugees in Ghana

Following the attempted coup d’état of September 2002 in Ivory Coast and the associated disruptions, and despite the beginnings of the peace process in Liberia, Ghana continues to experience an influx of refugees. New arrivals in 2003 were in excess of 3000 persons. Furthermore, despite strong efforts at promoting repatriation, Ghana still hosts some 1200 Sierra Leonean refugees. The Togolese population remains relatively constant. At the beginning of 2004, and on the basis of the now completed nation-wide registration exercise conducted in 2003, total refugee population figures were as follows: Total – 47,695; Liberians - 42,388; Togolese – 3895; Sierra Leoneans – 1125; Ivorian – 128; Other – 159.

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, after extensive and on-going training, has already addressed several cases. It is anticipated that 2004 will be a year of consolidating the capacity of the Board and both the Board and UNHCR Ghana will conduct status determinations in 2005.

39 2003 was a year of complete overhaul of resettlement and other operations at UNHCR Ghana. The results are already being seen as in 2004 the number of referrals from Ghana has increased dramatically. Enhanced capacity in the form of extensive support from the Regional Resettlement Hub and use of deployees has helped to increase the level of submissions. Furthermore, a comprehensive system of case identification, selection and processing is in place according to detailed Standard Operating Procedures.

For 2005, UNHCR Ghana anticipates that it will have approximately 4000 Liberians, 200 Togolese, 50 Sierra Leonean’s and 50 others (including Sudanese, Congolese, Rwandese and Ivorians) in need of resettlement either for protection reasons and/or as a durable solution. Emphasis will be placed on women-at-risk, families at risk (e.g., single parents), and persons with special needs. Many of the cases are at the Krisan Settlement where the living conditions are extremely difficult.

Depending on the implementation of any voluntary repatriation operation in 2004 and 2005, resettlement for smaller caseloads of Liberians might be considered, mainly based on protection grounds but also on the basis of lack of local integration prospects. The majority of the Togolese anticipated in need of resettlement include former military and opposition figures as well as some women at risk. Many are facing protection issues given the proximity and fluidity of the border. Voluntary repatriation is not possible unless there was a change in regime. The Sierra Leonean population coming from a small residual caseload would be comprised mainly of survivors or violence or torture for whom neither voluntary repatriation nor local integration are viable. The remaining cases would be drawn from a variety of nationalities (Sudanese, Congolese, Rwandese, Ivorians) all of whom face individual protection issues and lack local integration prospects.

These figures (particularly with respect to Liberians) will no doubt be adjusted depending on the progress of the various repatriation efforts to be undertaken in the region in 2004 and 2005. In order to meet these needs, UNHCR Ghana will need to dramatically increase and/or mainstream its capacity for 2005. In 2005, absent increased human and financial resources, it is anticipated that UNHCR Ghana will only have the capacity to process approximately 300 persons versus a need of at least 4300.

Refugees in Guinea

Guinea is hosting 107,817 refugees. Most of them originate from Liberia (89,728), and Sierra Leone (11,025). There are also 7,064 refugees who fled Cote d’Ivoire due to the re-occurrence of the conflict in 2002. More than half of these refugees (78,302) live in the camps, and are assisted by UNHCR.

The Republic of Guinea is signatory to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the related 1967 Protocol, as well as to the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa.

The resettlement strategy of UNHCR in Guinea for 2005 primarily focuses on the Liberian refugees. While some progress has been made in the peace process since the departure of Charles Taylor in August 2003, the overall situation in Liberia remains dire and volatile. The majority of Liberian refugees in Guinea still have a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of their ethnicity and/or their political opinion, or are considered as vulnerable due to the nature

40

of their past persecution and specific needs they have. Also, for many, Guinea is the second country of asylum (after Sierra Leone or Cote d’Ívoire).

UNHCR plans to start facilitated repatriation of Liberian refugees in the last quarter of 2004, and organized voluntary repatriation in 2005. It is, however, estimated that a total of 1,900 Liberian refugees will be in need of resettlement in 2005, due to their vulnerability and inability to repatriate.

Among the Liberian refugees, 750 Mandingo and Krahns are believed to be in need of resettlement. These refugees have a well-founded fear of persecution if they were to return to Liberia, having been especially targeted for more than a decade due to their ethnic origin and imputed political opinion. As the Transitional Government does not have effective control on the ground, it cannot be estimated that the Mandingo and Krahns would be accorded adequate state protection against possible reprisals from Charles Taylor’s loyalists. During more than 13 years as refugees in Guinea, and given the current local conditions, these refugees were unable to enjoy the full spectrum of rights and pursue local integration. Resettlement is, therefore, seen as the only viable durable solution for them.

It is estimated that some 500 survivors of violence in Liberia will also be in need of resettlement. These individuals have been survivors of human rights violations, and physical and sexual abuse. Some have been detained in Liberia, and are currently singled-out for their imputed political opinion. A number of women-at risk, that had been kept as “rebel wives” constitute a part of this group. They are vulnerable due to their past experience, and need on- going trauma counselling and rehabilitation, which cannot be appropriately addressed in the camps where they reside. Many among these refugees have been victims of cross-border attacks in Gueckedou in 2000, and lost their family members. These refugees are unwilling and/or unable to return to their country of origin due to the trauma of their past experience, and have very low prospects of local integration in Guinea given the lack of facilities necessary to address their special needs.

A number of Liberian refugees who had experienced “double flight”, are currently residing in Conakry. They had previously been residing in Sierra Leone, but were displaced several times within the country due to the civil war, and were finally forced to flee to Guinea. They were subsequently displaced multiple times within Guinea, due to the attacks on Gueckedou in 2000. While a group with the same profile had already been submitted for resettlement in 2003, urban refugees with the same claim were not considered for this durable solution. UNHCR is currently finalizing the registration of the urban cases in Conakry, and estimates that some 300 refugees with double flight through Sierra Leone could be considered for resettlement – individually or as a group.

It is also estimated that some 350 Liberian refugees would qualify for resettlement on grounds of their medical problems, as elderly refugees, unaccompanied minors, or for family reunification. Due to the nature of their claims, they might not be able to repatriate to Liberia, and the lack of facilities in Guinea for addressing their needs make them weak candidates for local integration.

UNHCR in Guinea is planning to resettle in 2004 the majority of the Liberian refugees who had previously resided in Cote d’Ivoire, from where they had to flee between September 2002 and April 2003, due to the civil war. However, some deserving cases who had not been included in

41 the initial submissions, who face difficulties in the camps, and have no prospects for repatriation, are to be considered for resettlement in 2005.

UNHCR Guinea plans to repatriate the majority of Sierra Leonean refugees during the first half of 2004. A limited number of refugees from the residual caseload, including survivors of violence, those who face protection problems or otherwise are vulnerable, as well as unaccompanied minors for whom the tracing is completed, would be considered for resettlement. It is estimated that some 50 Sierra Leonean refugees from the residual caseload, who do not have potential for local integration, would be considered for resettlement in 2005.

Ivorian refugees, who fled Cote d’Ivoire due to the civil war, are currently residing in the Laine refugee camp, in the N’zerekore region. Generally they are not considered for resettlement at this stage, due to the uncertainty of the situation in Cote d’Ivoire and their repatriation prospects. However, UNHCR estimates that up to 50 persons, single women victims of violence, or refugees with specific medical needs, might be in need of resettlement in 2005.

During the first four months of 2004, UNHCR is undertaking a re-verification head-count exercise of all camp-based refugees in Guinea, as well as the registration of the urban caseload in Conakry. Upon completion of these exercises, a more accurate assessment of the profile and number of the refugee population would be made, as well as a more accurate estimate of their resettlement needs.

In total, UNHCR Conakry plans to submit 1,700 refugees for resettlement from Guinea in 2005, in addition to the possible group submission of 300 persons. 1,900 of these refugees with be Liberian, 50 Sierra Leonean, and 50 Ivorians.

Refugees in Nigeria

Nigeria hosts an estimated 10,295 refugees of whom 3,674 are Liberian and 1,756 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 comprised of women, children and adolescents.

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

Of the 3,674 Liberian refugees in Nigeria, 3,478 are accommodated in the Oru refugee camp. A smaller number of recognised refugees live in Lagos, Port Harcourt, Enugu and very few in the Northern part of the country. In 2003, there was an influx of Liberian refugees due to new outbreak of hostilities in their country. These new arrivals are mainly from Krahn, Kru, Mandingos, Loma, Kpelleh, Grebbo, Gissi, Kissi, Vai and other groups.

Considering the fact that a large percentage of the new arrivals were urban dwellers, and given the current improvement in the security situation in towns in Liberia, the Branch Office may consider facilitated or promoted repatriation in the later part of 2004.

In 2003, 13 cases/43 persons were submitted for resettlement in 2003, while 78 persons departed to the USA, Canada and under the resettlement programme. Refugees were

42

encouraged to participate in vocational training. Due to the influx of Liberians in 2003, money meant for micro projects was diverted to building of shelters and provisions of food and non- food items for the new arrivals. Nevertheless, the Office monitored and provided support for the few groups that benefited from the micro projects in 2002.

UNHCR estimates that 120 Liberian refugees will be identified as being in need of resettlement as women-at-risk, survivors of violence and torture, children and adolescents and as refugees with a lack of local integration prospects in 2004. The Office also plans to consider group resettlement programme for 300 young Liberian refugees that fled from Liberia in 2003 in order to avoid forced recruitment and local integration for this group is very limited due to poor and harsh socio-economic conditions prevailing in the country.

The majority of Nigeria’s 1,756 Sierra Leonean refugees reside in the Oru Refugee Camp. Most are from the regions formerly under the control of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). Voluntary repatriation is being promoted for these refugees, through awareness 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 2004.

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 10 Sierra Leonean refugees will be submitted for resettlement from Nigeria in 2004.

Resettlement is also being actively considered for other nationalities that are unable to repatriate or locally integrate. In particular, Sudanese, Congolese, Chadian, Rwandan, Ethiopian and Eritrean refugees are being considered. In total, UNHCR expects that 20 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 at least 150 persons under individual submission, while 300 Liberian young people will be submitted for resettlement as a group for a total of 450 persons from Nigeria in 2004. Additional staff resources will be required to process the group submission.

Refugees in Senegal, Mali and Guinea-Bissau

Senegal currently hosts 20,726 refugees and 2,226 asylum-seekers. The Mauritanian refugees (15,000) are the largest refugee group in Senegal the majority of who live in rural settlements in the River Valley of Senegal. The remainder of the refugee population is settled in urban areas, mainly in Dakar, Thies and Saint Louis.

For 2004/2005, in addition to other durable solutions, Regional Representation (RR) Dakar is planning to implement resettlement not only as a durable solution but also as a protection tool

43 for refugees who cannot stay in Senegal or return to their country of origin for obvious reasons either of protection or lack of local integration prospects.

The Mauritanian refugees arrived in Senegal (and Mali) in 1989 when they were expelled from their country. These expulsions took place after a period of opposition to the government’s discriminatory policies towards Black Mauritanians and the Government of Mauritania’s subsequent retaliation against suspected Black activists, which began in September 1986. 70,000 black Mauritanians (including urban professionals, civil servants, army personnel and rural farmers/peasants) were expelled in April 1989 to both Senegal and Mali where they were recognized on a prima facie basis by the Governments under the 1969 OAU Convention. Since then, the RR in Dakar has tried to find a lasting solution to their plight. Between 1995 and 1998, a number of Mauritanian refugees repatriated spontaneously to Mauritania, while the rest chose to remain in Senegal pending an alternative durable solution, either through local integration, organized repatriation or resettlement to a third country.

Within the Mauritanian refugee group, former government officials, civil servants as well as former military or police personnel were the most reluctant to repatriate since the regime that prevailed in 1989 remains in power.

The socio-economic situation faced by Senegal over the years has not allowed refugees to easily access the work market due to the high unemployment rate in the country. This has jeopardized prospects of local integration for those among the refugees living in cities such as Dakar, Saint- Louis and Thies.

Against this background, RR Dakar may consider the possibility of a group submission for resettlement of up to 1,000 Mauritanian refugees (former civil servants, former security, military and police personnel, political leaders and students).

In addition to the Mauritanian refugees, Senegal is also the country of asylum of Liberian refugees since the 1990’s. Currently there are some 250 Liberians including Krahn and Mandingo. Most of them were granted refugee status in accordance with the OUA convention, though some may have a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of political opinion and/or ethnicity. RR Dakar plans to submit 100 Liberian refugees due to lack of local integration and also taking into consideration the fact that the security situation in Liberia is not yet conducive for an organized repatriation.

4 Ivorians, who are former members of the Federation des Etudiants et Scolaires Ivoiriens (FESCI), have a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of political opinion and ethnicity. They will not repatriate in the near future and are in need of resettlement.

20 Burundese and 50 Rwandan refugees (of approximately 300), who are mixed Hutu-Tutsi, fear to repatriate although the security situation is improving in their respective countries. However, taking into account their mixed ethnic background, the office will seek resettlement as a durable solution for them.

From the urban caseload, 14 Congolese refugees from DRC (of 21) and 12 Congolese refugees from ROC (of 22) will be identified on protection grounds for resettlement in 2005.

44

In total, UNHCR Senegal has identified 200 refugees as being in need of resettlement. The possibility of submitting up to 1,000 Mauritanian refugees for group resettlement may be considered in due course.

Mali is host to 10,009 refugees. The largest group is constituted of 6,148 Mauritanian refugees. As their compatriots in Senegal, the vast majority have lived in rural areas in the region of Kayes since the outbreak of the conflict between Senegal and Mauritania in 1989. Very few live in Bamako and other cities in Mali.

From an assessment undertaken in April 2004, the majority of Mauritanians are willing to return but only under UNHCR auspices and when they could be recognized by the Government of Mauritania. Further conditions would be the right to recover their lost properties and to enjoy their political, civil and social rights. Most of the refugees in Mali are of Peulh ethnicity and stated that they have always been attacked by the “Moors” and that their nomadic lifestyle allows the authorities in Mauritania to contest their nationality. A number of refugees stated that they could never return to Mauritania because they feared continued persecution on account of their political background or because they had suffered greatly and could not face returning. Likewise as in Senegal, RR Dakar is planning to conduct a registration exercise in the course of 2004 to provide the refugees with ID cards prior to a group submission for Mauritanian refugees. The office is planning to submit a group of 500 Mauritanian refugees in 2004/2005.4

There are also 1,504 Ivorian refugees, who arrived in Mali when the civil war broke out in Cote d’Ivoire in September/October 2002. This second largest group of refugees in Mali lives in cities, as well as in rural areas. They were granted refugee status in accordance with the 1969 OAU Convention on refugees. While the majority of the refugees fled the country because of the war, there are a few cases who claimed to have, in addition, a well-founded fear of persecution because of their ethnic origins as Mandigo or Dioula, populations from the western region of Cote d’Ivoire, or for reasons relating to their political action as members of the “Rassemblement Democratique des Republicains” (RDR), a party created by the former Ivorian Prime Minister, Mr. Alassane OUATTARA. Likewise, there are very few individual refugees, former “Forces Nouvelles” sympathizers/members, who left that group over a political clash. Among these two latter groups, 40 Ivoirian refugees will be resettled, in 2005, on protection grounds. They are former political leaders, student leaders or former civil servants.

In total, UNHCR Senegal has identified 540 refugees as being in need of resettlement which includes the possible group submission of the Mauritanians.

Guinea-Bissau has a population of 7,551 refugees of which 7,317 are Senegalese. Taking into consideration the relatively calm security situation in Casamance, which is the region where the Senegalese refugees are from, the office does not foresee resettlement as a durable solution for this group, rather RR Dakar envisions a repatriation operation once a lasting peace accord is signed by all parties. Resettlement is also not foreseen for the Sierra-Leonean refugees for whom voluntary repatriation is the preferred durable solution.

Resettlement of 10 Liberian refugees who are believed to have a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore may not be willing to return to Liberia will be necessary. They are

4 Of note however is that ongoing negotiations between the Governments of Mauritania, Senegal and Mali and UNHCR may yet yield positive results in finding durable solutions for the Mauritanians. The results of these negotiations may have an impact on the projected resettlement needs for this caseload.

45 Krahn or Mandingo by tribe and cannot pursue local integration due to lack of employment prospects relating to the socio-economic situation prevailing in Guinea-Bissau. This office plans to submit their cases for resettlement in 2005.

In total, UNHCR Senegal has identified 10 refugees as being in need of resettlement

For the three countries combined, RR Dakar has identified 1,750 refugees (Senegal 1200, Mali 540, Guinea-Bissau 10) in need of resettlement during 2005 (250 would be individual submissions in addition to the possible groups of 1,000 and 500 Mauritanians). However additional resources will be needed to meet this target for the year.

Refugees in Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone hosts a total of 67,000 Liberian refugees, as well as small numbers of non- Liberian refugees and asylum seekers. Of the Liberian refugee population, 55,000 who arrived since 2001 are residing in eight refugee camps in the Southern Province, assisted by UNHCR. This is in line with government policy that for security reasons new arrivals should be accommodated in camps rather than border communities. There are 8600 urban refugees, of whom 7000 (resettlement departures will reduce this number to approximately 6500 by January 2005) are from an “old caseload” from the 1990s. 3000 are living unassisted in border communities. UNHCR and the government have been carrying out joint mass information campaigns for refugees to move away from border areas to camps for security reasons.

Sierra Leone is a party to the 1951 Convention and 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. The Government has been receptive to UNHCR’s advocacy that, as Sierra Leone progresses towards lasting peace and normality, it is important for the Government to assume responsibility for determination of refugee status and other related matters. Accordingly, at the Government’s request, UNHCR provided a draft Refugee Protection Bill, which was submitted to Cabinet as a model. Cabinet agreed in early 2004 that Sierra Leone should enact refugee legislation and it is hoped that legislation will be passed during 2004, with newly mandated government structures operational by 2005.

As regards the old caseload of 7000 Liberian urban refugees (consisting mainly of Vai, Mandingo, Mende and Kru), an individual screening exercise was conducted in 2000-01, after the completion of the first Liberian repatriation operation (1997-99), in order to assess reasons for non-repatriation, find durable solutions and target assistance. Just under half the population met the 1951 Convention refugee definition and the remainder met the OAU Convention definition. 10% of the population was at that stage identified for resettlement on an individual basis and have been submitted to resettlement countries. Individual submissions from among this caseload are expected to be minimal in 2005, due to expected departures in 2004 of resettlement candidates who were earlier identified through the screening exercise.

