1

UNMIK

SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS FOR ASSISTANCE to

MINORITY RETURNS TO KOSOVO (SPARK)

FINAL REPORT

Prishtinë/Priština, March 2011

In co-operation with:

The Government of Kosovo

The British Government

The Czech Embassy

British Embassy

Pristina

2

ACRONYMS

ACP UNDP Advisory on Contracts and Procurement APPK Agjensioni i Përkrahjes së Punësimit Kosovë CD Community Development (sub-projects) CDF Local NGO Community Development Fund COCG Communications and Outreach Coordination Group DRC Danish Refugee Council CRP/K Civil Rights Programme for Kosovo DT Developing Together (Local NGO) EP European Perspective HPD Housing and Property Directorate FINAC Final Approval Committee GAR Government Assistance to Returns ICMC International Catholic Migration Commission IDPs Internally Displaced Persons IP Implementing Partner KFOR NATO’s Kosovo Forces KPS Kosovo Police Service LCO Local Community Office/r MCO Municipal Communities Office/r MCR Ministry for Communities and Return MHC Municipal Housing Committee MRO Municipal Returns Office/r MLGA Ministry of Local Government Administration MWG Municipal Working Group on Returns NCA Norwegian Church Aid NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NRCG NGO Returns Coordination Group OCRM UNMIK Office of Returns and Communities PISG Provisional Institutions of Self-Government RAE Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian REA Prishtina Regional Enterprise Agency RRRF Rapid Response Returns Facility SEA Socio-Economic Assistance

SPARK Sustainable Partnerships for Assistance to minority Returns to Kosovo

SPARK IR SPARK Individual Return SPARK OR SPARK Organized Return TPA Tripartite Agreement UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNMIK United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 4 B. OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................... 4 C. MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION ARRANGEMENTS .......................................................... 5 D. SPARK INDIVIDUAL RETURNS ...................................................................................................... 6

HOUSING ASSISTANCE .................................................................................................................... 6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE .................................................................................................. 10 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 11

E. SPARK ORGANISED RETURNS .................................................................................................. 14

DELIVERY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................... 15 SUB-PROJECTS ............................................................................................................................... 19

F. COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH ........................................................................................ 27 G. SUSTAINABLILTY.......................................................................................................................... 30 H. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................................ 30 I. SPARK EXPENDITURE ................................................................................................................. 32

SPARK IR EXPENDITURE .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. SPARK OR EXPENDITURE .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

4

A. BACKGROUND

Between 2003 and 2005, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) directly managed two major projects assisting minority returns to and within Kosovo, the Rapid Response Returns Facility (RRRF), providing assistance to individual and spontaneous returns, and the Government Assistance to Returns (GAR) Project for supporting the return of larger groups of displaced persons. The successor project, the Sustainable Partnerships for Assistance to Minority Returns to Kosovo (SPARK), operational between 2005 and 2010, provided an integrated umbrella mechanism for delivering the full spectrum of multi-sectoral assistance for returns. The project was guided by a programmatic framework and was thus capable of providing flexible responses to all identified return related needs on the ground. Furthermore, the flexible framework fostered greater collaboration and cooperation between the two activities: support to Individual and Spontaneous and Organized and Group returns.

B. OBJECTIVES

The main objective as outlined in the Project Document was to provide co-ordinated and multi-sectoral assistance to returnees in line with the strategy and policy on sustainable return. a) Facilitation of Sustainable Return and Reintegration through a flexible response over the entire spectrum of identified return needs. UNDP’s key partner was the Ministry of Communities and Returns (MCR); it also worked in close cooperation with municipalities throughout Kosovo and with UNHCR. The Ministry for Communities and Returns (MCR) was an operational partner in all aspects of the implementation of Sub-Projects and Service Lines to support Organised and Individual Returns, including project design, planning, implementation and monitoring. The MCR assigned representatives for this direct cooperation. The MCR’s primary engagement was in screening and prioritizing requests for support to returns along the established eligibility criteria for Individual Returns and in directly cooperating for referrals, assessments, approvals, and provision of assistance. The MCR was also directly involved in the technical aspects of the Sub-Projects implemented under Organised Returns through reviewing technical documentation and actively working alongside UNDP engineers in the field. MCR staff also provided inputs into economic sustainability strategies for group returns. At the municipal level, the Municipal Returns Officers and Municipal Community Officers were directly involved in project activities such as referring potential beneficiaries, and carrying out joint assessments for assistance and monitoring beneficiaries following return. The municipalities were also involved in confirming ownership of land (or allocating land in cases where a returnee was in an informal settlement), granting construction permits, and certifying completion.

5

b) Capacity building and furthering partnerships with the Ministry for Communities and Returns and municipal return-related structures through joint sub-project planning at all phases of the sustainable returns implementation cycle. This included inter alia design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects, with a view to transferring the returns management competencies over to the Kosovo authorities. All stages of the Project’s implementation were completed in close cooperation with the MCR and MROs. At the central level the MCR delegated staff to the UNDP Joint Programme Implementation Unit working within SPARK in order to facilitate this cooperation. The Joint Programme Implementation Unit participated in regular Task Force Meetings, field visits, tendering of assistance (housing support, food and non- food assistance, household support, winterization assistance, and income generation assistance) and reporting. The Unit also participated in similar activities for socio-economic and community development sub-projects.

C. MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION ARRANGEMENTS

The SPARK Project was conceived, as a joint initiative of the UNMIK Office of Returns and Communities (OCRM) and UNDP, in close co-operation with UNHCR and the Ministry for Communities and Returns (MCR), in response to the priorities highlighted in the Manual for Sustainable Return, particularly the aim to facilitate an increase in regional cross-border returns from Serbia and Montenegro, to support breakthrough minority returns, and to provide flexible support for spontaneous returns to and within Kosovo. The activities implemented under the Project were carried out by the UNDP Office in Kosovo under the Direct Execution (DEX) modality in line with UNDP’s results-based management approach. During the entire process of execution, the SPARK Project closely co-operated with strategic partners and officials at various levels to achieve the identified objectives. One of the goals of SPARK was to establish effective, practical and operational partnerships with national counterparts and specifically with representatives from the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government, Ministry of Communities and Returns, Municipal Returns Officers, Gender and Local Community Officers, local NGOs and other returns related institutions in Kosovo. Co-operation with donor partners such as the British Government and coordination with UN Agencies such as UNHCR was also a key outreach component. Moreover, the regional staff participated in Municipal Working Group meetings and also in Task Forces on returns. SPARK OR and IR central and regional staff participated in meetings for information sharing purposes as well as coordination meetings which included municipalities, the Ministry for Communities and Returns, IDPs, UNMIK/ OCRM, UNDP, Cross Boundary Returns, Regional Minority and Lead Agency meetings.

6

D. SPARK INDIVIDUAL RETURNS

HOUSING ASSISTANCE

The main objective of the IR component was to address the housing needs of spontaneous and/or small-scale unassisted returnees/families. Objective SPARK Individual Returns provided minority returnee families with:

Housing assistance for Category 3, 4 and 5 damaged houses. Housing assistance for Category 1 and 2 damage was addressed to UNHCR through their Lead Agency Programme.

