Congolese Refugees From South Kivu : Challenges of return in the territories of Fizi and Uvira June 2011 Congolese refugees from Tanzania about to cross Lake Tanganyika after a visit to their home villages in Baraka, South Kivu. May 2011. Photo: Alexis Bouvy. Study carried out by ADEPAE and SVH with the financial and technical support of the Great Lakes Civil Society Project of the Danish Refugee Council. Congolese Refugees From South Kivu: Challenges of return in the territories of Fizi and Uvira June 2011 Congolese Refugees From South Kivu : Challenges of return in the territories of Fizi and Uvira Action pour le Développement et la Paix Endogènes / Solidarité des Volontaires pour l’Humanité - June 2011 Table of contents Thank you .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 Presentation of both organisations ..................................................................................................................... 5 Foreword ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Executive summary .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Map of South Kivu............................................................................................................................................... 13 I. Return and Resettlement in South Kivu......................................................................................................... 14 I. AN AREA OF CONFLICT FROM THE ONSET ............................................................................................................. 14 II. REPATRIATION: PERSPECTIVES AND POLITICAL STAKES ....................................................................................... 15 III. PERCEPTIONS OF THE RESISTANCE TO RETURN .................................................................................................. 17 IV. CHALLENGES OF RESETTLEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 18 IV. 1. Insufficient food and agricultural products ................................................................................................... 18 IV. 2. Land insecurity............................................................................................................................................. 19 IV. 3. Access to social services ............................................................................................................................. 22 IV. 4. Armed confrontation .................................................................................................................................... 22 II. Response strategies ....................................................................................................................................... 24 I. LEGAL AND POLITICAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................................... 24 I.1. Tripartite Agreements ...................................................................................................................................... 24 I.2. Implementation and political tensions ............................................................................................................. 25 II. HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE, STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN EMERGENCY AND DEVELOPMENT ............................ 27 II.1. Transit centres ............................................................................................................................................... 28 II.2. Schooling for children ..................................................................................................................................... 28 II.3. Shelter ............................................................................................................................................................ 29 II.4. Community self-sufficiency projects and RGAs ............................................................................................. 30 II.5. Medical assistance ......................................................................................................................................... 31 II.6. Land mediation............................................................................................................................................... 32 II.7. Raising awareness of peaceful cohabitation .................................................................................................. 33 II.8. Local initiatives ............................................................................................................................................... 34 III. WEAKNESSES OF THE RESPONSE ....................................................................................................................... 34 III.1. Consistency and coordination ....................................................................................................................... 34 III.2. Limitations of the Early Recovery Cluster ..................................................................................................... 35 III.3. Relations between authorities, STAREC and humanitarian actors ............................................................... 36 III.4. Communication and transparency ................................................................................................................ 36 III.5. Authorities too far removed from realities on the ground .............................................................................. 37 III.6. Security assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 37 III. Towards a Conflict-Sensitive Approach to Repatriation ............................................................................ 39 I. FEARS AND SUSPICIONS IN RELATION TO THE REPATRIATIONS FROM BURUNDI ....................................................... 39 II. MINEMBWE, THE FRF AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF LANDLOCKED POPULATIONS ............................. 40 III. CONFLICTS ASSOCIATED WITH CUSTOMARY POWER ........................................................................................... 41 IV. REPATRIATION AND LAND ................................................................................................................................... 43 V. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 44 IV. Conclusions et Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 46 Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................ 49 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................................ 51 3 Congolese Refugees From South Kivu : Challenges of return in the territories of Fizi and Uvira Action pour le Développement et la Paix Endogènes / Solidarité des Volontaires pour l’Humanité - June 2011 Thank you This work is the result of a concerted effort between researchers from ADEPAE and SVH, the Danish Refugee Council's Great Lakes Civil Society Project team, a technical expert, and the various people encountered during the course of the study. The underlying goal of the study is to propose solutions to the hardships suffered by returning refugees to the South Kivu province of the Democratic Republic of Congo. We hope that governmental and humanitarian actors, civil society and local communities will draw on our conclusions to establish mechanisms capable of facilitating the reintegration of refugees, improving social relations between returnees and residents, stabilising their social and economic conditions, and bringing long-lasting peace to the territories of Fizi and Uvira. We would like to thank the members of the Danish Refugee Council's Great Lakes Civil Society Project without whose support this study would not have been possible. We are delighted with the relationship of trust that has come about between our three organisations, and the partnership we have established through this project. We would like to extend our gratitude to the consultant, Alexis Bouvy, who went to great lengths to accompany the researchers and to guide our thought process. Lastly, many thanks go to the chefs d'antennes of the Commission Nationale pour les Réfugiés (CNR) of Bukavu and Uvira, UNHCR’s offices in Bukavu and Uvira, OCHA's office in Bukavu, national and international organisations, the province's customary leaders, and the team representing our two organisations for their contribution to our reflection. Bukavu, June 2011 ADEPAE and SVH 4 Congolese Refugees From South Kivu : Challenges of return in the territories of Fizi and Uvira Action pour le Développement et la Paix Endogènes