Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 Union – Georgia
Civil Society Human Rights Seminar on
Internally Displaced Persons
Tbilisi, 12 November 2009
Annexes
November 2009
Contract n°2009/218350
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights
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.
2
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights
European Union – Georgia
Civil Society Human Rights Seminar on
Internally Displaced Persons
Annexes November 2009
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANNEX I : INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ................................................................................... 4
SESSION I: PROTRACTED & POST-CRISIS DISPLACEMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH .................... 4
SPEAKER 1: NADINE WALICKI , NORWEGIAN REFUGEE COUNCIL (NRC) ............................................................ 4 SPEAKER 2: MIRA SOVAKAR, CONCILIATION RESOURCES (CR) .......................................................................... 6 SPEAKER 4: JEFF HOPPENBROUWERS, EUMM ................................................................................................... 8
SPEAKER 5: JULIA KHARASHVILI , MINISTRY OF REFUGEES AND ACCOMMODATION & NGO “CONSENT” ....... 11
SESSION II: IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE STRATEGY, COORDINATION, COOPERATION, MONITORING ............................................................................................................................................................... 15
SPEAKER 2: GUY EDMUNDS, DANISH REFUGEE COUNCIL (DRC) .................................................................. 15
SESSION III: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES: PRIVATIZATION, RESETTLEMENT, MEDICAL/ PSYCHOLOGICAL REHABILITATION, UNEMPLOYMENT, ACCESS TO EDUCATION ............................. 19
SPEAKER 4: GEORGE KACHARAVA, SWISS AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND COOPERATION (SDC) ................ 19
ANNEX II: AGENDA ...................................................................................................................... 21
ANNEX III: CONCEPT NOTE...................................................................................................... 23
ANNEX IV: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ....................................................................................... 27
4
ANNEX I : INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
SESSION I: PROTRACTED & POST-CRISIS DISPLACEMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS
APPROACH
Speaker 1: Nadine Walicki, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) ENDING THE LIMBO FOR IDPS IN GEORGIA PowerPoint Presentation
Characteristics of internal displacement in Europe • Mainly protracted displacement • IDPs are marginalised • Increasing urbanisation of IDPs • Several governments do not control their entire territory • Decreasing interest of donors, media and international organisations Inadequate housing • Substandard living conditions • Lack of legal security of tenure Unemployment and lack of access to livelihoods • Main source of income for many IDPs is IDP allowance or social benefits • Social stigma on the basis of having been displaced • IDPs struggle to obtain necessary documents Difficulty accessing documents • Lack of mutual recognition of documents • Some IDPs struggle to obtain IDP status • Elderly IDPs do not receive their full old-age pension
5
Difficulty accessing quality education • Poor financial situation of IDP families obstructs access • Quality of education remains a concern • Separate schooling may interfere with local integration Lack of remedies for lost property • Remedies exist in the Balkans, Russia and Turkey • No effective remedies in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Cyprus Durable solutions • 25 per cent of IDPs in Europe have returned to their homes • Little information on local integration and resettlement elsewhere • Lack of monitoring of the achievement of durable solutions Recommendations 1. Develop and implement a comprehensive livelihoods strategy for IDPs and other vulnerable
groups to create income generation opportunities at their current place of residence
2. Ensure the views of IDPs, including women, children, the elderly and the disabled are sought and taken into account in the development of policies which affect them
3. Determine the outstanding issues facing IDPs living in private accommodation
4. Consider funding programmes that have the objective of monitoring the achievement of durable solutions
For more information visit: www.internal-displacement.org
6
Speaker 2: Mira Sovakar, Conciliation Resources (CR) OUT OF THE MARGINS: SECURING A VOICE FOR IDPS: LESSONS FROM GEORGIA Executive Summary Over 200,000 ethnic Georgians remain displaced from their homes since the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict in the early 1990s. Despite this long-term displacement successive Georgian governments have done little to promote their participation in politics. Instead they have encouraged the displaced to believe they will soon return, and stalled on taking action to secure them an effective political voice. This study documents the experience of a network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and activists, who carried out a European Commission-funded project in 2007-2008 to help raise political participation among displaced people. It discusses problems with different approaches to the political representation of displaced people. Attitudes among displaced people to conflict resolution, and responses to war in and around South Ossetia in August 2008, are also documented. The study provides insights into the dilemmas of integration and return for the long-term displaced. Obstacles to inclusion While displacement affected all communities in the conflicts of the early 1990s, only ethnic Georgian communities have been unable to return to territory now under de facto Abkhazian or South Ossetian control. Peace processes have remained deadlocked and successive governments have insisted on return as the only option. As a result displaced people have not been integrated into Georgian society, remaining at the margins of national politics. Many factors have hampered the political inclusion of displaced people. The concept of integration has negative connotations for many. National politicians emphasizing the return of seceded territories have seen integration as a vote-loser. Displaced people themselves have also feared integration as meaning giving up their right to return. Institutions surviving from the pre-war era in Abkhazia contributed heavily to these fears. Known as the ‘government-in-exile’, politicians still holding office from before the war opposed integration, which they saw as threatening their claim to represent a separate, unified displaced community. The result was an ‘either/or’ understanding of integration and return: if displaced people integrated, this was widely perceived as coming at the cost of return. Restrictions on the integration of displaced and maintaining government-in-exile institutions resulted in several problems: • the manipulation of displaced people by a wide variety of political actors for votes, lobbying
power and other interests • entrenched corruption within the government-in-exile • the violation of voting rights, resulting in political invisibility for displaced people Most significantly the taboo on integration resulted in ongoing discrimination, segregation and socio-economic disadvantages for displaced people. Many felt unable to address their social and economic problems, and no institutional framework existed for them to do so.
