European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights

European Union Georgia

Civil Society Human Rights Seminar on Internally Displaced Persons

Disclaimer

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

Tbilisi, 12 November 2009

Final Report
November 2009 Contract n 2009/218350

This seminar is funded by The European Union

This seminar is organised by Cecoforma 1

Disclaimer
The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights

European Union Georgia

Civil Society Human Rights Seminar on Internally Displaced Persons

Final Report
November 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 4 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 6
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GEORGIA.6 TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE EU...7

BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE SEMINAR ..................... 8 OPENING REMARKS .......................................................................................................... 10 SESSION 1: PROTRACTED AND POST-CRISIS DISPLACEMENT ........................... 11
DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL I.16

SESSION 2: IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE STRATEGY, COORDINATION, COOPERATION AND MONITORING ............................................................................. 17

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL II...20

SESSION 3: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES: PRIVATIZATION, RESETTLEMENT, MEDICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL REHABILITATION, UNEMPLOYMENT, AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION.............................................. 22
DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL III..24

WRAP-UP SESSION ............................................................................................................. 25

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 12, 2009, the first EU-Georgia Civil Society Human Rights Seminar on Internally Displaced Persons was hosted in Tbilisi, with the intention of contributing to the structured human rights dialogue between the EU and Georgia. The seminar was held in a cooperative spirit, and was attended by over 70 participants including Georgian civil society representatives, international governmental and non-governmental organizations, relevant government officials, and European Commission representatives. The seminar was divided into three sessions, with five presentations on each panel, followed by discussions and the formulation of recommendations. The sessions were on i) protracted and post-crisis displacement; ii) the implementation of the State Strategy on IDPs, cooperation, coordination, and monitoring; and iii) social and economic issues including resettlement, medical/psychological rehabilitation, unemployment, access to information, and other issues. Flight and displacement are undoubtedly among the most lasting consequences of military conflicts. Apart from existential hardships for the persons directly affected, they represent long-ranging obstacles to reconciliation and conflict resolution through political means, and internally displaced persons (IDPs) find they have become enduring hostages to political confrontations. The Georgian Government's policies towards IDPs have evolved over the years. Initially, the Government encouraged those displaced to believe that their return was imminent, and stalled when it came to taking action to secure their integration into their new host communities. The Government's policies have evolved in the past few years, with more focus on integration, the adoption of the IDP State Strategy and more attention paid to the living conditions and housing problems of the displaced. The seminar participants gave presentations and engaged in discussions on a wide range of issues, including durable solutions for IDPs in Georgia, securing their participation in public life, legal aspects of displacement, challenges of integration and return, the IDP State Strategy and Action Plan, the transparency of aid, protection monitoring, resettlement, proper housing, income generation, and discrepancies between old (displaced in the early 90s) and new IDPs (summer 2008). It was repeatedly stressed that IDPs are among Georgias poorest and most vulnerable citizens, who suffer from an inadequate access to housing, land, jobs, social services and healthcare. Until recently, the Government did little to help with integration, but things started to change prior to the August 2008 war, and this trend intensified after last summers conflict. Several observers noted the Governments positive commitment to IDPs and attention to their plight; the adoption of the State Strategy on IDPs and of the Action Plan for its implementation was perceived as a huge step forward. However, it was also noted that in some cases action preceded proper planning a hasty and improvised approach which has a negative influence on the desired outcome and leads to distrust among IDP communities. During the first session, participants discussed and debated the dichotomy of return versus local integration. It was noted that many IDPs fear that after receiving assistance and shelter from the State they will lose their right to return and the property they left behind. This is of course a misperception that is largely based upon inadequate information and a poor understanding of their rights. 4