A group resettlement submission is planned in respect of old caseload Liberian refugees who, during the Sierra Leone civil war, suffered multiple displacements in Sierra Leone and experienced serious human rights abuses (in part due to perceptions of Liberia’s involvement in the Sierra Leone war). These refugees have lacked adequate prospects for local integration. The size of the group to be submitted for resettlement is dependent on availability of human

46

resources for processing, but is expected to be in the range of 500-1,000. Strategic use of group resettlement for this most vulnerable category would serve the purpose of burden sharing with the Sierra Leone government, during this fragile period of recovery from a decade long civil war. It is important for speedy processing of the group submission by both UNHCR and resettlement countries, in order to ensure that resettlement candidates depart Sierra Leone well before the promotion phase of voluntary repatriation, expected to be after the Liberian elections in 2005. This is important to avoid large scale resettlement running counter to voluntary repatriation.

It should be noted that although recent political and security improvements in Liberia are finally opening up the prospect of voluntary repatriation (facilitation of voluntary repatriation is expected to begin around October 2004, provided conditions in Liberia are conducive), there is very little interest in this durable solution among this old caseload of refugees, due to the length of time they have been out of Liberia. Nevertheless, this population will have access to mass information and individual counselling to promote voluntary repatriation, especially targeted at those for whom voluntary repatriation was identified as the most appropriate durable solution during the 2000-01 screening exercise.

Among the new caseload of Liberian refugees (55,000 arrivals from 2001 onwards), voluntary repatriation is expected to be the primary durable solution. However, it would not be appropriate to expect some categories to repatriate (e.g. survivors of violence and those with serious medical needs), in view of lack of appropriate treatment in the country of origin, as well as past experience of atrocious forms of persecution in the case of survivors of violence.

In this regard, it should be noted that the Liberian war has been characterized by high rates of sexual and other violence towards civilians. Accordingly, there are significant numbers of refugees who have suffered violence during the Liberian war, as well as smaller numbers of persons who have suffered sexual and other violence in Sierra Leone. Serious cases of survivors of violence and torture for whom resettlement is appropriate for protection reasons and as a durable solution will accordingly be submitted (estimated as 100 persons in 2005).

Emergency/urgent medical resettlement is a life saving protection tool in Sierra Leone, because of critical lack of medical facilities and the country’s status at the bottom of the UN Human Development Index especially in relation health standards. It is anticipated that approximately 300 persons will benefit from medical resettlement.

Other categories for resettlement expected among the new caseload will include refugees with legal/physical protection needs (50 persons), women at risk (50 persons) and those lacking local integration prospects (100 persons).

Options for local integration for sizeable numbers of refugees are limited in Sierra Leone, which is currently in a recovery phase after a decade long 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’ 4Rs (Repatriation, Reintegration, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction) project is being piloted in Sierra Leone. The concept of refugees as agents of development is also being factored into this project along with other links being pursued with developmental actors.

As local integration and voluntary repatriation do not address the needs of all refugees in Sierra Leone, resettlement remains an important durable solution and protection tool. Especially after

47 organized voluntary repatriation operations start, it is important to handle resettlement in a careful and discreet way which does not run counter to facilitated and later promoted voluntary repatriation. This is particularly important in the case of resettlement from the eight camps, since there has not previously been substantial resettlement due to the fact that the camps accommodate only recent arrivals.

While resettlement needs have been identified for some 600 refugees (mainly Liberian) in addition to a possible group of 500-1000 persons, currently resettlement processing in Sierra Leone is being hampered by lack of human resources, with a resettlement staff member and a resettlement deployee expected to arrive only in late 2004. Without these additional resources, BO Freetown’s current capacity is to submit 500 refugees for resettlement in 2005, concentrating on highest priority cases (refugees with serious medical and protection needs). Additionally, it is essential to replace the departed UNHCR health officers in Freetown and Kenema for proper identification and processing of medical cases.

SOUTHERN AFRICA

Projected needs: 2,105 persons / Processing capacity: 835 persons

Refugees in South Africa, Swaziland, Lesotho, The Indian Ocean Islands, Botswa na 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. The Department of Home Affairs assesses asylum requests. According to the statistics provided by the Department, an estimate of 152,414 applications for asylum were received since 1994, of which 31,600 applications were made in 2003.

South Africa hosts a diverse and complex refugee and asylum caseload. The weaknesses in the asylum procedures provide an opportunity for abuse by economic migrants of various backgrounds. Out of the top ten largest asylum applicant nationalities, six countries are traditionally non-refugee producing. UNHCR’s Representation in Pretoria is therefore faced with a significant challenge in trying to convince the South African government to improve its asylum system. Resettlement planning and resettlement case identification procedures must be sensitive to these concerns.

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

Cases of refugees facing legal or physical protection problems will continue to be submitted. However, UNHCR's resettlement activities in South Africa have increasingly focused on specific vulnerable groups. These vulnerable categories cover all nationalities and groups described above. Special consideration will be given to female-headed households, where refugee women have not been able to become self-sufficient while caring for their children. Resettlement activities will also focus on chronically ill or disabled refugees, who do not have

48

access to local support structures and for whom UNHCR is not able to provide 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.

South Africa receives asylum applications from Congolese fleeing government-held territories, as well as from rebel-controlled areas in the Eastern part of the country. The total number of Congolese asylum applications received by the Department of Home Affairs is 24,172 (15.9% of the total number of applications made). A number of Congolese refugees claim to have been human rights activists, members of opposition parties or former civil servants. UNHCR has received resettlement requests from persons within this category, who claim continued persecution by government or rebel agents in South Africa. In addition, a significant number of Congolese refugees from the Eastern part of DRC have fled general violence and comprise large families and single-headed households. Due to lack of support mechanisms, they experience considerable difficulties in becoming self reliant in South Africa and are considered vulnerable. Resettlement submissions will predominantly be made for persons who fit within these two categories. An estimated 65 persons will be in need of resettlement.

The Burundian refugees in South Africa include refugees from the 1993 upheavals and refugees fleeing the on-going conflict in Burundi. The total number of asylum applications received by the Department of Home Affairs is 4,239 (which constitute 2.8% of the total number of applications made). Although the majority of the new arrivals are students and young intellectuals, there are also a number of single heads of households. Constraints experienced by refugees are related to mixed ethnic origins, difficulties with accessing existing structures for trauma counselling/medical care, and inability to become self-reliant. An estimated 45 persons will be in need of resettlement.

South Africa also hosts a number of Ethiopian asylum seekers and refugees (5,925 applications, 3.9% of the total number of asylum applications made). Most Ethiopians approach UNHCR with regard to alleged persecution by Ethiopian agents in South Africa. UNHCR has assessed that in a great number of cases refugee status can not be positively determined and/or security concerns are not found to be credible. However, for some cases determined to be credible, resettlement will continue to be considered. In addition, UNHCR will consider some Ethiopian cases of Eritrean ethnicity and cases of mixed marriage, whose asylum applications have been rejected by the South African authorities. Given their background, they cannot return to either Ethiopia or Eritrea, and they are in a condition of de facto statelessness. Also, resettlement cases will continue to be identified of Ethiopian single women, who have been victims of sexual assault and violence in the country of origin or in the country of asylum. An estimated 20 persons will be in need of resettlement.

Resettlement needs have also been identified within the population of Sudanese refugees, many of whom are students and intellectuals. There are only a small number of asylum applications received from Sudanese (less than 2,000) in South Africa. Refugees claim discrimination due to their physical appearance and seem to be specifically affected by xenophobia in South Africa. Notwithstanding their educational background, many Sudanese refugees appear to be destitute and with little prospects of local integration. 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 some of the refugees who have been in the country for a long time. An estimated 25 persons will be in need of resettlement.

49 Most Rwandan refugees arrived in South Africa between 1996 and 2002. The total number of asylum applications received is 1,967 (1.3% of all applications made). Specifically, UNHCR is concerned about the situation of a number of Rwandans in mixed marriages. While for most Rwandans voluntary repatriation can be promoted, UNHCR believes that a number of refugees could face persecution if returned to Rwanda. Some refugees also face threats from the Rwandan Diaspora 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. An estimated 20 persons will be in need of resettlement.

UNHCR expects to increase its resettlement submissions of Somali refugees. The total number of Somali asylum applications received by the Department of Home Affairs is 11,632 (7,6% of the total number of applications made). Although many Somali refugees have been able to successfully integrate in South Africa, there are a number of vulnerable single-headed households and elderly refugees, who have resided in the country for many years and have not been able to become self-reliant. As prospects for voluntary repatriation remain slim for those coming from areas other than Somaliland and Puntland, these cases will be submitted for resettlement. An estimated 45 persons will be in need of resettlement.

The number of Zimbabwean asylum seekers in South Africa has increased over the past two years. According to statistics from the Department of Home Affairs, 2,115 persons have sought asylum in South Africa (1,4% of the total number of applications received). Although constraints were experienced to access the asylum procedure, these constraints were addressed towards the end of 2003. Among Zimbabwean asylum seekers, a considerable number of people are not refugees but came to South Africa for economic reasons and travel back to Zimbabwe frequently. However, there are also a growing number of refugees with strong claims for asylum, who approach the office of UNHCR with concerns for their safety in South Africa. Considering the profile of some of these cases and the fact that Zimbabwean government operatives are known to be active in South Africa, resettlement will be considered for legal and physical protection needs. An estimated 20 persons will be in need of resettlement.

Additionally, UNHCR expects to submit an estimated 10 persons for resettlement from other nationalities.

In total, UNHCR has assessed 250 refugees as being in need of resettlement, but anticipates the submission of only 150 refugees for resettlement from South Africa due to staffing constraints.

UNHCR’s Representation in Pretoria has the responsibility for the resettlement of refugees from Swaziland, Lesotho and the Indian Ocean Islands. It furthermore provides assistance and/or advice upon request of the Heads of Office in Mozambique and Botswana.

Swaziland The Department of Home Affairs in Swaziland has received 1,013 asylum applications. 686 persons were granted refugee status and 327 persons were awaiting the outcome of their applications by the end of 2003. Most asylum seekers and refugees in Swaziland have been able to become self-reliant and are located in urban areas. There are furthermore 86 persons assisted in a refugee camp. UNHCR is working together with the Swaziland authorities to identify local solutions for those remaining in the camp. The caseload in Swaziland consists mainly of

50

Burundian (18% of the applications), Congolese (14% of the applications), Angolan (14% of the applications), Somali (11% of the applications) and Rwandan nationals (10% of the applications). Considering the availability of local integration prospects, UNHCR does not actively identify cases for resettlement in Swaziland. However, the office will consider a limited number of cases on grounds of legal and physical protection needs, family reunification or special vulnerability restricting them possibly for local integration. An estimated 15 persons will be submitted for resettlement from Swaziland in 2005.

Indian Ocean Islands In the Indian Ocean Islands, UNHCR works through the local offices of UNDP. The number of refugees in these states is small. At the end of 2003, about 60 refugees and asylum seekers were residing in Madagascar, 7 persons were in The Comoros and no persons of concern to the office were in the Seychelles and Mauritius. The refugee/asylum seeker population consists of nationals from DRC, Burundi and Rwanda. The Indian Ocean Island states have not acceded to the key instruments aimed at protecting refugees and asylum seekers. Lack of accession to international refugee instruments and the absence of national refugee legislation limit the prospects for local integration. UNHCR will continue to explore resettlement as durable solutions for individual cases with no prospects for voluntary repatriation or local integration, while promoting the accession to relevant international instruments and the adoption of appropriate national refugee legislation. An estimated 20 persons will be submitted for resettlement.

In total, UNHCR’s Regional Office in Pretoria estimates that 285 persons have a need for resettlement, but due to staffing constraints plans to submit only 185 persons for resettlement from South Africa (150), Swaziland (15) and the Indian Ocean Islands (20).

Refugees in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi

Zambia currently hosts approximately 226,878 refugees, of whom 158,894 are Angolan, 58,512 are from the DRC, 5,801 are Rwandan, and 3,671 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 the context of mass influx situations.

For 2005, the Office will continue to apply resettlement as a protection tool. Resettlement cases will predominantly be identified on legal and physical protection grounds. These tend to be refugees of two types: (1) prominent or politically active refugees who, because of Zambia’s proximity to their countries of origin and relatively weak protection capabilities, need third country resettlement to remove the threat of surveillance, abduction or assassination by undercover agents from the country of origin, and (2) refugees of minority or mixed ethnicity who are targeted in the camps and even in the urban areas.

The Office will also continue to explore resettlement as a durable solution for individual cases. Although there are third generation refugees in Meheba refugee camp (one of five in which UNHCR operates), Zambia’s Constitution and Refugee Act effectively precludes naturalisation. UNHCR is actively promoting reconsideration of Zambia’s reservations to the 1951 Convention and naturalisation legislation. Local integration is only an option for a tiny proportion of

51 refugees (primarily those with high demand skills such as doctors and nurses) who are able to obtain work permits. Otherwise, refugees cannot obtain residence permits, nor can they work or move freely.

UNHCR’s Regional Office in Lusaka is concerned about the situation of approximately 30 DRC refugees. They are mainly refugees of Banyamulenge and Bembe ethnicity, and some of mixed marriage ethnicity who fled targeted violence in Eastern DRC. UNHCR believes that all 30 refugees are in need of resettlement as they face threats from other ethnic groups and some are de facto stateless.

There is a second group of approximately 1700 DRC refugees planned for resettlement submission in 2005, due to legal and physical protection needs and lack of local integration prospects. This is a group consisting mainly of ethnic Luba, who fled DRC from 1993 onwards as a result of the Luba / Katanga conflict and because of their ties to the UDPS opposition party. They 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 of these refugees are believed to be in need of resettlement, current staffing levels will allow for only 100 refugees from this group to be submitted for resettlement in 2005 due to current staffing levels.

Resettlement is not being considered for the majority of the Angolan and Rwandan refugees during the on-going repatriation exercise. UNHCR in Lusaka anticipates, however, that a total of 40 high-profile ex-UNITA refugees will be submitted for resettlement in 2005. 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. UNHCR Lusaka estimates that 450 Rwandan refugees are also in need of resettlement due to lack of local integration prospects and protection needs. Many will likely be women-at-risk and survivors of violence. UNHCR Lusaka anticipates that a total of 100 Rwandan persons will be submitted for resettlement in 2005.

In addition, 300 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 130 refugees to be submitted for resettlement from Zambia in 2005.

Under prevailing conditions, voluntary repatriation is not a viable solution for refugees from DRC and Burundi due to the still precarious situations in these countries despite ongoing peace processes, even though some Burundians and DRC refugees may opt to repatriate.

In total, UNHCR Lusaka has identified approximately 2,520 refugees in need of resettlement from Zambia. Due to limited capacity, however, UNHCR anticipates the submission of only 400 refugees for resettlement in 2005.

Zimbabwe and Malawi

In Zimbabwe and Malawi, a number of urban and camp-based DRC, Burundian and Sudanese refugees may be identified as being in need of resettlement in 2005. It is estimated that 500 refugees from each country are in need of resettlement. Limited staffing will, however, significantly limit UNHCR’s ability to refer resettlement cases from Zimbabwe to 150 refugees, and 100 refugees from Malawi, in 2005.

52

THE AMERICAS

Projected needs: 1,705 persons / Processing capacity: 1,505

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. It is foreseen there will be a continuing need for protection for the Colombians scattered throughout the region in the years to come.

Given the current nature of displacement based on refugees fleeing war and civil strife, some potential scope for group submissions could be envisioned though it has not yet materialized in this region.

Northern and Central America

Refugees in Costa Rica

Costa Rica hosts 13,508 refugees, including 8,266 Colombians, 2,635 Nicaraguans, 1,107 Cubans, 790 Salvadorans, 236 Peruvians, and 339 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. In 2003, Costa Rica received an average of 129 asylum claims per 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 2003 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.

53 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 December 2003, 247 refugees had been approved for resettlement in the US and other third countries.

It is expected that the security situation of Colombian refugees in Costa Rica may further deteriorate in 2004 and 2005. UNHCR believes that as many as 450 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.

For the same reasons, UNHCR plans to submit 525 persons for resettlement from Costa Rica in 2005.

Refugees in Cuba

Cuba hosts a diverse refugee population including persons from Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq and Sudan.

Cuba is not a party to either the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol. Refugees recognised under UNHCR's Mandate are protected from refoulement and granted provisional authorization of stay until UNHCR can find a suitable durable solution outside of Cuba. There is no legal framework for local integration, or material conditions to promote such a solution. Resettlement is the only viable durable solution for the majority of refugees given lack of possibilities for safe and voluntary return. Refugees in Cuba in need of resettlement are primarily extra-regional urban refugees, mostly from Africa and the Middle East.

During 2003 and 2004, UNHCR has intensified the strategic use of resettlement for the remaining refugee caseload in Cuba, achieving important progress. Resettlement solutions were found for 31 refugees during 2003, and an additional 40 persons are expected to be resettled during 2004 as a result of new submissions.

During 2005, UNHCR's resettlement caseload will include only a small number of residual cases plus newly recognised cases. It is anticipated that the total resettlement needs for 2005 will not exceed 35 persons. This figure includes those residual cases for whom a solution will still not have been found during 2004 (estimated at approximately 25 persons), plus new arrivals recognised as refugees during 2004 (estimated at approximately 10 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, who are mostly refugees from other Latin American countries, have opted for local integration, including permanent residency. Most Central American refugees in particular have benefited from generous naturalisation programmes in their countries of asylum. Refugees of diverse nationalities have been able to enjoy legal and physical protection in these countries of

54

first asylum. Therefore, local integration has been achievable for the vast majority of refugees in these countries.

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 are also periodically identified, whose specific needs are very difficult to meet in the first country of asylum.

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 a maximum of 15 persons for resettlement from these six countries in 2005.

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 conflict.

These challenges have intensified since the peace negotiations between the Colombian Government and the guerrillas broke down in February 2002. The safety of the refugees is regularly endangered by the cross border interventions of the actors of the Colombian conflict threatening the security of asylum seekers and refugees in Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru. This situation gives rise to many cases of physical insecurity and serious protection problems requiring resettlement as the primary tool of protection.

UNHCR must address both cases that have been rejected by the respective asylum procedures of the countries of the region due to perceived political or security concerns, in addition to cases which are considered so sensitive they cannot be submitted for consideration by the country of asylum. Those with compelling security concerns must be submitted urgently for resettlement as the only real means of protection for these individuals.

In Ecuador the government has maintained a liberal asylum policy and continues to grant refugees access to its territory and the asylum procedure. However, given the continued growth in arrivals, the asylum system faces increasing pressure and the backlog has become significant. At the same time, the number of refugees in need of resettlement due to their vulnerability and protection needs has also increased.

In Venezuela and Panama, the authorities are reluctant to receive refugees from Colombia and the refugee institutions were either very recently working established, or in the process of being further consolidated. UNHCR continues 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.