7
From separation to integration After the 2003 ‘Rose Revolution’ in Georgia, the government-in-exile lost much of its influence due to reforms and changes in personnel. The Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation (MRA) became the leading government agency working on displacement; the MRA to some extent lifted the taboo on integration and tried to address current problems. However, displaced people remained excluded. No longer ‘represented’ by ineffective but nonetheless highly vocal government-in-exile bodies, they also lacked preparation and training in how to relate with national politicians, parliamentarians or political parties. Many displaced people themselves also feared integrating into Georgian society as individuals, rather than as a community. They still understood integration as the surrender of their right to return, and ultimately, of Abkhazia. It was also seen as possibly cementing forever the socio-economic disadvantages and discrimination that many suffered in displacement. Integration only began to be more widely accepted when it was separated from ideas of ‘assimilation’ or ‘naturalization’, and associated instead with non-discrimination and access to services. The network carrying out the EC project in 2007-2008 actively pursued this model. Network members engaged, for example, in advocacy training, training in grassroots activism among specific groups (especially youth), meetings between displaced people and parliamentary candidates and other national politicians, and in media programming explicitly addressing the problems of the displaced. These and other activities resulted in various positive outcomes: • different political views among displaced people, replacing the earlier norm of mass support for
the ruling party, and higher turnouts at national elections • opportunities to influence the development of a government strategy on displacement • more moderate public views by some politicians on displacement and the conflicts after
discussions with displaced people Despite these gains numerous problems remain. Although the Georgian government finally adopted in 2006 a strategy on displacement, after a good level of consultation with displaced activists, it has yet to be put into practice. And while displaced people have addressed some social and economic problems, they have been less able to influence Georgian state strategy on conflict resolution. Influencing debates on conflict resolution Another core aspect of the project documented in this study is the work done to raise the ability of displaced people to influence debates (and ultimately policy) on conflict. National politicians and the government-in-exile traditionally portrayed the displaced as aggressive and vengeful towards communities on ‘the other side’. This strategy was pursued to put pressure on adversaries in the peace process, and, by emphasizing displaced people as victims, to secure votes among the wider population and international sympathy. Yet portrayals of displaced communities as exclusively hostile further diminish the already narrow prospects for their return and living peacefully with communities on the other side of conflict divides. They are also untrue: the work of Georgian NGOs revealed a range of views among displaced people, including many disposed to conciliation. The project therefore aimed to emphasize alternatives to violence in conflict resolution. The project helped raise debate on the conflict among key displaced groups. For the first time they were able to pose hard questions to national politicians and parliamentary candidates regarding
8
strategies for resolving Georgia’s conflicts. Network members were also able to take effective action to defuse aggressive media campaigns. However, the limitations to advocacy of non-violent approaches were clearly illustrated by renewed large-scale hostilities in and beyond South Ossetia in August 2008. This resulted in new waves of displacement and for many of those displaced since the early 1990s, final confirmation of their long-term displaced status. These outcomes underscored the need for comprehensive and long-term strategies to safeguard the rights of people living in displacement. Creating a framework for displaced people to have a voice Governments must resist the temptation of exploiting displacement to secure votes or international support in conflicts, and must prioritize building capacities among displaced people to make their own choices. They should: • Avoid the rhetoric of return at any cost. ‘Imminent return’ has been shown to be unrealistic and
beyond any government’s ability to deliver; rhetoric of this kind hinders discussion of longer-term strategies more likely to benefit displaced people.
• Stop portraying displaced people as all hostile towards communities on the other side of conflicts. These stereotypes diminish chances of eventual return and close off space for discussion of non-violent approaches to conflict resolution.
• Present integration as a gradual process compatible with the right of return (or restitution) as
and when conditions allow. Understandings of integration as incompatible with return consign displaced people to violations of their rights for as long as displacement continues.
• Implement strategies on displacement through the effective and timely adoption and execution
of action plans. • Encourage displaced people to get involved in local and national politics, and ensure
accountability for politicians who represent them. • Provide forums for the displaced to influence government strategy on displacement and conflict
resolution more widely. • Ensure that government-in-exile institutions comply with basic principles of democratic election
and representation, and reform them where they fail to do so.
Speaker 4: Jeff Hoppenbrouwers, EUMM PROTRACTED & POST-CRISIS DISPLACEMENT – CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS Executive Summary Over 200,000 ethnic Georgians remain displaced from their homes since the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict in the early 1990s. Despite this long-term displacement successive Georgian governments have done little to promote their participation in politics. Instead they have encouraged the displaced to believe they will soon return, and stalled on taking action to secure them an effective political voice. This study documents the experience of a network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and activists, who carried out a European Commission-funded project in
9
2007-2008 to help raise political participation among displaced people. It discusses problems with different approaches to the political representation of displaced people. Attitudes among displaced people to conflict resolution, and responses to war in and around South Ossetia in August 2008, are also documented. The study provides insights into the dilemmas of integration and return for the long-term displaced. Obstacles to inclusion While displacement affected all communities in the conflicts of the early 1990s, only ethnic Georgian communities have been unable to return to territory now under de facto Abkhazian or South Ossetian control. Peace processes have remained deadlocked and successive governments have insisted on return as the only option. As a result displaced people have not been integrated into Georgian society, remaining at the margins of national politics. Many factors have hampered the political inclusion of displaced people. The concept of integration has negative connotations for many. National politicians emphasizing the return of seceded territories have seen integration as a vote-loser. Displaced people themselves have also feared integration as meaning giving up their right to return. Institutions surviving from the pre-war era in Abkhazia contributed heavily to these fears. Known as the ‘government-in-exile’, politicians still holding office from before the war opposed integration, which they saw as threatening their claim to represent a separate, unified displaced community. The result was an ‘either/or’ understanding of integration and return: if displaced people integrated, this was widely perceived as coming at the cost of return. Restrictions on the integration of displaced and maintaining government-in-exile institutions resulted in several problems: • the manipulation of displaced people by a wide variety of political actors for votes, lobbying
power and other interests • entrenched corruption within the government-in-exile • the violation of voting rights, resulting in political invisibility for displaced people Most significantly the taboo on integration resulted in ongoing discrimination, segregation and socio-economic disadvantages for displaced people. Many felt unable to address their social and economic problems, and no institutional framework existed for them to do so.