In fact, a lack of information and the inadequate transparency of decision-making processes was a recurring theme throughout the seminar. Answers to many basic questions do not exist, e.g. regarding housing alternatives. How did the government select collective centres for the first round of privatization and rehabilitation? Why was the quality of construction of IDP cottages so poor, and what is being done to remedy the problem? Whilst there might be good answers to many of those questions (and the Minister for Refugees and Accommodation, present at the seminar, gave a few of them), there have been few public declarations, which has contributed to building distrust and suspicion among IDPs. One study carried out by a coalition of NGOs showed that over 90 percent of internally displaced persons have no knowledge of their various rights and obligations. Another problematic issue which was discussed during the seminar concerned the legal aspects pertaining to displacement. A persistent problem with the registration of IDPs is one of them. It was noted that the registration of IDPs is ongoing, but slow. It was unclear to many what this meant in practical terms. The Civil Registry was in charge of registering the new IDPs, but many people could not register at the moment of displacement, and now face problems with their registration. The NGOs spoke of a whole group of people from five villages situated close to the administrative border with South Ossetia who chose not to return out of security considerations, but neither are registered as IDPs and, therefore, cannot enjoy IDP social benefits. Another major theme that was repeatedly echoed during the seminar concerned IDPs' livelihoods. Whilst the Government's policies and actions largely focus on providing IDPs with housing, it was stressed that shelter does not equal integration. The main source of income for many IDPs is the IDP allowance or social benefits, and unemployment is a persistent problem across the board. Differences between so-called old and new IDPs are increasingly becoming a source of potential community conflict. Recent IDPs are slightly better-off, as they live in newly-built accommodation (although the quality of its construction is not always satisfactory). The problem rests largely with the lack of communication with and information given to the displaced, as well as with the lack of knowledge and understanding of programs developed for the IDPs of the 90s. IDPs living in private accommodation (as opposed to those living in collective centres) is another problematic and largely-unresearched concern. Finally, several participants of the seminar raised the issue of freedom of movement to the socalled conflict zones occupied territories of Georgia. The main problem is of course the de facto authorities and military occupation forces from a third country, who prevent the displaced from returning to their homes. But those who can move across the administrative border in the Akhalgori and Gali districts often also face difficulties with the Georgian security guards at the check points. They have problems when they attempt to bring a few kilogrammes of agricultural produce or other goods with them, as the guards often invoke the Law on Occupied Territories to ban them from bringing such possessions with them. Many feel frustrated by this policy and want the Georgian authorities to change it. Alternatively, it could be useful to better explain the purpose of this Law, ease/allow small-scale economic activities and inform IDPs about the aim of existing restrictions as well as possible derogations.

RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GEORGIA

The Government should pursue its positive commitment to IDPs and attention to their living conditions, housing and social security needs, through the continued implementation of the IDP State Strategy and Action Plan and in close cooperation with international organisations and civil society organisations. The Government should focus on the quality of its work rather than the speed at which it carries it out, and should establish an orderly process with a clear division of labour. The Government should also be more open, and increase the transparency of decisionmaking processes; it should make efforts to communicate decisions effectively to IDPs, and use television and radio broadcasts to keep the public better-informed in order to avoid rumours and mistrust. The IDP registration process must also continue, in order to register all the displaced; social benefits for populations from adjacent villages to South Ossetia area should be considered. The Government should give priority to the most vulnerable groups, first of all in order to make better use of scarce resources. The capacities of local municipalities need to be strengthened, as they are the ones who deal directly with the displaced in respective communities. Regarding IDP accommodation, problems of poor quality construction and renovation should also be addressed, and the Government should rectify them. The Government should also intensify assistance programs for old IDPs in order to avoid discrepancies between their treatment and that of more recently-displaced persons discrepancies which lead to rumours and have the potential to ignite intra-community conflicts. The Government must further develop and implement the parts of the Action Plan which are devoted to improving livelihoods, as shelter does not equal integration. Outstanding issues facing IDPs living in private accommodation also need to be addressed. The Government should consider amending the Law on Occupied Territories to facilitate freedom of movement. Alternatively, the Government could better explain the purpose of this Law, ease small-scale economic activities and inform IDPs about the aim of existing restrictions as well as possible derogations. Finally, the Government should support NGOs who work in parallel programs of dialogue and reconciliation. Communication and civil and business partnerships between the divided societies are key to any confidence-building process.

TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE EU

The International Community should increase the transparency of the funding process and make long-term commitments to support all stages of the implementation of the IDP State Strategy. The International Community should also increase funding for building-up the Georgian Government's capacities, and should continue to engage with the Ministry for Refugees and Accommodation through temporary expert groups. The International Community should better disseminate examples of good practices, especially in the fields of social housing and livelihoods. The International Community should make every diplomatic effort to be able to monitor the human rights situation in the occupied territories, with a special focus on the right to receive adequate education in native language, to have access to health facilities, to secure guarantees for Georgian youth not to be taken as conscripts in the Abkhaz army. The International Community should advocate the de facto authorities so that they abide by the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. The International Community should increase its support to parallel programs of reconciliation and dialogue, in particular support women and youth initiatives between the societies. Finally, the International Community should consider funding programs that are aimed at monitoring the achievement of durable solutions.

BACKGROUND AND GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE SEMINAR

1. Human rights are one of the cornerstones on which the EU-Georgia partnership is based. The EU-Georgia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), concluded in 1996 and in force since 1999, stipulates that respect for democracy, the principles of international law, human rights and the market economy are the essential elements of EU-Georgia relations. 2. The discussion of human rights between Georgia and the EU takes place within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (which Georgia joined in 2004) and the priorities set up by the European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan (adopted on 14 November 2006). 3. In 2008, the European Union and Georgia agreed to establish a bi-annual human rights dialogue. The first session of this dialogue took place in Tbilisi on 28 April 2009. During this meeting, the two sides discussed among other issues the reform of the judicial system, the enforcement of national human rights legislation, the rights of prisoners, freedom of association and assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and media freedom, the protection of IDPs, and the humanitarian situation following the August 2008 war. 4. Both sides also agreed to hold a dedicated civil society human rights seminar in Tbilisi ahead of the second round of the human rights dialogue, scheduled to take place in Brussels in December 2009. Both parties agreed to devote the seminar to media freedom and Internally Displaced Persons. 5. The aim of the civil society seminar is to contribute to and enrich the official human rights dialogue through open discussions with representatives of civil society. The seminar provides an opportunity for discussion between European and Georgian civil society representatives, academics and government officials on human rights topics and on how to enhance the application of human rights. 6. The civil society seminar on human rights is intended to: - allow academics and members of civil society to feed the agenda of the official dialogue with their views through non-confrontational discussion; - to enhance the official human rights dialogue by creating a space for the European and Georgian academic and NGO communities to have open and professional discussions at expert level, so that they may formulate recommendations for future reforms based on best practices and applicable international standards; and - to expose academics and civil society representatives to expert analysis of the areas where the use of international human rights standards and EU practices could be further promoted in Georgia. 7. The seminar was held in two parts: 1) during the first two days of the seminar, a first group of participants and speakers examined issues related to media freedom; 2) on the third day of the seminar, a second group of participants and speakers discussed issues relating to Internally Displaced Persons. 8