Housing reconstruction was, in the initial phase of the project, conducted through an implementing partner (in 2005, Community Development Fund (CDF) and in 2006-2008 Developing Together (DT)), which produced the technical assessment of damage, produced the design for reconstruction, verified all legal aspects, and monitored construction works. From 2009, all these works were conducted by the existing complement of UNDP staff directly, since it was felt that direct execution would offer the MCR better value for money.

Implementation Potential individual beneficiaries for housing assistance were referred by: • Municipal Returns Officers (MROs) and/or Municipal Community Officers (LCOs); • IDP Associations in places of displacement; • NGOs that have a cross boundary capacity and are operational in areas of

displacement; • UNHCR Lead Agencies; • MCR Field Units. Training on the referral mechanism was provided to these actors to enhance their role. Selection of beneficiaries

For the referral and selection of beneficiaries to SPARK Individual Returns, the project made use of existing infrastructure related to the returns process. In accordance with the Revised Manual for Sustainable Returns, Eligibility Criteria, Criteria Guidelines, and implementation procedures adopted by the Advisory Board of Directors, the identification and selection of beneficiaries was a responsibility shared by numerous actors, through co-operation and through direct contracting, see Figure 1.

7

Step Responsibility Purpose

Referral UNHCR, UNHCR Lead Agency NGOs, Ministry of Communities and Returns (MCR), Municipal Community Officers, Municipality Returns Officers, IDP Associations

Referral of a potential beneficiary according to the Eligibility Criteria to the relevant SPARK Regional Associate for consideration

Social assessment

Spontaneous returns: SPARK Regional Associates; Individual facilitated returns: UNHCR lead agencies, NGOs

Assessment of displaced and return status, and vulnerability

Pre-approval of cases

SPARK Regional Associates with input from MCR counterparts, MROs, UNHCR

Pre-approving cases against Eligibility Criteria and submitting those pre-approved for technical and legal assessments and verification from the relevant municipality

Technical assessment

SPARK IR engineers and Regional Associates, together with input from UNHCR

a) Identifying technical possibilities for construction; b) Recommending type1 and category of houses to be provided; c) Gathering required data and information for producing designs, architectural drawings and other relevant technical documentation

Legal assessment

SPARK IR Legal Staff Verification of ownership of property and/or land plot and collection of all necessary legal documents

Verification from municipality

SPARK Regional Associates to obtain verification from a representative of the municipality, usually MROs, or MCOs

Confirmation that previous housing assistance had not been provided to the potential beneficiary

Approval FINAC members (since October 2006); MCR and SPARK IR in consultation (from summer 2009)

Confirmation that a case is approved, so that housing reconstruction/repair can proceed, is pending further follow up, or is rejected due to not meeting Eligibility Criteria

Tripartite Agreements

SPARK IR legal staff produce the TPA; Signatures obtained from the beneficiary, MRO or designated official, and SPARK Facility Co-ordinator

Legally binding Agreement between the Project (UNDP), the Municipality and the Beneficiary

Tendering UNDP with participation from the MCR

Lowest cost among qualifying bidders

1 Type is identified for Category 5 damaged houses according to the number of family members permanently living in the house: up to 6 members get a house of 45 sqm; 7 – 10 members get a house of 62 sqm; more than 10 members get a house of 75 sqm; and a multi-generation returnee family (10 or more members) gets a house of 95 sqm.

8

Step Responsibility Purpose

Construction And Supervision

Construction company (works); SPARK IR engineers to monitor works to ensure adequate quality according to the specifications on the Bill of Quantities (BOQ) and try to ensure adequate speed of completion

Quality assurance

Certificate of Completion

Signed by beneficiary and UNDP engineer

Record that beneficiary is satisfied with works

Inspection by an independent international engineer

Independent international engineer Final quality assurance

Figure 1: Project activities across the returns cycle After receiving potential cases referred, to be considered under SPARK, the SPARK IR team and, where appropriate, the Implementing Partner (CDF and/or DT) assessed them immediately in close cooperation with MROs. Delivery Out of the 1114 cases referred since SPARK inception, 443 cases were approved of which 384 were reconstructed. As such, at project closure, 59 cases were approved and awaiting financial resources for housing reconstruction. Three hundred and forty-six cases, or 31 percent of the total, were rejected for not meeting the eligibility criteria. The most common reasons for rejecting a case were: (i) previous housing assistance had been provided by other organisations, (ii) possession of a second property was evident, and (iii) the case was vulnerable but not displaced or returnee. The remaining 325 cases were under assessment, or had been considered by FINAC and required more information prior to approval. The ethnic breakdown of beneficiary families, displayed in Figure 2, supported under SPARK IR, was 36 percent Serb, 35 percent RAE, 10 percent Albanian, 9 percent Bosniac, 8 percent Gorani, 1 percent Croatian and 1 percent Turk. It is worth noting that the proportion of Serb beneficiary families supported under SPARK increased to 42 percent over the period 2008-2010.

9

Serb

RAE

Albanian

Bosniac

Gorani

Croat Turk

Figure 2: Ethnic breakdown of SPARK IR beneficiaries The geographical breakdown by municipality is distorted by the fact that two EC- and MCR-funded, municipally focused, returns projects (Return and Reintegration in Kosovo, RRK) were initiated during 2008 and 2009, covering a total of 8 municipalities, and cases pending or approved within SPARK IR were transferred to those projects, if they had not already been tendered. As such, Figure 3 separates returns supported in the first four years of implementation with those in the final two years of implementation. Municipality Returns

2005-2008 2009 2010 Total

Dragash / Dragaš 20 8 - 28

Ferizaj / Uroševac 4 1 - 5

Fushë Kosova / Kosovo Polje 19 - - 19

Gjakova / Dakovica 4 6 - 10

Gjilan / Gnjilane 4 2 - 6

Istog / Istok 38 2 - 40

Kamenica 2 1 - 3

Klina 36 4 6 46

Lipjan / Lipljan 4 1 1 6

Mitrovica 22 - 4 26

Novobërda / Novo Brdo 6 5 - 11

Obiliq / Obilić 27 9 3 39

Peja / Peć 46 5 - 51

Prishtina / Priština 24 1 1 26

Prizren 12 4 - 16

10

Rahovec / Orahovac 8 2 - 10

Shtërpcë / Štrpce 14 5 - 19

Shtime / Štimlje 2 4 - 6

Skënderaj / Srbica 3 - 1 4

Suhareka / Suva Reka 1 2 - 3

Viti / Vitina 1 - 1 2

Vushtrri / Vučitrn 3 5 - 8

Total 300 67 17 384 Figure 3: Municipal breakdown of SPARK IR supported returns Two noteworthy achievements of SPARK IR in the final year of the project included the return of a displaced family to the centre of Prizren, and the successful return of three Albanian families to North Mitrovica without protest or controversy from the local Serb majority. Almost every family supported under SPARK IR included female members who benefited from reconstruction of their homes and the socio-economic assistance provided through the project. From 2005-2008 the Project did not make its gender mainstreaming efforts sufficiently visible in its reporting; however, from 2009 onwards the Project documented support to eight legally registered female-headed houses, or about 10 percent of the total. With regard to otherwise vulnerable families, SPARK IR was able successfully to negotiate the allocation of municipal land for a number of vulnerable RAE families who returned to Obilić/Obiliq. It also provided housing to an otherwise homeless Albanian family who had been evicted from the home of a RAE returnee to Štimlje/Shtime.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