From separation to integration After the 2003 ‘Rose Revolution’ in Georgia, the government-in-exile lost much of its influence due to reforms and changes in personnel. The Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation (MRA) became the leading government agency working on displacement; the MRA to some extent lifted the taboo on integration and tried to address current problems. However, displaced people remained excluded. No longer ‘represented’ by ineffective but nonetheless highly vocal government-in-exile bodies, they also lacked preparation and training in how to relate with national politicians, parliamentarians or political parties. Many displaced people themselves also feared integrating into Georgian society as individuals, rather than as a community. They still understood integration as the surrender of their right to return, and ultimately, of Abkhazia. It was also seen as possibly cementing forever the socio-economic disadvantages and discrimination that many suffered in displacement.
10
Integration only began to be more widely accepted when it was separated from ideas of ‘assimilation’ or ‘naturalization’, and associated instead with non-discrimination and access to services. The network carrying out the EC project in 2007-2008 actively pursued this model. Network members engaged, for example, in advocacy training, training in grassroots activism among specific groups (especially youth), meetings between displaced people and parliamentary candidates and other national politicians, and in media programming explicitly addressing the problems of the displaced. These and other activities resulted in various positive outcomes: • different political views among displaced people, replacing the earlier norm of mass support for
the ruling party, and higher turnouts at national elections • opportunities to influence the development of a government strategy on displacement • more moderate public views by some politicians on displacement and the conflicts after
discussions with displaced people Despite these gains numerous problems remain. Although the Georgian government finally adopted in 2006 a strategy on displacement, after a good level of consultation with displaced activists, it has yet to be put into practice. And while displaced people have addressed some social and economic problems, they have been less able to influence Georgian state strategy on conflict resolution. Influencing debates on conflict resolution Another core aspect of the project documented in this study is the work done to raise the ability of displaced people to influence debates (and ultimately policy) on conflict. National politicians and the government-in-exile traditionally portrayed the displaced as aggressive and vengeful towards communities on ‘the other side’. This strategy was pursued to put pressure on adversaries in the peace process, and, by emphasizing displaced people as victims, to secure votes among the wider population and international sympathy. Yet portrayals of displaced communities as exclusively hostile further diminish the already narrow prospects for their return and living peacefully with communities on the other side of conflict divides. They are also untrue: the work of Georgian NGOs revealed a range of views among displaced people, including many disposed to conciliation. The project therefore aimed to emphasize alternatives to violence in conflict resolution. The project helped raise debate on the conflict among key displaced groups. For the first time they were able to pose hard questions to national politicians and parliamentary candidates regarding strategies for resolving Georgia’s conflicts. Network members were also able to take effective action to defuse aggressive media campaigns. However, the limitations to advocacy of non-violent approaches were clearly illustrated by renewed large-scale hostilities in and beyond South Ossetia in August 2008. This resulted in new waves of displacement and for many of those displaced since the early 1990s, final confirmation of their long-term displaced status. These outcomes underscored the need for comprehensive and long-term strategies to safeguard the rights of people living in displacement. Creating a framework for displaced people to have a voice Governments must resist the temptation of exploiting displacement to secure votes or international support in conflicts, and must prioritize building capacities among displaced people to make their own choices. They should:
11
• Avoid the rhetoric of return at any cost. ‘Imminent return’ has been shown to be unrealistic and beyond any government’s ability to deliver; rhetoric of this kind hinders discussion of longer-term strategies more likely to benefit displaced people.
• Stop portraying displaced people as all hostile towards communities on the other side of conflicts. These stereotypes diminish chances of eventual return and close off space for discussion of non-violent approaches to conflict resolution.
• Present integration as a gradual process compatible with the right of return (or restitution) as
and when conditions allow. Understandings of integration as incompatible with return consign displaced people to violations of their rights for as long as displacement continues.
• Implement strategies on displacement through the effective and timely adoption and execution
of action plans. • Encourage displaced people to get involved in local and national politics, and ensure
accountability for politicians who represent them. • Provide forums for the displaced to influence government strategy on displacement and conflict
resolution more widely. • Ensure that government-in-exile institutions comply with basic principles of democratic election
and representation, and reform them where they fail to do so.
Speaker 5: Julia Kharashvili, Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation & NGO “Consent” RIGHT TO RETURN IN GEORGIAN CONTEXT
International mechanisms: Guiding Principles (28, 29, 30), At the normative level, the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in August 2005 endorsed the Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons presented by the Special Rapporteur, Sergio Paulo Pinheiro. In view of the multiplicity of ad hoc restitution mechanisms in various countries, the Principles represent an effort to increase the consistency of responses as well as their conformity with international standards. A parallel initiative to integrate property restitution programmes into the UN institutional and policy framework is also ongoing. Local Response – My House programme – proper documentation which is often one of obstacles for return
• Return/reintegration usually brings its own challenges comparable with the displacement itself
by it traumatic effects. Even returned IDPs continue to have specific needs and vulnerabilities – and what to say in this case about self-returnees who do not have nor physical, neither moral 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, proper documentation , civic participation.
• Having the situation when causes for displacement persist indefinitely, and safe return in short period of time looks unrealistic, still it is necessary to take into account the IDPs intentions and wishes. Taking aside political considerations about keeping of territorial integrity and even
12
international law that proves inherent right of IDPs to return to their permanent places of residences, the real choice of people cannot be ignored.
