79174 Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced   Persons in Georgia May 2013 Social Development EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA THE WORLD BANK Standard Disclaimer: This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- ment/The World Bank. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Copyright Statement: The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, http://www.copyright.com/. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202- 522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced   Persons in Georgia A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned May 2013 Social Development EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA THE WORLD BANK Table of Contents ....................................................................................................5 Acronyms. Acknowledgements.....................................................................................7 Executive Summary.....................................................................................8 Part 1: Introduction........................................................................... 12 Methodology....................................................................................13 Structure of the Report.....................................................................13 Part 2: Context of Displacement....................................................... 14 History of Conflict and Displacement...............................................14 The Situation of IDPs: Housing.........................................................15 The Situation of IDPs: Livelihoods....................................................16 Livelihoods Definition and Sustainable Livelihoods Theory. ............18 Current IDP Livelihood Support........................................................19 Part 3: Challenges, Opportunities, and Recommendations for ........................................................ 22 Sustainable Livelihoods of IDPs. .......................................................22 Challenge One: Access to Land. Challenge Two: Access to Financial Services....................................25 .......................................................27 Challenge Three: Social Capital. Challenge Four: Skills and Knowledge.............................................29 Challenge Five: Psychosocial Issues and Aid Dependency..............31 Challenge Six: Extremely Vulnerable IDPs........................................33 Part 4: Beyond Project-Based Livelihood Support............................ 37 Annex 1. List of Main IDP Communities and Agricultural Resources.......................................................................................... 40 Annex 2. Guiding Principles for IDP Livelihoods Projects................. 42 Annex 3. List of Key Stakeholders in IDP Livelihood Support in Georgias........................................................................................ 43 Annex 4. Bibliography....................................................................... 47 ......................................................................... 49 Annex 5. References. 3 Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 4 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned Acronyms ACF Action Contra La Faim AP IDP action plan CARE Cooperation for American Relief Everywhere CC Collective center CHCA Charity Humanitarian Centre Abkhazeti CTC Centre for Training and Consultancy DFID Department for International Development DRC Danish Refugee Council EU European Union EVIDP Extremely vulnerable IDP FAO UN Food and Agricultural Organization GEL Georgian Lari IDMC Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre IDP Internally displaced person(s) IOM International Organization for Migration LEPL Legal entity of public law MoA Ministry of Agriculture MRA Ministry for Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia MRDI Ministry for Regional Development and Infrastructure NCL IDPs New case load IDPs (IDPs from the war of 2008) NEO New Economic Opportunities NGO Nongovernmental organization NRC Norwegian Refugee Council OCL IDPs Old case load IDPs (IDPs from the wars of the 1990s) 5 PA IDPs Privately accommodated IDPs PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategic Paper ROM Results-oriented monitoring SDC Swiss Development Cooperation Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation SIIMS Stabilization and Integration of IDPs into Mainstream Georgian Society Project SLF Sustainable Livelihoods Framework SME Small and medium-sized enterprise TEG Temporary Experts Group TSA Targeted social assistance UMCOR United Methodist Committee on Relief UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees USAID United States Agency for International Development VCA Value chain analysis VET Vocational education and training VTC Vocational training center WFP United Nations World Food Programme Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 6 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned Acknowledgements T he primary author for the report was Guy Manoharan and Eavan O’Halloran (World Bank). Hovey, a consultant to the World Bank. Jo- Photos for the front cover were taken by Vladimer anna P. de Berry was the World Bank’s task Valishvili supported by Gabrielle Gunneberg. The team leader and Elisabeth Huybens was the sec- report was made possible by funds under the Trust tor manager. Peer review comments were received Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable from Tina Gewis (NRC), Vara Vemuru, Seenithamby Development (TFESSD) of the World Bank. 7 Executive Summary E thnic conflict in Georgia’s Abkhazia and South which impede the ability of IDPs to secure sustain- Ossetia regions in the early 1990s and 2008 able livelihoods: 1) lack of access to land; 2) lack of caused waves of displacement, and approxi- access to financial services; 3) weak social capital; 4) mately 270,000 internally displaced people (IDPs) lack of skills and education; 5) psychosocial issues; remain affected today. IDPs have limited income and and 6) extreme vulnerability. livelihood opportunities; unofficial figures suggest that up to 80 percent of IDPs may be unemployed, The report analyzes current projects that seek to compared to the official unemployment rate of 15 overcome those challenges and build economic op- percent of the overall population.1 Although the ma- portunities for the displaced. Currently projects take jority of IDPs remain reliant on state subsidies as one of four main forms: their main source of income, many have a strong de- sire to be self-reliant and undertake income-generat- ■■ Donations—of nonfinancial resources such as ing activities, not just for financial reasons but also to machinery and livestock to increase agricultural boost self-esteem, mitigate depression, and facilitate production and strengthen family food security; integration. ■■ Education—such as vocational training to im- prove IDPs’ knowledge, skills, and attitude so In 2007, the Georgian government adopted the IDP they can better access the labor market; State Strategy to provide durable housing for IDPs. Currently the government is seeking to develop a ■■ Financial—providing access to subsidized credit complementary livelihood strategy because it recog- and/or grants to IDPs and host communities for nizes that investments in accommodation need to be business development; sustained by investments in economic and job oppor- ■■ Community mobilization—empowering com- tunities for the displaced. The Ministry of IDPs and munities to increase livelihoods through joint Refugees from the Occupied Territories in Georgia community action. (MRA) aims to play a more instrumental role in lead- ing and coordinating livelihood support. Until now, The report describes these implementation method- livelihood programming for IDPs was mainly imple- ologies and identifies replicable best practices that mented by nongovernmental agencies. The current demonstrate understanding of the challenges that face state action plan for IDPs includes plans for a Liveli- IDPs. Alongside discussion of each challenge, the hood Legal Entity of Public Law (LEPL), a quasi- independent department responsible for livelihood report identifies current opportunities to address the issues. situation. Recommendations are given to strengthen livelihood support. This report aims to contribute to the development of an IDP livelihood strategy and to more comprehen- Access to land—For IDPs, land is an important po- sive investments in economic opportunities for IDPs. tential source of food and income. A 2007 govern- The report identifies six major challenges, each of ment ruling that local authorities may allocate state agricultural land to IDPs has not been consistently applied. Land rental is a common practice in rural 1  Government of Georgia figure 2011. See http://www.undp. areas, but some IDPs are reluctant to take up this op- org.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=24&info_id=11751 for portunity because they mistrust landlords and have a fuller discussion of unemployment in Georgia. poor knowledge of rental agreements. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 8 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned Even where IDPs do have access to land, it is often of decreases of incidences in which livestock are sold poor quality. The lack of access to markets, proces- as a result of family crises. sors, poor infrastructure, and inadequate storage fa- cilities make it hard for IDPs to engage in profitable Finance providers agree that such financing schemes agricultural enterprise. require close monitoring and benefit from technical assistance by the provider. To stimulate sustainable There are currently important opportunities to boost job creation, some NGOs work with enterprises to agricultural livelihoods for IDPs. Decreasing ten- provide business development training such as the sions with Russia and gradually lowering Russian use of value chain analysis (VCA) and credit to in- sanctions against Georgia could potentially increase crease production to meet market demands. Result- agricultural exports from Georgia. This could provide ing jobs are offered to IDPs and their neighbors. income for IDP farmers and processing plant work- ers. Government policy is aimed at boosting the ag- The new government is launching a one billion GEL ricultural sector and a number of agricultural subsidy rural and agricultural subsidized credit scheme to ef- schemes have been launched to encourage increased fectively provide interest-free business development cultivation, production, and yield. The schemes are loans and also to provide cost-sharing grants and available to small and medium producers and repre- loans. IDPs will be eligible to apply, but collateral sent opportunities to IDPs. will remain a requirement. The report urges that a survey be taken of IDP land Given IDPs’ constraints in accessing finance, it is allocation, including its quality, and that inequities likely they will require supportive programs for be remedied. This can be done by including IDPs in the foreseeable future. The report recommends that NGOs work to strengthen local microfinance capacity any new land reclamation and distribution schemes, and IDPs’ credit management skills. VCA should be and by supporting IDPs’ understanding of and con- increasingly used to identify business opportunities. fidence in land rental. The report recommends that donors and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) Social capital—Displacement severs social relations analyze the impacts of the government’s new agri- and community networks that were built over gen- cultural investment programs to ensure benefits and erations. This results in fractured communities that constraints are fully understood. This will facilitate have lost the meaningful intracommunity social con- informed choices about where these programs need tacts and ties by which employment was traditionally to be adapted to ensure IDPs’ inclusion. found. Contacts with the nondisplaced can be super- ficial, and rarely result in employment opportunities. Access to financial services—Many IDPs do not own Types of IDP accommodation can also inhibit social land and housing, both of which are important sourc- interaction. For example, a large collective center es of collateral for loans. For those IDPs returned to (CC) located on the edge of a community segregates Gali in Abkhazia, this challenge is exacerbated by the IDPs both physically and visually. The lack of social unwillingness of both Abkhaz and Georgian banks to space within CCs can also inhibit interaction between lend due to the lack of the rule of law. For those able IDP families. Although some social capital is built to borrow, high-interest rates can make repayments through contacts with non-IDP communities (partic- prohibitively expensive. ularly through children attending schools), insecurity of tenure means these can be severed again if the IDP To mitigate these factors, some NGOs operate rotat- is resettled out of the area. ing microcredit funds that provide subsidized credit where interest is reduced by 50 percent. Others pro- NGOs have sought to improve cohesion between vide grants and business training. Some organizations IDPs and host communities by ensuring both have target IDPs and non-IDPs with livestock cost-share access to program opportunities and the use of com- programs and have reported a good success rate, par- munity mobilization to encourage community con- ticularly with increases in livestock production and sensus. Recent housing and privatization programs 9 have enabled some IDPs to feel more settled in their and other issues, such as domestic violence and alco- communities, which may encourage them to interact holism. Insecurity of tenure, loss of home, job, and more with non-IDPs. Likewise, designing new and identity, the uncertainty associated with the collapse rehabilitated housing can provide opportunities to of the Soviet system (for older IDPs), lack of money, add common spaces in which families can interact as and meaningful employment all contribute to IDP a community and build relationships. stress. Psychological problems become acute where they impact the livelihoods of extremely vulnerable Much remains to be understood about the development IDPs (EVIDPs). of social capital and the impact it has on employment and livelihoods. The report recommends that further IDPs show high levels of economic and psychologi- research be undertaken to better understand the role cal dependency on state subsidies. Fear of benefit social capital plays in IDP life in Georgia. It recom- reductions can impede their desire to find employ- mends that community mobilization techniques be ment. Lack of understanding of the social allowance increasingly used to bring communities together and system and eligibility criteria may also contribute to that IDPs’ housing programs incorporate social space misconceptions that prevent IDPs from taking jobs, for community functions. particularly in the formal sector. Knowledge, skills, and attitude—IDPs can find Some government and NGOs include a psychosocial their skills are outdated or inappropriate for their component in their livelihood programs—encour- new communities. The problem is particularly acute aging IDPs to meet their potential. Others encour- for those who were displaced prior to gaining skills, age self-reliance by requiring beneficiaries to invest work experience, or education. Large numbers of financial as well as human capital into the project. IDPs are disadvantaged in the job market and have Both organizations report lower dropout rates and in- unmet potential. Some NGOs have reported that IDPs creased incomes. have unrealistic expectations of the types of job they can do, which influences the jobs they seek. The impacts of psychological issues and benefit de- pendency on IDP livelihoods have not been greatly NGOs and the government have provided vocational studied. The report recommends that studies be made education and training (VET) programs for many and lessons identified. On the program level, counsel- years. These have recently developed in quality. Of ing components in programming are recommended, note are the programs that recognize the need for ele- as is a case-management approach where required. ments such as languages, decision making, and team- The government could disseminate clear informa- work to supplement core skills training with attitu- dinal change. The programs work with employers to tion on the benefit