The profile of SPARK IR beneficiaries who were approved for housing assistance was approximately 70% rural and 30% urban. Most household income was declared as minimal when social assessments were conducted for determining eligibility for housing assistance. The income generated by the returnee households often came from pensions or other social welfare assistance, small-scale/subsistence agriculture, collection of scrap metals, and other labour. Support was provided, at the request of the beneficiary, upon completion of a detailed assessment, training and preparation of a tailor-made business plan. Requests ranged from support for agricultural activities (e.g. provision of livestock and concentrated food or agricultural machinery) to all forms of support to business set up (e.g. provision of tools, provision of motor cultivators, wood cutting machines, taxis, musical instruments). On average the value of the grants provided amounted to approximately €2,000. Over the course of the Project, UNDP contracted delivery of SEA through open tenders (requests for proposals) to two organisations, REA Pristina and APPK. In total 362 SEA grants were delivered to beneficiary households that met the criteria for benefiting from socio-economic grants. Of these, 166 were delivered over the

11

final year and a half of Project implementation, many of which were for beneficiaries who had not received it for various reasons in previous years. In addition to this form of SEA, which SPARK IR had provided throughout the life of the Project, in 2009-10 SPARK IR additionally provided furniture packages and wood-stoves to beneficiaries (something which had previously been provided by UNHCR). By judicious “shopping around” providers in Kosovo, SPARK IR was able to produce more furniture, of better quality, and at a lower price.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Community Development (CD) continues to be viewed as an important element of the returns process. This is evident in the emphasis the two EC- and MCR-funded RRK projects continue to place on building relations with the receiving community through local development projects. SPARK IR viewed health and education as key sectors for community based projects as well as entry points for the encouragement of respect for basic social rights and, by association, sustainable return. The Project implemented a Community Development Voucher Scheme for selected public healthcare and education facilities or small community sub-projects serving receiving communities. The voucher scheme aimed to supplement existing services by providing equipment for health centres and primary schools. It was also designed to engage the respective municipal departments in the implementation of sub-projects serving all communities. In doing so, developing municipal capacities as well as delivering assistance. The support provided under the Community Development Voucher Scheme was based on the number returns to the community. The process promoted reconciliation through the voluntary participation of returnee families, as “donor” of the vouchers given to the communities where they returned. The vouchers were worth €1,000 each and awarded by each returnee family contributing to the overall reconciliation and community development process. The strategy of the scheme was threefold: (i) enhance reconciliation at the community level through individual returnee families contributing to public health/education facilities that serve the community at large, (ii) engage and partner with municipal departments of health and education in support of spontaneous returns, and (iii) support crucial public primary health and education facilities and small community projects in mixed communities.

UNDP / SPARK IR

- Identify eligible municipalities based on returns; - Participate in Community Development Voucher Scheme

Committee meetings; - Sign Memorandum of Agreement between the selected

municipality and UNDP based on allocation of vouchers agreed;

- Allocate 70 % of the total funds to the municipality bank account;

- Municipality undertakes the procurement of equipment items/services following the receipt of vouchers and

12

approval of equipment orders/services; - Final financial and narrative report; - Allocate 30 % of the remaining funds based on the

expenditure report presented to UNDP; - Monitoring; - Final committee meeting.

Figure 4: Community development implementation procedures Selection was made on the basis of the number of returnee families combined with other factors such as the level of multi-ethnicity in the community and the relative success of previous integration efforts. It should be noted that the voucher scheme could not be used in parallel structures. Figure 4 summarises the scheme’s implementation procedures. As can be seen in Figure 5, the SPARK IR voucher scheme supported the implementation of 46 separate community development sub-projects across 13 different municipalities. Two-hundred and three beneficiaries voluntarily supported the scheme by donating their vouchers in order to fund these CD sub-projects.

Municipality Community Development Sub-Project

Dragash/Dragaš (€23,000)

Local health centre supported with heating equipment; Public library supported with books in Bosniac, Albanian and Serbian; Rehabilitation of a local health centre; Computing lab for a local primary school in Gora; Sound system for a local community centre.

Fushë Kosovë / Kosovo Polje (€8,000)

Local health centre supported with a dental chair; Local primary school, “Selman Riza”, supported with doors for classrooms.

Istog/Istok (€25,000)

Local health centre supported with a dental chair; Local health centre supported with a photometer for blood analysis; Local primary school, “Trepça”, supported with books in Bosniac and Albanian; Local health centre in Veriq supported with basic equipment as well as with rehabilitative works; Local primary school in Gurrakoc supported with books; Two classes for children with disabilities, one in Istog/Istok town and one in Banja village, supported with books.

Kamenicë / Kamenica (€8,000)

Local nursery, “Filizat”, supported with a generator, vacuum cleaner, carpets and toys; Regional health centre, QKMF, supported with two ECG apparatus.

Klinë / Klina Regional health centre, QKMF, supported with an ambulance;

13

(€28,000) Local primary school, “Ismet Rraci”, supported with a photocopy machine, desks and chairs; Local primary school, “Rados Tosic”, supported with computers, microscopes, and a photocopy machine; Rehabilitation of the local Red Cross building.

Mitrovicë / Mitrovica (€23,000)

Local nursery, “Gëzimi Ynë”, supported with a laundry machine, dish washer and toys; Local nursery, “Danica Jaramaz”, supported with a laundry machine, dish washer and toys; Fence erected around the main health centre; Fence erected around a primary school for children with disabilities; Women’s NGO supported with IT equipment; Rehabilitation work for social cases in northern Mitrovicë / Mitrovica.

Novobërdë / Novobrdo (€8,000)

New sewage system for Llabjan/Llabjane village; Community in Prekovc/Prekove supported with a public toilet; Local primary school supported with books in Albanian and computers in Serbian.

Obiliq / Obilic (€29,000)

Local health centre in Palaj/Crkvena Vodica village supported with equipment including a tension meter, ECG apparatus and surgical bags; Local health centre in Plemetinë/Plemetina village supported with a central heating system; Local primary schools, “Fazli Grajçevci” and “Dosideje obradovic”, supported with basic equipment including blackboards, maps and balls; Community centre in Plemetinë/Plemetina village supported with tables and chairs; Main health centre supported with basic equipment; Local primary school, “Pandeli Sotiri”, supported with a computing lab; Community centre in Plemetinë/Plemetina village supported with a water pump and stands for a dome.

Pejë / Pec (€11,000)

Main health centre supported with apparatus for blood analysis; Local primary school, “Rilindja”, in the village of Terstenik supported with windows and doors.

Prishtinë / Pristina (€13,000)

Local health centre in “Kodra e Trimave” supported with apparatus for blood analysis; Local primary school, “Emin Duraku”, supported with a photocopy machine, computers and a projector.