In history of displacement of mainly Georgian population in early 90-s there were different periods – in the beginning there were the attempts to keep IDPs as hostages of situation and not to work on the improvement of their living conditions “to save their motivation” for return”.
The recent decisions made by the GoG in 2006 gave the chance to IDPs to integrate and achieve the full citizens rights. As not once mentioned by SRG Dr. Kaelin, 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 the refusal of right to return. Analysing existing practices of IDP treatment it is difficult to say that IDPs will be deprived fro any of basic rights, such as right to property, right to land, right to have proper houses .The Action Plan of the implementation of IDP State Strategy clearly indicates that all IDPs should benefit from the improvement of living and social conditions, however the State is now limited to implement its programs to support save and dignified return
Causes of displacement persist indefinitely, safe return remains unrealistic: In the case of prolonged or frozen conflicts, IDPs may become hostage for years, even decades, to political objectives insisting on a “right to return” that remains elusive. In such situations, however, political imperatives often dictate that the return of IDPs is considered the only possible solution to displacement. While return is a goal often shared by the IDPs themselves, continuing under these circumstances to consider IDPs as such can actually be to their disadvantage and an abuse of their rights. The IDPs may be kept in a state of dependence and impeded from even temporary integration into the communities where they have resided for years. They may, for instance, be denied the right to own land or property, to attend schools with local children or to vote in local and national elections for candidates in the areas where they reside during their displacement. Under such circumstances, among the questions to ask are:
• Do IDPs in these situations still experience vulnerabilities, as a result of having been displaced,
that are different from those of non-displaced population, such that they continue to require special assistance?
• Do IDPs have the ability to integrate locally or resettle elsewhere, if only temporarily, without undermining their right to return, should this ever become possible?
• Even if an IDP has achieved integration in his/her host community and no longer has special needs resulting from displacement, does he/she still wish to return to his/her home area whenever this becomes possible?
• Are the intentions of IDPs to return or to resettle known and based on impartial information?
The response for this challenge should be multiple and diverse according to the possibilities of different actors:
by the international organizations: - monitoring of human rights situation, including right to receive adequate education in native
language, access to health facilities, guarantees for Georgian youth not to be taken as conscripts to the Abkhaz army, that contradicts the Guiding Principles
- advocacy with de facto authorities for the accepting of the Guiding Principles for Internal Displacement
- support of bilateral and parallel programmes of reconciliation, dialogue - support of women and youth initiative, including cross border initiative
13
- inclusion of local women and women IDPs from he zones adjacent to the administrative borders in postconflict rehabilitation programmes
by the state – it should be creation of preconditions for future safe, peaceful and voluntary returns as it is envisaged in IDP State Strategy - and from the civil society it can be again, multiple and include reconciliation and confidence
building programmes, joint projects realization, dialogue meetings, support for income generation and other programmes contributed to improved living conditions, peace and gender education, conflict prevention at the level of early warning and search of international programmes that might contribute to increased options of peace and reconciliation, including the regional ones
IDP RETURN – PowerPoint Presentation Preconditions • Return or resettlement • Voluntariness • Safety and dignity • Durability of the solution • Participation of IDPs • Reintegration • Non-discrimination • Property issues solved • Access for humanitarian organizations • National responsibility to establish these conditions • Freedom of choice: IDPs have the choice whether to return or resettle in another part of the
country. This is the logical extension of the right to freedom of movement and the right to choose one’s residence. IDPs should not be forced for political or other reasons to return home or, alternatively, to resettle in another location against their will. While return is often the preferred solution, it must be borne in mind that IDPs may not wish to return to home areas. Should an IDP wish to move to another location within the country, that is her/his right. Moreover, implicit in the concept of voluntariness and the element of freedom of choice that it entails is that an IDP can change her/his mind about the decision to return or resettle.
• Informed Decision: To be voluntary, IDPs must have access to the information needed to make an informed decision on return. They need information about the conditions in areas of return or resettlement as well as about the type of support they can expect to receive upon return or resettlement. Such information, especially as it regards conditions of safety in areas of potential return or resettlement, should come not only from official sources but also from independent assessments by local organizations and human rights monitors. “Go and see visits” by IDP community and family representatives to areas of potential return or resettlement are one of the best means of enabling IDPs to make an informed decision. Visits by IDPs to inform themselves of the situation in areas of potential return or resettlement should not result in loss of recognition as an IDP or of IDP benefits.
• Absence of coercion: To be voluntary, IDPs’ decision to return or resettle must not be a result of coercion. Clearly, this means that IDPs must not be compelled to return or resettle at the point of a gun or otherwise be physically forced, harassed or intimidated to do so.
14
• In addition to physical security, safety for returning/resettling displaced persons is widely
understood to comprise two further elements: “legal safety” and “material security”. • “Legal safety” means not only the restoration of the rule of law, but that returning or resettling
displaced persons can freely and fairly access national legal protection to guarantee respect for their rights should they encounter security or other problems.
• “Material security” refers to an ability to maintain oneself through access to land or means of livelihood. It would likely require the provision of assistance to support IDPs to re-establish themselves and, until this proves possible, the continued provision of humanitarian aid for essential needs, for example until the first harvest.
• Material security for returnees and for IDPs after the August 2008 war was ensured by the actions of the GoG and international communty
• Continued insecurity in zones of possible return: kidnappings, mine incidents, criminals, absence of rule of law; permanent shootings in zone of Georgian-Ossetian conflict
• Unilateral recognition of two separated de facto regions by Russia • Poverty of local population and spontaneous returnees • Lack of clarity in political process • Inequality of returnees; specific needs of IDP women and children who spontaneously returned
are not met: language problems in Gali district, health (including the reproductive one) and psychological problems – access to services is very poor
• During the period of mobilization Abkhaz police catches IDP youth with the aim of getting ransom or force them to serve in Abkhaz army
• Law on citizenship approved by Abkhaz de facto Parliament, preventing IDPs return • Return/reintegration usually brings its own challenges comparable with the displacement itself.