8. The present report summarizes the introductory remarks and the ensuing discussions among the seminar's participants. It also provides recommendations that were elaborated by those civil society representatives in attendance. 9. Annexes to the report include presentations given by the key speakers, who presented them in writing to the organizers. The annexes also include other materials related to the seminar, including its agenda, concept note, and the list of participants.

OPENING REMARKS
Robin Liddell, Deputy Head of the EC Delegation to Georgia, greeted the participants and highlighted the importance of the seminar as it feeds directly into the human rights dialogue. He thanked the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was present during the Media Freedom Seminar, and the Ministry for Refugees and Accommodation (MRA) represented by Mr. Subeliani, the Minister for Refugees and Accommodation. The dialogue was agreed in spring this year. According to him, the main objective of the seminar is to bring representatives of civil society together and to discuss the situation and challenges in Georgia, as well as develop recommendations for the Georgian Government. Such seminars have been held in other countries, and have worked well. Recommendations should be clear and practical and solidly-grounded. Mr. Liddel pointed out that the issue of IDPs is very high on the EUGeorgia partnership agenda, and that financial assistance in terms of human rights and reconstruction amounts to the 100 million EUR that have already been provided for the assistance of IDPs. He concluded by saying that the EC played an important role in developing the IDP Action Plan for post-conflict development. Koba Subeliani, the Georgian Minister for Refugees and Accommodation, welcomed all the seminar's participants, and stressed that the Ministry for Refugees and Accommodation is an active participant in the EU-Georgia dialogue. He also expressed his hope that the seminar would provide an important contribution to this dialogue. He continued by stressing the fact that the Georgian Government has tried to help IDPs and provide them with jobs. According to him, the problem of settling new IDPs is nearly solved, and the ministry is now working on accommodating IDPs from the 1990s. He concluded by saying that the seminar was important in the framework of Georgias European integration process most notably regarding the development of the EU-Georgia Partnership within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy.

10

SESSION 1: PROTRACTED AND POST-CRISIS DISPLACEMENT

There were five introductory speakers during this session, which focused on different categories of IDPs, the main obstacles to their integration, and their right to return to their original homes. The speakers included: Nadine Walicki, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC); Mira Sovakar, Conciliation Resources (CR); Natia Mosashvili, Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA); Jeff Hoppenbrouwers, European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM); and Julia Kharashvili, MRA and NGO Consent. Nadine Walicki, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), focused her speech on the findings of a report on IDPs in Europe, which may be useful in the Georgian context. According to this report, there are 2.5 million IDPs in Europe the majority in Turkey (1 million) and the fewest in Macedonia (1,000). Most IDPs have been displaced for an average of 15 years, except for the case of Cyprus, where people have been displaced for over 30 years. Characteristics of IDPs: Their displacement is mainly protracted; They are marginalized: IDPs who have been able to improve their situation on their own have done so while many who remain are vulnerable and require specific assistance; Increased urbanization i.e. IDPs progressively moved to cities where most of them now live; They face a decreasing level of interest among donors, the media, and international organizations; and Their governments have offered them few if any alternatives.

About 400,000 IDPs still live in collective centres. Others still live in makeshift shelter without water or electricity while still others have occupied dwellings that are neither owned nor rented, and the illegality of their position jeopardizes their continued occupation of these dwellings. The majority of IDPs in Europe live in private accommodation, but there is a lack of information on their living conditions. The majority of IDPs do not have a stable income, and lack access to resources. The social stigma attached to their displacement is responsible for their inability to find work; also, some IDPs have not yet obtained the official documents they need to enter legal employment. There is a lack of access to quality education for IDPs, as displaced families can often not afford textbooks, appropriate clothes, etc. Many schools that were damaged have not yet been repaired. Separate schooling of internally displaced children is an important issue in Bosnia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan since it may interfere with the integration of these children. Also, there are few effective remedies to IDPs' lost property. In the Balkans, a remedy exists in the form of restitution and in Russia and Turkey IDPs receive compensation. In the rest of Europe IDPs have no remedy for lost property, which could help them improve their current situation.