Prizren (€7,000)

Main health centre supported with ultrasound equipment; Local primary school, “Ekrem Rexha”, in Lubizhda supported with equipment including a microscope, an oscilloscope scope, footballs and a ping-pong table.

Rahovec / Orahovac (€9,000)

Local health centre in Fortesa/Bellacerka village supported with equipment for measuring blood pressure, inhalers and sterilisation equipment; Local health centre in Upper Rahovec/Orahovac supported with an ambulance.

Shtërpcë / Strpce (€11,000)

Local health centre in Drajkoc village supported with ultrasound apparatus; Local primary school, “Osman Mani”, in Firaja village supported with books in Albanian; Local primary school, “Stoja Markovic”, supported with asphalt for the school yard.

14

Figure 5: Overview of SPARK IR community development projects implemented under the voucher scheme

Ceremonies were conducted following the completion of each community development sub-project bringing together the returnee families, heads of municipal executives, MROs, MCOs, health and education departments, directors and personnel of schools and health institutions and ordinary citizens. The implementation procedure for the Community Development Voucher Scheme was actioned in close cooperation/partnership with the respective municipal authorities. This cooperation involved Municipal Directors of Health and Education, officials from the Municipal Communities Office, Municipal Return Officers, the Municipal Procurement Office and Municipal Presidents thus building local capacity and enhancing the reconciliation aspect of the Scheme. The Community Development Voucher Scheme was closed with the change of management in SPARK IR in late 2008. From November 2008, no such vouchers were issued by beneficiaries or requested by municipalities. The decision to close the scheme was based on an independent Impact Assessment Report of the Returns Programme which found that sustainability of the returnees families under SPARK IR were between 80 and 90 percent. The management felt that the balancing component was no longer necessary. This policy was justified, in implementation, by the fact that no resistance to individual returns was shown in any of the municipalities involved following the decision.

E. SPARK ORGANISED RETURNS

SPARK Organised Returns involved the planned movement of eight or more beneficiaries where comprehensive assistance packages were developed prior to the physical return of the IDPs. The main components of such packages included, but were not limited to, inter-ethnic dialogue, go and see and go and inform visits, housing reconstruction, food and non-food packages, household assistance, winterisation assistance, income generation support, community development projects, transportation of beneficiaries’ goods from their place of displacement, as well as assistance for the preparation of property documents.

15

DELIVERY OVERVIEW

Approaches to programming and implementation The nature of organised and group returns necessitated a sub-project based approach, as opposed to SPARK IR’s service line approach. However, assistance was guided by the same principles, laid out in the Revised Manual for Sustainable Returns, the Returns Eligibility Criteria and the implementation procedures adopted by the Advisory Board of Directors. Other approaches adopted by the project included: • Participatory planning on the part of the Community; • Community development approaches utilized throughout the implementation of

the Project to promote self reliance; • Reintegration into municipal structures and services; • Rights-based programming; • Gender mainstreaming; • Common utilisation of balancing components; and • Youth participation within community stabilisation activities. Selection of beneficiaries and sub-projects The same rigorous beneficiary selection and assurance process was applied to SPARK OR (see figure 1); however, this was within the framework of a sub-project based approach. Eligibility criteria for the assistance to Organised and Group Returns demanded that the following be met: • Foreseen activities had to be specified in a Concept Paper which had been fully

endorsed by the relevant Municipal Working Group (MWG); • The concept paper was then reviewed and endorsed by the Central Review

Mechanism (CRM) which was chaired by the MCR with active participation from UNDP, UNHCR, UNMIK/OCRM to ensure compliance with the Manual for Sustainable Returns and the MCR Returns Strategy Framework;

• The final decision on financial allocation for the specific sub-project was taken by the MCR in collaboration with UNDP and UNMIK.

Housing assistance The provision of adequate housing assistance was an important precondition for achieving substantial returns and enabling sustainability. The Project provided both full and partial housing reconstruction and repair for IDPs whose houses suffered Category 4 or 5damage as a consequence of the conflict. Over 11 housing reconstruction sub-projects, SPARK OR rebuilt 292 houses for beneficiaries across Kosovo. The ethnic breakdown of beneficiary families,

16

displayed in Figure 6, supported under the Project, was 67 percent Serb, 18 percent Albanian, seven percent Ashkali, seven percent Roma and one percent Egyptian.

Serb

Albanian

Ashkali

Roma Egyptian

Figure 6: Ethnic breakdown of SPARK OR beneficiaries As can be seen from the geographical breakdown by municipality, displayed in Figure 7, some municipalities were more open to supporting organised returns than others. The more complex and politically sensitive nature of an organised return meant that fewer municipalities were willing or capable of supporting this form of return than was experienced with individual returns under SPARK IR. However, among the municipalities that were open to the organised return of beneficiaries, a significantly higher number of returns were supported than under SPARK IR. Municipality Beneficiaries

Ferizaj / Uroševac 85

Fushë Kosova / Kosovo Polje 34

Gjilan / Gnjilane 24

Kilnë / Klina 96 Leposaviq / Leposavic 28

Lipjan / Lipljan 25

Total 292 Figure 7: Municipal breakdown of SPARK OR supported returns With regard to gender mainstreaming, the majority of families supported under SPARK OR included female members who benefited from the various forms of support provided by the project. Out of the 292 families that received support, 36, or 12 percent of the total, were female-headed households.

17

Socio-economic assistance In order to further the sustainability of returns and in accordance with the Manual for Sustainable Return, SPARK OR delivered a socio-economic assistance component. Following their physical return, beneficiary families received assistance in the form of equipment for income generation up to the value of €2000. The equipment requests varied from agricultural tools to information technology. Prior to receiving the grant, beneficiaries participated in business start-up and planning training. Over the course of the SPARK OR project, 217 SEA packages were delivered to beneficiaries. The contrast between the number of families supported with housing reconstruction and the number of SEA packages delivered is due to the ineligibility of the 75 beneficiaries in the Return to Srpski Babus/Babushi Serb sub-project for SEA. Community development, infrastructure and inter-ethnic dialogue assistance Community and infrastructure development interventions targeted both the receiving and the returning community by improving access to services and reconstructing or renovating infrastructure at the site of return. Through SPARK OR, agricultural associations were developed based on local needs and priorities such as the milk-collection centre or the bull-breeding sub-project. Roads were also renovated and reconstructed. Whenever possible, contractors were encouraged to employ local staff from all communities. Figure 8 displays the range of non-housing activities undertaken by SPARK OR.