Even returned IDP continue to have specific needs and vulnerabilities what to say in this case about self-returnees who do not have nor physical, neither moral security
Survey of attitudes towards return
How the return can be realised
17-39 years 40 +
By peace negotiations 70.1 73.2
Through assistance of other state/organization 4.4 5.4
Through military way 24.1 10.5
Do not know 1.5 8.6
Woman Man
Through Peace Negotiations 74.1 70.0
Through assistance of other state/organization 4.5 5.8
Throguh military way 10.3 19.8
Do not know 8.6 3.9
15
SESSION II: IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE STRATEGY, COORDINATION,
COOPERATION, MONITORING
Speaker 2: Guy Edmunds, Danish Refugee Council (DRC) CAPACITY BUILDING SUPPORT TO THE IDP ACTION PLAN PowerPoint Presentation The Role of an International NGO GOOD GOVERNANCE: A PRAGMATIC APPROACH
• Building capacity of each group • Strengthening relationships between each group Rights-Based Programming • Which institutions are responsible for safeguarding IDPs rights?
- Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation (MRA) is the primary duty-bearing stakeholder
• Does it have the willingness to safeguard IDP rights? - Yes: IDP State Strategy and Action Plan
• Does it have the capacity to do so? - FORECAST assessment of existing gaps
16
DRC’s Capacity Building Activities • Central level MRA
- 2 secondees to the Ministry to help increase the Ministry’s organisational capacity to implement the IDP Action Plan
- Focus on human resources; reception centre; public information and public relations
• Municipal level - Municipal Working Groups to develop Local IDP Action Plans in Samegrelo region
• IDPs and IDP representatives
- Training in mobilisation, advocacy and organisation of regional and central network meetings, to ask questions of regional and national Government authorities
Recommendations To MRA • Quality rather than speed. Establish an orderly process with a clear division of labour
between different Government authorities, International Organisations and NGOs
To IOs and NGOs • Carry on engaging with MRA on policy-making through Temporary Expert Groups Speaker 4: Caitlin Ryan, Transparency International (TI) IDP POLICY FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION IN GEORGIA: SHELTER FOR THE 1990’S IDPS PowerPoint Presentation Positive Developments • Political will for IDPs is strong, and not isolated to only one ministry • TEGs are getting the details right • Commitments to transparency Commitments to Transparency • State Strategy (Feb 2007): “In monitoring implementation of the strategy, much importance is given to the participation of IDPs themselves and of the civil society as well as to the transparency of the process.” (p. 13) • Presentation by Nika Gilauri to donors, Feb 2009: Establishment of a Steering Committee “to ensure proper coordination and transparency” • May 2009 Action Plan: “2.1.2. In order to achieve transparency of the overall process of rehabilitation and privatization of CCs, the MRA commits itself to prepare an overview of all CCs (that will be targeted in 2009) with clear indication of their future in terms of privatization and rehabilitation, two months following the adoption of the Action Plan. The latter will explain the criteria governing the CCs’ identification process.” Shelter Timeline: Actions precede Planning • Feb 07: State Strategy on IDPs adopted
17
• July 08: Action Plan to the State Strategy approved • Aug-Sep: conflict and post-conflict emergency period • Sep 08: JNA drafted (though not publicly released), $3.2 billion requested • Oct 08: Brussels Donors Conference, $4.55 billion pledged • Dec 08: Action Plan annulled, new AP due within 1 month • Feb 09: PM presentation to donors on progress achieved in reintegration of old IDPs
– Self-privatization of CCs already underway in 301 CCs – Tenders for rehabilitation of 164 CCs (50 mln GEL) announced by MDF
• May 09: New Action Plan adopted • Sep 09: Rehabilitation standards developed/approved • Sep 09: MDF, municipalities identify vacant land for building more IDP settlements Problems, Gaps (1) • Action precedes planning, leads to distrust, inefficiencies • Communication with, and accountability to, beneficiaries:
– Lack of awareness among IDPs on their choices – Unclear who should be accountable (MRA, MDF?) – MRA’s main communication tool with IDPs (hotline) is ineffective – Communication is a one-way street to IDPs when it does happen
Problems, Gaps (2) • Persistent problems with registration complicate self-privatization • Capacity constraints within the MRA
– Regional Representatives – Difficulties in forward planning and securing financing
• Coordination with NGOs working “off-budget” on IDP issues a huge, unfulfilled task • AP is a “living document” and already outdated Problems, Gaps (3) • Shelter does not equal integration – is the ‘fix’ for the new IDPs the most appropriate
solution for the old IDPs? Recommendations – Government • Slow down, tailored approach is critical to success for IDPs (and politically) • Better vertical and horizontal information sharing within government:
– Regional Representative offices of MRA – Other government bodies (MDF, MoHLSA, MoI, MoF, MoJ…)
• Two-wayinfo sharing with general public and IDPs (builds trust!) – Why were decisions taken? What was the rationale?
• Never forget: greater information builds trust with ALL stakeholders • Locus of decision making at the cabinet level makes IDP assistance unnecessarily political • Results of MDF monitoring of CC rehabilitation should be public; Involve IDPs in
monitoring efforts by sharing budgets and contracts, setting up a call-in center • Registration issues of old IDPs must be solved before fair housing solutions can be offered Recommendations – Donors • Make long-term commitments to financing the Action Plan • Funding must contribute towards increased local capacity – include strategic planning, TA,
management systems assistance • Require the implementation of a comprehensive communications strategy, and fund it! • Make funding contingent upon benchmarks in communications and accountability to IDPs,
transparency of process
18
• Off-budget funding for IDP issues: – Must be communicated regularly (monthly) to MRA – Must meet same requirements for accountability to beneficiaries (hotlines,
complaints mechanisms, etc.) • Donor transparency, fragmentation of information: Disclosure of financing information on
websites – amount, mechanism, main program areas, contact info
19
SESSION III: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES: PRIVATIZATION, RESETTLEMENT,
MEDICAL/ PSYCHOLOGICAL REHABILITATION, UNEMPLOYMENT, ACCESS TO
EDUCATION
Speaker 4: George Kacharava, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) SOCIAL HOUSING IN SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT PowerPoint Presentation A Way to Social Inclusion Context in Georgia � Almost 95% of Georgia's housing stock privatized since 1992 in a spontaneous and hectic
manner without an overall vision for urban development or for the future of the housing stock and the housing sector.