11

Recommendations of the report that can be applied to Georgia are: - The need to develop and implement a comprehensive livelihood strategy for IDPs and other vulnerable people; The need to determine the outstanding issues that IDPs living in private accommodation face; and The need to consider funding programs that are aimed at monitoring the achievements of durable solutions.

Mira Sovakar, Conciliation Resources (CR), presented a report entitled Out of Margins: Securing A Voice for IDPs Lessons from Georgia. The report is based upon the experience of a network of NGOs that deal with the rights of IDPs notably IDPs from Abkhazia. An EU-funded project called Building Capacities Among IDPs for political participation started in 2007 and ended in August 2008, but received an extension to the end of January 2008. The aim of the project was to build up the capacities of IDPs by raising awareness and by increasing their level of political participation in society. Until recently, State policies and public discourse saw the immanent return of IDPs as the only option; integration was seen as equal to assimilation and rejection of the right to return. IDPs were often portrayed as victims of conflict, as living examples of defeat and of the suffering imposed by the other side visual reminders of the conflict. Their wish of returning home had become something like their national duty; without it the claims for the return of lost territories would be devoid of meaning. IDPs often live in two alternative realities: the physical, present reality of life in their new host society, and the mythologized reality of their lost homes and homeland. They live in the past and in the future much more than they live in the present. The future, however, is very different from the realities of the past. Therefore, when we talk about return of IDPs, we need to be very honest and pragmatic, taking into account the realities on the ground in Abkhazia today. After the Rose Revolution, the accent shifted to integration as being compatible with return. Part of the project was to organize debates between IDP communities and local delegates and political candidates in the run-up to local elections. At the time, no political party seemed to have a clear strategy with regard to IDP issues or conflict resolution. It was essential for the IDPs to challenge politicians and ask them tough questions. In the context of training and advocacy activities, the network members reviewed existing legislation on IDP rights and made recommendations. Achievements could be made through the project because it engaged with and built bridges between all three tracks: the government level, the NGOs level and the grassroots level of IDPs. Jeff Hoppenbrouwers, European Monitoring Mission (EUMM): A year on, following the cease-fire, the EUMM's monitoring function consists of different elements, notable among which are patrolling the territories adjacent to the administrative border, and organizing negotiations to improve confidence. Ultimately, long-term stability can be achieved by systematically trying to improve the economic situation. Part of the complexity of this particular situation stems from the conflict's geostrategic position: Georgia is a state in transition, where the rule of law is weak, and where many different problems and protracted conflicts prevail. The Russian presence and certain Russian business interests in the breakaway territories are a problem.

12

According to Mr. Hoppenbrouwers, IDPs have two durable solutions: return, or integration. Their right to return is promoted both on the national and international stage, but their right to integrate is not stressed as much as the latter. Any return should be voluntary, and should be conducted safely and with dignity. To understand the different categories of IDPs is important; they all have different characteristics, and it is important to monitor the situation and to attempt different yet complementary approaches. The right to integration is important in the short- and medium-term. Although the Georgian Government has a strategy for integrating IDPs, this strategy should be reviewed so as to render it more effective. The Government must be encouraged to work on the plight of IDPs from the early 1990s. More assessments are needed to identify the problems of IDPs. Finally, it is important to try to rebuild a social structure and infrastructure. Natia Mosashvili, Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA): Last year the GYLA held 8,000 consultations, carried out 400 local visits, and made 40 recommendations. Three distinct groups of displaced persons can be identified with regard to their legal concerns: Those displaced in the early 1990s. The approval by the Georgian Government of an Action Plan for the implementation of its State Strategy on IDPs was a huge step forward towards addressing their problems. There are two main types of problem: 1) Regarding the issue of IDPs' property rights to their new homes, there needs to be a common approach applicable to all IDPs throughout the privatization process. IDPs must be fullyinformed of the procedures, and the contract must be signed by the head of the family. If before the signature the prepared contract wrongly mentions the head of the familys name, it cannot be changed and leads to not signing the contract by IDPs. 2) The second type of problem concerns IDPs living compactly in buildings that are in private ownership. The State has to establish procedures that prevent IDPs removed from such centres from being deprived of alternative accommodation. Recently-displaced persons are generally-speaking better-off than old IDPs (i.e. those displaced during the early 1990s), as they live in newly-built accommodation. The worst situation concerns those who have either not been re-settled yet, or have asked for compensation instead of accommodation. Those who have asked for compensation have not received it yet, and there are no deadlines set as to the date by which they must have received this compensation; also, they do not receive any allowances. 12,000 people already have IDP status, and 3,000 are old IDPs who were displaced again. Delayed registration is also a problem. The Civil Registry registered those displaced during their displacement, but many could not register at that time. The Civil Registry now refuses to register them, and sends them to the Ministry for Refugees and Accommodation, who in turn needs a code from the Civil Registry in order to register them. Those displaced persons who find themselves trapped in this vicious bureaucratic circle have no other option but to obtain IDP status through the courts. The third group consists of returnees who were only temporarily displaced, and who have returned to their homes in areas adjacent to the administrative border with South Ossetia. They are the responsibility of local municipalities. However, due to the security situation, five villages are off-limits to these returnees, who must live either with relatives or in collective centres provided by the Government. These people need special attention because they do not receive any social benefits, and because their children cannot go to school. 13