18

Sub-Project Reference

Description

Sub-projects with a community development component

SPARK 002 Klinavc/Klinavac milk collection center; SPARK 009 Abdullah Presheva/Abdula Presevo community center; SPARK 010 Berkove/Berkovo Pig Farm; SPARK 013 Pasteurization and preservation of fruits and vegetables in the village of

Veliko Ropotovo/Ropotovë e madhe; SPARK 014 Equipment for a forest fruits processing facility in Sredska/Sredskë region; SPARK 015 Equipment for the community centre in Prapaqan/Prapaqe village; SPARK 016 Bull breeding project in Videje/Vidanje village; Sub-projects with an infrastructure development component

SPARK 001A Srpski Babus/Babushi serb - construction of a water supply system; rehabilitation of the sewage works, the local school, street lighting, the electricity network and the local health centre;

SPARK 001B Surcine/Surcina - construction of a water supply system and sewage works; rehabilitation of the local school;

SPARK 002 Klinac/Klinavac - rehabilitation of the water network, electricity network and roads in the village;

SPARK 003 Leposavic/Leposaviq - Ceraja and Koshtove/Koshtovo road network rehabilitation; Ceraja water supply network reconstruction;

SPARK 004 Talinoc/Talinovac - Construction of a water supply system; SPARK 005 Shtimje/Stimlje - water and electrical network rehabilitation and street

lighting reconstruction; SPARK 006 Brestovik - renovation of the water supply system; SPARK 007 Drsnik/Drsnike – asphalting of the local roads; SPARK 008A Construction of street lighting in Magure/Magura; SPARK 008B Rehabilitation of the road network in Konjuh and the local school in Hallaq

(co-financed by the Municipality of Lipjan/ Lipljane); SPARK 009 Rehabilitation of a local road; SPARK 010 Rehabilitation of the water supply and electricity networks; SPARK 011 Lismir/Dobridub and Nakarade/Nakarada - rehabilitation of the water

supply, sewage and electricity networks; SPARK 012 Rehabilitation of the Road Network; SPARK 017 Return to Berkove/Berkovo, Phase II SPARK 019 Rehabilitation of electricity network in Berivojc/Berivoje; SPARK 022 Return to Rudice/Rudica village, Municipality of Kline/Klina SPARK 023 Return to Softaj/Softovic village, Ferizaj/Urosevac Municipality Sub-projects w/Inter-ethnic dialogue and returns preparation

SPARK 018 Dialogue facilitation and return preparations for returns to rural areas surrounding Decan/Decane and the town itself;

SPARK 020 Return to Prizren town – preparation of the location. Figure 8: SPARK OR community, infrastructure and dialogue development activities With regard to gender mainstreaming activities within SPARK OR’s community development assistance, two sub-projects contained components specifically targeted at women. SPARK 008 - Multi-sectoral Assistance for the Sustainable Return and Reintegration of Roma, Ashkali, Egyptian and Serb families to Lipjan/Lipljan municipality - included a sowing course for women from all the villages supported by the sub-project. The course lasted for three months. Of the 123 participants, 37 were from the returning community. In addition, SPARK 015 -

19

Support to the Community Centre in Prapaqan/Prapaqane - included training for local and returnee women who had lost their husbands during the conflict. This component of the sub-project was implemented by a local women’s association, Jeta, and included courses on IT, English, cooking and craft.

SUB-PROJECTS

SPARK 001A: Return to Srpski Babuš/Babushi Serb; SPARK 001B: Community and infrastructure development in Surqine/Surcina; and SPARK 001C: Multi-sectoral assistance to support return to Srpski Babuš/Babushi Serb (€2,100,737.30, €286,486.29 and €4,559.43) Funded by the Ministry of Communities and Returns, and implemented in partnership with European Perspective, the sub-project supported 75 Kosovo Serb families through housing reconstruction assistance, construction of local infrastructure, rehabilitation of the local health centre and reconstruction of the local primary school. The infrastructure component included construction of a water and sanitation network, an electric network with street lighting and repair to the road network surrounding the settlement. The total length of the road network reconstructed was 1,455 meters. The rehabilitated Health Centre and reconstructed primary school were handed over to the Municipality of Ferizaj/Urosevac, which took responsibility for their continuing operation. SPARK 001C was initiated to support the development of income generation plans for the beneficiaries as a precursor to their socio-economic assistance packages. However, following a meeting with representatives of the beneficiaries concerning their return and considering the fact that only five heads-of-households were ever present in the village, it was agreed that the beneficiaries were no longer eligible for socio-economic assistance. SPARK 001B was developed as the balancing component, for the return to Srpski Babuš/Babushi Serb, in the nearby village of Surqine/Surcina. The sub-project supported the renovation of the village primary school, the reconstruction of the sewage system and the restoration of the water supply network. SPARK 002: Return to Klinac/Klinavac (€718,257.47) The sub-project supported the return of 17 Serb families and provided assistance to 6 Ashkali families and 5 Albanian families through the full return package, delivered upon the arrival of the heads-of-household. The village also benefited from the sub-project’s rehabilitation of the water and electric networks. As part of the community development component, the dairy building was reconstructed for the use of all the communities in the village. This milk collection point was also equipped with all the necessary machinery for this activity. Furthermore, two tractors were granted to the village’s agricultural association in

20

order to enable joint farming of the village land. The sub-project was funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns, and implemented in partnership with the Municipality of Klinë/Klina. SPARK 003: Return to Leposavic/Leposaviq (€761,919.59) Funded by the Ministry of Communities and Returns, and implemented in partnership with the Lutheran World Federation, the sub-project included the reconstruction of 28 houses in the KBC (Koshtove/Kosutovo-Bistrice/a-Ceraje/a) area, the reconstruction of local roads, the development of agricultural income generation projects, the provision of income generating equipment and the delivery of training. Reconstruction of the roads from Koshtove/Kosutovo to Bistrice/a (4.3 km) and from Mitrovice/a-Leposaviq/c to Ceraja/e (4.5 km) were completed in order to improve access to farmland and to neighbouring villages. Agriculture-based income generation projects for up to 25 returnee Serb families and up to 25 Kosovo Albanian families in the neighbouring communities were developed. The income generation equipment ordered by the beneficiaries was characteristic of rural returns as it included vegetable seedlings, cows, bees, greenhouses and other agricultural equipment. A total of four greenhouses (100m²) were distributed and installed in the field. Pregnant sows were also provided with each beneficiary receiving two pregnant sows, 200kg of feed concentrate and two visits from veterinary services. Training was also provided to the returning and receiving communities in order to improve the efficiency of their agricultural activities. Three training programmes were delivered, one in each village. The topic of the training depended on the nature of the income generation equipment received by the community. One programme was focused on the cultivation of vegetables, whereas the other was concerned with beekeeping. The sub-project also worked with the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) in improving the communities’ access to social services. LWF supported the formation of women’s groups, primarily for the residents of the villages, but also for other women from internally displaced families. The sub-project, in partnership with the LWF, supported the groups by supplying them with handicraft material. The LWF social development team also organised

