Negotiating the Way Home: A Difficult Path for Returning Burundians
Refugee Rights News
February 2009
“‘My father came here in 1972 and died here. I do not know my father’s farm…I think the government [of Burundi] will help us by giving us land.’”
This refugee and others like him who were interviewed in Ulyankulu refugee settlement by researchers
from the Centre for the Study of Forced Migration (CSFM) indicate that access to land upon return plays a
large part in the decision-making of refugees (for more information see the Centre for the Study of Forced
Migration, the International Refugee Rights Initiative (IRRI) and the Social Science Research Council
(SSRC), “Going Home or Staying Home? Ending Displacement for Burundian Refugees in
Tanzania,” November 2008).
Although there was widespread uncertainty in the refugee community, those refugees who had chosen to return generally believed that they would be able to access land, either by reclaiming their family’s plot or through government allocation. A prime reason cited by those who were opting for naturalisation was that they felt they would no longer be able to access land in Burundi.
Barriers to Accessing Land
Desk research and a brief visit to Burundi carried out by International Refugee Rights Initiative staff
revealed that many returnees are having difficulties in accessing land. Indeed, almost everyone
interviewed, in both government and civil society, highlighted the difficulties faced by returning refugees,
particularly by those who have been in exile since 1972, and expressed concerns about their prospects. An
indication of the high level of concern is reflected in the fact that UNHCR has suspended the repatriation
program for these long term refugees during the first three months of 2009 in order to allow more time to
deal with reintegrating those who have already returned. In contrast, the repatriation of the second large
group of Burundian refugees, those who fled in the 1990s, was framed as relatively unproblematic,
although a number of socio-economic issues were raised.
Accessing land is the primary difficulty cited for the 1972 refugees. UNHCR estimated in its January 2009
briefing note that 80% of returnees from the 1972 group do not have access to land upon return. These
returnees have frequently found that their land was allocated to someone else in their absence and, worse
still, that their prospects for reclaiming their land are hindered by Burundian law, which considers that after
30 years of occupation title is no longer contestable.
Making the situation even more tense and complex is the high level of pressure on land in Burundi generally. The land abandoned by the 1972 refugees as they fled, mainly in the southern part of the country, is particularly prized as this area is suitable for palm oil production, a relatively lucrative type of agriculture in the country. For this reason, returnees are particularly insistent on reclaiming their family’s land, and the new occupants are particularly hesitant to give it up.
Further, for many returning refugees, land is critical to their identity. The working paper “Going Home or Staying Home? Ending Displacement for Burundian Refugees in Tanzania,” found that returnees who were born in Tanzania and never stepped foot in Burundi nonetheless wanted to go back because, “the physical claim to land is fundamental to notions of belonging and (re)integration.”
However, for those who find their land occupied, there are essentially two options: trying to reclaim their
land, or resettlement on a site designated by the government of Burundi.
Reclaiming Land: Options for Returnees
For those who try to reclaim their land, mediation is the most immediately available recourse. At the
government level, mediation is offered by the Commission Nationale des Terres et Autres Biens (CNTB or
National Commission for Land and Other Property).
The CNTB, however, faces a number of challenges in carrying out its work. First, because the CNTB’s
mandate is focused on mediation only, it is not authorised to allocate new land to returnees or others in
cases where appropriate; it must apply to another government ministry in such cases. The process of
allocation, according to government representatives, is hampered by the fact that the planned land
inventory has yet to be completed, so it can be unclear where alternative land might be available. Another
challenge facing the CNTB is the fact that it has a large backlog. According to the CNTB it has resolved
about 3,000 of approximately 10,000 claims which have so far been brought to it. The CNTB is working on
addressing this issue through internal reforms focusing on allowing decentralised decision making. Finally,
where the CNTB makes a recommendation or mediates a settlement, this can be appealed in local courts,
and it reportedly often is.
According to UNHCR, they are carrying out a programme intended to complement the work done by the
CTNB, encouraging the peaceful resolution of conflicts in collaboration with the South African-based
African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD) and the Association des Femmes
Juristes. Another organisation, Ligue Iteka which runs a programme focused on monitoring the situation of
returnees in collaboration with UNHCR, also reports engagement in mediation activities. According to Ligue
Iteka, although they have no formal authority, civil society organisations are sometimes viewed as more
trustworthy mediators than governmental bodies. Where they are able to facilitate agreements, they
register settlements with the local authorities.
The availability of formal legal processes is not clear. The customary bashingantahe courts mediate land
disputes between parties and seem to be the first venue of recourse for returnees. Claimants who are not
satisfied with the decisions of bashingantahe courts can approach higher level courts, but many returnees
are ignorant of their options. Many returnees cannot afford litigating before formal court mechanisms.
Where to Go? Options for Returnees Unable to Access Land
For those who can’t reclaim their land, there are limited options with regard to accessing alternative land.
This issue particularly affects a group of refugees referred to as “sans-reference”, refugees who are unable
to provide a destination address. Many of these refugees were born in Tanzania and cannot identify the
areas from which their parents came. According to UNHCR, they constitute approximately 10% of the
returning 1972 refugees (2,322 of 23,470 in 2008).
In the short term, many of those who either cannot return to their land or do not know where their parents
came from are housed in transit centres. Transit centres have been set up to provide temporary
accommodation for returnees when they first enter Burundi, for just enough time to issue national
identification and arrange transportation to their communes of origin. The transit centres were intended for
one or two day-long stays but because some of the returnees are now coming home sans-reference, i.e.
they are the children of refugees coming back with no clear sense of where they came from and others
have such difficulty in regaining access to their land, many are ending up housed there for extended
periods. However, because the transit centres are intended for short stays, they lack resources needed by
long term residents.
In an interview with UNHCR, one returnee is quoted in a Reliefweb article entitled "Burundian refugees face
challenges of identity, land ownership on return” in saying “If you saw where I sleep, you would understand
why I didn't come here with my four children. My room is just big enough to allow me to lie down." His
family is still in Tanzania where they are waiting for him to settle with land and food before they follow.
Some centres, such as the one located in Gitega, can accommodate up to 200 persons per night, but with
the high level of repatriation and the extended stays in the transit centres, resources are being stretched.
The Burundi Red Cross, which manages two transit centres, reported in 2007 that it had had to construct
additional temporary shelters for vulnerable populations (usually female-headed households and the
elderly). In addition to stresses on accommodation, these sites usually lack adequate health facilities. The
Burundian human rights organisation Ligue Iteka has, for example, suggested the construction of mobile
health clinics to ensure that at least basic services are available.
In an effort to move these individuals out of transit camps, the UNHCR and the government of Burundi
have started to relocate people into what are called “peace villages”. These villages incorporate returnees
with other vulnerable groups in need of land (including, according to government organisers, members of
the Batwa ethnic group, which has been traditionally marginalised from Burundi society, and orphans)
allotting them space to build homes and farm. While this is generally seen as an improvement over the dire
conditions in which people had been living, serious questions have been raised as to the long term impact
of such ethnic engineering as well as creating pockets of vulnerable people.
In this complex context, the Burundian government is currently considering legislative reform of its land
code. In doing so, they will need to consider the provisions of the Protocol on the Property Rights of
Returning Populations, which sets out a series of requirements for government structures to ensure that
registration of land is accessible and lays out a broad framework for ensuring fair adjudication of land
disputes relating to return (for more information, see the IRRI and the Internal Displacement Monitoring
Centre, “The Great Lakes Pact and the Rights of Displaced Persons,” September 2008). However, a
great deal of additional work will need to be done in monitoring the functioning of these systems in order to
ensure that they are as fair and efficient as possible in practice.