� Internal conflicts in Georgia leading to hundreds of thousands of displaced in need of housing and social protection.
� Lack of an overall housing policy. No efforts for affordable housing for vulnerable households undertaken so far.
� State IDP Strategy (Feb. 2007) and IDP Action Plan (May 2009) underline the importance of tailor-made housing solutions for the IDP’s based on their needs
� UNECE Country Profile on the Housing Sector of Georgia Pilot Project in Tbilisi � The SHSE Project was implemented in Tbilisi in 2007-2009. � The project provided durable housing solution and social protection for the IDPs and vulnerable
local population. � The project had tree components:
� Construction (construction houses, improving living conditions); � Social ‘soft’ component (beneficiaries & host families selection process/social
inclusion/protection) � Policy advocacy (efforts to further promote SHSE in Georgia
� SDC's project partners were: - Tbilisi City Hall - MoLHSA, MRA - UNDP (capacity building of social services)
20
SHSE Second Phase (ongoing project) � Expansion of the projects in: Tbilisi, Gori, Kutaisi, Batumi and Zugdidi; � Overall funding: 2.5 – 3 million USD � Project partners:
� Local self governance authorities/ minicipalities in five selected cities; � MRA, MoLHSA, SMORDI � SDC, UNHCR, Italian Cooperation
Definition of the SHSE Model (ongoing project) � Tailor – made housing solution with integrated social services � State/municipality – owned facilities (revolving) � Beneficiary selection (criteria/methodology) � Co-production of social services (state/municipality, civil society, beneficiary) � Assignment of foster families (key actor) Lesson Learnt/Recommendations � For implementation of future projects it is essential to develop an overall Housing policy and
the appropriate legislation. � Integration of social assistance component for the most vulnerable people will significantly
increase effectiveness and efficiency of future housing policies and legislation. � Capacities of local municipalities should adequately be developed for effective implementation
of social and affordable housing programs. � Cooperation and partnership of main actors, including central and local governments,
international community, private sector and civil society organizations is a prerequisite for effective implementation of future housing policies and programs.
21
ANNEX II: AGENDA
“EUROPEAN UNION-GEORGIA”
CIVIL SOCIETY SEMINAR
ON INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS
HOTEL “MARRIOTT COURTYARD” – BALL ROOM
TBILISI, 12 NOVEMBER 2009
AGENDA
09.00 – 09.30 Registration of participants 09.30 – 10.00 THE OPENING SESSION
Welcoming speech by H.E. Per Eklund, Head of Delegation, Delegation of the European Commission to Georgia (to be confirmed) Welcoming speech by Mr. Koba Subeliani, Minister of Refugees and Accommodation of Georgia 10.00 – 11.30 PANEL 1: PROTRACTED & POST-CRISIS DISPLACEMENT , HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH Presentation 1: Nadine Walicki, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) “Ending the Limbo: Durable Solutions for IDPs in Georgia” Presentation 2: Mira Sovakar, Conciliation Resources (CR) “Out of the Margins: Securing a Voice for IDPs: Lessons from Georgia” Presentation 3: Natia Mosashvili, Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) “Internal Displacement – Legal Aspects” Presentation 4: Jeff Hoppenbrouwers, EUMM “Protracted & Post-Crisis Displacement – Challenges and Solutions” Presentation 5: Julia Kharashvili, MRA and NGO “Consent” “Right to Return in Georgian Context” 11.30 - 12.00 COFFEE-BREAK
22
12.00 – 13.30 PANEL 2: IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE STRATEGY , COORDINATION , COOPERATION , MONITORING Presentation 1: Valeri Kopaleishvili, IDP Steering Committee, MRA “Coordination Mechanisms: Prospects and Challenges” Presentation 2: Guy Edmunds, Danish Refugee Council (DRC) “Capacity Building for the Implementation of the IDP Strategy and Action Plan” Presentation 3: Edina Dziho, UNHCR “Cooperation Mechanisms with the View of Securing Most Adequate protection of IDPs” Presentation 4: Caitlin Ryan, Transparency International (TI) “Aid Transparency in Georgia: A look at IDP Policy Formation and Implementation” Presentation 5: Tina Gewis, Ana Diakonidze, NRC “Protection Monitoring in the Georgian Context and Related Challenges” 13.30 – 15.00 LUNCH 15.00 – 16.30 PANEL 3: SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES : PRIVATIZATION , RESETTLEMENT , MEDICAL / PSYCHOLOGICAL
REHABILITATION , UNEMPLOYMENT , ACCESS TO EDUCATION Presentation 1: Irakli Bokuchava, Social Program Foundation, on privatization “IDP Resettlement, Legal Aspects, Problems, Solutions” Presentation 2: Nukri Milorava, Charity Humanitarian Centre Abkhazeti (CHCA) “Advocacy Efforts on Proper Housing” Presentation 3: Archil Elbakidze, AbkhazIntercont “Challenges of Unemployment and Future Prospects” Presentation 4: Giorgi Kacharava, Swiss Agency for Developing and Cooperation (SDC) “Social Housing in Supportive Environment – A Way to Social Inclusion” Presentation 5: Jonathan Puddifoot, Country Director, CARE International “Household Income Generating – Coping with Economic Integration” Presentation 6: Zurab Bendianishvili, IDP Rights Coalition “A Year after displacement – Lessons learned” 16.30 – 17.00 COFFEE BREAK 17.00 – 18.00 Formulation of Recommendations, Wrap up session 20.00 - 22.30 DINNER hosted by the European Commission, Restaurant “Dzveli Sakhli”
23
ANNEX III: CONCEPT NOTE
“EUROPEAN UNION-GEORGIA” CIVIL SOCIETY HUMAN RIGHTS SEMINAR
ON MEDIA FREEDOM AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS (IDP s)
TBILISI, 10-12 NOVEMBER 2009
BACKGROUND 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, principles of international law, human rights and market economy are the essential elements of EU-Georgia relations. The discussion of human rights between Georgia and EU takes place within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy, joined by Georgia in 2004, and the priorities set up by the European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan adopted on 14 November 2006.