means-testing system, which may identify employment and workplace skills gaps and allay IDPs’ fears. The government is reviewing the offer training programs to narrow those gaps. benefit system including proposals to increase the IDP allowance and enable qualifying IDP families to The report highlights the importance of the vocational receive both IDP allowance and targeted social as- training sector and the progress made by the govern- sistance (TSA). A 100 percent increase in TSA will ment. Key recommendations for improving this sec- start on July 1st. Policy changes must consider the tor include: ensuring that vocational training includes psychosocial impacts of such increases and the fur- life skills training and is aligned with market require- ther entrenchment of dependency. ments; providing close support to IDPs to enable them to manage expectations and provide up-skilling Extreme vulnerability—IDPs living in extreme programs; and increasing the availability of vocation- poverty struggle to survive. Daily pressures mean al training to all IDPs irrespective of age, including they are unable to pay much attention to planning provision of separate classes for older students. for future livelihood opportunities. They are also less likely to take risks and plan for the long term. If in- Psychosocial issues and dependency—organizations cluded in a livelihood program, the slightest financial working with IDPs report a range of psychological “shock� such as illness or hunger can cause EVIDPs Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 10 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned to sell or consume livelihood assets. if they are producers, even if they do not own land or collateral. Few NGOs work with this group of EVIDPs; this group is least likely to show project success, and the It is expensive for the government to provide the IDP pursuit of quantifiable results means many NGOs allowance, which is given in recognition of IDP sta- choose not to target extreme vulnerability per se. tus. For many IDPs it is their only source of reliable However, some NGOs have considerable experience regular income, although affluent IDPs arguably do working with EVIDPs and have developed a system not need this financial support. A national review of of mentoring, counseling, starting micro livelihood IDPs’ financial status underpinned by extensive anal- activities, and increasing support in incremental ysis is required to inform future government policy steps. on IDP allowances. Likewise, a close review of so- cial allowance claimants will identify ineligible re- This report recommends that more attention be paid cipients and potentially release funds to support vul- to this group. This can be achieved through analyz- nerable IDPs. ing the nature of Georgian poverty and vulnerability and incorporating the lessons into specially tailored Overcoming the barriers to IDP employment caused EVIDP strategies and programs. The programs will by macroeconomic and development policies will re- benefit from a multiyear approach with incremental quire strategic government intervention in combina- steps to take IDPs from extreme vulnerability to in- tion with project providers and stakeholders. Cross- dependence. sectoral support is essential to ensure IDPs achieve sustainable livelihoods. An integrated approach will Beyond Project-Based Support require strategic partnerships between NGOs, devel- opment actors, the government, and the diplomatic to IDPs community. This will enable advocacy and action at all levels, from grassroots communities to the highest NGO projects can significantly impact individu- levels of government. The MRA Livelihood LEPL als and communities, but their limited scope means can potentially act as a facilitator to bring together they are unlikely to influence the wider structural and key ministries and organizations. contextual opportunities and constraints facing both IDP and non-IDP communities. Such issues include To support the recommendations set out in this report, new opportunities for agricultural production and the new analysis and research will be required. Ongoing economic and psychosocial impacts of the state sub- reviews of IDP needs building on the baselines set by sidy system. These affect IDP livelihoods and require UNDP’s 2013 economic and vulnerability study will strategic responses. support a national debate and raise awareness about IDP issues. A debate will enable the government to If trade with Russia resumes, Georgia’s agriculture publicize its IDP livelihood and other strategies, and sector will have opportunities to export raw goods garner support for both IDPs and the efforts to solve and enjoy a new market for processed produce. their problems. This report recommends stronger in- The government has launched business loan and dependent program evaluations. It also recommends agricultural subsidy programs to boost the rural analysis of the nature of IDP poverty, the problems agricultural economy. However, because many IDPs of extreme vulnerability, and the importance of so- do not own land or have collateral, they may not cial capital to IDP livelihoods. Finally, it could prove qualify for subsidies (although they may be farmers useful to conduct research into historical aspects of on rented or borrowed land). The report recommends displacement and how now fully recovered countries affirmative action to enable IDPs to access subsidies overcame the same issues Georgia currently faces. 11 Part 1 Introduction G eorgia has one of the world’s highest inci- living conditions for the displaced and to facilitate dences of internal displacement relative their participation in society.2 In practice, over the to the overall population. In the aftermath past four years, donors and the government have pri- marily focused on providing support via the provi- of conflicts—initially in 1992 and more recently in sion of housing. Focusing on housing helps provide 2008—Georgia faced the displacement of more than and improve accommodation for IDPs and to ensure a quarter of a million persons within the country. that their physical environment is conducive to well- Georgia compares relatively well to other countries being. There is risk, however, in focusing resources on adopting a policy framework that supports dis- and attention solely on housing and not on other areas of IDP vulnerability. Global experience shows that in placed people. Georgia has both signed and ratified order to provide strong durable solutions for IDPs, the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of four key development areas must be holistically ad- Refugees and has expressed commitment to the 1998 dressed: (1) land, property, and housing; (2) reestab- Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. A legal lishment of livelihoods; (3) delivery of services; and reform process in line with these commitments is ad- (4) accountable and responsive governance.3 vanced, though still incomplete. It is critical to reestablish IDP livelihoods both in or- der to enable displaced people to live normal lives The Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) that minimize their dependency on humanitarian as- and Refugees from the Occupied Territories of Geor- sistance and to help them cope with the challenges of gia (MRA) is the central authority that deals with IDP- integration (whether that involves returning to their related issues. It is responsible for coordinating gov- communities of origin, settling in new locations, or ernmental and nongovernmental agencies’ responses integrating into the place of displacement). With- out livelihood support there is a high risk that IDPs to internal displacement. The MRA led the develop- will become trapped in poverty, unemployment, and ment of a 2007 state strategy on IDPs and two ac- hopelessness, and become marginalized. This in turn tion plans (APs) on displacement (one for 2009–2011 presents a large fiscal burden to the state, which must and one for 2012–2014). Government approval of the care for them, and also prevents IDPs from actively strategy and the APs proved to be important steps for contributing to the national economy. framing policy on how to meet IDPs’ needs and, in The MRA has recently launched a process to define a remarkable policy shift from an exclusive focus on return, for the first time established government commitment to the provision of durable solutions for 2  Government of Georgia. 2007. Decree No. 47. On Ap- IDPs in Georgia. proving the State Strategy for Internally Displaced Persons— Persecuted. Tbilisi, Georgia. http://mra.gov.ge/index.php?lang_ id=ENG#index/1/ENG. The state strategy on IDPs articulates the state’s two 3  Christensen, Asger, and Niels Harild. 2009. Forced Displace- major goals: (1) to create conditions for the dignified ment—the Development Challenge. Washington, DC: World and safe return of IDPs; and (2) to support decent Bank. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 12 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned a strategic response to the livelihood needs of IDPs MRA and collaborated with government institutions, in Georgia, which can complement the consider- livelihood support providers, donors, and members able investments in the provision of housing. This of IDP communities. review was undertaken with the aim of contributing to that strategic approach. The key intended audi- Data and information for the assignment was gath- ence includes the government ministries, donors, ered through four main methods: and implementing agencies involved in IDP policy 1. desk study and research; and program definition. Specifically, the review takes stock of existing investments in IDP livelihoods in 2. individual interviews with livelihood provid- Georgia. Its purpose is to identify challenges, good ers, relevant government ministries and depart- practices, lessons learned, and improvements still re- ments, UN agencies, donors, beneficiaries, and quired to make livelihood support programs effective other stakeholders; and successful. To this end the review entailed the 3. field visits to livelihood programs where meet- following: ings were held with local authorities (beneficiary ■■ collated existing data and documentation on the communities and individuals were interviewed activities and outcomes from current IDP liveli- via individual meetings and community-based hood support projects in Georgia; focus groups); ■■ reviewed achievements made and challenges 4. peer review feedback of the draft report via e- faced in existing livelihood support to IDPs; mail and face-to-face interaction. ■■ identified successful interventions with potential for expansion and replication; Structure of the Report ■■ identified barriers to increasing program effec- tiveness; The report starts with background on the history, scope, and character of displacement in Georgia. ■■ reviewed advantages and disadvantages of cur- Although there is a lack of comprehensive data on rent and alternative livelihood support approach- Georgian IDPs’ living conditions and livelihood sta- es; tus, this section collates what information exists. Part ■■ defined recommendations for the strategic im- Two defines livelihood support, maps out the sector as provement of IDP livelihood support; currently implemented in Georgia, and describes the ■■ identified possible additional studies that will types of activities in place to boost IDP employment, be useful for the development of a strategic ap- production, and enterprise. Part Three is structured proach to IDP livelihood support. around six key challenges that undermine IDPs’ abil- ity to achieve sustainable livelihoods and improved income. Each challenge is described and where rel- Methodology evant, examples of current project interventions are offered. Each challenge is also analyzed to include This report is based on the findings and follow-up any current opportunities for improvement in current communications from a one-month consultancy in practice. Recommendations for how to enhance or Georgia that took place in February–March 2013.4 modify approaches to ensure further success are also The consultant worked with the current head of the included. Part Four offers a summary of additional Technical Working Group on Livelihoods in the steps and studies that could further define a strategic approach to IDP livelihood support. Case study ex- amples that appear in text boxes illustrate the review 4  The key consultant undertaking the review was Guy Hovey. findings in more detail. 13 Part 2 Context of Displacement Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) indicate there History of Conflict and are 245,672 OCL IDPs and 19,913 NCL IDPs, plus Displacement 4,153 so-called “double IDPs� – displaced in the nineties and again in 2008 - (totalling 269,738) in In the early 1990s separatist wars were fought in Georgia who represent 6.1 percent of the population. both South Ossetia and Abkhazia as the Ossetian and WFP figures from 2012 show that of three profiled Abkhazian ethnic groups, majorities in their respec- IDP settlements, an average of 51.3 percent were tive regions, fought to break away from Georgia. The women, 26 percent were children under 18 years, and wars and ethnic tensions resulted in the displacement 14.5 percent were over 65 years.7 of approximately 215,000 ethnic Georgians,5 mostly from Abkhazia, who fled mainly to Tbilisi and West- Included in the numbers of OCL IDPs are IDPs who ern Georgia. These IDPs, who have remained dis- have been able to return to the Lower and Upper Gali placed for up to twenty years, are commonly called districts of Abkhazia—a region that was historically “old case load� IDPs (OCL IDPs). inhabited by a Georgian majority and the only re- gion where the de facto Abkhaz authorities will al- In 2008, continuing instability and tension escalated low Georgians to return. This constrained return is to conflict between Russia and Georgia. This left Rus- mainly due to the demographic concerns of the de sia and its allies firmly in control of both breakaway facto authorities,8 who worry that allowing further regions and displaced another 156,000. Most of these concessions will encourage more Georgians to re- IDPs were able to return home in the weeks follow- turn9 and possibly cause instability. Human Rights ing the French-brokered peace agreement of August Watch roughly estimates that up to 47,000 IDPs have 12, 2008, which resulted in the partial withdrawal of returned to the Gali region.10 Gali returnees retain their IDP status11 yet remain precariously positioned Russian forces from Georgia. However some 22,000 as they are subject to conflicts, kidnappings, and lack persons were unable to return and required housing rule of law.12 and other support in Georgia. These IDPs have been termed “new case load� IDPs (NCL IDPs). There is some discrepancy in the figures of those cur- 7  World Food Programme (WFP). 2012. Community Profiling Study of IDP Settlements in Georgia. Rome: WFP. rently displaced in Georgia. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates 8  UNHCR. 2009. Protection of IDPs in Georgia: A Gap Analy- that IDPs from both conflicts total 273,997 persons.6 sis. Geneva: UNHCR. http://www.unhcr.org/4ad827f59.pdf. January 2013 figures from the MRA supplied by the 9  Minority Rights Group International. 2008. “State of the World’s Minorities 2008—Georgia/Abkhazia and South Ossetia.� Refworld. http://www.refworld.org/countryGEO,,48a7eaec41,0. html. 5  IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre). 2012. 10  Gogia, Giorgi. 2011. “Georgians in Gali.� Human Rights “Georgia: Partial Progress Towards Durable Solutions for IDPs.� Watch. http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/02/18/georgians-gali. IDMC. http://www.internal-displacement.org/countries/georgia. 11  Gali returnees are usually classed as privately accommo- 6  UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). dated IDPs (see below). 2013. “2013 UNHCR Regional Operations Profile—Eastern Eu- rope.� UNHCR. http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48d2e6.html. 12  IDMC/NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council). 