Julia Kharashvili, Ministry for Refugees and Accommodation and NGO Consent: Many of the challenges mentioned here can be immediately answered as the majority of these issues are already covered by Government activities. For instance, information campaigns for IDPs are being developed and measures of protection during implementation of housing programs are being elaborated in a special temporary expert group. At the same time, the problem of IDPs' right to return is not sufficiently addressed, the focus today being more on their right to integrate. Return/reintegration usually brings its own challenges, comparable to the displacement itself and its traumatic effects. Even returned IDPs continue to have specific needs and vulnerabilities and what to say in the case of self-returnees who have neither physical, nor psychological security, as the Georgian state has no possibility to protect their rights and ensure their access to the rule of law, quality education in native language, timely access to qualified medical assistance, civic participation on the territory of the post-conflict zones. The decisions made by the Government of Georgia in 2006 gave the chance to IDPs to integrate and achieve full citizenship. Yet, it is essential to remind, as it was many times stressed by the Special Representative of the UNSG on IDP, Dr. Kaelin, that the right to integrate and the right to return are not competitive rights: integration and the improvement of living social and material conditions does not mean denying the right to return. The IDP State Strategy stressed two main objectives to be achieved: to prepare safe and dignified return and to improve living, social and economic conditions for IDPs. The Action Plan for the implementation of the IDP State Strategy also clearly indicates that all IDPs should benefit from improved living and social conditions. Unfortunately, in terms of return, the only substantial activity is the My House program (G. chemi sakhli) which provides IDPs with documents for the property they were forced to leave behind. More than 67.000 families already registered their property. At a later stage the existence of this property should be confirmed by an independent commission working in postconflict zones, something that is impossible so far. Besides, work with specific groups of people e.g. women, children, and elderly people is essential, as these people are often the most traumatized, and their experiences and attitudes are of high significance. Open dialogue on the possibility of return is also essential. The role the International Community can play here is immense, as members of this community have more options and possibilities in terms of promoting guiding principles concerning return, regulating rights, and drafting regulations for all parties concerned. Recommendations to the International Community: The International Community should make every diplomatic effort to be able to monitor the human rights situation in the occupied territories, with a special focus on the right to receive adequate education in native language, to have access to health facilities, to secure guarantees for Georgian youth not to be taken as conscripts in the Abkhaz army. The International Community should advocate the de facto authorities so that they abide by the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. The International Community should increase their support to parallel programs of reconciliation and dialogue, in particular support women and youth initiatives between the societies.

14

Recommendation to the Georgian State: The State should create the preconditions for future, safe, peaceful and voluntary returns, as envisaged in the IDP State Strategy.

Recommendation to the civil society: The civil society should further: 1 develop reconciliation and confidence building programs, the realisation of joint projects, dialogue meetings; 2 support income generating and other programs which can contribute to improving living conditions; 3contribute to peace and gender education, conflict prevention at the level of early warning; 4 develop international programs that might contribute to increased options of peace and reconciliation, including regional ones.

15

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL I

Koba Subeliani, Minister for Refugees and Accommodation: 1. The fact that an IDP needs to prove his identity through the courts is not to be deplored, but is a measure provided for by Law. 2. As for the measures taken by the Government, the fact that these were taken in consultation with donor organizations is a sign of progress when compared to previous years. It is not true that IDPs are not kept well-informed; Ministry representatives are in constant dialogue with them. IDPs should not be regarded as a separate group. In Georgian society, those displaced are much better integrated, as employment is available for them on an equal footing with the rest of the population this can be contrasted with the marginalization of refugees in other countries. 3. The registration process has been put on hold but will resume; this does not need to be discussed. 4. My presence here is not just a formal act. I am really interested in your problems, and work very hard something which some of you may not yet have realized. 5. Standards for IDP accommodation have been approved; by this I mean minimum living standards. Questions/Remarks: If IDPs are fully-integrated in society, what is the point of having an action plan and a strategy? (Nino Kalandarishvili, Cooperation and Development Centre) The My House program does not provide IDPs with documentation to prove ownership. (Roza Kukhalashvili, Womens Council of Abkhazia) Free medical care for IDPs is provided by special clinics. (George Utiashvili, Ministry of Health) What is the strategy for the return of IDPs? (Alu Gamakharia, Peaceful and Business Caucasus) Answers by Koba Subeliani, Minister for Refugees and Accommodation: 1. The strategy is needed for better opportunities. By saying that IDPs are fully-integrated, I meant to stress that society is loyal to them. 2. A strategy for the IDPs' return is more difficult to elaborate. People need money to be able to return in dignity. I hope that one day Russia will leave the Caucasus, and that IDPs will finally be able to return to their homes. Answers by Valeri Kopaleishvili, Ministry for Refugees and Accommodation (MRA) and IDP Steering Committee: Legal practice and guidelines define integration and re-integration. There have been no legal problems with the legalization of IDPs. They have other needs regarding their full integration, like the improvement of their living conditions, &c. The My House project envisages the creation of an IDP database and the elaboration of universal measures for all IDPs. Their eventual return is different it is more a matter of political dialogue. 16