55

In addition to the Colombian caseload there are also asylum seekers arriving from other countries in the nearby area: Guyana and Cuba, as well as from other continents. These persons often experience significant difficulties in local integration and face protection threats, therefore are in need of resettlement.

Based on the above, UNHCR in Venezuela has identified a need for 150 persons from Colombia and 30 persons from other countries are in need of resettlement due to lack of physical protection, victims of torture, women at risk, medical cases, unaccompanied minors, elderly, and lack of integration prospects for a total of 180 persons.

Peru, expects to identify 150 Colombians, 40 Cubans, and up to 30 persons from other countries for a total of 220 persons in need of resettlement under the same categories as above. However, limited staffing may restrict the submissions to 120 persons in total.

In Ecuador local integration potential for certain vulnerable categories is very limited or non- existent. Some 700 persons of the Colombian caseload requiring legal and physical protection, women at risk, survivors of violence and torture, and children will be in need of resettlement. Additionally, 20 persons of other nationalities, including Peruvians, Haitians, and Iraqis, will require resettlement. Limited staffing is expected to restrict submissions to 620 persons.

Resettlement is necessary for some 1,120 persons from the sub-region; though the current office capacity is able to submit 920 persons only.

Southern South America

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

Southern South American countries are currently host to approximately 6,500 refugees. This includes in Argentina, some 2,439 refugees, Bolivia 350, Chile 413, Brazil 3,175, Uruguay 99, and Paraguay 21. The larger populations originate from Angola, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Peru, Cuba, Liberia, the DRC, Sierra Leone, and Colombia.

The political instability –particularly in Bolivia-and the prevailing difficult economic situation affects democracy, the rule of law and human rights developments in the region. Nevertheless, Chile and Brazil continue to resettle refugees from other regions in the context of a very focussed resettlement program, as part of their commitment to contribute to the mitigation of refugee problems not only in the Americas but wide-world. 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.

56

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.

The worsening of the situation in Colombia may result in the increase of refugee claims in the region. However it is expected that a reduced number of Colombian refugees in the region would need to be resettled as recognized refugees are granted protection and assistance in view towards their possible local integration.

Based on recent experience, UNHCR anticipates submitting some 10 persons for resettlement in 2005, not only from Bolivia but also from other countries in the region.

57 ASIA

Projected needs: 4,042 persons / Processing capacity: 2,122 persons

SOUTH ASIA

Projected needs: 285 persons / Processing capacity: 285 persons

The region of South Asia includes India, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, , 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. Local integration is a limited option at this time.

Although there seems to be little indication that the countries in the region are considering any change in their response to refugees, efforts from UNHCR and its partners continue to seek solutions to certain protracted refugee situations, such as the Bhutanese in Nepal, which are expected to be resolved through the complementary use of durable solutions. For this caseload, resettlement may be considered as a component of the durable solution strategy and may be implemented through individual processing and possible group submissions of 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 2005 with therefore represent both urban and camp refugees identified by the UNHCR local offices as being in need of resettlement.

This staffing situation is also being supported by the deployment of Resettlement Consultants in South Asia through the UNHCR - ICMC NGO Deployment Scheme, in India.

Refugees in Bangladesh

At the beginning of 2004, there were 19,792 registered refugees with UNHCR Bangladesh. Out of them, 19,647 were camp refugees living in two camps in Cox’s Bazar, a southern district beside the Bay of Bengal. The number of urban refugees was 145 including Myanmarese, Somalians, Iranians, Sri Lankans, Sierra Leoneans, and Afghanis.

Bangladesh is not a party to either the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of the Refugees or its 1967 Protocol. There is also no national legislation on asylum seeking and refugees.

In the absence of national asylum procedures, refugees can not approach the government for legal information, counselling or advice. However, UNHCR Bangladesh undertakes a monitoring role for the asylum seekers. Monitoring activities include visiting new arrivals in jails and interviewing potential new asylum seekers.

The camp refugees are the remaining caseload of about 250,000 refugees from the Northern Rakhine State of Myanmar. They were recognized as refugees by the government and UNHCR

58

on the prima facie basis. Their repatriation is going on very slowly. 3,231 refugees from the camps have voluntary repatriated to Myanmar in 2003.

UNHCR Bangladesh is pursuing a self-reliance project for the camp refugees pending repatriation.

The majority of the urban refugees are also from Myanmar. At the end of 2003, their total number was 96. 49 others are from Somalia, Iran, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan. In the absence of any law on refugees in the country, UNHCR Bangladesh processes the applications of asylum seekers for refugee status under its Mandate and with a tacit consent of the concerned government.

The camp refugees are not allowed to go outside the camps and work. For some needs like medical purpose, attending court hearings, visiting jailed refugees etc they can go outside with prior permission of the camp authority. The government official, a First Class Magistrate, is in- charge of the 2 camps. However, many refugees routinely find a way and leave the camps clandestinely to work as labourers.

The urban caseloads can move freely and live in a place of their convenience. They are mainly living in the capital Dhaka and different places of Cox’s Bazar, Bandarban and Rajshahi districts. They are issued ID cards by UNHCR, which is honoured by the government, especially by the law enforcement agencies.

The government’s expectation is that the refugees would repatriate as early as possible. Although some repatriation is still possible for both urban and camp refugees, the possibilities are slim for the majority.

UNHCR’s Branch Office has very limited plans to submit cases for resettlement in 2004/5. Possibly 5 persons will be submitted from Bangladesh.

Refugees in India

As of 29 February 2004, some 11,460 refugees were recognised under UNHCR's Mandate, including approximately 8,800 Indian Origin Afghans, 1,400 ethnic Afghans, 1,000 Myanmarese, 70 Iranians, 70 Somalis, 50 Sudanese, 20 Iraqis, and 50 other refugees of different nationalities.

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.

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

59 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 resettlement will only be considered for certain vulnerable groups, such as individuals facing serious protection problems, those associated with the previous Najibullah regime, individuals 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 for the groups. However, it is anticipated that a few cases will be facilitated with family reunification abroad. Given recent changes in Iraq, resettlement is not currently being considered for Iraqi refugees.

Resettlement remains the most viable durable solution for most other nationality groups, due to the limited prospects of voluntary repatriation, given conditions in their country of origin, and local integration, and given the lack of legal status for most refugees of other nationalities. 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 70 Afghans, 30 Iranians, 20 Sudanese, 30 Somalis, 30 Myanmarese and 20 persons of other nationalities.

Refugees in Nepal

A. Urban Mandate Refugees

Nepal is not a party to the 1951 Convention or its 1967 Protocol and there is no domestic refugee legislation. UNHCR carries out refugee status determination and recognises refugees under its Mandate. Mandate refugees are temporarily tolerated in Nepal, pending the identification of a durable solution. They are however considered as illegal aliens under the Immigration Act and are not allowed to engage in gainful employment and thus depend on UNHCR’s assistance. Urban Mandate refugees come from various countries and continents. Presently, UNHCR Nepal has recognised refugees from China, Iraq, Iran, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. A small number of asylum seekers from Nigeria, Liberia, Ethiopia, Pakistan and Egypt have recently applied for refugee status with UNHCR in Nepal. As urban Mandate refugees rarely speak the local language and as the Government of Nepal only tolerates their temporarily stay in the country, local integration is not a viable option and resettlement is pursued within one year of recognition.

UNHCR Nepal expects to have to resettle up to 15 cases (20 persons) in 2005. This figure may change in case of an increase in arrivals in the course of 2004, however no major influx is foreseen and the urban caseload would remain fairly small. In some cases, for security reasons linked to the proximity of the country of origin, UNHCR may have to pursue urgent resettlement, immediately after recognition. This has been the case in the past with Chinese of Iughur origin.

B. Bhutanese refugees

Since the influx of the Bhutanese Refugees in the camps of Jhapa and Morang districts of Nepal, repatriation has always been considered as the best possible, most desirable and viable durable

60

solution for them therefore Resettlement was not envisaged or actively pursued. However, this refugee situation has turned into a protracted situation after 13 years of life in the camps and no tangible prospects for voluntary repatriation. Although hopes had emerged with the recent agreement at the 15th round of talks of the Ministerial Joint Committee (MJC) between the Governments of Nepal and Bhutan to start the first repatriation in February 2004, the subsequent conditions of return announced to the refugees in December 2003 fell far from internationally accepted standards. The refugees eager to return were so disappointed that they reacted with violence and turned against the Bhutanese Joint verification team. As a consequence of this incident, the implementation of the above agreement was stalled and no repatriation could take place.

Furthermore, UNHCR has over the years been kept out of the bilateral process and has not been allowed by the Government of Bhutan to carry out its mandate role of returnee monitoring and rehabilitation activities in the country of origin. In this context, UNHCR is not in a position to promote and be actively involved in any repatriation that may take place. Already in April 2003, UNHCR had presented a paper on a comprehensive approach to solutions to both governments as well as major donors. The rational behind is that only a combination of all three traditional durable solutions can resolve this protracted refugee situation, as it has become clear over the years that Bhutan will not allow all the refugees to avail themselves to the right of return. Nepal will therefore still have the responsibility to find solutions for the residual caseload, but has already expressed that possibilities of local integration will remain limited. Nepal does not want undermine the voluntary repatriation by initiating activities related to the two remaining solutions before the repatriation is carried out.

In this context, it is difficult for UNHCR Nepal to proactively plan for resettlement. However, it is also clear that eventually resettlement options may have to be secured for a certain number of Bhutanese refugees. In order to gather more accurate information and to identify the best suitable solution for each individual, UNHCR is discussing with the GoN plans to carry out a headcount/profiling exercise in 2004. It may therefore be premature to express an estimation on the total number of refugees that may be identified to be in need of resettlement at present.

The High Commissioner in his opening statement at the Executive Committee in October 2003 has announced that UNHCR will pursue resettlement for the vulnerable. He has also announced that UNHCR will be gradually phasing out of material assistance in the camps and bring about the phasing in of developmental assistance to both the refugee and the local surrounding populations. The planned profiling exercise as well as a socio economic survey will assist UNHCR in identifying the present vulnerable as well as refugees who may become vulnerable as a result of the shift in assistance. UNHCR will also more accurately identify the refugees who have or may have protection vulnerabilities.

A preliminary estimate of the number of individuals from the Bhutanese group who could be considered for resettlement in the year 2005 would be approximately 5% of the current camp populations, i.e. 5000 individuals. This number may be revised and will be further broken down by categories as further information is gathered and analyzed during the headcount/profiling exercise.

In total, UNHCR is considering the resettlement of 5,020 refugees in 2005, (20 urban refugees and 5,000 Bhutanese refugees) though this number could vary greatly depending on the approach taken to the Bhutanese caseload and is subject to the approval of the GoN. The

61 capacity of the office to identify and prepare submissions of cases for resettlement, the need for training and the overall logistics required are areas that would have to be assessed.

Refugees in Sri Lanka

As of 1 January 2004, some 39 refugees, 1 stateless person and 6 asylum seekers were registered with UNHCR’s Branch Office in Colombo. Although these figures are generally in line with the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees in previous years there has been a significant increase of asylum seekers from Pakistan during the first quarter of 2004.

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.

Previously, only a limited number of persons sought asylum in Sri Lanka. The majority of whom were individuals whose intended final destination was not Sri Lanka, but rather Europe or Northern America. Since mid 2003, however, this trend has changed and most of the asylum seekers do have Sri Lanka as their destination because access to the country is easy given there are no visa requirements before arrival. Most of the cases originate from Pakistan, belonging to the Christian community. However, an increasing number of high profile Maldivian individuals have asked for international protection during the second half of 2003.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Colombo expects to submit 60 persons for resettlement from Sri Lanka in 2005 including Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghani, Maldivian, Liberian, Palestinian and stateless refugees.

EAST ASIA

Projected needs: 3,757 persons / Processing capacity: 1,837

The East Asia region, comprised of Cambodia, the People’s Republic of China including Hong Kong SAR and Mongolia, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, 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. UNHCR appreciates the recent openings of resettlement opportunities for protracted refugee situations in Thailand where fruitful negotiations have continued with the Government of Thailand and interested resettlement countries to seek solutions to existing refugee situations. UNHCR continues its ongoing

62

dialogue with the Government of Malaysia to seek solutions for the large numbers of refugees from Myanmar, as well as the Acehnese refugees facing continuing uncertainty in Indonesia, many of whom face critical legal and protection problems in Malaysia.

Resettlement will remain a fundamental protection tool to respond to the emergency situation often facing refugees in this region. UNHCR looks forward to expanding the potential of group resettlement from the region in line with the growing interest of resettlement countries in finding solutions for these protracted refugee situations.

This staffing situation is also being supported by the deployment of Resettlement Consultants in East Asia through the UNHCR - ICMC NGO Deployment Scheme, in Malaysia and Thailand.

Refugees in Cambodia

As of 1 January 2004, there were 76 refugees recognized by UNHCR in Phnom Penh including Montagnards living at the safe site. The breakdown of nationalities is as follows: 33 Vietnamese, 9 Chinese, 6 Sri Lankans, 4 Sudanese, 13 Afghans, 2 Algerians, 3 Togolese, 1 Somalian, and 5 Iraqis. Moreover, there were 68 individuals whose cases were pending refugee status determination in the first and second instance. The breakdown of nationalities for the pending caseload is as follows: 54 Vietnamese, 1 Burundi, 3 Congolese, 3 Palestinians, 1 Somali, 4 Liberians, 1 Burmese and 1 Bangladeshi.

Cambodia is a signatory party to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol. However, the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol have not been implemented in domestic legislation and as such there is a complete absence of national mechanisms to receive and process asylum applications as well as to facilitate their local integration in Cambodia.

Pending the establishment of national mechanisms concerned with refugee and asylum matters, UNHCR continues to conduct RSD and provide material support to recognized refugees. In terms of protection against refoulement, the Cambodian authorities generally respect the UNHCR issued ID card of refugees from non-neighbouring countries. However, refoulement does occur, in particular with regards to asylum seekers originating from the Central Highlands in Vietnam (Montagnards) as well as with regards to politically sensitive cases primarily from neighbouring countries.

During the year of 2003 only 38 Montagnards were able to approach UNHCR’s Office in Phnom Penh to apply for international protection. Compared to 2003, there has been a noted increase of Montagnards seeking asylum with UNHCR in the first four months of 2004. UNHCR accommodates them in a safe house pending refugee status determination. UNHCR resettles all recognized Montagnard refugees based on the criteria legal and physical protection needs, as the Government does not allow them to remain in Cambodia. UNHCR has estimated that 150 Montagnards will be resettled from Cambodia in 2005. However, it must be underlined that the figure is preliminary as the influx of Montagnards in Cambodia is highly unpredictable and the number can easily increase depending on the situation in the Central Highlands.

In the absence of enabling national legislation and the poor socio-economic situation in Cambodia local integration remains extremely difficult for many recognized urban refugees.

63 Most refugees are completely dependent on UNHCR’s assistance and remain so for years. Only a few refugees are likely to voluntarily repatriate during 2005. Therefore, in addition to the Montagnard caseload, UNHCR is planning to resettle 20 urban refugees (3 Afghans, 5 Chinese, 9 Vietnamese, 2 Palestinians, 1 Somalian) based on the following criteria: woman-at risk, family reunification, elderly refugee, survivor of violence and torture and lack of local integration prospects.

UNHCR Phnom Penh expects to be able to process the projected 170 individuals (150 Montagnards, 20 urban refugees) for resettlement during 2005. However, the Office will be faced with staff constraints in case of an increase of Montagnards in need of resettlement.

Refugees in the People’s Republic of 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 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 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

The refugees in China consist of more than twelve different nationalities though the majority are from Iran and Somalia. There has been an abrupt increase in the number of asylum seekers from Pakistan (Ahmadi) in early 2004. Since recognition rates of this group of asylum seekers are relatively high, RO Beijing expects an increase in the number of refugees in China, at least for the remainder of 2004. The RO estimates newly recognized refugees in 2004 at 80 persons. When combined with the pending number of refugees in need of resettlement from the 2003 caseload of 54 persons, the number of refugees in need of resettlement in 2004 is approximately 134 persons. RO Beijing expects to be able to resettle about half of these refugees in 2004 with the remaining 67 persons of various nationalities being submitted for resettlement in 2005.

The refugee caseload in Hong Kong SAR consists of more than twenty different nationalities though the majority are from various African countries, Sri Lanka and Pakistan (mainly Ahmadi

64

and Christian cases). The refugees in Hong Kong are all recognised under the UNHCR’s Mandate.

UNHCR Sub-Office in Hong Kong anticipates that some 300 persons will be identified as being in need of resettlement in 2005, including 80 from various African Countries (including, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Liberia and DRC), 130 Ahmadi Pakistanis, 10 Christian Pakistanis, 40 Sri Lankans, 20 Nepalese and 20 persons of other nationalities.

UNHCR SO Hong Kong anticipates that it will be able to process the 300 refugees for resettlement with the current staffing situation of a full time Assistant Resettlement Officer and Resettlement Clerk.

In total, therefore, UNHCR’s Regional Office in Beijing and Sub-Office in Hong Kong plan to submit approximately 367 persons for resettlement in 2005.

It is however worth mentioning that there has been a marked and significant increase in the registration of asylum seekers in the first months of 2004 and it is noted that the majority of these are coming from Nepal, Sri Lanka (Singhalese) and various African countries. It can be anticipated that should this increase continue throughout 2004, in combination with the continuing steady trend of Pakistani Ahmadis noted throughout 2003 and early 2004, it could result in an increased need for resettlement in 2005.

Refugees in Indonesia

As of 1 January 2004, there were 233 refugees recognised under UNHCR’s Mandate 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.

UNHCR’s Regional Office in Jakarta estimates that during 2004, the Office will recognise 75 refugees. The cases are predominantly Afghans, Iranians and some Africans (Somalia, Ivory Coast, DRC). Due to the prevailing security situation in Afghanistan, the office has decided to review the closed Afghan cases. It is assumed that this will result in a number of newly accepted Afghan cases.

UNHCR’s Regional Office in Jakarta anticipates that approximately 250 refugees will be in need of resettlement from Indonesia in 2005. This number corresponds to the number of newly arrived asylum seekers likely to be recognised next year which is expected to reflect the same nationalities as seen in 2003/4, namely Africans, (Ivory Coast, Ethiopians, Somalis, DRC, etc.), Vietnamese, etc.

In 2003, most countries stopped considering Iraqi refugees for resettlement, which has seriously affected their possibilities for resettlement. There are approximately 25 Iraqi cases in Jakarta in

65 need of resettlement, including 7 Iraqi cases which were accepted to the USA 1.5-2.5 years ago and which seem to be de facto suspended from resettlement.

Cases with family links in Australia or European countries will continue to be submitted to those countries for their resettlement consideration.