In 2008, the European Union and Georgia have agreed to establish a bi-annual human rights dialogue. The first session of the dialogue took place in Tbilisi on 28 April 2009. During the dialogue, the two sides discussed among other issues the reform of the judicial system, enforcement of national human rights legislation, rights of prisoners, freedom of association and assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and media, protection of IDPs and the humanitarian situation following the August 2008 war.
Both sides also agreed to hold a dedicated civil society human rights seminar to be organised in Tbilisi ahead of the second round of the human rights dialogue, scheduled to take place in Brussels in November/December 2009. Both parties agreed that the seminar should be devoted to media freedom and internally displaced persons. AIMS OF THE SEMINAR The aim of the civil society seminar is to contribute to the human rights dialogue through open discussions with the civil society to help enriching the official dialogue. The civil society seminar will provide 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. 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 trough non-confrontational discussion;
• 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
24
in order to formulate recommendations for future reforms based on best practices and applicable international standards;
• 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.
In relation to each specific issue identified in the agenda, discussions should draw on three strands:
• Examination of international and regional standards • Examination of current national law and practice • Examples of best practice / alternatives to current practice
STRUCTURE OF THE SEMINAR
The seminar will consist of two parts: 1°) a first group of participants and speakers will examine issues related to media freedom during the first two days of the seminar; 2) a second group of participants and speakers will discuss issues related to Internally Displaced Persons on the third day of the seminar. Each part of the seminar will have opening and closing sessions, with the participation of representatives from the Georgian authorities and the European Commission. There will be six consecutive working sessions during the first part of the seminar and three working sessions during the second part of the seminar. Participants are requested to contribute to the discussions during all the sessions of the seminar.
MODALITIES OF THE DISCUSSION Opening speeches Each session of the seminar will be opened by one of the two moderators, followed by short introductory speeches of the European and Georgian experts identified on the agenda. European speakers are invited to briefly introduce the European standards (main sources of inspiration, refer to organisations/institutions/NGOs that can be used as experts, etc.) and Georgian speakers are suggested to give a short overview of the situation in the country in a given area. Each introductory speech should not exceed 10 minutes and should highlight best practices and recommendations for reform. Written versions of the speeches will be made available to the participants. Interventions of participants Following the introductory speeches, the floor will be open for discussion among the participants who are encouraged to share their theoretical knowledge and practical experience that will help to formulate proposals for future action in the areas outlined in the agenda. A moderator will give the floor to the participants when seeing a raised hand. The intention is to develop a free-flowing discussion, therefore the participants are asked to refrain from lengthy remarks. They are, at the same time, encouraged to intervene during the seminar as many times as they wish, however, limiting their statements to the specific issues at hand, thereby contributing to a genuine discussion.
25
State officials are invited to take the floor in order to respond to issues addressed by the civil society participants, in particular when the official feedback appears of particular relevance and importance to the course of the discussion. Interventions should provide ideas that may assist the Government of Georgia in bringing law and practice in line with applicable international standards and indicate directions to cooperation between the European Union and Georgia on intergovernmental (in particular, the European Union-Georgia human rights dialogue) and civil society levels. Adoption of recommendations
Participants are kindly requested during their interventions to suggest conclusions and concrete recommendations. At the end of each session there will be time allocated for the participants to agree on the submitted recommendations.
Adopted wording of the recommendations will be presented by the moderators during the plenary sessions which will close each part of the seminar. Participants will then have a last opportunity to make comments and propose corrections. Final recommendations will be submitted to the EU and Georgian officials and will also be included in a final report to be issued after the seminar.
The role of the moderators is to ensure that the core issues have been discussed and that recommendations have been made. Two assigned note-takers will keep a record of the discussions. Advance submission of written recommendations
All participants can submit concise written recommendations before the seminar by sending them to one of the moderators. Written recommendations will be taken into account when preparing the reports of the moderators to the plenary sessions at the end of each part of the seminar.
Display table for information materials All participants may bring with them background materials that they wish to distribute to the participants. A display table will be made available in the lobby in front of the Seminar room. ORGANISATION The event is organised by the European Commission with the assistance of Cecoforma Ltd. PARTICIPANTS Seventy participants are expected to take part in the seminar on Media Freedom and fifty participants are expected to take part in the seminar on Internally Displaced Persons, including Georgian senior officials, experts on human rights and media, experts on human rights and IDPs, journalists, lawyers, human rights activists, academics, representatives of non-governmental organisations and other civil society actors from Georgia, representatives of international organisations and from the EU institutions. LANGUAGES The seminar will be held in Georgian and English. Simultaneous interpretation will be provided for all sessions.