SESSION 2: IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE STRATEGY, COORDINATION, COOPERATION AND MONITORING

The session focused on the State Strategy for IDPs, the Action Plan for its implementation, the coordination of different agencies, the monitoring of its implementation, and related challenges. The speakers included: Valeri Kopaleishvili, Ministry for Refugees and Accommodation and IDP Steering Committee; Guy Edmunds, Danish Refugee Council (DRC); Edina Dziho, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR); Caitlin Ryan, Transparency International (TI); and Ana Diakonidze, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). Valeri Kopaleishvili, MRA and IDP Steering Committee, spoke about the State Strategy and Action Plan for IDPs. He pointed out that many of those present at the seminar were involved in developing the Strategy. The Georgian reality is such that IDP status has never been granted for political manipulations i.e. in view of future return. IDPs have the same rights as all Georgian citizens. The Georgian Government's view is that IDPs have special problems that are important to solve, and that they have a right to return to their homes. It is the Government's duty to do all it can to foster this right. The Action Plan was approved in May, following a coordination process that involved the Georgian Government, donors, international organizations, &c. Different NGOs and experts were often invited by the Steering Committee to solve specific problems. The Steering Committee formulates recommendations for the Georgian Government, and also solves technical problems with the help of various experts. Four distinct working-groups were responsible for drafting recommendations regarding minimal standards for the rehabilitation of IDP accommodation, for example. The two main directions are now 1) the long-term settlement of IDPs, and 2) a joint policy for providing information on IDPs. Guy Edmunds, Danish Refugee Council (DRC), spoke about the role of international NGOs with regard to the capacity-building of IDPs in support of the Action Plan. The DRC's concept of good governance is to improve the ways in which IDP issues are addressed in Georgia. It aims to build-up the capacities of both the Government and the IDPs, and to strengthen the relationship between them. The Ministry for Refugees and Accommodation is responsible for guarding the rights of IDPs. But is the Ministry able to exercise this responsibility? And are IDPs willing to guard their own rights? The DRC is conducting capacity-building activities to strengthen the Ministry, basing itself upon a prior assessment of the Ministry's capacities, and is also working at the municipal level in support of the implementation of the Action Plan (by providing training, mobilizing IDPs, &c.). Recommendations: To the MRA: The Ministry should focus on the quality of its work rather than the speed with which it carries it out, and should establish an orderly process with a clear division of labour. To international organizations and NGOs: These should continue to engage with the MRA in policy-making through temporary expert groups within the Steering Committee. 17

Edina Dziho, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): The Government and the international community work together to ensure that the protection of IDPs adheres to international norms, and the UNHCR works with expert groups in order to translate objectives into reality. The UN Country Team worked out a cluster approach which brings specific UN agencies under its umbrella. The accountability and transparency of each stakeholder is extremely important. The Action Plan is a good example of the cooperation effort which the MRA facilitated, and the Plan now serves as a platform for further coordination. The UNHCR is now piloting the transfer from UN-led to Government-led platforms. Policies, projects and programs that are the product of cooperation can result in actions that are important to IDPs. Caitlin Ryan, Transparency International (TI), spoke about policy information and the implementation of the IDP Action Plan. According to her, there are several positive developments: Political will is now really strong at all levels; The technical expert groups which advise the Steering Committee get the details right; The commitments to transparency undertaken by the Ministry and other agencies.

A timeline for actions for the planning and construction of shelters was presented. Ms. Ryan also identified several problems: The fact that action often precedes proper planning leads to distrust; Communication with IDPs and accountability to them is also problematic. Some positive developments are apparent and the agency will continue to deal with them. Part of the problem is lack of financing with which to elaborate a comprehensive plan. Long-term commitments to solve the problems IDPs face with their accommodation are needed. It is important that the Government assumes its responsibility to uphold the quality of rehabilitation works. The main communication tool with IDPs is ineffective. The flow of information from Government to IDPs is good, but not vice-versa. There is an allpervasive level of distrust with regard to the Government which is perpetuated by some organizations close to opposition parties; this leads to the entire process becoming politicized. IDP registration problems persist, which complicates self-privatization; Capacity constraints within the Ministry for Refugees and Accommodation; Coordination with NGOs working off-budget on IDP issues; The Action Plan is regarded as a living document, and already needs to be updated; and The accommodation of IDPs does not equate to their integration.