UNHCR Jakarta has mostly resolved the cases of the thousands of Middle Eastern asylum seekers who were apprehended trying to travel to Australia by boat illegally and who were processed by UNHCR for refugee status and resettlement in 2001 and 2002. There are 121 persons submitted to Australia, mostly in 2002/2003 who are waiting to be resettled to Australia, including 15 cases of separated spouses. The remaining cases are either pending with Australia, the USA, Canada or are Iraqi cases awaiting a resettlement country for the reasons listed above.

Refugees in Malaysia

During the period January 2003 to April 2004, the UNHCR Representation in Malaysia registered 18.092 persons of concern. 14.747 persons of concern were registered during 2003 alone compared to a total of 2.513 applications in 2002.

Malaysia is not a party to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol and has not enacted any domestic refugee legislation. Refugees, temporary protection beneficiaries and asylum seekers with or without UNHCR documentation are considered as illegal immigrants in Malaysia. As such, they are subject to harassment by the police, arrest, detention, deportation (amounting to refoulement) and possibly caning as a punishment for their illegal stay in Malaysia. In August 2003, some 300 asylum seekers, mainly from the Indonesian province of Aceh, were arrested by the Malaysian police in front of the UNHCR office. During 2003 UNHCR carried out counselling and refugee status determination for 813 detained asylum seekers followed up by resettlement interviews. In 2004, UNHCR noticed that the number of arrest and detention of persons of concern was on the increase and had reached some 40 persons per week.

UNHCR statistics confirm that Malaysia became in 2003 the largest UNHCR refugee status determination operation in the world, well ahead of countries like Turkey, Egypt, Thailand and Uganda.

Out of the 18.092 persons of concern as of April 2004:

9.094 persons are asylum seekers from Myanmar. The majority belong to the Chin ethnic minority (2412 persons), followed by the Myanmar Muslims (2352 persons) and the Rohingya (1900 persons) and various other ethnic minorities from Myanmar. The vast majority of recognized refugees belong to the Chin minority; they are Christians living in the North West of Myanmar bordering Mizoram State in India. They present roughly 80 % of UNHCR’s refugee status determination caseload and have a very high recognition rate.

6.457 Indonesians from the province of Aceh were recognised as a group in need of temporary protection and were individually issued UNHCR temporary protection letters, after verifying that they were genuine Achenese civilians. 1.828 persons have registered and are yet to be issued temporary protection letters. Those in detention (out of the 281 persons in detention, 144 are Acehnese as of April, 2004) are at immediate risk of refoulement and refugee status

66

determination interviews are carried out without delay. Recognized refugees are submitted to the resettlement countries as soon as possible.

Additionally, a total of 5.675 Rohingya from Myanmar were registered and issued UNHCR Temporary Protection Letters. Being both, seriously discriminated against and stateless, the Rohingya are considered as a group of concern to UNHCR. Most of the registered Rohingya arrived in Malaysia in the early 1990s. Since then, they have lived in limbo, without legal status and constantly at risk of being harassed, arrested and deported.

As of April 2004, the UNHCR Representation in Malaysia has registered 653 refugees recognized refugees under its mandate. The vast majority are Chin from Myanmar and Indonesians from the Province of Aceh, followed by a smaller number of Rohingyas from Myanmar, and a handful of Afghans and refugees from Africa.

Resettlement needs in Malaysia continue to grow in proportion to the increasing number of recognized refugees. UNHCR also anticipates an increasing number of emergency resettlement cases based on the daily rising detention figures and growing numbers of extremely vulnerable refugees (single women, unaccompanied minors, single headed households, torture victims, and medical cases, those at particular security risks in Malaysia). Many of those in detention are Acehnese who face serious risk of deportation to Indonesia. Detained refugees originating from other countries also face imminent deportation, but not necessarily directly to the country of origin. The Malaysian Government does not release any illegal immigrants, not even recognized refugees, until they depart to a resettlement country. The physical and mental conditions of our caseload in detention are deteriorating. The immigration depots are in bad hygienic shape, have limited drinking water and are extremely overcrowded due to the major police raids Malaysia has been conducting on illegal immigrants since 2003. Deportations from detention depots will increase as this is a way for the authorities to release pressure on the immigration depots.

The Malaysian authorities have indicated that they could show some degree of “ad hoc tolerance” for refugees and asylum seekers on the condition that UNHCR interviews and organizes resettlement for its recognized refugees within a reasonable period of time.

UNHCR has strengthened the capacity of its own refugee status determination process. UNHCR can now produce a maximum of 270 cases per month (made up of 170 first instance cases and 100 cases at second instance). Special attention is paid to streamline refugee status determination and resettlement for those in detention. The Resettlement Unit is now equipped to process up to 700 cases in 2004 (compared to 530 in 2003).

While some 2,150 persons are estimated to be in need of resettlement in 2005, the office capacity will likely limit submissions to some 800 persons (350 Myanmar Chins, 25 Myanmar Buddhists, 25 Myanmar Muslims, 350 Acehnese, 50 of other nationalities including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan). The UNHCR Representation in Malaysia is trying to address the limited processing capacity vis a vis the need for resettlement through the request of further ICMC deployees, within the existing budget constraints.

No major changes are expected in 2005. Asylum seekers will continue to approach the office as long as the Malaysian Government is not willing to provide for local solutions and as long as the situation in both Myanmar and the Indonesian province of Aceh will continue to remain volatile.

67

Refugees in Thailand

UNHCR will aim in 2005 to expand the use of resettlement and to develop a more collaborative strategic approach to resettlement from Thailand with the Royal Thai Government (RTG) and, in particular, with resettlement countries. The working group on resettlement, established in 2004, will be an important forum for ensuring the protection of refugees in Thailand and for seeking durable solutions.

With the Myanmar camp caseload, consultations with resettlement countries, the RTG, and NGOs will be held regarding the expanded use of resettlement from the camps as an element of a comprehensive protection strategy to solve this protracted refugee situation, particularly for individuals with serious protection concerns. The Myanmar population presently includes some 116,700 persons registered in nine camps along the Thai-Myanmar border, plus an additional estimated 20,000 residing in the camps who have not been registered by the RTG. UNHCR will propose to the RTG that the entire camp population be re-registered with the intention of determining prospects for durable solutions; as part of this process, a household survey will be undertaken to establish the views of each family toward the two available durable solutions, voluntary repatriation and resettlement. Once this process is complete, UNHCR will submit to Governments through group resettlement procedures those families interested in seeking resettlement; given the large number of vulnerable individuals in the camps, UNHCR will propose that such group submissions initially focus on those most in need of resettlement, such as individuals with protection concerns, women-at-risk, unaccompanied minors, individuals suffering from disabilities or serious medical conditions that cannot be treated in the camps, and family reunification cases. Plans are currently being discussed for the possible resettlement of as many as 20,000 Myanmar refugees from the camps in Thailand in 2005.

Key priorities with the Myanmar caseload will include the expedited resettlement of the urban population, which currently numbers some 5,000 persons (including those pending refugee status determination); resettlement will be an essential component of UNHCR’s strategy to resolve the impasse that developed over this caseload in previous years. At the beginning of 2004, UNHCR submitted the entire recognized urban caseload to the US government for resettlement consideration, and will continue to submit cases throughout the year as they are recognized. In 2004, a number of issues remain to be resolved with the RTG regarding the status of Myanmar nationals in urban areas, and efforts will be made to strengthen cooperation toward finding a solution. The RTG has indicated its desire for all Myanmar refugees to be placed in the camps along the Thai-Myanmar border, however, there is a large number of individuals who are not able to reside in the camps for security or protection reasons. UNHCR has proposed to the RTG that such individuals be processed for resettlement on an expedited basis.

Concerted efforts to expedite the resettlement of the non-Myanmar urban population will also be made in 2005, including to identify solutions for “hard to resettle” cases that have been repeatedly rejected. There are currently some 323 refugees from 28 nationalities residing in Bangkok and other urban centres, plus an additional 704 persons pending refugee status determination. Efforts will also be redoubled to ensure the urgent resettlement of refugees in detention. A review of stateless persons, particularly those in detention, will also be conducted to consider the possibility of resettlement or other durable solutions in individual cases.

68

UNHCR estimates that some 21,000 persons will be in need of resettlement in 2005, including approximately 20,610 Myanmar refugees, 40 Cambodians, 40 Chinese, 30 Iranians, 30 Sri Lankans, 100 refugees from Africa, and 150 persons from other nationalities. While present staffing levels will be sufficient to process for resettlement approximately 250 of non- Myanmar refugees in need of resettlement, UNHCR’s plans for the group resettlement of Myanmar refugees will necessarily require a substantial increase in staff.

69 EUROPE

Projected needs:5,146 persons / Processing capacity:4,746 persons

EASTERN EUROPE Projected needs: 1,981 persons / Processing capacity: 1,581 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 Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Gerogia, 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.

With the entry into the European Union of several Central European countries, careful attention will be necessary as new migratory paths and potential smuggling routes open up through

70

countries bordering the new EU boundaries. While resettlement will remain a fundamental protection tool for the region, given the nature of the claims giving rise to resettlement needs, and the subsequent necessity for individual assessment and processing, there is not much scope for the submission of large groups at this time.

This staffing situation is also being supported by the deployment of Resettlement Consultants in Eastern Europe through the UNHCR - ICMC NGO Deployment Scheme, in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation.

Refugees in Armenia

As of 29 February 2004, the main refugee caseload in Armenia consists of 237,954 ethnic Armenians who fled Azerbaijan between 1988 and 1992, and who were recognised on a prima facie basis at the time of their arrival. In addition, the refugee population includes a handful of persons from Iraq, Iran and Sudan, individually recognised as refugees under Armenia’s 1999 Law on Refugees.

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. A positive step was made with the adoption in early 2004 of a new set of amendments to the Law on Refugees which undo changes made in 2001 to narrow the scope of protection of refugees, although some gaps remain to be closed. In particular, the three-year limit on the duration of refugee status, which might have had serious consequences for newly recognised refugees in the future, has been removed.

The government pursues a policy of local integration for ethnic Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan, who are granted similar rights as citizens and have access to Armenian citizenship through a facilitated naturalization procedure. There is no immediate risk of refoulement or any other protection-related problems for this group.

While individually recognised refugees are not confronted by any immediate protection problems, they often have difficulties in locally integrating given the socio-economic situation of the country and the discrimination they may face from locals. In recent years, UNHCR identified six cases as lacking local integration prospects due to the different cultural, linguistic and religious background from the local population, the lack of local links and consequent inability to become self-reliant in Armenia. Accordingly, resettlement was sought for them as a durable solution on exceptional basis. The cases were accepted by the United States in March 2002, but only two of them were eventually resettled in December 2003. The departure of the remaining four accepted cases to the United States is still pending due to the tighter security clearance procedure. As the uncertainty about the clearing process for these cases remains, despite all the demarches for further clarification, UNHCR may have to explore alternative resettlement possibilities for them in the current year.

UNHCR’s Office in Armenia has been using resettlement on a very limited scale and primarily in response to urgent and emergency protection needs. Notwithstanding the prevailing conditions and assuming that a positive solution of the four pending resettlement cases will be achieved in 2004, 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

71 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 2005.

UNHCR’s Office in Armenia expects to submit only 3 persons for resettlement from Armenia in 2005.

Refugees in Azerbaijan

The population of urban refugees in Azerbaijan, originating both from within the CIS and from other regions, decreased gradually in 2003. During this period, 878 persons (721 Chechens, 76 Afghans and 90 others) were registered by UNHCR’s Representation in Baku. This was a decline from 2002 when the Office registered 1,838 persons. Refugees in Azerbaijan are mainly ethnic Chechens from Russian Federation and Afghans followed by smaller numbers of Iranians, Iraqis and others. UNHCR’s Representation in Baku currently has approximately 10,000 registrations.

Azerbaijan is a state party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. While legislation to establish national asylum procedures was developed in November 2000, the structure is only now beginning to be implemented. UNHCR’s Representation in Baku is engaged in capacity- building and training of the refugee status determination (RSD) of the State Committee for Refugees (SCR) to ensure fair implementation in line with UNHCR standards. UNHCR will continue to conduct refugee status determination in parallel with the SCR RSD Unit until a final agreement is reached concerning the complete handover of RSD.

Afghan refugees have been voluntarily repatriating to Afghanistan, given the change of circumstances in that country. Forty-six families have already returned and five additional families have recently indicated their desire to return to Afghanistan. Despite the ongoing repatriation it is expected that some will be unable to return due to their legal and physical protection needs, women at risk, and a few medical cases. 120 persons are expected to be submitted in 2005. However the majority of Afghan cases in Azerbaijan will continue to benefit from person of concern status and will be handed over to the Sate Committee for Refugees.

Resettlement will, however, remain to be the most viable durable solution for the majority of refugees. Refugees who enter Azerbaijan illegally are 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.

Due to the present GoA’s policy not to register Chechen refugees, who comprise the great majority of the refugee population, UNHCR continues to address the protection and social needs of this population. Some 180 persons are expected to be submitted under women at risk, survivors of violence and torture, medical, and legal and physical protection grounds.

With the ongoing insecurity in Iraq voluntary repatriation has been suspended until further notice. It is anticipated up to 10 persons may need to be resettled under family reunification or legal and physical protection grounds.

72

40 Iranians will also require resettlement, some under family reunification with the majority requiring legal and physical protection. Additionally approximately 10 persons from various nationalities are expected to be in need of resettlement in 2005.

UNHCR’s Representation in Azerbaijan plans to submit 360 persons for resettlement in 2005, including approximately 180 Russians (Chechens) 120 Afghans, 40 Iranians, 10 Iraqis and 10 others.

Refugees in Belarus

Belarus hosts approximately 700 refugees recognized by the government. In addition, some asylum seekers are being registered as persons of concern to UNHCR following the ill-founded rejection of their cases by the government.

Belarus is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. The new, third version, of the Law on Refugees, reflecting the relevant international obligations, entered into force in July 2003. However, the restrictive policy of granting refugee status, and the lack of subsidiary protection mechanisms, sometimes 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 addressed through resettlement. In addition, a limited number of vulnerable recognized refugees, assessed on a case-by-case basis, will need resettlement due to their lack of local integration prospects.

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 considered 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.

Following an exercise of identification of resettlement needs, UNHCR’s Office in Belarus plans to submit some 18 persons for resettlement in 2004, including approximately 15 Afghans, and 3 persons of African origin.

All the decisions on resettlement are being done on a case by case basis. At this time, UNHCR Minsk does not consider implementation of group processing in accordance with IOM-FOM 67/2003 dated 16 October 2003.

Refugees in Georgia

Persons of concern to UNHCR Branch Office in Georgia include 3,872 (as of February 2004) prima facie recognised refugees from Chechnya in the Russian Federation, 3 from Afghanistan

73 and 13 from Azerbaijan. Chechen refugees have been recognised 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 with no legislation for refugee status determination procedures. The structures that are in place are poorly equipped and lack capacity to assess the claims of individuals seeking asylum in Georgia. While training has been provided, staff in the Ministry responsible for determining refugee status lacks practice in a country where only a handful of individuals are recognized as refugees through an individual RSD procedure.

Under the current circumstances, repatriation is not feasible for refugees from Chechnya and local integration seems possible only for a limited number of Chechens of Kist origin in the Pankisi Valley who meet the strict criteria of the Georgian citizenship laws. Although a number of refugees have indicated that they wish to remain in Georgia until the situation in Chechnya is conducive to their return in safety and dignity, resettlement remains an important and desirable durable solution for many Chechen refugees.

UNHCR has undertaken a screening exercise of registered refugees in order to obtain detailed information on their protection situation and their preferred durable solutions. Based on the outcome of this exercise, UNHCR is implementing a comprehensive durable solutions strategy for the Chechen refugees, including local integration, resettlement and very limited voluntary repatriation. After careful identification of the refugees most in need of resettlement, UNHCR is assisting some 400 persons in their resettlement to a third county within 2004. For this purpose, additional staffing resources have been identified. It is foreseen that in 2005, 200 persons will be processed for resettlement. In the first half of 2005, additional staffing for resettlement purposes may still be needed.

In light of the sensitive nature of the Chechen refugee caseload a thorough/in-depth individual screening is needed. In light of the fact that for a certain number of Chechen refugees, local integration would be a desirable durable solution, this would require tailor-made counselling and processing on an individual basis.

Refugees in the Russian Federation

As of 31 December 2003, the Russian Federation hosted some 8,725 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. 272 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 (with subsequent de-registration from refugee statistics).

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. Refugee status determination started before the 1993 refugee law to address the situation of millions of persons forced to relocate from CIS and Baltic

74

countries to Russia. For asylum seekers from other countries, the procedure started only in 1997, resulting in a backlog of applications which, to date, has not been absorbed. In October 2001, the responsibility for migration and refugee affairs management was transferred to the Ministry of Interior (MOI). Despite this transfer, the consolidation of such functions within the MOI as well as the legislative and administrative measures initiated since then by the MOI in the field of migration control have had, indirectly, a negative impact on the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. The current migration policy of the Russian Government is guided by the perception of threats (genuine or exaggerated) from its Southern (and often somewhat unstable) neighbours. The combined necessity to prevent terrorism, combat illegal migration and trade (including the transit of Afghanistan-produced heroin) and protect the local labour market is having negative consequences on asylum seekers’ access to the refugee status determination procedures as well as on their refugee status recognition.

While awaiting access to the national refugee status determination procedure, asylum seekers remain undocumented and are, thus, considered illegal aliens by law enforcement agencies and may be subject to police harassment, 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 as well as others such as Afghans, 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. In addition, a voluntary repatriation project for Afghan refugees was initiated in June 2003, allowing some 161 refugees to go back home by the end of 2003.

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 deemed to be in need of international protection and in need of resettlement originate from various countries in Africa (170 persons), Afghanistan (530 persons), Iraq and Iran (50 persons).

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Moscow plans to submit 300 cases (approx. 750 persons) for resettlement from the Russian Federation in 2005. This projection is based upon the experience of the previous years as well as on the current need for resettlement of the urban refugee caseload, combined with projections on the pace and needs of newly arriving asylum seekers.

Refugees in Ukraine

Ukraine currently hosts 2,877 recognised refugees. 1,510 of them originate from Afghanistan, many having been associated with the Najibullah regime and having long-lasting links with Ukraine as former students or military trainees. 870 are from CIS (including 202 from

75 Chechnya/RF), 336 from various countries of Africa, 60 from Iraq, 42 from Syria, 28 from Iran and 31 from other countries of Asia.