2012. “Mem- Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 14 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned of 1,600 apartments in 23 areas. The largest settlement The Situation of IDPs: Housing of over 2,000 cottages was constructed at Tserovani, Government data shows that 47,716 IDPs are reg- 23 kilometres from Tbilisi. The privatization process istered as living in collective centers (CCs) while for these cottages started in 2012. By the end of 2012, 222,022 are registered as privately accommodated two thirds of the settlements had been involved in the (PA).13 No accurate figures exist for IDPs’ rural/urban process and completion rates were lower than 50% in breakdown, although a generally accepted figure is 9 out of 25 settlements covered16. Since 2011, IDPs 50/50. This is because difficulties in obtaining infor- living in collective centres where privatization has mation on IDP locations have undermined attempts started, irrespective of whether they have applied for to have accurate IDP registration data.14 An April privatization or not, are reregistered as PA IDPs. By 2013 initiative to reregister all IDPs was launched in 2010, the MRA’s housing strategy—a document de- response to a request from the MRA, which hopes to veloped to guide IDP resettlement—announced that analyze the data and use it to underpin policy deci- apart from some “special cases,� all NCL IDPs had sions. received housing support. The government was both praised for its immediate response to the IDP crisis The wave of displacement caused by the 2008 con- and criticized for construction and design problems flict brought renewed attention to the housing plight that became apparent once IDPs moved into the cot- of IDPs in Georgia, causing the government to pri- tages.17 oritize the provision and improvement of accommo- dation. Major donors—including the United States The swift response to NCL IDPs’ housing plight Agency for International Development (USAID), the served to refocus attention on the OCL IDPs, who, European Union (EU), the World Bank, Germany, since their displacement, had been living in CCs and and the United Nations (UN)—committed US$400 in private accommodations. OCL CCs were mainly million for the period between 2009 and 2014. Much located in abandoned schools, kindergartens, hospi- of this was allocated to IDP housing. tals, and government buildings. Some were in pri- vately owned buildings, such as former hotels. Most For NCL IDPs, the government swiftly oversaw the IDPs described CCs as “overcrowded,� “congested,� construction of 13 settlements totalling over 3,96415 “dilapidated,� “deplorable,� “degraded,� and “ex- single-storey “cottages,� as well as the rehabilitation tremely sub-standard,�18 These buildings were never designed to permanently orandum: Internal Displacement in Georgia.� http://www. house large numbers of people. The inadequate sani- internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/%28httpDocu tation, electrical, sewerage, and water systems soon ments%29/61AF7555689DA54FC1257AEC004BF787/$file/ became overwhelmed by the demands of occupation. IDMC+Georgia+memo+FINAL+3+Dec.pdf. Despite repair and maintenance work undertaken by 13  Privately accommodated, or PA, IDPs live with friends or the government, UN agencies, international orga- relatives in rented or other privately owned accommodations. nizations, NGOs, and residents, problems were too This is distinct from government-allocated accommodations widespread to be satisfactorily contained. OCL IDPs such as collective centers in state or private ownership. experienced regular power outages, electrical fires, 14  Many PA IDPs have moved multiple times but not updated leaking roofs, and broken utilities. The neglect of their records despite a legal requirement to do so, making it diffi- cult to verify registration information. Since 2008, the MRA had these residences arguably stemmed from the govern- in addition ceased to register IDP address changes amid concerns that IDPs might abuse the process to be included in government housing programmes. 16  MRA, UNHCR, DRC. 2012 Annual Privatization Report 15  Transparency International Georgia. 2010. “Cottage Set- 17  Ibid. tlements for Georgia’s New IDPs: Accountability in Aid and Construction.� Transparency International Georgia. http://trans- 18  Mooney, Erin D. 2009. “When ‘Temporary’ Lasts Too parency.ge/en/post/report/cottage-settlements-georgias-new- Long.� Forced Migration Review 33. http://www.fmreview.org/ idps-accountability-aid-and-construction. en/FMRpdfs/FMR33/FMR33.pdf. 15 ment’s policy of regarding internal displacement as capital, which effectively cut evictees off from their temporary. sources of income, education, and health care. In 2007, a significant policy change acknowledged Many PA IDPs live with relatives and friends. Some the right of IDP return but also the reality of long- live in rented accommodation, some live in homes term displacement. In response, the first IDP action owned by IDPs, and some illegally occupy private- plan (AP) in 2009 agreed to by the government, in- ly owned buildings. The legal status of the latter is ternational donors, NGOs, and Georgian civil society tenuous, and they also risk eviction. Likewise, IDPs guided a combined effort to resettle and reintegrate who stay with hosts are insecure; IDPs are sometimes IDPs into wider Georgian society by providing du- evicted from their relatives’ accommodations,22 par- rable housing solutions and other support. Existing ticularly as families grow and space becomes crowd- CCs were rehabilitated and new housing was con- ed. To address this problem, organizations such as the structed, which provided 30,000 OCL IDPs with du- NRC have implemented projects that provide materi- rable housing solutions. In addition, 539 rehabilitated als to extend host family houses and apartments— CCs were privatized. By December 2012 14,634 IDP for example by enclosing balconies to create an extra accommodation units had been fully privatised.19 20 room. Housing investments under the AP also involved re- PA IDPs have generally not received the same level settling IDPs away from the capital and out of accom- of housing or livelihood assistance as IDPs who live modations that the government intended to repurpose in CCs. Although organizations such as the Danish for commercial use.21 This policy was criticized, as Refugee Council (DRC), the Swedish International many IDPs were resettled away from their original Development Cooperation (Sida), the NRC, and UN- residence with no livelihood support. For example, HCR have offered some support to PA IDPs, they IDPs were resettled from Tskaltubo, where they had remain a difficult group to target. This can in large lived since the mid-1990s, to large new residential part be attributed to a lack of accurate data, poor vis- districts in Poti. The lack of work meant that many ibility, and inadequate representation.23 IDPs re-emigrated back to Tskaltubo to earn money. A study by the United Nations Development Pro- The MRA database continues to list 849 CCs as state- gramme (UNDP) states that IDPs are the most vul- owned. Compounding IDPs’ problems in these pub- nerable sector of Georgian society in terms of land lic CCs is the possibility of eviction, as evidenced and housing. Despite the government’s focus on by the August 2010 evictions of IDPs who occu- housing as a mechanism to reduce vulnerability, the pied government buildings in Tbilisi. Similarly, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC)24 government evicted 344 families from the Isani CC found that low quality construction and inconsistent which had previously been used by the Ministry of resettlement policies could increase IDPs’ vulner- Economy and Sustainable Development. Alternative ability, especially those who gave up their job and accommodation was offered but it was far from the were resettled far from their original CC. 19  IDPs living in privatized CCs are now classed as privately accommodated. 22  However, a draft amendment to current IDP legislation 20  Although the privatization of IDP CCs was a stated aim in seeks to regulate the eviction of IDPs from private accommoda- the AP and housing strategy, it was a slow process until a govern- tion when they have permission to be there. ment initiative to accelerate it in 2012. Assisted by the UNHCR and DRC, the MRA was able to privatize approximately 7,650 23  For a full review of the situation of PA IDPs, see: Kochlash- accommodation units in that year—up from only 397 in 2011. vili, Natia. 2013. Privately Accommodated IDPs in Georgia: A Needs Assessment. Tbilisi, Georgia: NRC. 21  This policy has now been reversed by the new govern- ment. 24  IDMC/NRC. 2012. “Memorandum.� Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 16 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned flaws in the benefits system, the medical assistance, The Situation of IDPs: IDP allowance, and TSA programs are a vital part of Livelihoods IDP income strategies.30 A 2010 survey conducted by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) No nationally significant data disaggregates poverty in new settlements found that 81 percent of those in- rates between IDPs and non-IDPs, so it is impossible terviewed relied on government allowances for their to accurately assess their poverty in relation to the main income source.31 overall population. However, a proxy indicator for poverty could be taken from figures on who quali- Unemployment remains a considerable problem fies for and claims targeted social assistance (TSA), throughout Georgian society; the nationwide unem- which is aimed at bolstering the income of the very ployment rate is 15 percent. Again, official figures do poor. Twelve percent of IDPs receive TSA compared not disaggregate unemployed IDPs from the overall to nine percent of the overall population, suggesting unemployment figures. There is some evidence that that poverty rates are higher among IDPs25. IDPs are more acutely affected by unemployment than the non-displaced. Research among OCL IDPs An important buffer against poverty is the fact that by Conciliation Resources in 2011 found an OCL IDP the state provides an allowance to each person regis- unemployment rate of 82 percent among those ques- tered as an IDP (including children of original IDPs). tioned.32 This disproportionate rate is reinforced by A recent UNDP study highlighted IDP allowances as research undertaken by the DRC in 2008; they identi- key to providing a regular income.26 These are graded fied an IDP unemployment rate of 69 percent while according to accommodation type. PA IDPs receive studying 3,000 IDPs nationwide.33 Further analysis an allowance of 28 Georgian Lari (GEL) per person of statistics supplied by the Georgian Statistical Of- per month; those in CCs receive 22 GEL.27 In addi- fice shows that urban IDPs are up to 3.5 times more tion, if their level of poverty is ranked high enough, likely to be unemployed than their non-IDP counter- IDPs are entitled to free health care insurance. If parts. By contrast indications from an unpublished they opt to, IDPs can be assessed for TSA eligibil- FAO baseline assessment found unemployment rates ity, through which the head of household receives 30 in some NCL settlements was close to that of host GEL/month and remaining family members receive communities. 24 GEL/month. Currently an IDP who claims TSA is required to give up their IDP allowance.28 While the UNHCR and others29 have highlighted patory Assessment of the Humanitarian Situation and Progress Made in the Re-integration Process of IDPs Who Returned to the Shida Kartli Region, Georgia. Geneva: UNHCR. 25  Some commentators feel many IDPs who would qualify for 30  Meetings with Oxfam and IDPs, March 2013. TSA do not apply. Thus IDP poverty rates could be higher than 31  NRC analysis from January 2013 shows that 33,873 IDPs stated. claim TSA, 37,038 IDPs in CCs claim the IDP allowance, and 190,251 PA IDPs claim IDP allowance. The NRC calculated the 26  UNDP. 2013. Economic and Social Vulnerability in Geor- monthly cost to the government at 7,037,988 GEL (approximate- gia: UNDP ly US$4.26 million). Plans to double the TSA on July 1, 2013, 27  The official poverty line for Georgia for 2010 was 90 GEL/ and to allow IDPs to have access to TSA without losing their IDP month. The subsidy can be compared to a monthly state pension allowance will greatly increase the fiscal impact of these subsi- of 125 GEL/monthly, and the average teacher salary of 311 GEL/ dies. month. 32  However, some commentators argue that many IDPs are 28  IDPs and non-IDPs are entitled to TSA if, following a thor- occupied in growing food and other endeavors and thus are en- ough assessment by the Ministry of Social Welfare taking into gaged in livelihood activities and not seeking formal employ- account family income and living conditions, they achieve a ment. “poverty ranking� of 57,001 points or less. A ranking of 70,001 33  Nadareishvili, Mamuka, and Vasil Tsakadze. 2008. Hous- or less points entitles the family to medical insurance. ing and Socio-economic Conditions of IDPs in Georgia. Tbilisi, 29  UNHCR. 2012. Returned but Still Reintegrating: Partici- Georgia: DRC. 17 Where IDPs are formally employed, they typically in which the family cannot escape poverty without work low-paid jobs that involve arduous work. Field- significant outside intervention—is when three gen- work undertaken for this review involved a qualita- erations have been born and no one in the family can tive assessment of employment in one NCL IDP set- provide the intellectual, social, and economic capi- tlement. IDPs universally held cleaning and (mainly tal required to escape poverty.37 Many Georgian IDP night-time) security jobs at factories and businesses families are in danger of falling into this cycle.38 in the area. Their average wage was 150 GEL per month—less than a quarter of the national average Livelihoods Definition and salary of 636 GEL in 2011.34 Sustainable Livelihoods Theory Informal part-time and seasonal employment (which involve either working for cash or for goods) offer in- A generally accepted definition of livelihood was of- come-generating opportunities.35 Anecdotal evidence fered by Chambers and Conway in 1992: suggests that community and family connections make non-IDPs much more likely to secure informal “A livelihood comprises the capabilities, as- employment than IDPs. As discussed below, this ap- sets (stores, resources, claims and access) pears to be caused by IDPs’ lack of social capital, and activities required for a means of living: a which offers the connections required to access jobs livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and other economic opportunities. and recover from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and Lack of meaningful networks is one of many reasons provide sustainable livelihood opportunities why many IDPs experience continuing socioeco- for the next generation; and which contrib- nomic vulnerability. Displacement is disruptive and utes net benefits to other livelihoods at the causes people to lose education and skill-building op- local and global levels and in the long and portunities, which in turn causes many, particularly short term.�39 older, IDPs to lack the experience and expertise re- quired in the job market. This problem is compound- The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF), in- ed by a lack of access to credit to start or expand a troduced by the Department for International Devel- business (particularly for NCL IDPs), and also by the opment (DFID) in 1999, provides a useful framework fact that IDP accommodations often have inadequate for understanding livelihoods. It recognizes that a or unreliable utilities, which further impedes efforts family’s or individual’s ability to support their needs to successfully operate a business. Even when an IDP is not based solely on their access to income genera- is presented with a livelihood opportunity, their ex- tion or food production, but rather is dependent on treme poverty can inhibit their ability to make a suc- access to a wide range of assets (also referred to as cess of it, or even to take advantage of it. capital): As a result, many OCL IDP families have lived in ØØ natural (environmental) assets: natural re- poverty for up to twenty years. The generally accept- sources (land, water, wildlife, biodiversity, ed entry point of a family into the “poverty cycle�36— cesses, vol. 4. New York: McGraw-Hill. 34  Figures from the National Statistical Office of Georgia (GeoStat). http://www.geostat.ge. 37  Ibid. 35  Some IDPs report preferring informal employment because 38  For a study of Georgia’s IDPs and the poverty cycle, see: if they enter the formal employment sector, they will be registered Willems, Daphne. 2012. “Settling After War: Analyzing Eco- with the tax authorities. This will trigger a poverty reassessment nomic Development of IDPs in Georgia.� Master’s thesis, Uni- with the danger of losing health insurance and other benefits. versity of Amsterdam. Therefore, many IDPs reluctantly choose not to take a formal job and instead remain unemployed and retain their benefits. 