18

Recommendations to the Government: The Government should be more open and transparent; It should slow down its activities with a view to focusing on the quality of its work; Communication on those issues that build trust is important; Decision-making process at cabinet level politicizes IDP assistance; and The MRA should monitor their construction efforts.

Recommendations to donor organizations: Funding must help with capacity-building of the MRA; Funding processes should be transparent; and Off-budget funding must be communicated regularly, on a monthly basis, to coordinate the efforts with the Government.

Ana Diakonidze, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), spoke about protection monitoring and wider IDP policy. The NRC: Monitors the living conditions of new and old IDPs in almost all spheres including sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV);

Identifies and refers gaps; Shares information and its findings with a wide audience; and Monitors follow-up to ensure responses.

The NRC accomplishes this by: Fielding Protection Monitors;

Ensuring a daily presence in the field; Gathering data; and Analysing reports and information.

The NRC has identified several challenges: Strengthening referral to the Government;

Strengthening referral to the Steering Committee; IDPs are not fully-informed of the Government's intentions; Inconsistent application standards; and Basic humanitarian needs still persist. 19

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL II

Questions: To the MRA and to international organizations: Are there any programs aimed at the Gali population? (Guram Chikhladze, Youth Association)

Will the new Action Plan be more specific with regard to what awaits IDPs in the future? (Rosa Kukhalashvili, Womens Council of Abkhazia) IDP families have grown considerably since the 1990s. Will this be taken into account during the privatization of accommodation? (Iago Pasnadze, Youth Association)

Answers by Valeri Kopaleishvili, MRA and IDP Steering Committee: Standards will be established, although it will be difficult to do this retroactively. Assistance to IDPs from Gali is equal to that granted to other IDPs, but, unfortunately, the Georgian Government cannot monitor their living standards. The Action Plan will be updated and will take more information into account, which will enable better planning. It is important that the Action Plan specifies long-term financing, and the MRA will continue to talk with donor organizations. Answers by Koba Subeliani, Minister for Refugees and Accommodation: All IDPs are kept informed of the process of the renovation and privatization of IDP accommodation. Working-groups have been set up in order to investigate whether the privatization of some accommodation is possible or not. I do not agree with the need to slow down! We may talk more and communicate more effectively, but not slow down. Decisions are related to the needs of people, and are taken in agreement with them. 7,000 IDP families already own property in Georgia. With regard to standards of living conditions: These were set up in parallel with the construction and renovation processes, and are based upon normal living standards existing in Georgia, as well as the situation and needs of IDPs.

Questions: IDPs living in private accommodation are ignored by donors. International organizations should sponsor the work of psychologists in schools in IDP communities, where both teachers and children suffer from stress. Is there information on schools which IDP children attend? (Nino Kalandarishvili, Cooperation and Development Centre) Is there any mechanism for the registration of old IDPs? (Maia Chemia) There are huge difference between the MRA's information and the information IDPs are being given regarding collective settlement centres. How is this problem being addressed? (Guram Chikhladze, Youth Association) 20

Answers by Koba Subeliani, Minister for Refugees and Accommodation: The differences which exist between registry data and the people who actually live in the collective centres are a normal phenomenon. Re-establishing of the address is stopped. When the legalization process is finished it will be resumed. We cannot do those two together as it will turn chaotic. It is important to have psychologists in schools which IDP children attend. The option of compensation as an alternative to settlement had to be introduced, as many IDPs said that they would prefer to buy their own accommodation.

21

SESSION 3: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES: PRIVATIZATION, RESETTLEMENT, MEDICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL REHABILITATION, UNEMPLOYMENT, AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION
This session focused on the social and economic issues IDPs face, such as privatization, resettlement, housing, unemployment, income generation, &c. The panel consisted of five speakers, including Irakli Bokuchava, Social Program Foundation (SPF); Nukri Milorava, Charity Humanitarian Center Abkhazeti (CHCA); Giorgi Kacharava, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Jonathan Puddifoot, Care International (CI); and Zurab Bendianishvili and Nana Chkareuli, IDP Rights Coalition (IDPRC). Irakli Bokuchava, Social Program Foundation (SPF): In the Action Plan which defines the implementation of the State Strategy, Article 1 Part 2 states that a document is to be written which will include a list of buildings to be privatized in a transparent process, yet IDPs do not know which buildings will be privatized. If we are responsible for improving IDPs' living conditions, buildings need to be renovated, as they were not meant to provide IDPs with long-term accommodation. If IDPs do not possess sufficient information, they cannot take informed decisions with regard to whether or not they wish to participate in the privatization process, or whether they should seek alternative solutions. Recommendations: Besides the Action Plan, legal acts are needed in order to create a framework which will regulate the implementation of the State Strategy for IDPs;

When the process of privatization of the collective centres started, private owners became active, as they saw the threat of losing their property. Courts do not recognize the MRA's declaration on the legality of IDP ownership of the collective centres where they reside; The Civil Registry should create a separate register of IDPs living in collective centres, in order to ensure that the fact that they live there is legally recognized; and A new Law on IDPs (or amendments to the existing one) is needed to reflect current conditions.