Some 1,600 persons sought asylum in Ukraine during 2003, of which 1,367 filed new applications with the authorities, while another 236 persons had applied already in 2002, but remained registered with UNHCR while undergoing appeals procedures. The main countries of origin were Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya/RF, Somalia, Iran and Sri Lanka.

Ukraine acceded to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol in January 2002. The 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, after more than one year of suspending the acceptance of new asylum applications and refugee status determination procedures. Since then most of the persons who sought protection have been denied admission into the asylum procedures for administrative reasons without any substantive consideration of their claim. During 2003, 942 out of 1452 asylum seekers (i.e. 65%) were refused any access to procedures and only 56 were granted refugee status (i.e. 4.5%). In comparison, during the time of implementation of the first Refugee Law from 1996 to summer of 2001, migration authorities had decided positively on 50.7% of the applications, thus granting refugee status to 5,174 persons out of 10,191.

This situation was caused by the main shortcoming of the new Refugee Law (Article 9), which stipulates a time limit of three to five days for the submission of asylum applications following entry into the country. Insufficient implementation of the Refugee Law by some asylum authorities continues to deprive asylum seekers or potential asylum seekers of due access to documents certifying their legal stay in Ukraine. This renders them vulnerable to arrest, detention, and even refoulement.

Refugees and asylum seekers, especially those from African countries, regularly report to UNHCR xenophobic or racial discrimination. There are also instances of racially motivated violent attacks. Ukrainian laws and the practice of law enforcement bodies usually do not pay due attention to such incidents. Law enforcement officials particularly target foreign-looking persons, including refugees, for document check-ups and subsequent bribery pressure. Racial slurs appear frequent, while there are reports of physical attacks, mistreatment and even torture of refugees by law enforcement officials. Although the Refugee Law grants recognized refugees many of the social and economic rights stipulated by the 1951 Convention, in practice refugees still face many obstacles to enjoy these rights. While according to legislation persons granted refugee status should have equal employment rights as Ukrainian nationals, except for being employed as public servants (as non-nationals), in practice many employers are prejudiced against employing refugees. Most refugees are unemployed or (self-employed) in the informal economic sector such as markets and bazaars regardless of their education and previous work experience. According to the Refugee Law, recognized refugees are entitled to the same rights for health care, medical treatment and medical insurance, as citizens of Ukraine. Access to medical care should thus be free of charge for them. In practice, however, refugees like other patients have to pay for medical supplies and drugs, as well as for the services provided (surgical treatment etc). Though recognized refugees have access to local policlinics and hospitals for consultations, treatment may be limited given their inability to pay. As a result, most refugees do not have

76

effective access to care and treatment. This may be even more acute for those in need of special treatment for example disabled refugees or those suffering under particular psychological trauma (e.g. survivors of torture, war, etc). Persons granted refugee status also face problems related to their registration. Many refugees can not comply with the very strict registration requirements, which render them vulnerable to harassment by law-enforcement authorities and denies them access to all the aforementioned national services including those related to health care, education as well as employment. Recognized refugees are not provided with government housing and there are no regulations or mechanisms in place that allows refugees to obtain subsidized accommodation. As a result many refugees remain homeless or live in sub-standard conditions which may be dangerous to their physical and psychological health. Often the refugees have to spend almost their entire income on accommodations. Resettlement needs will depend on the progress of the implementation of the 2001 Refugee Law, both in relation to status determination for pending cases 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, Sri Lanka and Iraq may increase the possibility of voluntary repatriation as a durable solution for some refugees and asylum seekers.

Even if the implementation of the Refugee Law progresses well, however, the UNHCR Office in Ukraine expects that a limited number of cases rejected by the government, but deemed to be in continued need of international protection, as well as some recognised refugees will need to be considered for resettlement due to individual legal, social, and medical factors.

The UNHCR Office in Ukraine estimates that 650 persons will be in need of resettlement from Ukraine in 2005, including approximately 240 refugees of African origin, 180 Afghans, 60 asylum seekers and refugees from Chechen Republic and 170 persons of other nationalities. With the present capacity, the office plans a number of 250 persons to be identified, processed and referred for resettlement in 2005.

SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE

Projected needs: 605 persons / Processing capacity: 605

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.

77 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 does 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 2005.

Bosnia and Herzegovina hosts refugees from Kosovo, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, and the fyROM. While most refugees from BiH hold temporary admission cards which have been extended to mid-2004, UNHCR is recommending the further extension of the status for refugees from Kosovo given the recent deterioration of the situation in Kosovo. In contrast it is expected that the majority of the Croation Serbs will locally integrate or voluntarily repatriate.

Resettlement from Serbia and Montenegro has been gradually phased down since its height between 1992 and 2000. However, until the national asylum system is fully operational, UNHCR will continue to provide resettlement as a tool of protection as well as a responsibility sharing tool for the region.

Refugees in Albania

Due to its geographical location, Albania is a transit country of asylum seekers and refugees aiming to reach Western Europe. It is currently hosting approximately 150 asylum seekers and refugees, mostly ethnic Albanians and Roma from Kosovo. There are a few third country nationals, mostly from Iraq and Turkey, but also from Morocco, India, Palestine and Moldova. Many refugees from third countries had not intended to come to Albania. Most were abandoned by smugglers in Albania, while en route to Europe via Italy, some have family links, of varying degrees, in Western European countries.

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.

Albania is a country still in transition and fighting to build its democracy, hence has little experience in accepting and integrating people from other cultures and countries. UNHCR and

78

its Implementing Partners are making efforts in facilitating and encouraging the local integration of persons granted asylum. Voluntary repatriation to the countries of origin remains a remote durable solution option as most cases are long stayers from Kosovo and repatriation options have been largely exhausted.

The process of local integration of refugees in Albania depends on the economic, social, political and cultural circumstances. Organized crime and corruption, police abuses, and trafficking of human beings, in particular the trafficking of women for the purpose of sexual exploitation, constitute serious concerns for Albania. Organized crime reportedly acts in areas such as the cultivation and trafficking of drugs, trafficking and smuggling of human beings, trafficking of stolen cars and their sale, financial fraud, trafficking of arms, armed robbery. A positive climate of tolerance is generally considered to prevail with respect to ethnic minority groups, however, some negative prejudice and stereotypes exist, particularly with respect to Roma and Egyptians. The concept of human rights in general, and refugee protection in particular, has yet to consolidate its basis in the population, the state institutions, and civil society in general.

It cannot yet be expected that the State can provide enough resources for the integration of refugees given the low levels of social, political and economic security accompanied by a weak institutional infrastructure. The local population largely survives on salaries and state pensions that are insufficient to maintain a decent standard of living. The security situation in some parts of the country for specific categories of the society remains volatile.

Given the circumstances, for many of the refugees in Albania the only viable durable solution that ensures their real protection remains resettlement to a third country. UNHCR BO Tirana prioritizes for resettlement cases that have strong grounds for submission including women-at- risk, children, elderly, and survivors of violence or of torture.

In the course of 2005 UNHCR’s Branch Office in Tirana expects to identify and submit 40 refugees, mainly ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, for resettlement from Albania.

Refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)

There are three major groups of refugees in Bosnia and Hercegovina (BiH). The first group includes the 3,000 refugees from Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro - SiM, previously called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), most of whom arrived in BiH in 1998 and in 1999, at the time of the NATO air strikes. The second includes the approximately 19,000 ethnic Serbs from Croatia. The third group includes 20 refugees recognised under UNHCR mandate coming from SiM (other than Kosovo), Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fyROM), and various other countries outside of the region.

Most of those who belong to the first group are 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. Temporary admission (TA) cards were extended for 12 months, until mid-2003, for those who approached the BiH authorities for verification. BiH authorities have further extended TA status to the

79 refugees from Kosovo until mid-2004, while refugees from SiM other than Kosovo are expected to repatriate voluntarily or to undergo an individual refugee status determination procedure. The future of the TA status holders from Kosovo after mid-2004 is unclear. In mid-March 2004, the situation in Kosovo deteriorated and UNHCR has made a policy to continue providing international protection to those who need, particularly minority groups (UNHCR Position on international protection needs of individuals from Kosovo in light of recent inter-ethnic confrontations, 30.3.2004). Given the fact that most of the refugees from Kosovo with TA status belong to minority groups, UNHCR recommended the BiH authorities to consider further extension of the status. In addition to those protected under the TA status, there are some 100 persons from Kosovo, who never had TA status (e.g. because they arrived in BiH after the above-mentioned deadline for applying for TA status) who have been recognized as UNHCR Mandate refugees after going through individual RSD.

The BiH is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. In addition, the Law on Movement and Stay of Aliens and Asylum was adopted in July 2003 and its Bylaw on Asylum was signed in April 2004. According to the Law and the Bylaw, the BiH authorities are preparing for taking over asylum related activities from UNHCR. In the meantime, UNHCR undertakes refugee status determination under its Mandate.

However, refugees generally lack local integration prospects in BiH as the country of asylum. While the Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees (MHRR) provides minimal assistance to those in government Reception Centres, employment is not permitted, thereby undermining the possibility of local integration. The very poor economic situation in the country of asylum combined with the almost non-existent integration assistance represent serious obstacles to integrate locally. Given their inability to return to their country of origin, resettlement remains the only viable durable solution for many of the 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 19,000 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 150 refugees for resettlement from Bosnia and Hercegovina in 2005, including persons belonging to minority groups from Kosovo (130) and recognized refugees from outside of the region (20).

Refugees in Croatia

There are two groups of refugees in the Republic of Croatia: the first group includes 4,131 refugees from the region (3,668 from BSN and 463 from YUG) granted temporary protection status by the Croatian authorities and the second group are 7 refugees recognised following individual refugee status determination under the UNHCR mandate. The 7 Mandate refugees originate from Afghanistan and Kosovo.

80

Croatia is party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. The Law on Asylum was adopted in June 2003, however, it will only enter into force on 1 July 2004. Though the possibility existed for recognition of refugee status prior to the introduction of asylum legislation, no case was ever recognised under individual RSD procedure and the vast majority of cases dismissed for reasons of administrative procedure. Therefore, UNHCR conducts a Mandate review of each asylum application in order to ensure persons in need of international protection are not overlooked. Refugees from the region were granted temporary protection status on a prima facie basis at the time of the conflicts in the region in the 1990s.

Refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and Serbia-Montenegro (SCG) granted temporary protection are expected to locally integrate or repatriate voluntarily. The resettlement programme for this group ended in 2002. Temporary protection is withdrawn by the Croatian authorities on an individual basis, for example, when a refugee’s property is repossessed or reconstructed in the country of origin or they acquire Croatian citizenship or permanent residence. Individuals have the right to appeal the fact that temporary protection has been withdrawn and can apply for individual refugee status determination with the Ministry of Interior.

UNHCR expects that as of 1 July 2004, when the Law on Asylum enters into force, the Croatian authorities will begin to recognise refugees under individual RSD procedures. Refugees recognised by the Croatian Authorities are expected to integrate locally and provision for this is made in the Law on Asylum. Nevertheless, in the second half of 2004 and the first half of 2005 when the asylum system will be new and procedures are being tested, UNHCR will continue to conduct a Mandate review of individual cases to ensure individuals in need of international protection receive it.

The number of refugees recognised under the Mandate review and in need of resettlement is expected to remain small, on the assumption that the majority of those refugees recognized by the national authorities would be locally integrated and only a smaller number would be in need of resettlement. Therefore, UNHCR Croatia requests resettlement for 4 to 5 cases, up to 15 persons, for 2005.

Refugees in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fyROM)

The residual caseload of refugees from Kosovo encompasses some 2450 individuals (March 2004). Due to a high number of infants, single young mothers, and prevalent illiteracy among women and the elderly, it is in many respects a vulnerable refugee population. This is to be coupled with non-existent or very low prospects for many to repatriate to Kosovo in the foreseeable future and poor integration opportunities during the past five years of forced displacement. Virtually all refugees belong to ethnic minorities in Kosovo, i.e. mainly Roma, Ashkalija and Egyptians (RAE), but also Serbs and Gorani. Only a few new arrivals are expected.

In 2003, the fYR of Macedonia adopted the Law on Asylum and Temporary Protection. Individual Refugee Status Determination of all persons with ethnic minority origin is undertaken by the national authorities, and it is likely that during the year of 2004 the Government will extend the minimum level of international protection, or the so-called humanitarian protection, valid for up to one year and renewable, to a large majority of the group. The law also

81 establishes adequate means relevant to integration prospects of recognized refugees and persons under humanitarian protection. Nonetheless, until present the resources needed to give force to these rights are non existent, which means that UNHCR and its NGO-partners run all care and maintenance programs for the refugee population in the fYR of Macedonia. No major improvement in this respect is likely during the year of 2005.

Meanwhile, the aspirations among persons of concern for resettlement to third countries remain at a high level, mainly due to poor integration prospects and fear of unfair treatment during the refugee status determination process. However, while few individuals are in real risk of refoulement, and security incidents in the country of asylum are properly followed up by the law enforcement authorities, UNHCR estimates that persons in need for resettlement for legal and physical protection needs continue to be very low or non existent. In general the number will not exceed 50 predominantly ethnic minorities from Kosovo.

Refugees in Serbia and Montenegro (SCG)

There are approximately 296,000 registered refugees in Serbia and Montenegro (SCG). Most of the refugees are ethnic Serbs who sought refugee in SCG from Bosnia and Croatia. They are prima facie refugees and were granted refugee status by Office of the Commissioner for Refugees.

The humanitarian needs that existed in the Serbia and Montenegro from 1992 until 2000, the lack of viable local integration prospects for a high number of refugees, and the limited opportunities for sustainable repatriation made resettlement the best protection response and the most appropriate durable solution for a large number of refugees. During that period of time, UNHCR assisted over 20,000 refugees from Serbia and Montenegro to resettle to 23 different countries.

With the process of political changes which took place in the country in 2000 and more generally in the region, the reasonable expectations were that refugees would be returning to their country of origin in larger numbers, that the conditions for local integration would improve and, in parallel, that resettlement would start a gradual phasing out process. However, due to the slow pace of economic recovery in Serbia and Montenegro and obstacles in regards to repatriation to Croatia (repossession of private property and tenancy rights) resettlement continued to remain the only viable durable solution for the most vulnerable categories of refugees.

The number of cases resettled from Serbia and Montenegro gradually went down during the last three years (1,359 refugees in 2001, 883 refugees in 2002 and 484 refugees in 2003.)

The conclusions of the regional resettlement policy of the Durable Solutions Workshop held in Sarajevo in late October 2003 highlighted that resettlement shall remain an instrument of protection as well as a responsibility sharing tool for the region in 2004 whilst at the same time it was stressed that the resettlement of the residual ex-Yugoslavia caseload from Serbia and Montenegro will be completed on 31 December 2004. The focus of attention will be on the most vulnerable category of the refugee population, in particular women at risk.

82

Resettlement as a durable solution in 2005

In 2005, the resettlement activities of UNHCR Belgrade, will target two different caseload, that is, the Mandate Refugees and a few cases from ex-Yugoslavia that are identified as having specific protection problems and/or, who find themselves in an extremely vulnerable situation (Women at Risk, unaccompanied children, elderly, etc.), in line with the UNHCR Resettlement Handbook. Such cases shall be submitted for resettlement through UNHCR Headquarters in Geneva and it is assessed that the number shall not exceed 50 refugees.

In the present absence of an institutional structure and mechanisms dealing with Refugee Status Determination in Serbia and Montenegro for asylum seekers outside the region, UNHCR is currently conducting “ad interim” the eligibility of persons claiming to be in need of international protection. Asylum seekers arriving at sea, airports and land borders have no opportunity to seek asylum and are treated as illegal migrants, subject to judicial and administrative detention and/or deportation/refoulement. UNHCR is informed by the authorities of their presence in a detention center, when no deportation can be implemented. Refugees recognized under UNHCR’s Mandate are permitted to remain in Serbia and Montenegro until a resettlement solution is found for them. As a result, they do not enjoy any social and economic rights and are not granted legal status in Serbia and Montenegro. Therefore, they have no opportunity for local integration and are under risk of refoulement.

Having in mind the above, UNHCR is, within the framework of its core mandate activities, working together with the Government of Serbia and Montenegro towards the creation of a national asylum system and a refugee status determination process (RSD). It is hoped that during 2004 a basic referral system will be established and that a larger number of asylum seekers from outside the region will have access to UNHCR and the RSD process. On the basis of such an assessment it is envisaged that in 2005 UNHCR could have approximately 300 Mandate Refugees, submitted for resettlement consideration through UNHCR Headquarters in Geneva.

In total, UNHCR Belgrade plans to submit 350 persons, including 50 persons from ex- Yugoslavia and 300 Mandate refugees of various nationalities for resettlement from Serbia and Montenegro in 2005.

SOUTHERN EUROPE

Projected needs: 2,560 persons / Processing capacity: 2,560 persons

The region of Southern Europe includes Turkey, Malta, and Cyprus including the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. With the exception of the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the countries comprising the Southern Europe region are parties to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol though Turkey maintains the geographic limitations of Art. 1B(1) of the 1951 Convention, affecting refugees originating from non-European countries.

Resettlement remains a key durable solution for refugees in the region given the numbers of non-European refugees in Turkey. Group resettlement may be an important tool in addressing the need to find a durable solution for the large number of Middle Eastern refugees for whom local integration and repatriation prospects are low.

83 Refugees in Turkey

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Ankara has an active caseload of 5,193 persons, of which 59% are women and children. Breakdown of the caseload includes 73% Iranians (40% Bahais claiming religious persecution), 16% Iraqis, 11% other nationalities (namely Africans, Afghans, Uzbeks and others). There will be no major changes foreseen in the profile of the caseload.

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 Asylum Regulation, however, Turkey grants temporary asylum to non-European nationals who fulfil the international criteria for refugee status pending their resettlement to third countries. The Government looks to UNHCR to assist non-European refugees during their stay and to organise their resettlement, in cooperation with third countries and IOM.

Nevertheless, access to the Government’s temporary asylum procedure is problematic for some individuals. The 1994 Asylum Regulation requires asylum seekers to make their application within 10 days after entering the country and to provide an official identity document within 15 days. Asylum seekers who do not travel directly from their country of origin and pass through one or more other countries before reaching Turkey may also be refused registration in the Government procedure. Such “extra procedure” asylum seekers and refugees have no legal status in Turkey and are subject to arrest and deportation, although UNHCR is usually able to intervene successfully if notified in time. For some of the extra procedure cases, UNHCR BO has to sometimes resort to emergency submissions for those who have received deportation orders.

As the vast majority of refugees recognized 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. Even though Turkey’s candidacy for membership in the European Union has provided clear benchmarks and increased momentum for efforts to strengthen the national asylum system, including making conditional commitment to lifting the “geographic limitation”, it is foreseen that resettlement will continue to be an essential protection tool and should be used as an instrument of international solidarity and burden-sharing in the coming years pending the development of legislative and institutional mechanism in Turkey.