21

training in Ohrid for 20 leaders of women’s groups and 2 leaders of local NGOs. The training focussed on strengthening the network of women’s groups and NGO management. The LWF also organised female health education training, over five days, on paediatric diseases and feeding, infective diseases, family planning, pregnancy, the female body, birth control, hygiene, and care for the elderly. LWF also distributed supplies to the local schools. SPARK 004: Construction of a water supply system in Talinoc/Talinovac (€179,510.73) The sub-project, funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns, and implemented in partnership with the Municipality of Ferizaj/Urosevac, supported a CARE International implemented, and EAR funded, multi-sectoral minority return project of 40 Serb families, with a water supply system. The sub-project included the construction of a primary water network for the entire village with secondary piping and additional fixtures to allow for easy access for the wider community of 3,000 individuals. SPARK 005: Rehabilitation of the water and electrical networks in Shtimje/Stimlje (€49,003.51) The sub-project was implemented in the small mixed “Ismail Gorani” district of Shtimje/Stimlje where Kosovo Albanian and Ashkali families reside. The new water and electrical networks, benefiting 66 families, were funded by the Ministry of Communities and Returns and implemented in partnership with Developing Together. The former network was damaged and not only created difficulties with regard to the supply of electricity but also created a serious safety hazard for the residents. The rehabilitation of the electrical network and installation of street lighting improved the quality of life of the districts residents and made the prospect of return more attractive for displaced families originally from the area. SPARK 006: Renovation of the water supply system in Brestovik (€11,876.09) The sub-project, funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns and implemented in partnership with Mercy Corps, aimed to improve the living conditions of 35 Serbs in Brestovik, who returned in 2005-2006 as part of an organised return project. The sub-project was identified by the community as being of utmost importance. With the renovation of the water system, the quality of life for the 35 residents was improved, which ensured that their return was sustainable. SPARK 007: Asphalting the local roads in Dresnike/Drsnik (€27,042.44) The aim of the sub-project, fully funded by the Ministry of Communities and Returns and implemented in partnership with Mercy Corps, was to improve the living conditions of the 250 Kosovo Albanians and 200 Serbs in the village. The majority of Serbs living in the village returned in 2005-2006 as part of a GAR funded returns project. The initiative was proposed during an open meeting with the community where residents identified asphalting of the local roads as a priority project.

22

Roma returnee family in a newly reconstructed home

SPARK 008A: Multi-sectoral assistance for sustainable return and reintegration of Ashkali and Serb families to Lipjan/ Lipljane municipality (€495,101.02); and SPARK 008B: Support to the construction of the new primary school in Hallaq i vogël/Mali Alas, Lipjan/Lipljane Municipality (€37,379.53) The sub-project supported 25 families including 13 Ashkali families, six Serb families, five Kosovo Albanian families and one Roma family. The sub-project was funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns and implemented in partnership with Developing Together and the Municipality. The families were assisted with return to the villages of Magure/Magura, Hallaq e Vogel/Mali Alas, Konjuh, Mostie/Mostina and Rabovc/Rabovce through the full returns assistance package. The sub-project also rehabilitated the electric and road networks surrounding the villages. SPARK 008B funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns and foreseen as a continuation of SPARK 008A, the community development sub-project, co-financed by the Municipality of Lipjan/Lipljane, constructed a new primary school in the village of Hallaq i vogël/Mali Alas. SPARK 009: Return to Abdullah Presheva/ Presevo, Gjilan/Gnjilane (€435,982.46) The Abdullah Presheva/Presevo Neighbourhood is one of the two neighbourhoods in Gjilan/Gnjilane that was inhabited predominantly by Roma prior to the 1998-1999 conflict. During and after the conflict the majority of the Roma families fled to Serbia

and Macedonia for security reasons. Roma properties, left without any supervision, quickly became targets for destruction and occupation by the majority population. The sub-project, funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns and implemented in partnership with Mercy Corps and the Municipality, supported 19 Roma and 5 Kosovo Albanian families. Mercy Corps worked with the community to identify and implement a community centre renovation project in coordination

with the Community Working Group. Business planning and assessments were conducted with beneficiaries to support their income generation activities. Comprehensive training and information sessions were also conducted for returnee and other interested individuals on business, education, human rights and health. The sub-project also supported the rehabilitation of seven roads around the neighbourhood, 779m in length.

23

SPARK 010: Return to Berkove/Berkovo, Phase I (€600,498.37) Under the sub-project, funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns and implemented in partnership with the Municipality of Kilne/Kilna and the Danish Refugee Council, each of the 21 returnee families (19 Serb, two Kosovo Albanian) received a new house, returns assistance packages and SEA, valued at up to €2000. A pig farm was also established and a multiethnic agricultural association – Agro Berkovo – was created in order to produce and sell agricultural products. With regard to infrastructure development, the sub-project supported the renovation of the village’s water supply system and electrical network. SPARK 011: Return to Nakarade and Lismir/Dobri Dub, Fushë Kosove/Kosovo Polje Municipality (€774,562.34) The sub-project, funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns and implemented in partnership with the Municipality of Fushë Kosove/Kosovo Polje and European Perspective, supported the return of 30 Serb families with a full assistance package as well as housing reconstruction for four vulnerable Kosovo Albanian families. The project also rehabilitated the local electrical and water networks. SPARK 012: Return to Klinavc/Klinavac village, Kline/Klina Municipality (€319,828.45) In the year prior to the sub-project’s implementation, a group of 17 Serbs had successfully returned to the village (SPARK 002) suggesting that sustainability was highly likely. The sub-project, funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns and implemented in partnership with the Municipality of Kilne/Kilna, supported the return of 15 Serb families, two Ashkali families and one Egyptian family. The sub-project provided assistance to three vulnerable Kosovo Albanian families from the receiving community. The sub-project also supported the rehabilitation of the road and the construction of a local community centre. SPARK 013: Pasteurization and preservation of fruits and vegetables in the village of Ropotovë e madhe/Veliko Ropotovo, Kamenicë/Kamenica Municipality (€53,273.43) Based on the results of a market survey and in consultation with representatives of the community, the most attractive form of production was the pasteurisation and preservation of fruits and vegetables. The sub-project, funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns and implemented in partnership with the Municipality of Kamenicë/Kamenica, supported the rehabilitation of a local facility and supplied equipment for the preservation of fruits and vegetables, as well as a generator to mitigate for the frequent power cuts experienced in the municipality. SPARK 014: Support to the Forest Fruits Processing Facility in Sredska /Sredskë, Prizren Municipality (€30,314.04) Funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns and implemented in partnership with the Municipality of Prizren, the sub-project supported the

24

rehabilitation and conversion of the community centre in Bogosevac village into a food processing facility. The sub-project delivered equipment for the processing and production of dried tea, mushrooms, fruits and vegetables. SPARK 015: Support to the Community Centre in Prapaqan/Prapaqane village, Deçan/Decani Municipality (€12,996.56) The sub-project, funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns and implemented in partnership with the Municipality of Deçan/Decani, supported the reconstruction of the community centre in the village of Prapaqan/Prapacane. The centre was used as a venue for training courses in vocational areas such as hairdressing and IT. The training activities were implemented by the woman’s NGO, Jeta. SPARK 016: Bull breeding project in Videje/Vidanje village, Klinë/Klina Municipality (€5,581.50) The ethnically mixed village of Videje/ Vidanje was largely destroyed during the conflict in 1999. Prior to the conflict the village housed more than 100 Serb families. Forty-five Serb families had returned during two previous phases in 2004 and 2005. The sub-project, funded by the Norwegian government and in partnership with Klinë/Klina Municipality, involved the procurement of 11 young bulls for a breeding programme. The sub-project was drafted as an agri-business plan for six families in the village. It also re-enforced the business in stock-farming that had developed strongly within the village. SPARK 017: Return to Berkove/Berkovo, Phase II (€225,862.00) The sub-project, funded by the British government and implemented in partnership with the municipality of Klinë/Klina, supported the return of 14 Serbian families to Berkove/Berkovo, as well as housing assistance for a vulnerable Kosovo Albanian family from the receiving community.