Nukri Milorava, Charity Humanitarian Centre Abkhazeti (CHCA), focused his presentation on advocacy efforts on behalf of IDPs. In Georgia, the term advocacy is closely-connected to the plight of IDPs; however, there are many collective centres where training on advocacy has not been carried out. The Georgian Government is now ready to participate in a meaningful dialogue with IDPs, and effective advocacy on their behalf has therefore become important. Generally-speaking, the process of settling IDPs is going well, but there are still problems. The minimum space an IDP family can privatize is still unclear, and there are many IDP families who do not wish to privatize their current accommodation due to its poor condition.

22

Conversely, many families who do wish to privatize their current accommodation are unable to do so for legal reasons. Healthcare is provided for new IDPs, but not for old IDPs or for those living in villages close to the administrative border with South Ossetia. Also, there are no centres in Georgia that can provide shelter to the victims of gender harassment. Finally, there is a need to identify those IDPs who are in need of psychological support. Giorgi Kacharava, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), spoke about social housing in a supportive environment. The Government needs to formulate an overall housing policy, and, more specifically, a social housing policy. Almost 95 percent of Georgia's housing stock privatized since 1992 was done so in a haphazard way, without an overall vision of urban development or enough attention paid to the housing sector as a whole. A pilot project was implemented in the Varketili suburb of Tbilisi, which aims to provide a durable solution for IDPs and other vulnerable members of the local population. Tbilisi City Hall, the Ministry of Health and the MRA were implementing partners. The SDC's main recommendation is that the country needs an overall housing policy and, more specifically, a social housing policy. This policy should cover every single aspect of housing in the country and all important aspects of construction, and should regulate the real estate business. The capacities of local municipalities should also be strengthened, so that they may be able to implement an increased social housing program. Jonathan Puddifoot, Care International (CI), spoke about a household income generation project which aims to create employment for IDPs in the next year or two. He noted that average household income in Shida Kartli is lower than in other regions of the country, and that creating jobs seems to offer the most potential for increasing household income in IDP settlements. However, there is a lack of existing infrastructure to support any job creation. Small businesses require more than a micro grant they need a structurally-supportive environment. Young women are the most capable of starting a business. Regarding the issue of income from farming only 50 percent of farmers get cash incomes from farming. The area of farming-land they own is too small for producing cash crops. Self-employment is important, but does not bring in the same revenue as employment. Zurab Bendianishvili, IDP Rights Coalition (IDPRC), spoke about the problems IDPs faced a year after their displacement, focusing on those displaced from South Ossetia. It was apparent from the start that neither the people nor the Government were ready for a new group of IDPs. The help IDPs received from the Government and from society in general was significant, and this led to their being resettled quickly, but in some cases the speed of their resettlement was detrimental to the quality of their new living conditions. The resettlement process could have been better planned and implemented, particularly with regard to the quality of the construction of new accommodation. The new buildings have no foundations,

23

and this makes them unstable. There is little protection from the elements, as the roofs are badly-built and let in water. Recommendations: More attention should be paid to construction, and contractors should be compelled to carry out work in a timely manner and to pay more attention to the quality of their work;

Private ownership of IDP houses is advisable; There is a need for better planning and for a more efficient mobilization of donor money; and Assistance programs for old IDPs should be intensified, in order to avoid rumours and gossip.

Nana Chkareuli, IDP Rights Coalition (IDPRC), presented the results of a study conducted among 1,000 IDP families. It was striking that 95% of IDPs did not know what their IDP status meant, and what benefits and obligations such status entailed. 62% of them thought that the assistance they received was not sufficient. IDPs also think that there are no job opportunities for them. Respondents also thought that their accommodation was too small for their needs. The majority of IDPs are not involved into any social sector. They take a pessimistic view of their future, and do not want to be integrated. 24% do not own a plot of land, and 65% own plots which in the majority of the cases are very small and cannot be considered as a potential source of income. The majority do not want any professional training.

DISCUSSION SESSION OF PANEL III

Alu Gamakharia, Peaceful and Business Caucasus, said that improvements to the social and economic status of IDPs imply advantages for those who travel to and from the conflict zone. However, access to this source of income has been significantly limited since August 2008, especially after Russia set up a border regime in Abkhazia. Recommendation: The Government should consider freedom of movement to and from conflict zones and create a legal basis for it, as well as consider amending the law on occupation to this effect. Civil partnerships between people should be facilitated. Activities of law enforcement bodies should be strictly defined by the law. Communication between people on both sides of the conflict zones should be facilitated rather than impeded. To restrict freedom of movement harms the entire process.

24

WRAP-UP SESSION
During the wrap-up session the seminar's participants discussed the main areas where recommendations were most needed. These included: better information-sharing and a more transparent decision-making process; resettlement and privatization; status issues; right to return; transparency of aid; and a comprehensive livelihood strategy. The participants went through a set of recommendations collected during the day, and discussed them and the urgency of their implementation. They agreed on key recommendations (see executive summary).

25