39  Chambers, R., and Conway, G. 1992. “Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century.� IDS Dis- 36  Marger, Martin. 2008. Social Inequality: Patterns and Pro- cussion Paper 296. Brighton, UK: IDS. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 18 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned environmental resources) Current IDP Livelihood Support ØØ physical assets: basic infrastructure (water, sanitation, energy, transportation, communi- To date, livelihood support for IDPs in Georgia has cations), housing, and the means and equip- largely been delivered through NGOs and small-scale ment of production projects; there is no overarching national or strategic ØØ human assets: health, knowledge, skills, in- approach to livelihood support at any scale for IDPs. formation, ability to labor The types of activities currently being delivered can ØØ social assets: social resources (relationships be classified into the following broad types: of trust, membership of groups, networks, ac- cess to wider institutions) Providing inputs and natural assets for IDPs to pursue agricultural production. The provision ØØ financial assets: financial resources available of livestock and other agricultural inputs has been (regular remittances or pensions, savings, a widespread part of NGOs’ IDP livelihood invest- supplies of credit) ments. Variations on these include recipients who pay back in kind to another vulnerable person. An Modification of the SLF since 1999 has stressed that example of this “passing on the gift� approach might the range of assets do not in themselves provide live- include the donation of a pregnant cow, where the lihood opportunities. The ability to access and take beneficiary gives the calf to another vulnerable bene- advantage of assets is always mediated by a range ficiary; likewise, the provision of tools to a craftsman of institutions and contextual factors; how these af- might be repaid by the recipient undertaking free fect individuals depends on their relative power or work for a vulnerable person. The UN Food and Ag- vulnerability. Increasingly the emphasis of liveli- ricultural Organization (FAO) implemented another hood analysis has been to understand the political- variant: a cost-share scheme for IDPs which enabled economic context that may constrain or facilitate the IDP farmers to buy livestock or equipment. effective deployment of assets for livelihood oppor- tunities. These contextual factors are especially sa- Although OCL IDPs came from a mix of rural and lient for IDPs. The loss of so many normal assets and urban backgrounds, the majority of NCL IDPs were opportunities (from land to social relations) means displaced from rural communities. Their agricultural that IDPs are more dependent on a wider institution- experience is reflected in a 2009 FAO/UNIFEM sur- al context (for example, relying on state subsidies) vey that found that 41 percent of NCL IDPs preferred while at the same time are more vulnerable within farming as a livelihood. Recognizing their experience, this context. However, there is still a long way to go the government allocated small areas of land to use until political-economy analysis is used effectively to as vegetable gardens adjacent to the cottages in the define and design appropriate IDP livelihood inter- new settlements constructed in 2008. In addition, the ventions on the ground.40 This is the case in Georgia, government allocated 860 hectares of land, including where interventions and projects have largely focused some areas of fruit trees adjacent to the settlements, on providing assets without always fully exploring or for NCL IDP agricultural activities.41 Some agricul- engaging the larger power structures and institutional tural plots adjacent to cottages were privatized, but limitations. This makes IDPs especially vulnerable. others, particularly those that are separate from the A more strategic approach for IDP livelihood support cottage or settlement, remain state property. In 2007 in Georgia will need a stronger political-economic the government passed a law authorizing local au- dimension. thorities to allocate agricultural land to OCL IDPs.42 41  IDMC. 2012. Property, Livelihoods, Education and Other Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Geneva: IDMC. 40  World Bank. 2013. Assessment of Livelihood Support for Displaced Persons and IDPs. Washington, DC: World Bank. 42  Article 5 of Law #335-IIS on Forcibly Displaced Persons— 19 NGOs have supplemented this initiative by providing tions to grant and credit programs. Some offer finan- seeds, tools, and fertilizer to allow IDPs to cultivate cial resources that aim to alleviate immediate pov- both the vegetable gardens and the agricultural land. erty. NGOs often try to match financial assets with natural and physical assets (such as livestock and Delivering vocational training to improve human equipment), and with technical support and train- assets, knowledge, and skills. Organizations such ing, to help IDPs acquire vocational and/or business as the NRC, the Cooperation for American Relief skills. This is intended to allow them to improve the Everywhere (CARE), New Economic Opportunities profitability of existing income-generating activities (NEO)/USAID, and UNDP have all implemented vo- or start up new microenterprises. NGOs have given cational training programs to improve IDPs’ human cash transfers or grants to IDPs, such as the project assets and skills. Programs such as the USAID-fund- implemented by the Centre for Training and Con- ed NEO provide training courses to both IDPs and sultancy (CTC) with funding from USAID. With maximum grants of US$1500 and average grants non-IDPs in plumbing, tiling, and carpentry. Previ- of US$1150, IDPs are encouraged to utilize their ous USAID-funded programs have targeted IDPs di- skills and start or develop a business. There is some rectly by building dedicated vocational training cen- evidence that this is a successful livelihood support ters (VTCs) in IDP settlement areas. Multi-agency strategy—CTC data suggests that 208 grants resulted initiatives have worked with regional governments to in 170 operational microenterprises with an average support vocational schools in Kutaisi, Kobuleti, Ba- household income increase of 27 percent in 2011 and tumi, and elsewhere. 37 percent in 2012.43 Another example is the Sta- bilization and Integration of IDPs into Mainstream Increasing access to financial assets by providing Georgian Society Project (SIIMS), implemented by grants and loans. There are many different permuta- Persecuted from the Occupied Territories of Georgia. 43  CTC program monitoring figures, April 2013. Box 1: Changing Lives Through Livelihoods Projects CARE International: The Stabilization and Integration of IDPs into Mainstream Georgian Society Project (SIIMS) Khizanishvili worked in a bakery close to the Karaleti settlement. The bakery was busy but a lack of capital held back its development. In 2011 Khizanishvili received a US$1000 grant. Khizanishvili used the money to purchase a grill to roast chicken and an oven to bake khatchapuri, traditional bread. Buy- ing the equipment made Khizanishvili a shareholder in the business and allowed the bakery to add one permanent and one part-time employee. The business now employs five people. “I did not expect to win this grant,� she said. “Somehow it saved me. I woke up and I became more active. Now I’m search- ing for more opportunities. I am more motivated.� CHCA, UNHCR Zurab Chikvatia lives in a Tbilisi IDP CC. He has expertise in the production of sunflower seeds and operated as a bulk sunflower seed seller. His experience taught him he could add value and increase his profits by packaging his seeds and selling them wholesale. With a 4,800 GEL soft loan funded by UNHCR in 2011, Chikvatia procured packaging machines and materials. He now successfully produces and sells his seeds packaged in varying weights. His profits have increased considerably and he employs nine IDPs. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 20 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned CARE. This program supported IDPs with financial the community asset and secure its ongoing operation grants and equipment. Increasingly, however, donors and maintenance. prefer implementing partners to provide loans in which capital and interest are repaid into a communi- In the Georgian context, an example of a communi- ty or other fund to prevent dependency and engender ty-focused approach is the development of agricul- beneficiary independence. Some schemes provide tural associations by organizations such as USAID/ cofunding to scale up existing and well-established Chemonics/NEO, FAO, UNHCR, and Action Contra businesses. La Faim (ACF). The associations manage infrastruc- ture such as irrigation projects. These enable member Facilitating social, physical, and financial assets farmers to enhance crop yields and use equipment through community mobilization. Community they would not normally have access to as individual mobilization approaches to IDP livelihood support farmers. Joint purchase and coordinated selling also assume that IDP communities share common goals. enable farmers to grow crops with fiscal efficiency Meeting those goals is intended to enhance the live- and maximize profits. ACF and other organizations lihood environment of all IDPs within that commu- that specialize in agricultural associations have not- nity. The process of community mobilization usually ed that memories of Soviet collectivization remain entails in-depth participatory consultations in which strong in Georgia, which generates antipathy towards community members identify their livelihood priori- such associations. As a result they have had to de- ties and needs. Community members are then offered velop especially robust mobilization techniques that resources they can use to act on or invest in those bring together communities and local authorities to priorities. A community management structure is of- maximize associations’ effectiveness and ensure that ten set up to supervise the implementation and use of what is owned by all is used and cared for by all. 21 Part 3 Challenges, Opportunities, and Recommendations for Sustainable Livelihoods of IDPs A Challenge One: Access to Land ssessing the effectiveness of IDP livelihood support programs in Georgia is hampered by the lack of full-scale project and program Despite the fact that many IDPs prefer agricultural evaluations.44 Some projects do generate ongoing and livelihoods, and in spite of the government’s attempts end-of-project results data, but usually this type of to apportion land to NCL IDPs, some IDPs still face assessment concentrates on output level results (such considerable constraints in pursuing agricultural pro- as the number and type of assets provided). There is duction. In the NCL settlements, the size and qual- a lack of strong analysis of outcomes and changes for ity of land and kitchen gardens mean that few IDPs IDP incomes and employment, and of the factors that are able to earn an income; agricultural activities facilitated or hampered success. Even where impact are largely subsistence in nature.45 Annex 1 gives an evaluations exist, the lack of comparable indicators overview of land and resource allocation to the main across projects constrains comparative analysis of the NCL IDP settlements.46 effectiveness of different types of project activities. The allocation of land to OCL IDPs has been incon- Taking this into account, this review used results data sistent. In 2011 some IDPs reported they had not been where it exists. It complemented this with interviews allocated land by local authorities. Even where OCL in which practitioners were asked to reflect on their IDPs have access to land, its quality can be too poor for viable production. For example, in fieldwork un- experiences with IDP livelihood support. This enabled dertaken for this review, both IDPs and host commu- the review to identify six major circumstantial chal- nity members in the Shida Kartli region reported that lenges that impede IDPs’ ability to secure sustainable unreliable irrigation systems meant they were unable livelihoods: 1) lack of access to land; 2) constrained to risk expanding crop production.47 access to financial services; 3) depleted skills and knowledge; 4) lack of social capital; 5) psychosocial One option for IDPs who do not own land is to rent issues and aid dependency; and 6) the extreme vulner- or share unused land from their non-IDP neighbors. ability of some IDPs. While some of these challenges Some IDPs have taken this route to proactively in- are relevant to many of Georgia’s poor, they are es- crease their land assets. A small study by WFP48 found pecially acute in the lives of IDPs. Each challenge is described and where relevant, examples of current project interventions are offered. Each challenge is also analyzed to include any current opportunities for 45  FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United improvement in current practice. Recommendations Nations) and UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for for how to enhance or modify approaches to ensure Women). 2009. Needs Assessment: A Gender Approach to Con- flict-Affected Populations in Rural Areas. Rome: FAO. further success are also included. 46  Baseline Assessment Report from May 2013, for the FAO project OSRO/GEO/101/EC. 47  However, Shida Kartli is an area targeted for irrigation proj- 44  This problem is not unique to Georgia; a recent review of ects by NGOs and the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). IDP livelihood support schemes for IDPs worldwide noted a complete dearth of independent impact evaluations or assess- 48  WPF (World Food Program) and MRA (Ministry for Inter- ment of lessons learned (World Bank, 2013). nally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accom- Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 22 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned that a few households in the NCL settlements farmed tribute to this. The first is a wider geopolitical context land through informal land rental arrangements with that affects the macro Georgian economy: restricted host communities. Land rentals average about 100 access to the Russian export market.51 The second is GEL per year for a hectare of unirrigated land, while a lack of supporting infrastructure required to create irrigated land rents for 500 GEL.49 the preconditions for successful trade in some remote areas. A poor (but improving) primary road and rail However, many IDPs appear to lack of confidence in network means goods can be delayed and/or dam- rented land. Rural IDPs interviewed for this review aged in transit. While this affects the entire Georgian suggested that landowners may rent uncultivated population, IDPs are especially vulnerable because land to IDPs and take the land back for their own many of their residences and CCs are located in re- use when the land has been cleared and brought into mote areas. NCL IDP settlements have a noticeable cultivation. IDPs appear to be unaware of the use of lack of agricultural storage facilities, which means contracts for agricultural land rental, which are en- that crops are sold in bulk and cheaply, so they can forceable within the civil law norms that govern leas- be moved before they rot. Thirdly, there is a lack of ing relations.50 technical understanding about constraints or oppor- tunities for marketing, profitability, and how to adapt Difficulty accessing land is not the only barrier IDPs activities to achieve more income. face in agricultural enterprise. Even when IDPs have access to land and can engage in surplus production, Current Opportunities their ability to generate more significant income from agricultural activities can be severely hampered by A number of factors bode well for revitalizing Geor- poor marketing opportunities. Several factors con- gia’s agricultural production. Relations between Georgia and Russia have thawed since the 2012 elec- modation and Refugees of Georgia). 