UNHCR’s active caseload includes some 1,200 Iranian refugees who entered Turkey since February 2001 after having resided for varying periods in northern Iraq and who were not permitted to register in the Government’s temporary asylum procedure for this reason until March 2004. UNHCR’s assessment is that the vast majority did not have acute, protection- related reasons for leaving Iraq, although return to that country is not possible at this time because of the uncertainties and unstable security situation. The Iranian ex-Northern Iraq group could be a potential group processing caseload which has not been included in the resettlement needs for Turkey since a policy for their solution, i.e. strategic use of resettlement

84

as a durable solution, needs to be pursued with a regional view to avoid further movements in the region through pull factors.

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, 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. The security background checks by some resettlement countries have created a longer waiting period for resettlement, from an average waiting period from time of recognition to departure, from 7 months to 10 months in 2004. The longer waiting period for a solution has tremendous economic hardship and repercussion for the asylum seekers and refugees in Turkey.

The plight of Iraqis remained a concern in view of the extremely volatile situation in Iraq. Currently UNHCR is not able to offer any viable durable solutions for the Iraqis in Turkey neither through voluntary repatriation, local integration nor resettlement, with the exception of very few cases through family reunification programmes. It is foreseen that there will be a continued resettlement need for Iraqis who will not be able to return regardless of the regime change and even when the situation improves.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Ankara plans to submit approximately 2,5005 persons for resettlement from Turkey in 2005; 1880 Iranians (77% Bahais claiming religious persecution), 400 Iraqis, 100 Africans, and other nationalities (namely 70 Afghans, 25 Uzbeks 15 Chinese and 10 others).

Note: These estimates are based on the assumptions that there will be a similar number of asylum seekers in 2005 as in 2004, no major instability in the region, no major changes foreseen in the profile of the caseload and that UNHCR’s processing capacity will remain at the current level.

Refugees in Cyprus

Cyprus currently hosts approximately 350 refugees. In 2003, 2 cases of 4 persons, including one female refugee, victim of domestic violence, have been accepted for resettlement and departed. Two refugees who have been accepted for resettlement to Ireland prior to the above developments decided to remain in Cyprus due to the increased local integration prospects.

Cyprus is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. The Government of Cyprus 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. Further amendments introduced to the Refugee Law in June 2003 and February 2004 enhanced the rights of refugees. Amongst others, the Law grants refugees the same rights as nationals as concerns gainful employment, primary and secondary education, health care and welfare

5 This number does NOT include the approximate 1,200 Iranian refugees ex-Northern Iraq which could become a potential group processing for resettlement, subject to a regional policy decision on their durable solutions.

85 assistance. All rights envisaged in the 1951 Convention are granted to the same level as nationals maximum after three years of lawful residence in Cyprus. Given these new asylum arrangements, the fact that Cyprus has 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.

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, mainly Iranians, will be submitted for resettlement from the TRNC in 2005. 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 in 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, comprising also women and children.

It is also important to note that many refugees had not intended to come to Malta. They were heading for Italy when either the bad weather conditions or a technical problem of the boat transporting them brought them to Malta. 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

86

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 2005 including Eritrean, Somali, and some cases from the Middle East. Office resources are sufficient at this time to process this number of cases, however should a surge in arrivals occur, additional resettlement staff may be required.

87

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

Projected needs: 9,183 persons / Processing capacity: 7,260

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. 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 protracted refugee situations of a number of refugees in Central Asia, primarily Afghan refugees, are being addressed via comprehensive solutions in which resettlement is a major component.

With the Naivasha (aka Machakos) peace process promising first a framework and later a comprehensive peace agreement between the Sudanese government and the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Movement (SPLM) in 2004, the number of Sudanese refugees promoted for resettlement is anticipated to fall in 2005.

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 continued suspension of processing by some countries. Other nationalities of a certain religious denomination were also affected because of the national security concerns of resettlement countries. The net effect, therefore, was the considerable delay and significant reduction of processing and admissions of refugees from the region for 2002 and for most of 2003. This trend is slowly reversing with the departure backlog being addressed during the second half of 2003 and early 2004.

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

88

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 will remain an important protection tool for a large number of refugees in the region for some time to come..

This staffing situation is also being supported by the deployment of Resettlement Consultants in CASWANAME through the UNHCR - ICMC NGO Deployment Scheme, in Krygyzstan, Tajikistan, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, and Lebanon.

CENTRAL ASIA

Projected needs: 1,215 persons / Processing capacity: 1,215 persons

Refugees in Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan hosts estimated 15,849 refugees. The majority are Chechens (13,684) and Tajiks (1,454), with a smaller number of Afghans (675) and 26 of other nationalities, mainly Chinese Uighurs and Palestinians.

Despite the country's accession to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the refugee protection regime suffers from several critical gaps. The Government of Kazakhstan (GoK) maintains an asylum policy that excludes from the asylum procedure citizens of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and China, thus, denying official recognition to Chechens, Tajiks, and Chinese Uighurs. National refugee status determination is also limited to Almaty and Shymkent, thus, asylum seekers residing in other parts of the country cannot have their claims examined. So far, there are only 681 persons in Kazakhstan, mainly Afghans, with official refugee status.

Very few refugees have been naturalised or obtained permanent residence permits. This creates an environment where local integration is not a realistic option, although OCM Kazakhstan initiated discussion in 2003 (which is ongoing) with the authorities to grant permanent residence permits to selected Afghan refugees who are married to Kazakhstani citizens and/or who have resided in Kazakhstan for more than 10 years.

The protection situation for the Chechen refugees has worsened following the terrorist attack on the Moscow theatre in October 2002 and increasing concerns with national security by the Kazakhstani authorities. Given the lack of a genuine internal flight alternative within the Russian Federation, and the GOK’s refusal to accept Chechens into the national RSD procedure, refusal by the authorities to extend their temporary residence registration has led to the issuance of deportation stamps for an unspecified number of them. OCM Kazakhstan has been trying to negotiate an agreement with the government on a complementary form of protection for the Chechen refugees.

89

The situation is also very fragile for the Chinese Uighur refugees due to Kazakhstan's delicate relations with China and the refusal by the Kazakhstani authorities to allow them into the national asylum procedure. UNHCR has urged the Kazakhstani authorities to tolerate the stay of Chinese Uighur refugees recognized under its mandate pending their possible resettlement.

UNHCR has facilitated voluntary repatriation of the Tajik refugees since 2000. For the Afghans refugees, comprised mainly of ethnic Tajiks, Pushtuns, and Hazaras, 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 so far, little prospect for local integration.

OCM Kazakhstan employs resettlement primarily to address the needs of refugees with legal and physical protection needs and medical needs of the main target groups: the Chinese Uighur, Chechen, and Afghan refugees. The latter group includes some medical cases as well as some cases that were denied refugee status in Kazakhstan on the basis of a misapplication of the ‘safe third country’ principle.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Almaty expects to identify and submit not more than 45 refugees, including 15 Chechens, 10 Uighurs, and 20 Afghans for resettlement from Kazakhstan in 2005.

Refugees in Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan hosts a population of more than 5500 recognised refugees and 600 registered asylum seekers, as of 1 January 2004. Most refugees are from Tajikistan and Afghanistan, with smaller numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers from Chechnya (Russian Federation), Autonomous Region (People’s Republic of China), Iran and Pakistan.

Kyrgyzstan is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. A national Refugee Law was adopted in 2002, with implementing By-Laws passed in 2003. Although the legal basis for the protection of refugees is now well-defined, local integration prospects for refugees vary sharply depending on country of origin. Increasingly, these prospects are tied to security perceptions of the country of origin by local officials and the general public. Similarly, a national concern regarding the threat to the state posed by Islamic fundamentalism has further deepened in recent years. Given these factors, there are limited prospects for the local integration for Afghan, Chechen and Chinese Uigher refugees and thus more compelling need for resettlement as a durable solution.

By contrast, the local integration prospects for Tajik refugees are much better. UNHCR Kyrgyzstan has assisted over 3,600 to obtain Kyrgyz citizenship by naturalisation in the past three years alone. UNHCR has further assisted another more than 5,000 to voluntarily repatriate. For Tajik refugees therefore, UNHCR does not prioritise resettlement as a preferred durable solution.

In general, resettlement activities of UNHCR Kyrgyzstan focus on refugees with physical and legal protection needs, medical cases, particularly vulnerable cases and refugees lacking local integration or voluntary repatriation prospects.

90

For Afghan refugees, resettlement has been a vital tool for protection, including the achievement of durable solutions. However, the successful use of this tool in the past will greatly decrease its need in 2005. In late 2003, within a Convention Plus framework, UNHCR Kyrgyzstan negotiated with Canadian immigration authorities a resettlement scheme to address the needs of long-staying Afghan refugees in Kyrgyzstan. The program will resettle, within an accelerated procedure during 2004, over 500 Afghan refugees or family members--virtually all recognised Afghan refugees who have been in Kyrgyzstan for more than two years. For the small remnant population, UNHCR Kyrgyzstan will continue to offer voluntary repatriation assistance or will work with Kyrgyz authorities to open up the naturalisation process (as has now been agreed by these authorities) until a durable solution is achieved for each Afghan refugee.

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

Resettlement remains the most significant protection tool for refugees from the People’s Republic of China, primarily ethnic Uighurs. Because of international political concerns, the Kyrgyz Government does not accept asylum applications from individuals from this region. UNHCR therefore examines asylum applications and grants refugee status under its Mandate to those in need of international protection. Because of the precarious nature of protection against refoulement for such individuals, recognised Mandate refugees are submitted for resettlement primarily for legal and physical protection concerns, often on an urgent basis.

UNHCR plans to submit 120 persons for resettlement from Kyrgyzstan in 2005.

Refugees in Tajikistan

The recently conducted registration re-validation and updating activity revealed that as of 19 March, 2004, 2,535 refugees, asylum-seekers and stateless persons resided in Tajikistan. The vast majority is from Afghanistan (mainly Tajik, Uzbek, Pashtun, Hazara), with several individuals from Iraq, Iran, Chechnya, and Cameroon.

Tajikistan is a party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto. The national legislation pertaining to refugees, i.e. the refugee law and the Government Resolutions # 323, and 325 are restrictive and detrimental to the interests of refugees. Resolution #323 refers to the concept of safe third country (including Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, China, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan). Resolution #325 refers to the relocation of refugees and asylum seekers within the country from areas prohibited for their residence, while also stipulating a list of settlements where temporary residence is allowed. They are currently being revised jointly by the Government and UNHCR.

The Government resumed RSD and registration of asylum-seekers and refugees in 2003 after a two year halt. UNHCR was admitted to the sittings of the RSD Commission in an observer capacity. The overall protection climate has considerably improved over the past year.

Local integration, however, remains so far a theoretical concept only. This option was re-visited by UNHCR and the Minister of Labor in 2003, both in Dushanbe and in Geneva. It is a “high

91 level – low key” approach to ensure long term solutions. While the declaratory policy of the GoT supports this option for certain persons of concern, to date, not a single refugee has been naturalized to UNHCR’s knowledge. Residence permits were given to a few persons of concern on a seemingly random basis and apparently not based on needs and/or legal grounds.

Voluntary repatriation continues and as of May 05, 2004, 62 individuals were assisted in returning to Afghanistan this year. In 2003, 143 individuals had returned to Afghanistan.

The option of resettlement remains an important protection tool and a durable solution for many persons of concern to UNHCR in Tajikistan. Whereas 89 persons departed for third countries during the course of 2003, this number is expected to be higher in 2004.

UNHCR is currently undertaking a major effort to find solutions for the remaining caseload in the country. At this stage it is estimated that the cases of approximately 600 persons will be submitted for resettlement in the year 2005. Priority will be given to urgent medical cases, women at risk, survivors of violence and torture, and persons with legal and physical protection needs. The latter group includes individuals who have exhausted the legal means to receive refugee status and face a risk of detention and possible refoulement.

Refugees in Turkmenistan

Turkmenistan hosts 12,142 prima facie Tajik refugees, 870 prima facie ethnic-Turkmen Afghan refugees, 353 Afghan Mandate refugees (mostly ethnic Hazara, Uzbek and Tajik), 132 ethnic- Armenian Azeri Mandate refugees, 11 Mandate refugees from Chechnya and 2 Iraqis.

Turkmenistan is a signatory to many international human rights treaties. Amongst others, in 1998 Turkmenistan acceded to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. In 1997, Turkmenistan adopted its National Law on Refugees but has yet to fully implement it, as it requires creation of a national agency to deal with refugee and asylum issues, establishment of operational national refugee status determination (RSD) procedures, and also mechanisms for border authorities to refer asylum seekers to asylum authorities. These issues were partly addressed by the Government after it created the State Service of Turkmenistan for Registration of Foreign Citizens under the Presidential Decree No 6133 to regulate migration and registration of foreign citizens (including stateless persons) in Turkmenistan in March 2003. Among other things, the Service is mandated to “accept and determine refugee status, and register refugees and forced migrants in the territory of Turkmenistan, and ensure their voluntary repatriation”. However, since its creation, the Service has been dealing only with visa and registration issues of the foreigners. It is yet to become fully functional and assume responsibility on refugee matters.

OCM Ashgabat does not promote the resettlement of refugees from Turkmenistan, since the country largely fulfils the criteria of a safe country of asylum. The sole exception to this position would be cases whose prospects for long-term local integration especially, Azeri refugees of Armenian ethnicity and high-ranking Afghans affiliated with the former Communist regime or voluntary return to their country of origin are negligible and persons identified as having special needs that could only be met through resettlement, such as victims of torture, protection cases, unaccompanied minors, women-at-risk and medical cases.

92

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.

Office of the Chief of Mission of UNHCR in Ashgabad plans to submit approximately 50 persons including 25 Afghans, 20 Azeri of Armenian ethnicity, and 5 of other nationalities for resettlement from Turkmenistan in 2005.

Refugees in Uzbekistan Background

The registered refugee caseload in UNHCR Uzbekistan is almost exclusively Afghan, with 2502 persons recognised by this office as refugees as of the beginning of 2004. The Afghan caseload also includes a long staying group of individuals that came as Soviet sponsored students and never returned following the fall of President Najibullah in 1992, and this was soon followed by a wave of Afghans to Uzbekistan who were linked to his regime and sought to escape the Mujahidin influence until 1996. The Taliban takeover saw another fresh wave of Afghan refugees seeking asylum in Uzbekistan and a smaller group was registered post-September 11, 2001, in the wake of the US military onslaught in Afghanistan. Aside from the Afghan refugees, there are also another 10 refugees registered with this office from areas as diverse as Azerbaijan, Ethiopia and Palestine. Additionally, based on a preliminary survey conducted on Tajik immigrants in 2003, it is estimated that there are 39,202 persons who may be of concern to this office and who have expressed no desire to return to Tajikistan. UNHCR will seek funding for 2005 to get in more in-depth information about this group in order to address their problems, which is expected to yield a lot of local integration issues, including statelessness. Resettlement has been used as a very important protection tool in Uzbekistan, as the Government still has not acceded to the 1951 Convention and has not adopted any national legislation or procedure regarding asylum seekers and refugees. Resettlement is therefore viewed very favourably by the government of Uzbekistan, who see this burden sharing tool as an essential component in ensuring continued respect for the 1999 Gentleman’s Agreement that was reached by UNHCR and the government.6 As local integration prospects remain realistically nil, UNHCR Uzbekistan has also started a voluntary repatriation programme to Afghanistan in 2002. However, the numbers of Afghan refugees returning home remain small due to the perceived ongoing instability in the country there and the will to return is very much dependent on further progress of the peace process there. With refugees not being a priority for the government, particularly given its undivided focus on national security concerns, thus far, RSD and resettlement selection procedures are fully carried out by UNHCR. Criteria for Selection

6 This verbal agreement was reached between UNHCR and the government in which the government of Uzbekistan agreed not to arrest, detain or deport refugees holding UNHCR mandate certificates and UNHCR pledging to share information about the names and addresses of refugees registered with this office. The agreement has largely been respected although each year, a few cases of deportations continue to occur, but in smaller numbers when compared to the situation pre-1999.

93 Bearing in mind all these factors, UNHCR continues to submit cases for resettlement of individuals, both Afghans and others, who have protection problems and whose prospects for both local integration and return to the country of origin remain unrealistic for the foreseeable future. Thus, various particular groups at risk were identified, in particular: 1. Communist linked cases: PDPA members, former military officials, members of the police force and KHAD whose prospects of return are dim and who do not fall within the exclusion clauses;

2. Former communist students and long stayers in the country who - upon graduation in country of asylum - automatically receive an exit visa to their country of origin and, if caught, risk detention and deportation/refoulement.

3. Refugees who face protection problems, for e.g. those detained for illegal entry or whose illegal presence has otherwise come to the attention of the law enforcement officials and who have received a mark in their passports, which makes them subject to deportation/refoulement without further investigation if they are caught;

4. Women heads of household and single women who have no support within the refugee community and are, therefore, at particular security and protection risk;

5. Urgent medical cases;

6. Traumatized victims of violence and torture. Resettlement is not just a solution for the present refugee caseload registered with UNHCR here but may also be of crucial assistance to new arrivals from Afghanistan, which the offices here in Tashkent and Termez continue to register. Many of these cases allege deteriorating stability conditions, human rights abuses, factional fighting and forcible conscription by warlords as reasons to seek asylum in Uzbekistan. It is clear that much of the work of this office will also depend on how the peace process in Afghanistan continues, as due to its neighbouring border in the south, Uzbekistan is geopolitically connected to developments in Northern Afghanistan. Additionally, UNHCR will explore the merits of doing a simplified submission process of resettlement of 300 persons for the protracted caseload of long-stayers in Uzbekistan, who are linked in one way or the other to the former communist regime and arrived in Uzbekistan from the period 1992-1996. Aside from those that were working with the communist government, there is also a smaller group of communist sponsored students left in Uzbekistan. While many of them have married Uzbek women and have children, under the law they are not entitled to citizenship, and remain at risk of refoulement, which then causes a split in the family unit. UNHCR is also aware that many of these cases that can afford it have also obtained temporary residence permits, which are expensive and have to be regularly renewed, causing great stress. Furthermore, the residence permits do not come with an automatic expectation of renewal and these cases can still face a threat of deportation as their permits can be suddenly cancelled, (UNHCR has registered such cases of refoulement before). Though UNHCR is considering to resettle about 400 of its refugee caseload in Uzbekistan in 2005 this number, however, remains tentative as there are other issues to consider including the fact that some of the cases may have returned to their country of origin or their status may be ceased depending on the change in circumstances in their country of origin. Additionally a number of cases may be linked to PDPA membership and KHAD (the communist political party and intelligence agency, respectively) and while not necessarily excludable, close consultation

94

with the resettlement countries will be necessary to ensure the cases that genuinely need international protection will receive same. Based on past years’ experience and the present level of staffing, UNHCR is planning to resettle a total of 400 persons in 2005. Keeping in mind the staffing capacity of the protection unit, it is expected that UNHCR Uzbekistan will resettle about 5 percent of the caseload, around 100 persons, using individual resettlement determination criteria and also look into the potential of resettlement, possibly utilizing a simplified submission process, for 300 protracted long-stayers in Uzbekistan.