Alongside housing reconstruction, the sub-project delivered socio-economic assistance to all 15 beneficiaries who pooled their resources in order to receive a trailer, a plough, a three-row scarifier, a 20 disk plough, a wheat seeder and a side scythe. Garden tools were also delivered to all 15 beneficiary families including trolleys, axes, pickaxes, rakes, shovels, hoes, saws and scythes. Consonant with the manual for sustainable return, food, non-food items,

furniture and winterisation support was delivered to each family upon return. Furthermore, the sub-project supported the renovation of the road to the village and provided wheat seed and synthetic fertiliser. SPARK 018 Dialogue facilitation and preparation for return to Decan/Decani (€15,146.85)

25

Funded by the British government and implemented in partnership with Deçan/Dečani municipality, the primary goal of the sub-project was to foster

conditions for the sustainable return and reintegration of Serbian families, to the Deçan/Dečani villages of Upper and Lower Ratish, Dashinoc/Dasinovac, Lumebardh/Ljumbard, Pozhar/Pozare and Kodrali/Kodralia and to Deçan/Dečani town, through various cross-boundary activities. The sub-project consisted of various information and

outreach activities to Montenegro and Serbia in support of an informed decision-making process and the creation of conditions conducive to sustainable return. However, a controversial decision, taken by UNMIK, to transfer municipal land to the Deçan/Dečani Monastery precipitated a negative reaction from the local War Veterans Association, making returns to the area unfeasible. SPARK 019: Rehabilitation of the electricity network in Berivojc/Berivoje, Kamenice/Kamenica Municipality (€53,632.50) Funded by the government of the Czech Republic and implemented in partnership with Kamenice/Kamenica Municipality, the sub-project rehabilitated the electricity network in Berivojc/Berivoje. KEK participated in the sub-project, installing the new transformer, removing the old network of poles and cabling and, at the same time, moving the secondary connections to the new system. The sub-project, entirely financed by the Czech Embassy in Kosovo, was part of a larger project supporting infrastructure development in the Municipality of Kamenice/Kamenica. SPARK 020: Preparation for Return to Prizren town (€8,170.00) Following the identification and screening of potential beneficiaries, conducted by

the IDP associations Sveti Spas and JUG, 12 families were selected for participation in the proposed Return to Prizren town sub-project. Following approval of the cases by the MWG, site clearing commenced, using labour from local minority communities, and a technical commission, including Cultural Heritage without Borders, visited the site.

The sub-project was of great importance to Prizren due to the cultural heritage status of the houses. The sub-project, funded by the Ministry for Communities and Returns and implemented in partnership with Prizren Municipality, has continued into a second phase under the management of the Danish Refugee Council.

26

SPARK 022: Return to Rudice/Rudica village, Municipality of Kline/Klina (€245,880.00) The multi-sectoral organized return sub-project, SPARK 022, funded by the British

government and implemented in partnership with Klinë/Klina municipality, facilitated the return of 10 Serb families to Rudice/Rudica village and supported a vulnerable Kosovo Albanian family from the receiving community. Nine of the families pooled their SEA in order to purchase a tractor and some agricultural equipment. Household support was delivered to the returnees upon

arrival by the sub-project. Food and further household support was also delivered by the UNHCR Peja/Pec office following return. The infrastructure component of the sub-project supported the construction of a bridge (16m) over the Klinë/Klina river, between the villages of Rudice/Rudica and Brekove/Berkovo, and the rehabilitation of the roads leading to the bridge. The bridge was financed jointly by the Ministry for Communities and Returns and the British Embassy in Pristina. Inhabitants from both villages own land on the opposite side of the river. As such, this component generated improved access to property for returnees and the receiving community. SPARK 023: Return to Softaj/Softovic village, Ferizaj/Urosevac municipality (197,400.00) The sub-project, financed by the British government and implemented in partnership

with Ferizaj/Urosevac municipality, supported the return of nine Serb families to the village of Softaj/Softovic. The project also supported a vulnerable Kosovo Albanian family from the receiving community. The income generation equipment, requested by the beneficiaries, consisted of carpentry tools, auto-mechanic repair tools and moto-cultivators.

Household assistance was also delivered to the beneficiaries, including electrical appliances. The sub-project’s infrastructure component consisted of an upgrade to the village’s electricity network, through the installation of a new transformer, and the rehabilitation of roads around the village. Ceremonies were conducted following the completion of each sub-project bringing together donors, returnee families, the receiving community, implementing partners, heads of municipal executives, MROs, MCOs, the media and ordinary citizens.

27

F. COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH

The SPARK Project, directed by its Communications Strategy, enhanced the transparency of its activities and promoted return through a range of media projects. The strategy focussed on strengthening cooperation with a number of specialised media outlets that targeted returnee and potential returnee families. The communication activities were coordinated by the Communications and Outreach Coordination Group (COCG), which approved all media projects. The Ministry for Communities and Returns chaired the group and UNDP took a leading role in the implementation of the media and outreach projects, together with other stakeholders involved in the returns process. The SPARK Communications team delivered a combination of on-the-ground visibility activities as well as outreach and inter-ethnic dialogue across a variety of communications mediums. On-the-ground activities involved billboards at each SPARK OR sub-project site and smaller plaques on each house reconstructed by SPARK IR. Leaflets and brochures were also produced centrally in order to raise the profile of SPARK among stakeholders and the public at large. Daily interaction with national and the international journalists took place in a proactive and responsive manner in order to highlight the Project’s achievements and raise awareness of the returns process with local and international audiences. For the opening and closing of SPARK sub-projects, public media events were organised allowing donors, the retuning community, the receiving community and other stakeholders to articulate their support for the process. In addition to the day-to-day work of the SPARK Communications team, the following sub-projects were implemented: SPARK COMMS 001 – Establishment of an independent Media Centre in Cagllavicë/Caglavica village. This project was approved in January 2007 and included the purchase of basic equipment for a Media Centre in Cagllavicë/Caglavica village, Pristina municipality. The implementing partner was an NGO representing independent journalists from minority communities, “New Press”. The direct support to minority community media provided by the Media Centre gave minority communities a greater local voice and altered the dynamic of outreach to displaced families. The Media Centre was opened on 30th of March 2007. UNDP together with US AID (that supported the activities of Media Centre) organised an opening ceremony.

28

Under the auspices of the new Media Centre, New Press organised debates on the returns process and produced 20 radio shows on returns broadcast across the region.

SPARK COMMS 001 – Documentary on Urban Individual Return to Klinë/Klina. Klinë/Klina municipality was one of the most successful municipalities under SPARK, realising many returns projects including the first urban return. The documentary on Klinë/Klina Urban Return, broadcast in November 2007, was implemented by a local NGO, “Future”. The aim was to promote urban return in Kosovo with a particular focus on Klinë/Klina municipality. The Project was supported by the British Government and managed by the UNDP Individual Return facility. SPARK COMMS 002 – Documentary on the conditions of Internally Displaced Persons in collective centres.