2012. Community Profiling Studies of IDP Settlements in Georgia. Rome: WFP. 51  Analysis of Georgian exports shows that prior to the 2008 49  Interview with Dragan Angelovski, UN FAO, February 21, conflict, Georgia’s main export market was Russia. According 2013, Tbilisi, Georgia. to Geostat, a 2005 high of US$150 million worth of exports had dropped to US$45 million in 2012. The Russian trade embargo 50  Correspondence with Georgian Young Lawyers Association reduced Georgian exports by 82 percent at its peak and remains (GYLA), March 1, 2013. reduced by 70 percent. Box 2: Lack of Land and Lost Opportunities Members of an IDP community who lived in government-owned buildings in very poor conditions suc- cessfully practiced good husbandry and managed to increase the number of chickens, cattle, ducks, and other livestock provided through a project by the NGO Consent. Community members were also given equipment and technical assistance. Two years after the project began, community members built rudimentary greenhouses utilizing plastic sheeting provided by an international organization. Greens and herbs were grown and consumed by participating families, which saved them from need- ing to buy food at the market. City authorities own the land on which the greenhouses were built. Hoping to expand their activities, the IDPs developed well thought-out expansion and marketing plans that could have helped the effort transition from subsistence agricultural activities to livelihood and employment. The plans proposed the use of more land, and the community asked authorities for permission to use an area of unused scrub land nearby. The request was denied on the grounds that the land was for public use. Thus, the IDPs remained unable to scale up their production. 23 tions, and this has provided increased business op- physical assets for agriculture. The challenge will be portunities both for export and foreign investment to inform IDPs about and include them in the various by Russia. Simultaneously the Georgian government program benefits. recently announced they would prioritize large in- vestments in agriculture. Currently, approximately Recommendations 50 percent of arable land in Georgia is not used for agriculture.52 There is increasing political commit- Many IDPs would benefit from improved access to ment to bring more arable land into production by and formal ownership of irrigated, fertile agricultural improving irrigation and drainage, enhancing secu- land. Land could also serve as collateral and allow rity of land tenure, providing agricultural equipment, IDPs to access formal financial services. To enable and enhancing financial resources. this, the following is needed: While not specifically targeted at IDPs, the increase ØØ The MRA, donors, and NGOs should coordi- in cultivatable land may enable entrepreneurial IDPs nate with the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) to rent and farm land. There is often considerable to ensure IDPs are considered key stakehold- underutilized land and other resources close to IDP ers in new initiatives to bring arable land back settlements,53 and these could be rented and cultivat- into production. IDPs need to be included as ed. This can be complemented by providing legal and a special target group in new land reclama- protection services to IDPs, such as the work under- tion and distribution schemes. For example, taken by the Georgian Young Lawyers Association, some negotiation may be needed to ensure which has worked to strengthen farmers’ and IDPs’ that IDPs benefit from improved irrigation in understanding of contracts and land leasing. Even arable lands close to IDP settlements. if IDPs remain unwilling to rent land, the increased livelihood potential for non-IDP farmers will corre- ØØ The government, NGOs, UN organizations, spondingly increase the need for labor, which may provide IDP employment opportunities. and donors can take a comprehensive nation- wide stock of access to land by IDPs, leading Another major government initiative aims to direct to further land allocation where necessary to financial support to 640,000 small farmers covering 5 address inequities in current land distribution million hectares.54 Known as the “Small Land-Own- to IDPs; ers Farmers Support Programme,� the scheme will provide direct payments via vouchers totalling more ØØ The MRA and MoA should launch informa- than 180 million GEL. Payments are set on a sliding tion campaigns that allow IDPs to be educat- scale. Landowners with up to 0.25 hectares of land ed and equipped to register their land title; (which encompasses the majority of land-owning IDPs) will receive a voucher worth 100 GEL that can ØØ The MRA and MoA legal departments, be exchanged only for agrochemicals and agricultural with the support of Georgian NGOs such as equipment. Land owners with 0.25–1.25 hectares of the Georgian Young Lawyers Association land will receive vouchers redeemable for land culti- (GYLA), can help IDPs engage in the land vation services as well as agrochemicals and equip- rental market through improved understand- ment.55 These proposed vouchers will increase the ing of the mechanics and protection of land rental contracts. Even with improved access to good quality land, 52  Angelovski, interview. there are multiple obstacles that must be overcome to 53  WFP and MRA. 2012. Community Profiling Studies of IDP help the rural population profit from their agricultural Settlements in Georgia. pursuits. It is recommended that the MRA and the 54  Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia. http://moa.gov. MoA establish a coordination mechanism to identify ge/?lang=en. ways in which generic agricultural investments in- 55  Ibid. tended to benefit the whole rural population need to Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 24 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned be modified, and to identify special outreach activi- security in the case of default and repossession. Like- ties that would allow IDPs to benefit. For example, wise, banks and microcredit institutions from other IDPs should be considered as key stakeholders in parts of Georgia are unable to lend to clients in the Georgia’s infrastructure planning and investments so Gali region because the lack of jurisdiction and rule that infrastructure is designed and routed in such a of Georgian law in Abkhazia means collateral could way that IDPs settlements are included and IDPs gain never be monetized in the case of default. Therefore infrastructure benefits.56 Georgian IDPs in Abkhazia lack opportunities to start or expand businesses. Challenge Two: NGOs have sought to fill the credit gap for IDPs with Access to Financial Services various schemes for grants or loans. One variation is an interest subsidy program like the one implemented IDPs are subject to the same commercial loan con- by the Centre for Training and Consultancy (CTC), a ditions as non–IDPs—that is, they must provide Georgian NGO. This initiative reduced the interest collateral or financial guarantees. Through housing rate for livelihood development loans to CTC ben- investments, some IDPs have received privatized ac- eficiary IDPs from the bank rate of 36 percent to 17 commodation that can be used as collateral.57 How- percent. ever many IDPs have not been through the privatiza- tion process or are PA renting or living with friends Experience increasingly shows that the success of and relatives who possess no collateral. Their lack of financing provision relies on providing parallel tech- credit history and chronic unemployment compounds nical assistance and ongoing support for IDP grant the problem. Therefore, IDPs wishing to start or ex- or loan applicants. Several projects now only allow pand a business are excluded from credit because a loan application to be submitted after an applicant they do not meet credit conditions. They remain de- successfully completes a business-training course pendent on friends, families, and the NGO sector for run by the project provider. The client also receives financial services. regular advisory visits from project staff. Technical assistance may encompass a range of topics, includ- The situation is exacerbated for IDPs who have re- ing money management and value chain analysis turned to the Gali region of Abkhazia. Organizations (VCA). VCA helps beneficiaries identify the inputs, that have worked or funded projects in the Gali re- processes, or activities (for example, packaging or gion58 state that although a banking sector exists in different marketing techniques) by which a company Abkhazia, it is not available to anyone who is non- or individual adds value to an article or service. Cli- Abkhaz. The DRC was told that commercial banking ents can then manage those value-added processes credit facilities cannot be extended to the Gali region, themselves to retain more profit. Good quality VCA as Abkhaz banking staff fear retribution when visiting requires understanding the political economy of live- Georgian clients. This means that collateral assess- lihoods, above and beyond the provision of assets. ments would be impossible, as would be realizing any This may include analysis of how community rela- tions—including historic animosities and mistrust— may affect value chain actions. NGOs in Georgia are learning that when correctly applied, political econ- 56  A precedent for the inclusion of IDPs into infrastructure planning has been set by a recent ACF project, funded by the omy assessment and VCA can have a transformative EU, which worked with the Ministry of Rural Development and impact on project success. Infrastructure to assess where infrastructure development could be redesigned in order to have maximum benefits for IDPs. Financing schemes and VCA technical assistance 57  Statement by MRA during meeting with author, March for microenterprise appear to be especially effective 2013. At the same meeting, the MRA stated that some IDPs had when used to scale up an already established microen- lost possession of their privatized properties due to repossession terprise. Multiple permanent jobs can be created by by banks. carefully selecting skilled individual IDP entrepre- 58  Principally, the ACF, DRC, EU, NRC, SDC, and UNDP. neurs whose businesses require specific investment 25 to expand. The key to project success tends to be the overheads and diminishing funding for these types of human capital of the targeted clients. projects. Therefore, the following is recommended: Current Opportunities ØØ International NGOs should seek to improve The new government has formed a one billion Lari the capacity of the local microfinance and “Rural and Agricultural Development Fund� with credit union sector in Georgia. They should which it plans to subsidize commercial agricultural equip local providers to take on this role while loans. This fund would be used to pay all or part of at the same time advocating for national level a loan’s interest, thus effectively making the loan in- structures that can regulate and support the terest free. The interest subsidy will be on a sliding sector at an institutional level. scale according to the land owned by the applicant. The problem for IDPs is that collateral will still be It is important that IDPs are financially literate and required, meaning that access to credit is likely to re- equipped with the skills to manage and invest credit main a problem. effectively. VCA offers an important tool to allow IDPs to design and adapt their microenterprises, but There is increasing expertise in Georgia on offering there is room to improve the systematic application VCA technical assistance to IDP recipients of loans of VCA alongside the provision of grant or credit and grants. NGOs have found it particularly effective resources. While VCA can be effective it is a rela- to follow VCA up by making connections between tively unknown concept in Georgia and considerable beneficiaries and partner agencies that can practi- government efforts will be required to maximise its cally illustrate value-adding actions. For example, impact. Therefore, there is scope to: ACF is working with EU funding to engage with ex- isting agricultural businesses to transfer knowledge ØØ Bring together livelihood service providers to and expertise to Georgian farmers. Another example compare VCA methodologies, which enables is CARE’s agricultural “best practice� demonstration the comprehensive identification of multiple plots, which showcase productive farming methods. constraints and opportunities faced by farm- ers and producers, processors, traders, and Recommendations other businesses at multiple levels and points Given IDPs’ challenges in accessing financing, it is along a given value chain. This could lead to likely that some form of targeted financing provi- the standardization of tools. sion will benefit this sector for some time to come. However, it will be difficult for the international ØØ Train staff in how to apply the VCA tools to NGO sector to sustain this provision, given the large IDP beneficiaries. Box 3: Supporting Successful Business Models After competitively evaluating small businesses and individual entrepreneurs by value chain and verifi- able market analysis, the DRC awarded the strongest proposals interest-bearing cash loans or grants of equipment. In return, the business or entrepreneur provided full-time employment to an agreed number of IDPs and non-IDPs. An internal evaluation showed that 58 percent of funded projects reported an increase in monthly prof- its of more than 300 GEL. In addition, 38 percent of beneficiaries reinvested the increased profit into the business, 17 percent considered their knowledge of business management increased as a result of the project, 57 percent considered their customer numbers increased, and 92 percent continued to generate profitable income one year after the disbursement. 1. Danish Refugee Council (DRC). 2010. Durable Solutions: A Way Forward for IDPs in Georgia. Annual report. Tbilisi, Georgia: DRC. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 26 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned Challenge Three: Social Capital related to eviction or unclear messages about the possible resettlement of IDPs can undermine IDPs’ willingness or ability to invest in social networks, Social networks through which individuals and fami- as they cannot envision anything other than residing lies derive social capital59 can take generations to temporarily in that locality. However, visits to settle- build. In Georgia, these networks are especially im- ments and CCs undertaken for this review found that portant for disseminating information about employ- issues around social capital can be nuanced: commu- ment opportunities, facilitating contacts, and making nity leaders in one NCL settlement, for example, said the kinds of connections useful for getting introduced that young people had developed links with the non- to potential employers or to collaborate on income- IDP community through school and other activities. generating activities such as sharing risk, equipment, It was unclear, though, if these new links had resulted and labor. in employment for significant numbers of younger IDPs, as many are still in school. As more recent arrivals in communities or because of their residence in physically segregated CCs, IDPs Even within IDP communities, social networks can are often not fully part of broader social networks and be weak. While some IDPs may live in the same CCs are therefore unable to take advantage of the opportu- and NCL settlements, residents can originate from di- nities they present. A survey in a CC in Tbilisi found, verse areas. These collections of fractured communi- “These types of spaces do not promote social interac- ties have not had sufficient time to develop networks, tion within the local urban community, as they are hence social capital within settlements tends to remain spaces closed off from the outer environment, both within families. This is borne out by a 2012 WFP sur- symbolically and literally.�60 In addition, insecurity vey that identified as a constraint in IDP settlements “the reluctance of many IDPs to co-operate with each other on agricultural activities which would enable them to increase their production and output.�61 59  For more information on building social capital, see: Wilson, Patricia A. 1997. “Building Social Capital: A Learning Agenda for the 21st Century.� Urban Studies 34 (5–6): 745–760. NGOs have sought to address this difficulty by apply- 60  Singh, Namrita, and Courtland Robinson. 2010. “Support Systems Among Urban IDPs in Georgia.