SOUTH-WEST ASIA

Projected needs: 2,690 persons / Processing capacity: 1,990 persons

Refugees in Iran

According to the Bureau for Aliens and Foreign Immigrants Affairs (BAFIA), Iran is currently hosting 1.6 M foreigners including 1.5 M Afghans and ~125,000 Iraqis. The vast majority of 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. Afghans and Iraqis who entered Iran before the Islamic Revolution of 1979 were issued refugee booklets, while permanent cards for Afghans ceased in 1992.

In 2000, UNHCR, and the Government of Iran participated in the first of three phases of registration of foreigners in Iran, the Joint Programme to screen cases of undocumented persons. An estimated 80,000 persons were accepted as refugees and another 133,000 persons returned under a voluntary repatriation programme. BAFIA conducted the second phase of registration (BRP) and issued 2.3 M certificates in 2001 which superseded all other documentation as a requirement for the issuance of exit permits for resettlement cases. In 2003 BAFIA completed the third phase of registration called Amayesh in which 1.5 M persons were documented and issued individual cards. The new Amayesh cards which replace the BRP certificates are time restricted and extendable. However, we have yet to see the extension phase implemented.

Since repatriation to Afghanistan earnestly began in April 2002, 416,471 Afghans have voluntarily returned. An additional 500,000 Afghans are expected to repatriate in 2004 and another ~200,000 in 2005. The situation in Afghanistan is improving and with the determination of the Government of Iran and UNHCR’s new dynamic voluntary repatriation, male headed families may feel safe to return. However, unaccompanied women with or without children may continue to exhibit an unwillingness and fear to return. Local integration is not a viable option in Iran. The withdrawal of all free educational and medical services, denial of government services for unregistered refugees, the erosion of any services even for registered refugees all increase the pressure to repatriate.

95 Although the situation in Iraq continues to be critical and both the Government of Iran and UNHCR are not encouraging repatriation, many Iraqis have returned voluntarily and spontaneously, resulting in the closure of many camps.

It is anticipated that there will still be Afghans and some Iraqis for whom resettlement would remain the best protection tool. With the coming of the May 2005 expiry of the Tripartite Agreement (between the Governments of Iran, Afghanistan and the UNHCR), which focused on the voluntary repatriation of Afghans residing in Iran, future screening and RSD services for the residual caseload may identify cases for whom resettlement is required.

UNHCR’s resettlement activities in Iran focus on responding to the protection needs of refugees with special profiles which are continuously reviewed. Priority continues to be given to woman- at-risk cases, former Afghan PDPA members, those who were in opposition to the Mujahedin or to the different factions within it, secularists who oppose the lack of participation of women and ethnic/religious groups in the political process, those who may suffer persecution by non-state agents and draft evaders/deserters and even those whose claim may have been Sadaam Hussein based, and in opposition to the Baath party. In fact, the screening and RSD activities targeting the residual caseload may indicate that resettlement from Iran may increase in the next few years.

We anticipate that there would be about 2000 persons in need of resettlement (including 1,960 Afghans and 40 Iraqis) in 2005. However, we have the current capacity to submit about 1300 persons (1,260 Afghans and 40 Iraqis) in total.

Refugees in Pakistan

For well over two decades, Pakistan has hosted one of the world’s largest Afghan refugee populations arriving in multiple waves over time. The North-Western Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan are hosting the absolute majority of the Afghan population in camps and refugee settlements. At the beginning of 2004, some 1.1 million Afghans were receiving UNHCR assistance in camps and settlements in Pakistan. An unknown number of Afghans also reside in urban areas. The Afghan population in Pakistan is of diverse ethnic backgrounds, the majority being Pashtuns, with minority groups including Balochis, Hazaras, Tajiks, and Turkomens. The largest percentage of the total Afghan refugee population originates from eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistan border. Significant numbers come from Kabul, as well as the northern provinces.

Currently there are also some 650 refugees of other nationalities (mainly Somalis, Iranians and Iraqis) recognized under UNHCR’s Mandate in Pakistan. All non-Afghan refugees reside in urban areas.

Pakistan is not a party to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the 1967 Protocol, and regulates the entry, stay and movement of foreigners, including asylum seekers and refugees, by the Foreigners Act of 1946. Aside from the provisions of this Act, Pakistan does not have legislation relating the entry and stay or status determination of 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.

96

In 2002, when the establishment of the Islamic Transitional Authority of Afghanistan brought renewed prospects for peace and development in Afghanistan, UNHCR shifted to a large-scale voluntary repatriation operation, facilitating the return of 1.5 million Afghans in a span of eight months. By signing the Tripartite Agreement with the Government of Afghanistan and UNHCR in March 2003, the Government of Pakistan has committed itself to a policy of gradual and voluntary return until March 2006. As of April 2004 UNHCR has assisted some 1.9 million Afghans to return to Afghanistan from Pakistan since the fall of the Taliban under the facilitated voluntary repatriation programme, and has made provision to assist up to 400,000 more to go home this year. It is anticipated that after the election process, developments in Afghanistan in late 2004 and 2005, will improve further allowing for assisted voluntary repatriation to progress into a selective promotion stage. 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. The aforementioned notwithstanding, refugee status determination procedures, carried out by UNHCR’s offices in three locations in the country, in accordance with up-to date guidelines developed by UNHCR’s Department of International Protection, will still continue, for both Afghan and non-Afghan asylum seekers approaching the UNHCR offices. It should be noted that there has been a clear decrease in the recognition rate of Afghan applications to refugee status during both 2003 and 2004.

The positive developments in Afghanistan notwithstanding, UNHCR in Pakistan still believes that there will be a need to find durable solutions for a limited number of Afghan refugees in need of continued international protection through resettlement. Among these fall certain categories of vulnerable women, persons at risk of persecution on political grounds, persons belonging to religious minorities or who are perceived as campaigning for a secular state and particularly vulnerable persons who for example, due to medical reasons, are unable to return to Afghanistan.

Non-Afghan refugees:

Repatriation prospects for the majority of the non-Afghan caseload are considered as very slim and resettlement will constitute the most viable durable solution for these cases. The aforementioned not withstanding, the Branch Office has since August 2002 initiated intensified counselling on voluntary repatriation for some of the long staying Somali refugees, who originate from areas in Somalia to where UNHCR currently facilitate voluntary repatriation. These efforts are continuing during 2004, and have yielded some results. However, a majority of the caseload still cite lack of peace in their country as a major reason for not returning.

The changing situation in Iraq has given new hopes for durable solutions through repatriation for the Iraqi caseload in Pakistan. Currently there are some 48 cases, constituting some 132 Iraqi nationals recognized under the UNHCR mandate in Pakistan. However, some vulnerable cases will still be considered for resettlement processing.

Resettlement Processing:

During 2005, 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.

97 UNHCR’s Branch Office in Islamabad plans to submit up to 690 persons for resettlement from Pakistan in 2004 including some 400 urban Afghans, 170 camp based Afghans, 90 Iranians, 20 Somalis, and 10 Iraqis. Included in these figures is a small group of Hazara / Ismaili women residing in urban areas and lacking sufficient male support and protection.

NORTH AFRICA and The MIDDLE EAST

Projected needs: 5,278 persons / Processing capacity: 4,055 persons

Refugees in Egypt

Egypt currently hosts approximately 20,000 refugees. Its planning figure for 2005 activities is 22,000 refugees.

Egypt is a party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol though it entered and maintains reservations 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 has signed but not yet ratified the 1969 OAU Convention.

As UNHCR carries out refugee status determination on behalf of the Government of Egypt and has done since 1954. All refugees are recognized under UNHCR’s mandate. Individual status determinations rely primarily on UNHCR’s 1950 Statute but taking account also of the 1951 Geneva Convention and 1969 OAU Convention definitions.

Of the refugees in Egypt, Sudanese account for 76% and Somalis for 16% of the total. The remaining 8% is made up of refugees from 30 other countries.

Referrals for resettlement in 2003 exceeded 3500 persons and are likely to do so again in 2004. A very high proportion of those referred are Sudanese reflecting both their share of the total refugee population in Egypt and the high receptivity of resettlement countries to Sudanese refugees.

With the Naivasha (aka Machakos) peace process promising first a framework and later a comprehensive peace agreement between the Sudanese government and the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Movement (SPLM) in 2004 and with the host government beginning to re-extend the preferential status formerly enjoyed by Sudanese in Egypt, the number of Sudanese refugees promoted for resettlement is anticipated to fall considerably in 2005.

Preliminary planning in the context of the regional voluntary repatriation of refugees envisages return from Egypt of up to 5000 persons by the end of 2005. Recognized refugees with some prospect of resettlement are less likely voluntarily to return. Large scale resettlement concurrent to a broad repatriation effort, however, is neither viable nor desirable.

Resettlement for Sudanese will accordingly become increasingly restrictive. With the assumption that integration prospects would improve, Sudanese refugees will cease to be referred on the basis of lack of local integration alone (with the possible exception of former

98

slaves whose prior treatment provides compelling reasons for their not wishing to return). Refugees who have survived torture, who are vulnerable or at risk in the host country or who have strong family links to resettlement countries will continue to be referred as will refugees whose claims derive from territories not covered by the peace (e.g. Darfur) or resolved by the peace (e.g. northern political opposition).

While the referral of Sudanese refugees is expected to decrease substantially in 2005, the number of Somalis requiring resettlement as a solution is likely to increase due to a high proportion of vulnerable, single women-headed households, unimproved barriers to integration, prolonged stay in the host country and poor repatriation prospects. UNHCR is hopeful that resettlement country receptivity to its referrals of Sudanese will be extended to Somalis.

Refugees of nationality other than Sudanese or Somali will continue to be assessed against UNHCR’s resettlement criteria and referred when determined to meet them.

Assuming that the peace negotiated by the Government of Sudan and the SPLM is implemented in 2004 it is estimated that a maximum of 1000 Sudanese refugees, due to their legal and protection needs, women at risk, survivors of violence or torture, family reunification, and their lack of local integration due to their respective vulnerabilities will be referred for resettlement. In addition, UNHCR expects some 500 Somali refugees to require resettlement as well as approximately 250 refugees of other nationalities for similar reasons as mentioned above.

Even in the event of peace being formally declared and implemented, resource implications for RO Cairo will not be significantly reduced prior to the end of 2005. Based on current resourcing and peace taking hold in Sudan, UNHCR anticipates a need and an ability to refer 1750 refugees in 2005.

Refugees in Jordan

UNHCR’s Branch Office has a registered population of approximately 1,000 refugees in Amman. More than 80% of these refugees are from Iraq. Other nationalities include Syrians, Sudanese, Somalis, Egyptians, Chechens and Bedouins. There are also an estimated 250,000 Iraqis in Jordan, including asylum seekers and individuals benefiting from temporary protection due to recent events in Iraq. This includes 1,000 Sabean and Mandean Iraqi refugees registered with UNHCR. Furthermore, at 2 different locations at the Iraqi-Jordanian border, UNHCR is assisting some 1050 Iranian Kurds and some 400 Palestinian refugees.

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. Refugees registered at the border, enjoy temporary protection. Their situation is managed under the provisions of the Letter of Understanding, that guarantees temporary protection of refugees and other persons in need of protection and humanitarian assistance in refugee camps.

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

99 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, 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 or who fear 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, members of the Sabean/ Mandean religious minority group, 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 2005.

Resettlement will also be pursued for third country nationals recognised under UNHCR’s Mandate, with the exception of Chechens who have been granted temporary residence in Jordan.

The resettlement submissions may include: 10 Eritreans (based on draft evasion / desertion, political opinion or religious persecution), 20 Ethiopians (mainly Ambraba, Tigray and Afar claiming persecution based on political opinion, mixed marriages, draft evasion / desertion), 5 Libyans (based on political opinion), 10 from Saudi Arabia (based on religious persecution), 50 Somalis (linked to ethnicity), 15 Stateless Arabs (Bidouns, based on political opinion, ethnicity and particular social group), 20 Sudanese (claims linked to the general insecurity in Darfur, religion, membership of a particular social group, political opinion, draft evasion / desertion), 60 Syrians (based on political opinion), and 10 Yemeni (based on political opinion). Additionally it is expected there will be 250 individual Iraqi submissions in addition to the possible group submission of 1,000 Sabeans / Mandeans given their legitimate fear of religious persecution as members of a minority religious group.

UNHCR’s Branch Office in Amman plans to submit 1,450 persons for resettlement from Jordan in 2005. These submissions will mostly include Iraqis recognised both before and after the war, including the possible group submission of 1,000 members of the Sabean/Mandean community, in addition to other nationalities who have been identified throughout 2004. Staffing support through the continued secondment of an ICMC deployee will be necessary to complete the planned group submission.

100

Refugees in Lebanon

Lebanon currently hosts approximately 2,600 refugees. The majority of the refugees are Iraqi (1,762) and Sudanese (665) with a smaller number of Somalis (182).

Lebanon has yet to accede to the 1951 Convention or the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees. In 2004 and 2005, Regional Office (RO) Beirut expects to see refugees and asylum seekers enjoying a higher degree of protection as a consequence of the MOU. Nonetheless, RO’s capacity to ensure the continued protection of refugees in Lebanon continues to be directly linked to its ability to identify durable solutions for refugees and to support them with material assistance during their stay. Hence, pending opportunities for large-scale voluntary repatriation, UNHCR's assistance activities as well as its third country resettlement programme remain vital protection tools. More specifically, the Lebanese government makes the release of detained refugees contingent upon assurances from UNHCR regarding the resettlement status of the person. Under the MOU, the Lebanese General Security has provisionally stated that it will give the Office a maximum of 9 months to resettle recognized refugees who have been released from detention. Detention cases are submitted on a priority basis and this is likely to continue to be the case in 2005.

UNHCR remains concerned that refugees who have been accepted for resettlement but are awaiting prolonged periods of time for departure are facing an increased risk of arrest and detention by the authorities for illegal entry. It is hoped that the positive trend of departures witnessed in 2003 will increase throughout the course of 2004 and 2005. Protracted delays on the part of most resettlement countries for security purposes prior to departure remain a major overall constraint for resettlement.

The situation in Iraq remains insecure, volatile and unsafe, and thus UNHCR is not actively involved in encouraging but rather facilitating repatriation at this time. One of the key constraints to UNHCR’s ability to assess the conditions in the country of origin, and more comprehensively be able to advise potential returnees, is the lack of security and consequent absence of international staff. It is assumed that with the eventual return to normalcy in Iraq, the UN will be better placed to carry out the full range of return and reintegration activities which would make such a return sustainable. Certain categories of Iraqi continue to claim an inability to return due to tribal and other problems, which also needs to be fully and thoroughly assessed.

Resettlement needs are ongoing for several groups of Iraqi refugees including Women-at-risk, certain minorities, gender-based persecution, religion-based persecution, members of particular social groups, torture cases, medical cases, and applicants with close family links in resettlement countries. RO Beirut has worked on continuing to resettle refugees falling within such categories, but on a limited basis, so as to ensure that the repatriation operations operating from Beirut are not adversely affected. It is envisaged that the very limited resettlement of Iraqi refugees will continue in 2005.

The group of Sudanese refugees registered with UNHCR’s RO in Beirut is comprised of both single men and families. The sub-categories of refugees include draft-evaders and deserters; members of vulnerable ethnic groups in particular Dinka, Nuba and Fur; persons fearing religious based-persecution based on their Christian beliefs; and persons affiliated in some form with various political movements, including the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement, Sudanese People’s Liberation Army, Umma Party, Democratic National Front or other opposition groups. Considering the continuing insecure and unstable situation in various parts of

101 Sudan, repatriation is not deemed to be a viable durable solution for the majority of Sudanese refugees.

Another group requiring resettlement includes Somalis originating from minority ethnic groups and from areas located outside of Puntland in Somalia which remain, to this day unstable and thus unsafe for the purposes of repatriation. The minority ethnic groups include Bantu, Benadir and Midgan amongst other groups. Further, there are a few cases of refugees fearing persecution based on religious beliefs.

Lastly, there exists an assortment of refugees originating from a spectrum of different countries, who have also been recognized as refugees for various reasons. This category includes refugees from the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Bahrain, Burundi, Chad, Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Turkey and Yemen.

Notwithstanding the positive step for refugees in terms of the implementation of the MOU, long term local integration for refugees is not a viable option for most refugees. For many refugees detention for illegal status continues to be an ongoing risk. Thus, it is envisaged that the only truly effective assistance in the upcoming year for such refugees remains the durable solution tool of resettlement. In total, RO Beirut has identified 550 refugees as being in need of resettlement: 132 Iraqis, 250 Sudanese, and 168 Somalis in 2005.

Refugees in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain

As of end of March 2004, there were 483 Iraqi refugees in Rafha camp in addition to 73 non- Iraqi urban refugees in Saudi Arabia and the other gulf countries, who have continued to enjoy temporary protection pending finding durable solutions.

Taking into consideration that Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the other Gulf countries have not yet acceded to the 1951 Convention or the 1967 Protocol, the asylum institution remains fragile. Mandate refugees are granted temporary leave to stay provided that UNHCR undertakes to find a durable solution.

With regard to the restrictive immigration policies in KSA and other GCC countries, the situation remains extremely delicate, as governments have to strike a balance between their restrictive immigration policies and the fidelity to the principles of international protection including non-refoulement. The situation is untenable because the majority of refugees have either entered the country clandestinely or they are illegal stayers/overstayers. Under the circumstances and in the absence of voluntary repatriation and local integration, resettlement remains the only viable solution for mandate refugees in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries.

Notwithstanding the positive development regarding the spontaneous returns from Rafha, as of today there are 483 refugees who have not yet expressed the wish to return. With the evolving political and security situation in Iraq, it would be pre mature to conclude that the residual caseload expected would be much less than 483.

In case the situation in Rafha unfolds a residual caseload, RR Riyadh is of the opinion that individual status determination should place. Refugees who were recognised on prima facie basis would have to come forward with genuine and demonstrable reasons justifying enjoyment

102

of refugee status. A preliminary figure for resettlement needs of this residual caseload is 200 persons.