The documentary focussed on the conditions of IDPs living in collective centres with the aim of encouraging support for their return. The COCG wanted to refocus institutions dealing with returns on the resolution of the current situation in collective centres. The documentary was broadcast across Serbia and Kosovo in July 2007. Four-hundred DVDs of the documentary in three languages were distributed to all interested partners.

29

SPARK COMMS 003 - Return to Kosovo with RTV “Mir”.

SPARK COMMS 003 developed six TV and radio programmes focussed on returns issues. The programmes enabled IDPs to articulate their concerns and hopes for the future. It also provided a space for other stakeholders to highlight the opportunities available for return and the necessary procedures for registration. The programmes were delivered over six months and concluded in November 2007. SPARK COMMS 004 - Documentary on Kosovo elections in 2007 and minority communities participation. The sub-project supported the production and broadcast of a documentary focussed on the Kosovo elections in 2007. Funded by the Government of Norway, the purpose of the documentary was to raise public awareness of the elections and their potential impact on IDPs and minority communities in Kosovo. The production team interviewed officials from the Kosovo Authorities, the Government of Serbia, political parties, the international community, IDPs and the public at large. SPARK COMMS 005 - Kosovo, my home too. The sub-project Kosovo, my home too supported the production of a book of poems by internally displaced children, originally from Kosovo, displaced throughout the region. Srecna Porodica, an IDP association, together with New Press (Kosovo) and KOSMET (Montenegro), facilitated the creation of the book through their contacts with IDPs. Three thousand copies of the book were produced in English, Albanian and Serbian. Seven children were recognised for the quality of their poems with computers for their IDP associations. SPARK and the IDP Regional Project funded the communications sub-project. SPARK COMMS 006 - Sve je Moguće Possibly one of SPARK’s most bold and successful communications sub-projects, Sve je Moguće was a Kosovo-based Serbian language TV programme that reached out to all communities in Kosovo and provided opportunities for debate on key issues of concern amongst Kosovo Serbs. Produced at the Kosovo Institute for Journalism and Communication (KIJAC), the sub-project promoted high production values and supported the development of professional opportunities for Kosovo-Serb media personnel. SPARK’s contribution (Government of Kosovo Funds)

30

consisted of a grant of $30,000 and technical assistance for the pre-production phase. A major donor event to support the sustainability of the programme secured funding for the rest of the series from the Embassies of Denmark, Norway and Luxembourg. The creation of a pilot Serbian language television talk show provided a broadcasting space for Kosovo-Serbs from diverse backgrounds and opinions; established a Kosovo-Serb presence within the Kosovo broadcast media environment; and enabled Kosovo-Serbs to communicate with one another and with a wider Kosovo audience including Kosovo-Albanians.

G. SUSTAINABILITY

As indicated by the November 2008 independent Impact Assessment Report of the Returns Programme, the fact that over 80 percent of beneficiaries are present and are living in their homes is a good indication of the project’s sustainability and a credit to the careful selection process. From the numerous site visits conducted by UNDP staff it is clear that SPARK beneficiaries are rebuilding their livelihoods in Kosovo - Kitchen gardens are planted with an array of vegetables and agricultural land is being farmed with the equipment delivered through income generation assistance. The high incidence of returns in an area is an indication of the progressive attitudes of the receiving community and the municipal capacity for the support of return. As was evidenced by the location of SPARK OR sub-projects, a successful return to a municipality was often followed by further returns. The manifold variables (political, social, economic and otherwise), inherent in any returns project, make it difficult to guarantee sustainability. In Kosovo, the lack of employment opportunities influences the livelihoods of the majority community, as well as returnee families. However, the situation in the field strongly suggests that the funds were invested effectively and that, apart from exceptions such as Srpski Babuš/Babushi Serb where returns did not take place, sustainability has been generally accomplished. The issue of support to sustainable returns needs to be considered in a long term perspective, and aim to include follow-up support returnees that extends beyond the life of the project. Future returns projects should make greater use of the Risk Log as a mechanism for monitoring variables, including those that are beyond the control of the project, that may impact sustainability.

H. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

Over the course of its implementation, the SPARK project delivered in excess of $20 million of returns activities in support of the sustainable return of 624 beneficiary families. It also delivered 579 socio-economic assistance packages and implemented 69 separate community/infrastructure development initiatives. The key difference between the two components, Individual Return and Organised Return, as the names suggest, was in the size of the returning community. However,

31

differences also existed in the size and nature of the balancing component delivered by each of the two approaches. SPARK IR did not have to offer large-scale infrastructure projects or community development projects, although in a small number of cases it did provide limited infrastructure through its community development voucher scheme. However, the long-term sustainability of returnees is more probable under SPARK OR due to the size of the communities supported under the activity. As highlighted by UNHCR data on willingness to return, demand for return has increased since the spring of 2008, following its decrease after the unilateral declaration of independence in February 2008. Furthermore, readmissions are increasing from Western Europe which will place a greater strain on municipal capacities for the absorption of voluntary returnees. As such, the following lessons learned from the SPARK project are of particular importance: • Beneficiary selection is crucial. The entire project’s implementation and

sustainability depends upon whether the selected returnees are serious about building their future in Kosovo;

• An appropriate returns site is very important. During the preparatory phase, the site should be carefully selected following an analysis of the region, including the incidence and sustainability of previous returns; analysis should also consider technical constraints as well as availability of utilities (water, electricity, sewerage)

• Receiving community support is also critical. Experience across Returns Programming to date indicates that return, without community engagement, is often unsustainable. The income generation component of the returns package can generate resentment among receiving communities; however, through a balancing component, such as infrastructure works, support to vulnerable cases within the receiving community and other community development initiatives, receiving communities can be engaged within the returns process and remove any external obstacles to sustainability.

32

I.

SP

AR

K P

RO

JE

CT

DE

LIV

ER

Y F

OR

PE

RIO

D 2

00

5-2

010 (

AL

L D

ON

OR

S)

YE

AR

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

T

ota

l D

eliv

ery

by

31.1

2.2

010

Sup

port

to

Org

aniz

ed

Retu

rns

70,0

76.8

3

5,0

39,5

04.4

1

4,2

14,4

74.5

1

1,5

36,9

61.7

4

901,8

22.1

9

284,1

07.0

0

12,0

46,9

46.6

8

Sup

port

to

Indiv

idu

al

Retu

rns

242,8

64.0

8

2,1

87,6

11.5

1

3,6

62,3

64.1

2

1,6

05,8

36.4

8

1,6

69,4

62.3

4

392,6

12.6

4

9,7

60,7

51.1

7

Com

munic

atio

n

75,6

59.0

1

8,1

81.3

0

112,9

27.5

7

196,7

67.8

8

To

tal

312,9

40.9

1

7,2

27,1

15.9

2

7,9

52,4

97.6

4

3,1

50,9

79.5

2

2,6

84,2

12.1

0

676,7

19.6

4

22,0

04,4

65.7

3