� Forced Migration Review 34. http://www.fmreview.org/en/urban-displacement/ 61  WFP and MRA. 2012. Community Profiling Studies of IDP FMR34.pdf. Settlements in Georgia, p. 62. Box 4: Livelihood Changes Through Collective Action With funding from the U.S. Department of State, UNHCR set up community livelihood projects, in- cluding a community chicken farming business in Shida Kartli. A key component has been partnering with an organization that has outside expertise—the Institute for Regional Development-Shida Kartli. A chicken farm was constructed in a remote building located near the Berbuki IDP settlement in Shida Kartli. The community-based organization Association Kheltubani 2010, composed of 20 IDP families, was established to run the farm. The Kheltubani chicken farm opened in January 2011 and now counts 3,000 chickens, with the capacity to expand to 6,500 heads. The first round of chickens was sold in February 2011 at 6 GEL per kilo, generating an overall income of 29,480 GEL. The partner agency applied VCA to guide design decisions, such as the positioning of the farm close to a source of work- ers and the choice of business. The farm’s operation by a community-based organisation means the enterprise has workers who have a stake in the business, the necessary technical knowledge, and a product with a ready market. 27 ing community mobilization approaches to livelihood Recommendations support programs. They have encouraged community members to collaborate with each other and to build Much remains to be understood about the pathways social capital within their place of residence by defin- by which IDPs develop useful social capital and how ing and acting on common goals. For example, FAO this may increase their livelihood and employment provided wells and irrigation pumps to groups of ten opportunities. Therefore it is recommended: households in IDP settlements. The recipients had to ØØ To undertake further qualitative research; work together and share the costs and maintenance such research would identify the points at of the equipment. The program increased production which outside facilitation and intervention by up to 53 percent and by an average of 26 percent can facilitate the formation of more robust across all types of crops.62 social connections within IDP communities and between IDPs and the nondisplaced that The risk with such approaches is that the conclusions could lead to livelihood outcomes. reached by the community actually only reflect the views of the dominant families and individuals. They ØØ In the meantime, the following actions are thus serve to increase their power and influence at likely to help build IDPs’ social capital and the expense of the more vulnerable. Special efforts bolster their sense of empowerment: and intensive facilitation are required to ensure that vulnerable and voiceless community members are in- ØØ Expand the use of community mobilization cluded in community mobilization efforts. approaches, where groups of IDPs collec- tively identify their development priorities Current Opportunities and are supported to take responsibility for The large investment in IDP housing over the past actions to address those problems; five years has helped give some IDPs a more secure ØØ Design investments for IDPs to encourage sense of place and more incentive to invest in social cross-community contact and collaboration relationships. Where IDPs are more permanently between IDPs and non-IDPs. This will en- settled, the time is ripe for investments, which can courage social capital to form between IDPs strengthen social interactions and connections. Initia- and the rest of society. To enable this, liveli- tives that fund for IDP and host or local community hood opportunities should be offered to host initiatives to plan joint activities (from cultural events communities as well as IDPs. to physically improving the local area) can incentiv- ize cohesion. That the provision and improvement ØØ Given that schooling plays an important role of housing accommodation for IDPs is still ongoing in allowing young IDPs to meet peers from offers another opportunity. Sympathetic construction nondisplaced communities, ensure that IDP and rehabilitation design would include spaces for children participate fully in all aspects of social interaction and to host social events such as school, college, and university life, including weddings and funerals, which are very important for recreation. They should not suffer discrimi- forming social bonds within IDP communities. nation or marginalization within their classes or from their teachers and peers. 62  Mollet, Matthias. 2011. Evaluation of FAO Agricultural Avoid housing IDPs in geographically isolated loca- Livelihoods Improvement for IDP Settlements Programme. tions. Housing investments (such as new settlements Rome: FAO. The following increases in production were report- or rehabilitated CCs) should incorporate spaces for ed against crops: garlic (23 percent), onion (22 percent), fruit vegetables (29 percent), herbs (19 percent), potatoes (39 per- community social interaction and lifecycle events cent), root vegetables (11 percent), grapes (10 percent), fruit trees such as marriages and funerals. (20 percent), maize (53 percent), cabbage (23 percent), beans (33 percent). Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 28 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned from the short training sessions that were designed Challenge Four: to cover a maximum number of students and often Skills and Knowledge left them ill-equipped for the workplace. Service providers65 now invest in vocational training of suf- In Georgia, there is commonly a mismatch between ficient length and depth and are aligned with local skills provided by the education system and the employers’ needs. For example, the Kobuleti Voca- skills demanded by the labor market.63This situation tional Training Center (VTC),66 which targets IDPs, is compounded for IDPs who have often found that liaises with businesses to identify skills that busi- skills that served them well in Abkhazia or South Os- nesses require, and then provides tailored training in setia are not so relevant in their new environment. those skills. Students are offered recognized certifi- Even transferable skills such as farming can be less cation and business start-up options when they suc- applicable in areas that support different kinds of cessfully graduate. The International Organization crops. As time passes, (especially for OCL IDPs, who for Migration (IOM) has complemented vocational have been displaced for up to twenty years), skills training by implementing job placement programs such as carpentry or engineering become outdated as in coordination with the government and employers. new technology and materials enter the market.64 An The advantage of such an approach is to make the unquantifiable number of IDPs therefore remain dis- non-IDP business community aware of the “under- advantaged in the employment market and trapped in utilised resource�67 of IDPs and gain from their skills, a cycle of unemployability or low-paid jobs because experience, and labor.68 they have missed out on the education, apprentice- ships, work experience, and training that would make One significant challenge agencies face in job place- them competitive in the contemporary marketplace. ment schemes is IDPs’ unrealistic expectations re- Vocational training has increasingly met this chal- lenge over the years. Programs have moved away 65  Including the Ministry of Education and Sciences, UNDP, USAID, EU, NRC, and DRC. 66  Supported by Sida, USAID, NRC and IOM. 63  World Bank. 2013. Skills Mismatch and Unemployment: 67  UNDP interview, February 15, 2013. Labor Market Challenges in Georgia. Washington, DC: World Bank. 68  Deloitte. Implementing the Economic Prosperity Initiative (EPI) project uses a more macro approach by seeking investment 64  For example, “new� technology started to become common into and expansion of Georgian industry. Recent investments by in cars fifteen to twenty years ago. Even “older� vehicles in Geor- foreign garment manufacturers have resulted in Deloitte and the gia contain engine management systems requiring diagnostic Ministry of Education and Sciences (MoE) providing training in knowledge and tools not possessed by mechanics who have been production-line garment making. The aim is to develop skills and unable to keep abreast of changes. Without this knowledge and a “culture of garment production� as opposed to traditional be- equipment, these IDP mechanics are excluded from an increas- spoke tailoring. The scheme has provided twenty trained students ing number of potential repair jobs, and thus their skills become to factories who, seeing the benefit of training, are now providing less relevant. their own training facilities. Box 5: Vocational Training for Employment Staff at the IOM job counseling and placement program identified job vacancies, matched them with profiles of job seekers and VTC graduates, and provided potential candidates for interviews. The pro- gram placed 30.1 percent of registered job seekers over a twenty-five month period, creating 7,110 new jobs. The synergy between business, government, support providers, and students was especially successful in placing people in jobs in areas where the tourist industry is strong. 1. IOM Job Counseling and Placement Project in Georgia. “Statistics by Region.� IOM. http://www.jcp. ge/index.php?a=main&mid=20&lang=en. 29 garding the types of jobs for which they are quali- Increasingly they emphasize comprehensive courses fied. The IOM’s employment placement project, run designed with businesses so that students gradu- in connection with VTCs, has attempted to address ate with skills the market demands. The positioning this issue through a case-management approach that of initiatives, such as IOM’s employment program assesses an individual’s strengths and weaknesses within VTCs and the closer involvement of the Min- and pairs them, either directly or via training, with istry of Education and local businesses, has offered an employer. The project provides job counseling in examples of how cooperation and coordination can which clients are apprised of their job prospects. At develop IDP livelihoods. this stage, their expectations are aligned with the re- ality of the job market. Other organizations, such as A growing body of global experience on best prac- CTC, offer IDPs job counseling. They view the issue tices for vocational training schemes can be used to of expectations as part of the overall psychosocial enhance programs in Georgia. For example, VTCs struggles of IDPs, discussed below. in Georgia are already benefiting from lessons from the German government’s vocational education and With USAID funding, Deloitte works with the govern- training (VET) program. This stresses how important ment to attract foreign investment. A key requirement it is for the unemployed (and in particular youth) to of investors is an available and skilled workforce. learn new skills and keep current skills relevant. It The program has been training IDPs and non-IDPs in also recognizes that many long-term unemployed garment machining and reports a high employment lack sufficient schooling and life skills. As a result, rate among graduates. With the program’s help, gar- VTCs in Georgia now provide life skills training to ment factories are now able to set up their own voca- young students. They also cover some taboo subjects, tion training programs to align graduates’ skills with such as drugs and sexuality. Anecdotal evidence sug- their requirements. gests that a holistic approach that incorporates life skills and psychosocial support increases students’ Current Opportunities confidence and can benefit their studies. In Georgia, programs designed to meet these chal- lenges now benefit from over a decade of experience. Box 6: Expectations and Jobs Mismatch A DRC project aimed to provide permanent full-time work for newly relocated IDPs. Preliminary project design work with both businesses and IDPs identified very strong support for the project from both parties as well as local government. One hundred and fifty potential workers registered for jobs. As the project was implemented, thirty eight job vacancies were created. The jobs were mostly unskilled or low-skilled posts but represented permanent formal employment. When the NGO approached the IDPs with job opportunities no IDPs applied and the project did not reach its initial targets. The posts were subsequently offered to PA IDPs and the vacancies filled. The mode has been modified and is no longer in use in its original form. Evaluation analysis showed that two key factors influenced the behaviour of the IDPs, who initially ex- pressed enthusiasm for the project. The first was fear over the potential loss of government benefits. The second was that IDPs had unrealistic expectations. The project surveyed IDP’s job skills and employment experience. Analysis showed a low level of skills and experience. However, when asked which jobs they sought and were qualified for, the IDPs said they wanted to work in office, administration, government, and highly skilled technical trades. Many regarded the length and conditions of their displacement as qualifications for a well-paid skilled job irrespective of their experience. High expectations manifested themselves when employment oppor- tunities were presented and they turned them down on the grounds the posts were unsuitable. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 30 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned Recommendations of the main issues. Depression is particularly preva- lent among male IDPs; alcoholism, domestic vio- IDPs must become more competitive in the market- lence, listlessness, and “routine time-passing�70 are place. They can achieve this by acquiring profession- especially common among the long-term displaced. al skills that will increase their chances of securing more lucrative and stable employment or by seeking Many factors contribute to the lack of psychosocial more competitive and profitable market niches. The well-being among Georgian IDPs. Like displaced models piloted by NGOs with donor funding could persons all over the world, Georgian IDPs suffer a re- be adopted and expanded by the Georgian govern- sidual sense of loss for all they were forced to give up ment. Within enlarged schemes there would be a con- when fleeing from conflict. The uncertainty of their tinued need to: current situation and the day-to-day pressures of pov- erty compound these feelings. The stress of “living ØØ Align vocational training schemes with pro- in limbo,� hoping to return to their places of origin fessions for which there is market demand. but unsure if they will ever do so, can be particularly ØØ Facilitate the entry of IDPs into the job mar- exaggerated for those who live in insecure residences ket with job placement support using a case- and face possible eviction or further dislocation and management approach. resettlement. ØØ Work with individuals to identify and manage The impact of psychosocial stress on IDPs’ ability their expectations in relation to employment to secure sustainable livelihoods is profound. It is realities, ensuring that the client understands likely that psychologically “living in limbo� affects the parameters of the program and what can IDPs’ social, investment, and employment choices, be achieved. making them less likely to develop long-term asset- ØØ Refine such programs to allow a tailored re- management strategies or to make ambitious live- sponse. The program should be adapted to lihood choices.71 A 2003 study conducted among the realities of the beneficiary rather than ex- Georgian IDPs correlated psychosomatic illness and pecting conformity amongst all beneficiaries. depression with feelings of despondency and passiv- As such, programs could encompass a range ity, leading to an inability to interact socially and be- of needs and accommodate both IDP entrants come economically self-reliant.72 Many IDPs appear without any skills and those whose skills are to have created a “comfort zone� of daily chores and in need of updating or enhancing. routines; they use this as coping strategy to whittle away long empty hours. But these routines can stifle ØØ Ensure VTC courses provide personal, so- creativity, initiative, and motivation; people can be- cial, and technical life skills, which will lead come dependent upon their routine to the exclusion to stronger confidence and higher self-esteem of other activities or opportunities.73 among graduates. Challenge Five: Psychosocial Issues and Aid Dependency 70  Ibid. 71  Holtzman, Steven B., and Taies Tezam. 2004. Living in Limbo: Conflict-Induced Displacement in Europe and Central The psychological impacts of displacement in Geor- Asia. Washington, DC: World Bank. gia are well documented: the IDMC’s 2012 paper, 72  Sumbadze, N., & G. Tarkhan-Mouravi. 