With regard to Urban cases in KSA and the other gulf countries we expect to submit 70 Somalis, 35 Sudanese, 75 others including Liberians and Muslim Burmese. In total some 380 refugees may be in need of resettlement in 2005.

Refugees in Syria

The number of recognised urban refugees in Syria is approximately 2500 of which 54% are Iraqis, 16% Afghans, 16% Somalis, 6 % Sudanese and the remaining 8 % other nationalities and stateless. An additional 70 prima facie refugees and refugees under temporary protection (TP) reside in the El Hol camp in Hassake province in Northeast Syria. As a result of the military actions against Saddam’s regime, UNHCR Syria received a large number of Iraqis between January 2003 and May 2003. While a small number of these Iraqis have been sheltered in the El Hol camp, the majority dispersed to urban areas and live with host families or in private accommodations. It is estimated that about 75,000-100,000 of these persons are presently in Syria. The total number of recognised Iraqis in April 2004 was 1350.

Among the urban caseload, there are a considerable number of Iraqi refugees who were formerly residing in other asylum countries. This includes some Iraqis who previously lived in the Rafha Camp in KSA or Iran, Faily Kurds, Iraqis of Iranian origin and asylum seekers from Southern Iraq. Claims of the Faily Kurds are generally based on questions of nationality which has over the years become a complex matter, some having been deported in the 1970’s and the 80’s. The Iraqis of Iranian origin are mainly Shi’a Arabs who felt more united in the beginning with Iran than with Iraq, because of their faith conviction. The male adults of this group of asylum seekers did not perform their military services under the ex-regime. Many of the persons were naturalised some decades ago as Iraqi citizens though faced expulsions in the 1970’s and the 80’s. Refugees originating from Southern Iraq are mainly Arabs and Shi'as who generally faced severe economical and social problems and complain of the regime’s discrimination based on religious grounds, many claiming to have participated in the up-raising in 1991.

The office has registered 5,512 Iraqis for repatriation, but only four individuals have returned during the last months of 2003. The general lack of peace and order as well as the on-going insecurity in some parts of the country continue to hinder the voluntary return of the Iraqis. The entire Iraqi caseload was reviewed in the beginning of 2004, and cases identified still in need of resettlement are being processed and submitted. Similarly, only two Afghan cases repatriated during 2003 regardless of the information campaign. The 383 remaining Afghan refugees have not opted to repatriate as the majority left their country decades ago and 52% of their children were born in Syria or Iran. Another common characteristic of the caseload is the mixed marriage and the advanced age of the principle applicant. After re-analysing the durable solution needs of the caseload the office has decided that resettlement is the only viable option. On the other hand, the repatriation of Yemenis is about to be concluded with only 83 individuals still remaining in Syria.

Syria is neither a Party to the 1951 Convention nor the 1967 Protocol and there is no governmental structure in charge of refugee issues or domestic RSD procedure. Until November 2001, Arab nationals in Syria enjoyed a visa-free entry and unlimited stay. Following a new immigration regulation in June 2001, all foreigners' stay is limited to three months and a

103 residence permit is 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 resettlement process. UNHCR is currently negotiating with the Syrian authorities a special right to remain for asylum seekers and refugees (and subsequent protection from refoulement or deportation). However, in the interim, resettlement from Syria will become even more important, and fast processing of resettlement cases (including security clearance and departures) will be crucial. Due to political pressure and changes in the political circumstances in the region Syrian authorities have begun implementing a restrictive policy on admission and habitance of Iraqi nationals.

The possibility of formal and durable integration in Syria is basically non-existent, due to the lack of legal framework pertaining to refugees’ protection, the harsh economic situation, as well as security concerns. Resettlement in Syria constitutes a tool to provide protection as well as to enhance the institution of asylum in the country and continues to be the most appropriate durable solution for the majority of the caseload.

Apart from the Iraqis the resettlement caseload consists mainly of urban Somali and Sudanese refugees living in Damascus. UNHCR Syria has and is being approached by a constant but decreasing flow of Sudanese asylum seekers. They currently represent 8% of the caseload approaching UNHCR Damascus. Many Southern Sudanese have been in IDP camps in Sudan prior to leaving their country. The peak of the arrivals was reached during 1998, when 670 Sudanese sought asylum. In 2002 the number went down to 98 applications and has maintained this level to the present.

The Sudanese community is mainly Christian, which makes their integration even more difficult. There are many singles without family support, and marriages of convenience are very common among this group. In addition to the hardships faced generally by the refugees, single mothers, who represent a high number of the Sudanese and Somali cases, also face great difficulty in providing their children with education and the necessary care. As with all African refugees, the Sudanese and the Somalis are gravely concerned as they are easily identified as non-Syrians, and therefore can be detained and deported by the Syrian authorities. They are at risk of exploitation and detention due to their lack of immigration status.

In 2005 the office estimates the residual caseload of approximately 200 Afghan refugees, consisting of cases in need of medical care, elderly refugees and those without local integration prospects, will be in need of resettlement. 150 Iraqis are considered to be in need of resettlement as women at risk, survivors of torture or violence and those facing security risks in Syria due to the geographical proximity with Iraq. At the same time it is estimated that 130 Somali refugees will be referred for resettlement as women at risk and due to lack of local integration prospects. An estimated 180 Sudanese refugees under women at risk and survivors or violence or torture and an estimated 60 refugees of other nationalities with family links and specific characteristics will be referred. Additionally, some 5 Yemeni refugees could be referred for resettlement due to their urgent medical needs. The office presently has the required capacity to submit all the 725 persons estimated to be in need of resettlement in 2005.

104

Refugees in Yemen

Yemen hosts 63,618 refugees as of 1 January 2004. The vast majority (59,246 persons) are Somalis. This figure includes 12,295 Somalis who arrived during 2003, most of whom are likely to have moved on to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf countries in search of employment. UNHCR has also registered some 2,600 refugees of other nationalities, including 1,795 Ethiopians, 225 Iraqis, 410 Palestinians, 63 Sudanese and 86 Eritreans.

Yemen is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. The Government grants prima facie refugee status to Somalis, based upon the refugee definition contained in the OAU Refugee Convention. UNHCR and the Government have jointly registered and documented 46,976 Somali refugees. The refugee cards, which are co-signed by UNHCR and the Government, confirm the refugee status of the holder, their right to legal stay and freedom of movement and access to employment and basic education. Asylum-seekers of other nationalities must apply to UNHCR for Mandate refugee status. UNHCR advocates with the Government for the registration of non-Somali refugees and for their access to the rights guaranteed under the Convention.

UNHCR supports the efforts of the Government of Yemen to strengthen its refugee protection capacities and fully implement the Convention and Protocol. In addition to the joint registration project described above, UNHCR has contributed significantly to the development of draft national refugee legislation that is currently under development, and refugee law training programmes reached some 560 Yemeni officials during 2003. Nevertheless, Yemen faces significant challenges in promoting economic and social development for its own people. Thus, responsibility for meeting the basic needs of refugees falls principally upon UNHCR and its partners. Opportunities for refugees to achieve true legal, social and economic integration in Yemen are extremely limited.

UNHCR promotes resettlement as a tool of protection for refugees in Yemen, with a special focus on refugee women in a socially, psychologically or medically vulnerable situation, including women headed families. Refugees facing individual security problems are also given priority. During 2003, UNHCR resettled 46 persons (11 cases), most of whom were Somalis and in March 2004, UNHCR referred 96 persons, mainly WAR cases.

UNHCR Yemen estimates that 703 refugees, mainly Somalians, with some Ethiopians in the above mentioned categories are in need of resettlement in 2005. In addition, a large portion of the 720 former officers and cadets of the Ethiopian Navy and their dependents, who were recognised on a prima facie basis when they arrived in 1991 following the overthrow of President Mengistu may be submitted in 2005.

UNHCR Yemen’s current capacity for resettlement processing and referrals is 200 persons in 2005, even assuming that a new Associate Protection Officer (JPO) joins the team when the incumbent departs in September 2004. To meet the resettlement needs described above, (in total 1,423 refugees), UNHCR Yemen will require additional staffing and support.

105 Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2005 By Country of Origin

Country of Origin Country of Asylum Est. Est. Potential Group Resettlement Resettlement Submissions Needs Capacity

AFRICA Algeria Indonesia 3 3 Algeria Total 3 3 *****

Angola DRC 220 220 ROC 25 5 Zambia 40 40 Angola Total 285 265 *****

Burundi Burkina Faso 5 5 Cameroon 45 25 DRC 55 55 Gabon 10 10 Malawi 175 35 ROC 20 5 Rwanda 490 245 Senegal 20 20 South Africa 45 20 Tanzania 700 700 ***** Togo 5 5 Uganda 50 30 Zimbabwe 175 50 Burundi Total 1795 1205

Central African Republic (CAR) Cameroon 25 15 Central African Republic (CAR) Total 25 15

Chad Benin 8 8 Burkina Faso 15 15 Cameroon 30 15 Gabon 25 25 Niger 5 5 Chad Total 83 68

Côte d’Ivoire Ghana 10 10 Guinea 50 50 Mali 40 40 Senegal 4 4 Côte d’Ivoire Total 104 104

Congolese (DRC) Benin 5 5 Burkina Faso 5 5 Burundi 500 500 Cameroon 55 40

106

Country of Origin Country of Asylum Est. Est. Potential Group Resettlement Resettlement Submissions Needs Capacity

Cote d'Ivoire 50 50 Gabon 10 10 Ghana 10 10 Hong Kong 15 15 Malawi 175 35 Niger 10 10 ROC 95 18 Rwanda 730 350 ***** Senegal 14 14 South Africa 65 40 Tanzania 200 200 Togo 15 15 Uganda 340 210 ***** Zambia 30 30 ***** Zimbabwe 175 50 Congolese (DRC) Total 2499 1607

Congolese (RoC) Benin 70 25 Burkina Faso 5 5 Cameroon 20 15 Cote d'Ivoire 100 100 DRC 20 20 Gabon 950 250 Senegal 12 12 Togo 5 5 Congolese (RoC) Total 1182 432

Eritrea Cuba 5 5 Ethiopia 300 237 Hong Kong 10 10 Jordan 10 10 Malta 20 20 Sudan 500 500 Uganda 50 31 Eritrea Total 895 813

Ethiopia Cuba 5 5 Djibouti 60 60 Eritrea 90 35 Hong Kong 25 25 Jordan 20 20 Kenya 650 650 Somalia 360 360 South Africa 20 15 Sudan 500 500 Uganda 20 0 Yemen 783 50

107 Country of Origin Country of Asylum Est. Est. Potential Group Resettlement Resettlement Submissions Needs Capacity

Ethiopia Total 2533 1720

Mixed Eritrean / Ethiopian Uganda 50 0 Mixed Eritrean / Ethiopian Total 50 0

Equatorial Guinea Cameroon 15 10 Gabon 10 10 Equatorial Guinea Total 25 20

Liberia Cote d'Ivoire 300 300 ***** Ghana - - ***** Guinea 1600 1600 ***** Guinea-Bissau 10 10 Hong Kong 30 30 Nigeria 120 120 ***** Saudi Arabia 50 50 Senegal 100 100 Sierra Leone 600 500 ***** Sri Lanka 5 5 Liberia Total 2815 2715

Mauritania Mali - - ***** Senegal - - ***** Mauritania Total 0 0

Nigeria Benin 5 5 Nigeria Total 5 5

Rwanda Benin 2 2 Burkina Faso 5 5 Cameroon 35 20 Central African Republic 100 25 DRC 30 30 Gabon 10 10 Ghana 10 10 Niger 5 5 ROC 280 53 Senegal 50 50 South Africa 20 20 Tanzania 300 300 Togo 5 5 Uganda 40 25 Zambia 450 100 Rwanda Total 1342 660

Sierra Leone Cameroon 20 10 Gambia 20 20

108

Country of Origin Country of Asylum Est. Est. Potential Group Resettlement Resettlement Submissions Needs Capacity

Ghana 50 50 Guinea 50 50 Nigeria 10 10 Sierra Leone Total 150 140

Somalia Cambodia 1 1 China 20 20 Djibouti 40 40 Egypt 500 500 Eritrea 300 120 Ethiopia 20 16 India 30 30 Indonesia 8 8 Jordan 50 50 Kenya 400 400 ***** Lebanon 168 168 Malaysia 10 10 Malta 20 20 Pakistan 20 20 Saudi Arabia 70 70 South Africa 45 20 Syria 130 130 Uganda 100 62 Yemen 640 150 Somalia Total 2572 1835

Sudan Cuba 20 20 DRC 50 50 Egypt 1000 1000 Eritrea 200 80 Ethiopia 200 158 Ghana 10 10 India 20 20 Jordan 20 20 Kenya 800 800 Lebanon 250 250 Malawi 175 35 Malaysia 10 10 ROC 10 5 Saudi Arabia 35 35 South Africa 25 15 Syria 180 180 Uganda 170 105 Zimbabwe 175 50 Sudan Total 3350 2843

Togo Benin 5 5

109 Country of Origin Country of Asylum Est. Est. Potential Group Resettlement Resettlement Submissions Needs Capacity

Ghana 200 200 Togo Total 205 205

Zimbabwe South Africa 20 10 Zimbabwe Total 20 10

THE AMERICAS Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil, Colombia Uruguay, Paraguay 10 10 Costa Rica 495 495 Ecuador 700 600 Peru 150 50 Venezuela 150 150 Colombia Total 1505 1305

Cuba Peru 40 40 Cuba Total 40 40

Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil, Peru Uruguay, Paraguay 10 10 Peru Total 10 10

ASIA Bhutan Nepal - - ***** Bhutan Total 0 0

Brunei Indonesia 1 1 Brunei Total 1 1

Cambodia Thailand 40 26 Cambodia Total 40 26

China Cambodia 5 5 Kazakhstan 10 10 Kyrgyzstan 20 20 Nepal 5 5 Thailand 40 26 Turkey 15 15 China 95 81

Indonesia Malaysia 900 350 Indonesia Total 900 350

Myanmar India 30 30 Indonesia 1 1 Malaysia 1,200 400 Nepal 5 5 Saudi Arabia 50 50 Thailand 610 0 *****

110

Country of Origin Country of Asylum Est. Est. Potential Group Resettlement Resettlement Submissions Needs Capacity

Myanmar Total 1896 486

Nepal Hong Kong 20 20 Nepal Total 20 20

Sri Lanka Hong Kong 40 40 Nepal 5 5 Thailand 30 20 Sri Lanka Total 75 65

Vietnam Cambodia 159 159 Vietnam Total 159 159

EUROPE Armenia Turkmenistan 20 20 Armenia Total 20 20

Bosnia and Hercegovina Serbia and Montenegro 10 10 Bosnia and Hercegovina Total 10 10

Chechnya Azerbaijan 180 180 Georgia 200 200 Kazakhstan 15 15 Krygyzstan 50 50 Turkmenistan 5 5 Ukraine 60 23 Chechnya Total 510 473

Croatia Serbia and Montenegro 40 40 Croatia Total 40 40

Kosovo Albanian 40 40 Bosnia and Hercegovina 130 130 fyROM 50 50 Kosovo Total 220 220

Palestine Cambodia 2 2 Sri Lanka 5 5 Palestine Total 7 7

CASWANAME Afghanistan Azerbaijan 120 120 Belarus 15 15 Cambodia 3 3 Cuba 10 10 India 70 70

111 Country of Origin Country of Asylum Est. Est. Potential Group Resettlement Resettlement Submissions Needs Capacity

Indonesia 80 80 Iran 1960 1260 Kazakhstan 20 20 Kyrgyzstan 50 50 Malaysia 10 10 Pakistan 570 570 Russian Federation 530 530 Sri Lanka 3 3 Syria 200 200 Tajikistan 600 600 Turkey 70 70 Turkmenistan 25 25 Ukraine 180 70 Uzbekistan 400 400 Afghanistan Total 4916 4106

Iran Azerbaijan 40 40 China 20 20 Cuba 5 5 India 30 30 Indonesia 7 7 Malaysia 10 10 Nepal 5 5 Pakistan 90 90 Russian Federation 25 25 Thailand 30 20 Turkey 1880 1880 ***** Turkish Rep. of Northern Cyprus 10 10 Iran Total 2152 2142

Iraq Azerbaijan 10 10 Cuba 5 5 Indonesia 109 109 Iran 40 40 Jordan 250 250 ***** Lebanon 132 132 Malaysia 10 10 Nepal 5 5 Pakistan 10 10 Russian Federation 25 25 Saudi Arabia 200 200 Sri Lanka 12 12 Syria 150 150 Thailand 5 5 Turkey 400 400 Iraq Total 1363 1363

112

Country of Origin Country of Asylum Est. Est. Potential Group Resettlement Resettlement Submissions Needs Capacity

Libya Jordan 5 5 Libya Total 5 5

Pakistan China 40 40 Hong Kong 140 140 Sri Lanka 7 7 Pakistan Total 187 187

Palestine Cambodia 2 2 Palestine Total 2 2

Saudi Arabia Jordan 10 10 Saudi Arabia Total 10 10

Syria Indonesia 2 2 Jordan 60 60 Syria Total 62 62

Uzbekistan Turkey 25 25 Uzbekistan Total 25 25

Yemen Syria 5 5 Jordan 10 10 Yemen Total 15 15

Total of Identified Caseloads 34,183 25,795

Particular Caseloads not Identified

Ethiopia 200 158 DRC 25 25 Kenya 200 200 Somalia 30 30 Cameroon 250 50 Nigeria 20 20 South Africa 10 10 Swaziland 15 15 Indian Oceans Islands 20 20 Zambia 300 130

Costa Rica 30 30 Mexico 15 15 Venezuela 30 30 Peru 30 30 Ecuador 20 20 (Africa) Thailand 100 65

113 Country of Origin Country of Asylum Est. Est. Potential Group Resettlement Resettlement Submissions Needs Capacity

Thailand 145 96 Indonesia 40 40 Sri Lanka 15 15 India 20 20 Bangladesh 5 5

Armenia 3 3 Azerbaijan 10 10 (Africa) Belarus 3 3 (Africa) Russian Federation 170 170 (Africa) Ukraine 240 90 Ukraine 170 65 Bosnia 20 20 Croatia 15 15 Serbia and Montenegro 300 300 (African) Turkey 100 100 Turkey 10 10 Malta 10 10 Turkmenistan 5 5 Egypt 250 250 Syria 60 60

Total of Non-Identified Caseloads 2,886 2,135

Grand Total 37,069 28,031

*Figures of total caseloads by “Country of Origin” do not necessarily correspond exactly to figures of caseloads by “Country of Asylum” due to categories of resettlement needs and capacity not specified by caseloads. This table represents those caseloads which were identified by the Field Office and represent estimates only.

114