26
WELCOME DESK A Welcome Desk will be available during all three days of the seminar at the entrance to the seminar venue from 09:00 to 17:30 to register the participants, disseminate the information packs with all relevant materials and respond to the participants’ queries. WORKING HOURS OF THE SEMINAR The seminar will take place in the Ball room of the Hotel “Marriott Courtyard” in Tbilisi. The working hours are as follow: Media freedom Tuesday, 10 November: Registration of the participants 09:30 – 10:00 Seminar 10:00 - 18:00 Wednesday, 11 November: Seminar 10:00 - 18:00 IDPs Thursday, 12 November: Registration of the participants 09:00 - 09:30 Seminar 09:30 - 18:00
27
ANNEX IV: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
“EUROPEAN UNION-GEORGIA”
CIVIL SOCIETY SEMINAR ON INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS
TBILISI, 12 NOVEMBER 2009
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
1. International civil society participants and official observers
Name Organisation Email
1 AKBAROVA Sabina Georgian Institute of Public Affairs
2 ALIBAYLI Vusala Georgian Institute of Public Affairs
3 BABAYEV Vugar Georgian Institute of Public Affairs
4 BARLIBA Dan Mihai (H.E.)
Ambassador of Romania to Georgia
5 BUCHLER Sabrina Council of Europe [email protected]
6 CAITLIN Ryan Transparency International
7 DUNN Elizabeth University of Colorado [email protected]
8 DZIHO Edina UNHCR [email protected]
9 EDMUNDS Guy Danish Refugee Council [email protected]
10 FOUNTAIN Melinda U.S. Embassy [email protected]
11 FIELDING Robert Solidarity Center [email protected]
12 FRICHOVA Magdalena
International Crisis Group
13 GAZARYANTS Marina
14 HALASZ Andras Hungarian Embassy [email protected]
15 HOPPENBROUWERS Jeff
EUMM [email protected]
16 JAVADOVA Khanim Georgian Institute of Public Affairs
28
17 KARAPETYAN Arsen
Millenium Communities Development Center
18 KATCHARAVA George
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
19 KHCHATRYAN Kamo
Millenium Communities Development Center
20 KIERANS Lisa U.S. Dept. of. State BPRM
21 LE DORE Juliette European Commission Delegation to Georgia
22 LIDDELL Robin European Commission Delegation to Georgia
23 MACKINTOSH Paul Danish Refugee Council [email protected]
24 NAGHIYEV Eldar HCA [email protected]
25 NICOLAUS Peter UNHCR [email protected]
26 NOZADZE Natalia Amnesty International [email protected]
27 PUDDIFOOT Jonathan
CARE [email protected]
28 SOVAKAR Mira Conciliation Resources [email protected]
29 WALICKI Nadine Norwegian Refugee Council
30 WHYTE Kate British Embassy [email protected]
31 WISOCKI Wojciech European Commission DG Relex
29
2. Civil society participants and official observers from the Republic of Georgia
Name Organisation Email
1 AVALIANI Irakli Legal Protection Institute [email protected]
2 BARTAIA Irine National Security Council of Georgia
3 BENASHVILI Sofio Office of the Public Defender
4 BENDIANISHVILI Zurab
IDP Rights Coalition [email protected]
5 BERIA Liana IDP Women Association [email protected]
6 BOKUCHAVA Irakli Social Programs Foundation
7 CHARTOLANI Giorgi
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia
8 CHEMIA Maia Samegrelo Medea [email protected]
9 CHIKHLADZE Guram
Youth Association [email protected]
10 CHKAREULI Nana Coalition for IDPs Rights [email protected]
11 DARJANIA Manana Association Postfactum [email protected]
12 DAVITAIA Marina Medea Samegrelo [email protected]
13 DIAKONIDZE Ana Norwegian Refugee Council
14 ELBAKIDZE Archil Abkhazintercom [email protected]
15 ELBAKIDZE Marina Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development
16 GABASHVILI Manana
Norwegian Refugee Council
17 GAMAKHARIA Ala Foundation "Sukhumi" [email protected]
18 GAMAKHARIA Alu Peaceful and Business Caucasus
30
19 GAMSAKHURDIA Merab
Information Center [email protected]
20 GELASHVILI Meri Fund of Women Entrepreneurs
21 GEWIS Tina Norwegian Refugee Council
22 GHOGHORIDZE Guranda
Solidarity Center [email protected]
23 GOGIA Giorgi Human Rights Watch [email protected]
24 JIJELAVA David Geowel Research [email protected]
25 JIKIA Nodar Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association
26 KAKHNIASHVILI Koba
Consent
27 KALANDARISHVILI Nino
Cooperation and Development Center
28 KHARASHVILI Julia Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation
29 KHASIA Gia Atinati [email protected]
30 KHUBUTIA Merab Human Rights Center [email protected]
31 KILANAVA Kristina Women's Movement Imedi
32 KIPIANI Eteri Ministry of Health [email protected]
33 KOCHORADZE Mediko
US Embassy [email protected]
34 KOPALEISHVILI Valeri
Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation
35 KUKHALASHVILI Roza
Women's Council of Abkhazia
36 MACHARASHVILI Eka
Gaenati [email protected]
37 MARSHANIA Rusiko Face to Face [email protected]
38 MILORAVA Nukri Charity Humanitarian Centre Abkhazeti
31
39 MOSIASHVILI Natia Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association
40 PASNADZE Iago Youth Association [email protected]
41 POCHKHUA Marina IDP Women Association [email protected]
42 RAMISHVILI Nanuli UTEU [email protected]
43 RODONAIA Iveta Atinati [email protected]
44 RUSSETSKY Sasha HCAGC [email protected]
45 SABANADZE Nana Association Tskhinvali [email protected]
46 SHAVGULIDZE Rati UNFAO [email protected]
47 SUBELIANI Koba Minister of Refugees and Accommodation
48 SVANIDZE Guram Parliament of Georgia [email protected]
49 TSEVEDIANI Besik Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation
50 TURASHVILI Medea International Crisis Group