2003. Development “Mental Health of IDPs,�69 provides a good overview Strategy for Akhalkalaki and Akhaltsikhe Districts of Samtskhe- Javakheti. Concept paper commissioned by the Open Society– Georgia Foundation, Tbilisi, Georgia. 69  IDMC. 2012. “Mental Health of IDPs.� IDMC. http:// 73  Selig, Meg. 2010, September 14. “Routines: Comforting or www.internal-displacement.org/idmc/website/countries.nsf/(htt Confining?� Psychology Today. http://www.psychologytoday. pEnvelopes)/9C67D59952A3E2A1C12579C7000A872B?Open com/blog/changepower/201009/routines-comforting-or-confin- Document. ing. 31 As with many long-term unemployed, IDPs can fear acknowledging their own resources and competen- returning to work. Taking up a new job requires am- cies. Aid dependency is an acknowledged problem bition, initiative, and a feeling of self-worth, all at- worldwide.75 For Georgian IDPs, it manifests itself in tributes easily eroded by depression and reliance on very high levels of financial and emotional reliance daily routines. Although an IDP may desire employ- on government subsidies and benefits. The possibil- ment, transitioning into a job can be a bewildering ity of losing these benefits, especially subsidized ac- experience—a transition many IDPs are unwilling or cess to medical insurance,76 can be a crippling worry, unable to make. preventing IDPs from seeking out alternative, more lucrative livelihood options. In focus group meetings held for this review, IDPs reported that taking work in the informal economy If the family’s income rises above a certain level and (where available) has become the norm; they hold their poverty ranking decreases, there is a chance no reservations about such work. However, they they will lose benefits. While the loss of cash benefits reflected that joining a commercial company as a concerns IDP families, the loss of medical insurance permanent employee presents particular concerns, worries them most. These fears are compounded by including: Will the family lose entitlements to state the fact that many IDPs do not understand the social benefits? Is the job secure, or will the IDP shortly be benefits system and the consequences employment made redundant? How will s/he cope, perform, get has on access to subsidies. This is enough to hold on with the workforce? Will s/he encounter discrimi- some IDPs back from pursuing formal employment. nation from fellow workers? How will s/he find the time to do all the things in their daily routine if hold- ing a full time job?74 75  However, aid dependency has diminished markedly in many Another consequence of IDPs’ depressed psycho- countries since 2000, and some commentators argue it is not as social profile is their sense of feeling dependent on much of a problem as commonly perceived. See: Sullivan, Laura. others to provide livelihoods for them, rather than 2011. “Real Aid Can End Aid Dependency.� ActionAid. http:// www.actionaidusa.org/eu/2011/05/real-aid-can-end-aid-depen- dency. 76  However, this concern may be alleviated as the government 74  Focus group meetings, March 2013. plans a free universal health care service. Box 7: Participation Encourages Long-Term Investments A cost-share scheme implemented by FAO gave individual farmers an opportunity to purchase live- stock with assistance from FAO if they contributed US$400-500 from their own savings. Many farmers who could afford to participate successfully kept their livestock for production, rather than for their own consumption or to sell. The number of livestock sold or slaughtered for food under the program was negligible, and the proportion of newborn livestock was greater under the program than for farmers who received grant aid. A 2011 evaluation found the approach did not suit everyone; 76.5 percent of people targeted could not afford the cost-share component. But when people were able to afford it, the approach was suc- cessful. Recipients raised funds by using their own savings (48 percent), borrowing the money (34 per- cent), accessing credit through financial services (13 percent) and selling assets (5 percent). According to an evaluation, a sense of commitment contributed to the program’s success, in that program participants took a long-term view of their investment. They considered their priority to be to raise their income via an increase in stock, while grant recipients regarded their livestock more as a source of immediate/short-term food and/or income. Following requests from IDPs who have been successful through this program, the FAO is now increasing the amount of cost share to US$2,500. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 32 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned Many organizations provide support in terms of com- Georgia will need to play a significant role in munity mobilisation and business and vocational tackling the dependency syndrome of IDPs. training and development, but few provide support This can be done by: specifically aimed at enabling IDPs to become psy- chologically prepared for a return to work. CTC is ØØ Encouraging national discourses that frame unique in trying to tackle psychological problems IDPs as resilient and important potential among IDPs when providing small start-up and busi- contributors to the Georgian economy, rather ness development loans. Under the project, they than passive victims. provide specifically designed psychological counsel- ØØ Undertaking further analysis of any possible ing programs aimed at building confidence, reliev- disincentives posed by the social welfare and ing anxieties, and providing information so potential medical insurance benefits system. A reform clients can make free and informed decisions. The of the IDP law and eligibility for the monthly methodology includes working on an individual basis IDP allowance may prove to be too politically when possible. The NGO reports that when coupled sensitive to achieve. But it would be apt to ex- with a psychosocial component, there is higher, more plore what poverty and social impacts trans- confident, and ultimately more successful take up of forming the subsidies from a status-based to the opportunities presented. needs-based assessment would have. Other programs have tried to address the dependency ØØ Simplifying and disseminating information risk by designing activities that attempt to instil a about the social assistance assessment meth- sense of self-reliance and responsibility in beneficia- odology and poverty ranking system more ry IDPs. The FAO cost-share program, for example, widely among IDPs. was identified by an EU results-oriented monitoring (ROM) evaluation as an example of good practice in instilling a sense of commitment in participants.77 Challenge Six: Extremely Vulnerable IDPs Recommendations NGOs and project implementers can do more to in- NGOs that monitor the provision of cash, equipment, corporate attention to IDPs’ psychosocial needs into or livestock activities realized that some IDP recipi- project activities: ents had sold the equipment or slaughtered the live- stock within one year of receipt. Upon analysis, the ØØ Livelihood programs will benefit from con- NGOs found the majority of cases were people who tinuing to adopt a case-management approach lived in extreme poverty or other forms of extreme to beneficiaries. This will allow them to ful- vulnerability. ly explore and understand the psychosocial needs and constraints of each individual, put- A 2011 evaluation of the FAO IDP livelihood support ting in place tailored support packages that program found that 32 percent of beneficiaries who may include community-based psychosocial sold donated livestock did so because they needed networks. money, while 56 percent said they needed to pay for medicines. Fifty three percent of beneficiaries in the ØØ A psychosocial counseling component will same program said they consumed their livestock be- help mitigate psychological barriers to re- cause they needed food. turning to work and psychologically prepare the IDP to return to work. EVIDPs are often unable to benefit from livelihood support programs; their struggle for survival is all ØØ At a more strategic level, the government of consuming. For example, efforts to offer equipment and grants to IDP graduates of a VTC to start busi- nesses proved challenging: of 76 grants of €450, only 77  EU ROM evaluation, November 5–16, 2012. 42 graduates took up the offer. While some were in- 33 experienced in business start-up, a focus group found emergency, their only option is to sell or consume the need to earn money to support families was a key any livelihood assistance they have received. Char- reason not to start a business.78 ity Humanitarian Centre Abkhazeti (CHCA) found that 80 percent of failed livelihood loans were due to EVIDPs fill their days meeting their many challeng- a medical emergency. Such medical needs are com- es, which include finding/growing food, looking for mon; an evaluation of FAO’s agricultural programs very low-paid day labor jobs, repairing poor shelter, in new settlements found that “56 percent of house- caring for children, and traveling to obtain govern- holds had at least one member of their family sick ment subsidies. No time is left to work at developing during the previous three months and 30 percent of new livelihoods. EVIDPs are also unable to take even the children holding families have at least one child simple risks connected to new livelihood strategies. with growing difficulties.�79 The psychosocial impacts of displacement are often especially acute for this group. Additionally, many NGOs that deliver livelihood support programs are EVIDPs consist of female/single headed households, paying increasing attention to the special needs of widows, disabled, and youth—people often physi- EVIDPs. An important strategy is to use better target- cally unable to take advantage of livelihoods oppor- ing and to differentiate beneficiaries who may benefit tunities, particularly labor-intensive ones. from programs to start or grow existing businesses from EVIDPs who need to secure enough resources EVIDPs have very little protection from financial to stabilize their poverty. For example, in the Gali re- shocks. When faced with a crisis, such as a medical gion of Abkhazia, the DRC implements a project that differentiates sustainability grants of up to US$1,000 for extremely vulnerable families from business ex- 78  Hovey, Guy. 2010. Monitoring and Evaluation Report for the Swedish International Development Cooperation (Sida) on Their “Durable Solutions: A Way Forward for IDPs in Georgia 79  Mollet. 2011. Evaluation of FAO Agricultural Livelihoods Programme.� Stockholm: Sida, p. 20. Improvement for IDP Settlements Programme. Box 8: Striking the Balance—Support and Poverty The overarching strategic aim of the CHCA program is to enable clients to raise themselves out of pov- erty by offering them graduated support so they can eventually enter the commercial banking system as successful entrepreneurial customers. CHCA developed three stages of support designed to meet the varying needs of clients. They recognized that different levels of need require different levels of resources and that the monetary support required was inversely related to poverty levels: Stage 1: Small Trader Up to 500 GEL low-interest loan Stage 2: Medium Trader 500–2,000 GEL medium-interest loan Stage 3: High Volume Trader 2,000–5,000 GEL higher-interest loan Small traders consist mainly of elderly EVIDPs who operate within the informal economy selling prod- ucts such as sunflowers and khajipuri. The small loan enabled recipients to purchase goods to sell in markets and door to door, thus widening their income-generating potential. The income from such small-scale income-generating activities serves to supplement pensions and state benefits. Stages 2 and 3 are utilized by those clients who have stabilized their domestic situation and are in- creasingly entrepreneurial. Loans are used to grow and expand existing or new livelihood ideas. These stages are mainly utilized by younger clients. Clients in Stage 3 who require further capital are encour- aged to approach microfinance institutions or banks, thus exiting the program and entering the com- mercial world. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 34 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned Table 1. A Graduated Program Approach to Tackling Extreme Vulnerability: The UMCOR BiH Example Stage Duration Client criteria Product Repayment (years) 1 1 EVIDP/EVI 100% in-kind grant to None or minor stabilize vulnerability “passing of the gift� 2 6 months EVIDP/EVI from Stage 1 Follow on in-kind Community payback stabilization and income-generating grant 3 1–2 Clients from Stage 2 Business expansion 50%–80% repayment, cash grant/loan very low interest through a commercial bank80 4 1–2 Clients from Stage 3 Business expansion 100% repayment, cash loan through a mid-level interest commercial bank 5 1–3 Clients from Stage 4 Business expansion 100% repayment, loan from the bank, no commercial interest UMCOR involvement rates (no subsidy) United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) Bosnia and Herzegovina. 2005. “Building Reintegrated and Prosperous Communities.� UMCOR BiH. http://gbgm-umc.org/umcor/ngo/balkans/ bosnia/bih_usaid2.cfm. pansion grants of up to US$3,000 for small and me- intensively with extremely vulnerable clients and dium-sized enterprises (SMEs). helped transition them into the formal commercial sector. While they provided mentoring, education, Current Opportunities training, and business advice, the key financial sup- port was graduated to reflect the client’s journey to The IDP livelihood sector has benefitted from the ex- independence. perience gained by more closely targeting beneficia- ries and offering support more appropriately geared This methodology proved successful in the very dif- to their needs and abilities. Grants and loans can pos- ficult post-war reconstruction and return period and itively impact EVIDPs when used at the correct stage beyond. A 2004 independent evaluation of the pro- of development. There is a need to understand the gram across 56 municipalities by the Sarajevo-based nature of people’s needs and their ability to capital- research company Prism Research found a majority ize on program inputs. For EVIDPS there is a clear of households had a perception that income had in- need to define an incremental and coherent path from creased; 52 percent who had started a business had poverty to independence. increased their income and 25 percent were obtaining credit from a commercial source. Global experience indicates that this approach can be taken to even more sophisticated levels. For exam- Such examples offer important lessons for Georgian ple, a program in Bosnia funded by USAID adopted organizations regarding how to prevent uncoordi- a case-management approach in which staff worked nated assistance, which may leave IDPs without con- 35 tinuing support at a crucial phase of their business assistance may be more appropriate for the extremely development.80 vulnerable. Therefore: Recommendations ØØ IDP livelihood support programs will benefit from designs that allow them to target differ- In an effort to assist the most vulnerable, NGOs have ent households in different ways and from attempted to fit EVIDPs into livelihood programs multileveled approaches that help people more appropriate for those in more secure economic transition from extreme vulnerability to sus- situations. But only when the family is financially, tainable livelihoods over many years. psychologically, emotionally, and physically stable will it be able to capitalize on livelihood programs ØØ This approach will only be possible with bet- that require more risk and investment. Not all IDPs ter data on the vulnerability of IDP beneficia- stabilize at the same rate, and more basic inputs and ries. Vulnerability can be better understood among Georgian IDPs by taking poverty data into account as well as other dimensions of well-being, including psychosocial profiles 80  The NGO deposited a substantial amount with two banks, and access to different types of assets. This agreed on a disbursement and repayment procedure with them, will allow EVIDPs to be more clearly identi- and provided a default insurance product. fied and more accurately targeted. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 36 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned Part 4 Beyond Project-Based Livelihood Support T his review has shown that NGO projects have bilitation, and privatization will enable IDPs to plan had reported success and impact at the indi- future livelihood activities. If IDPs know their CC vidual level; the recommendations above are will be rehabilitated and they will remain in the area, tailored to improve that practice. But the sheer scale they are more likely to engage in planned economic of IDPs’ problems with employment and accessing activity. Uncertainty about their residence will keep income indicates that organizations should consider IDP investment at a minimum. the viability of small short-term projects compared to more strategic approaches that incorporate under- Second, there is critical need for stakeholders who standing not just of the improved provision of assets primarily focus on IDPs to engage with actors in- but also of the fuller political economy of livelihood volved in broader development investments. This support. NGO projects are often focused on provid- will ensure that IDPs are included in wider national, ing assets and do not sufficiently craft development regional, and local development strategies. It is es- support that transforms the structural barriers that sential that IDPs are seen as a legitimate constitu- keep IDPs in poverty, such as access to employment, ent of mainstream development, lest they risk being commercial markets, and urban biases. A more com- excluded and marginalized from broader economic prehensive macro approach is required to address and social benefits. At the same time, while IDPs still suffer from greater disadvantage than other groups these issues.81 in Georgia, there is a justified place for targeted sup- Such a strategic approach will need several strands. port to ensure they gain parity with the nondisplaced First, support for IDP livelihoods cannot be effective through additional resources. IDPs’ unique needs if delivered in isolation of other elements of assis- may become subsumed should livelihood develop- tance. A holistic approach, for example, would en- ment programs increasingly target poverty reduction sure that projects consider how housing provision is without differentiating between IDPs and non-IDPs. linked to and can facilitate livelihood opportunities. Advocacy efforts must therefore simultaneously fo- If IDPs are relocated in areas with markets, employ- cus on inclusion and designated targeting. The live- ment opportunities, and access to land, they have a lihood strategy currently under development by the far greater chance of attaining sustainable incomes MRA will be critical to supporting IDPs and keeping than if they are accommodated in remote, impover- their needs on the political and assistance agenda. Co- ished areas. Any future housing investments for IDPs ordination is also key for a strategic approach. At the will need to consider the residence’s economic and local delivery level there is need for stronger project social viability before relocation takes place. coordination and coherence both within the organiza- tion and with other providers. An example would be A nationwide rehabilitation/resettlement strategy a grant/loan program that provides good quality but detailing all IDP CCs and settlements and the gov- one-time assistance without providing either a range ernment’s plans for their closure/resettlement, reha- of different products (to enable IDPs to work their way from extreme poverty to self-sustainability) or links to other support programs that provide the next 81  World Bank. 2011. Scoping Study on Internal Displacement. stage of development. Government, NGOs, and do- Washington, DC: World Bank. nors need to work together to coordinate IDP liveli- 37 hood programs in a way that enable IDPs to transi- sia) may prove problematic and the government tion from one program to the next along a structured will need to address this (though some wine makers pathway to independence. To this end, in 2010 the have recently been certified by Russian inspectors MRA compiled a list of NGOs and their programs.82 for export). Georgian exports have found alternative This has not been updated since. This report should markets since 2005. According to the Government’s be updated and distributed to providers to assist in statistical office, GeoStat, exports in agricultural and program coordination. A list of key livelihood stake- nonagricultural sectors increased from US$1677 mil- holders and providers from the report is attached as lion in 2010 to US$2377 million in 2012. In agri- Annex 3. culture, though, the trade deficit remains stark. FAO reported that in the third quarter of 2011 agricultural At the national level there is need for all stakeholders exports were US$96,697,955, but imports amounted in the livelihood sector to better communicate and to US$225,744,157.83 While agricultural produce join efforts through regular planning and coordina- barriers have not yet been lifted, IDP farmers may tion meetings. These organizations would include find opportunities in agricultural produce production (but not be limited to) the MRDI, the Prime Min- and processing for the Russian market when barriers ister’s office, the MRA, the Ministry of Health and are removed. Social Welfare, the MoA, the Ministry of Economic Development, the IDP Steering Committee, relevant IDPs’ chances to benefit from agricultural exports municipal authorities, relevant business associations, will improve if they can access government subsidy donors, and NGOs. programs that will enable them to grow produce to meet demand. Currently many IDPs may not meet The recently registered MRA Livelihood LEPL could the qualifying criteria, as they do not own land or be the IDP livelihood coordinating body and be re- have collateral. As subsidy initiatives are rolled out sponsible for bringing together agencies and other and the agriculture sector grows, IDPs could increas- stakeholders to improve program quality, reach, and ingly be left behind—willing to work but unable to geographic spread. The LEPL should be mandated take advantage of government support. In the longer to provide singularity of effort and disciplined pro- term, IDPs may find work on farms or in future pro- grammatic coordination and coherence. The LEPL cessing plants, but may not have the opportunity to could share best practices and learning in livelihood be the producers that supply them. support and set and monitor standards for livelihood practices, such as the Livelihood TEG “Guiding The government could level the playing field and en- Principles for Livelihood Projects� (Annex 2), which able IDPs to access credit by modifying the need to provides a clear 16-point guide to planning liveli- provide collateral for loan subsidies. It could also in- hood projects. clude IDPs in agricultural subsidy programs if they The new government has identified the agricultural can demonstrate they have been farming land or have sector as underdeveloped but with potential to drive access to it. This can be verified by specifying the the rural economy. To boost development it has production of a legally drawn up and registered land launched large national loan and agricultural subsidy rental agreement. programs. These initiatives coincide with the grad- In 2003, Georgia produced a Poverty Reduction Stra- ual thawing of relations with Russia and anticipate tegic Paper (PRSP). The last review of the PRSP further lowering of trade barriers, which began with was in 2006 and the strategy has been discontinued. an agricultural embargo in December 2005. Agricul- The MRA livelihood strategy currently under devel- tural produce is viewed as a key export growth area. Issues with food hygiene certification for Georgian produce (a requirement to import food into Rus- 83  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Georgia and Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Georgia. 2012. Agriculture Sector Bulletin 2012. http://www.fao. 82  MRA. 2010. Overview of Activities Related to Socio-eco- org/fileadmin/templates/tc/tce/pdf/Georgia_Agriculture_Sec - nomic Integration of IDPs. Tbilisi, Georgia: MRA. tor_Bulletin_-_2012.pdf. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 38 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned opment should not be a stand-alone document. For claiming benefits from the state. Such feelings are maximum impact the strategy should join with oth- spurred by the privatization process, IDP allowances, er sectoral strategies to become an integral part of fuel subsidies, and other issues. A nationwide discus- an overarching government strategic plan aimed at sion of the problems IDPs face and the government’s reducing poverty. A review of the 2003 PRSP will future assistance plans will raise IDPs’ profile, enable provide a baseline of comparable data and initiatives the government to gauge Georgian sentiment, set out to support the development of an updated version. A plans to deal with resettlement and economic recov- new PRSP will bring coherence to development ini- ery, and start the sensitization process to transition tiatives and link them with NGO and other projects. from status- to needs-based assistance. Georgia’s benefit system provides a monthly allow- Further research and analysis entailing comprehen- ance to IDPs. Qualifying families can apply for TSA, sive political economy dimensions will be key to as was discussed earlier. Every IDP has the right to grounding a more strategic approach to IDP liveli- IDP allowance in recognition of their IDP status. So- hood support. This analysis will need to feature: cial assistance is needs based and determined by rig- orous means testing. However, once registered, IDPs ØØ Comprehensive and nationally significant are rarely re-evaluated for eligibility. The Social Se- data on the poverty and employment situa- curity Agency (SSA) reported in an interview84 that a tion of IDPs in relation to the nondisplaced recent internal review found a significant number of and within the IDP population. This will be IDPs had failed to declare increases in income since an important contribution to a revised PRSP registering a claim many years previously. Some an- for Georgia; the last one conducted in 2003 is nual incomes were found to exceed 100,000 GEL. now outdated. Clearly, a close review of the social allowance regis- ØØ Stronger evaluation, especially at the out- ters is required to remove ineligible claimants. Like- come and impact level, of the successes and wise, a review of the IDP allowance and its award weaknesses of IDP livelihood support. It by virtue of status rather than need will also prove would be especially beneficial to revisit past useful. livelihood programs and document successes A move from status- to needs-based assistance would and failures. Interviewing program clients not only reduce the fiscal impact on the economy but could reveal how the program could have would release funds that could be used to help soci- been better, from their perspective. ety’s most needy move to a state of independence. ØØ Research into social capital and how to miti- Withdrawing the IDP allowance from those with gate its absence and stimulate its develop- an annual income above (for example) 20,000 GEL ment. This would offer a clearer picture of could release government funds to support the most the hidden problems faced by IDPs that could vulnerable with livelihood and other opportunities inform program strategy and planning. through the MRA’s Livelihood LEPL. More immedi- ate (but smaller) benefit savings could be achieved by ØØ Investigation into the multiple dimensions phasing out the IDP allowances from families regis- of IDP vulnerability in order to better under- tered for property tax which applies to families with stand the situation of EVIDPs and their po- a declared income above 40,000 GEL. tential pathways out of extreme poverty. Many non-IDPs have misconceptions about IDPs. ØØ Examples from global and historical experi- Conversations with non-IDPs commonly elicit ac- ence, gathering valuable lessons from how cusations of IDPs being lazy, taking jobs from host other governments and countries have been communities, and keeping wealth hidden while able to recover livelihoods after the destruc- tion of conflict. This research cuts across the IDP resettlement and reintegration issue and 84  Interview by Thea Siprashvili with Social Services Agency, would provide valuable insight into dealing May 23, 2013. with IDP issues in Georgia and beyond. 39 Annex 1 List of Main IDP Communities and Agricultural Resources Kitchen Settlement HHs Type Plots (Ha) Plots/HH Irrigated gardens Metekhi 35 Village Yes 9 0.26 Yes Teliani 54 Village Yes 20 0.37 Yes Berbuki 124 Village Yes 62 0.50 Yes Karaleti 283 Village Yes 62 0.22 Partly Khurvaleti 139 Village Yes 70 0.50 No Shavshebi 177 Village Yes 22 0.12 No Skra 86 Village Yes 15 0.17 Yes Akhalsopheli 100 Village Yes 25 0.25 Yes Mokhisi 58 Village Yes 47 0.81 Yes Prof Tech 48 Building Common Yard 0.48 0.01 No El.Tech 60 Building Common Yard 0 0.00 No Tsilkani 400 Village Yes 0 0.00 Partly Prezeti 298 Village Yes 0 0.00 No #2 Kindergarten 22 Building No 0 0.00 No Prof Tech #4 28 Building No 0 0.00 No Surami 38 Building Common yard 0 0.00 No Poladi 40 Building Common Yard 0 0.00 No Lagodekhi 21 Building No 5 0.24 No Telavi 26 Building Common Yard 0 0.00 No Kvemo Bolnisi 20 Building Common Yard 7 0.4 No Sakhasheti 100 Village Yes 20 0.2 Yes Bazaleti 103 Building Common Yard 0 0.00 No Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 40 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned Saguramo 65 Building Common Yard 0 0.00 No Tsinamzggvriantkari 101 Building No 21 0.21 No Gadabani 121 Building No 31 9.26 No Sagerejo 24 Building No 12 0.50 No Shaumiani 197 Building No 97 0.50 No Gori Music School 40 Building No 0 0.00 No Blood Transf. 11 Building No 0 0.00 No Centre Narco Centre 65 Building No 0 0.00 No Others 2500 Village Yes 0 0.50 No Shindisi 100 Building No 50 0.50 No Tserovani 2500 Village Yes 0 0.00 No Verkhvebi 300 Village Yes 0 0.00 Yes Koda 443 Building No 221 0.50 No Postko Etseri 264 Building Common Yard 2 0.00 No Source: FAO Tbilisi March 2013. 41 Annex 2 Guiding Principles for IDP Livelihoods Projects The MRA technical working group has advocated that livelihood projects should: 1. Be designed with the active participation and contributions from government, private sector, civil society, and the target beneficiaries. 2. Be “mainstream� and inclusive, promote gender equality, and be open to all members of the community to facilitate social cohesion and integration. 3. Measure the quantifiable impact of the project on the beneficiary’s income. 4. Foster long-term, self-sustaining economic impact for the beneficiaries and wider economy by creating new jobs, business activities, and economic wealth. 5. Be commercially viable and profitable for all participants, including IDPs. 6. Be based on market demand. 7. Analyze and identify the target market, the impact on existing businesses, and avoid creating market dis- tortions. 8. Be sufficiently capitalized and holistic in nature, considering all funding, human resource, safety, security, cultural, and value chain factors that need to be in place for success during the project’s timeframe. 9. Promote any policy and practice reforms that may support meeting project objectives and create a more enabling environment. 10. Ensure the protection of land and property rights of the target populations. 11. Involve local implementing partners and local government, and build their capacity throughout program implementation. 12. Give priority to expending project financial resources in Georgia, using local labor and supporting local markets. 13. Be scalable and replicable. 14. Assess the possible environmental impacts of the activities and mitigate any negative impacts identified. 15. Follow the principles of “Do No Harm�. 16. Be consistent with the ten principles of the UN Global Compact.85 85  “Do No Harm: Action, as well as inaction, can have unintended negative consequences. We must ensure that our actions and interventions (or lack thereof) do not adversely affect individuals and their communities, our partners or colleagues, or expose them to any harm. Before taking action, we must anticipate the consequences and assess any potential risk factors, and take measures to elimi- nate or minimize such risks.� http://www.humanitarianreform.org/humanitarianreform/Portals/1/cluster%20approach%20page/clus- ters%20pages/Protection/Protection%20Handbook/foundations%20of%20IDP%20protection.pdf Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace—Or War, (Lynne Rienner Publisher, Boulder, Colorado) Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 42 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned Annex 3 List of Key Stakeholders in IDP Livelihood Support in Georgias 1. International Organizations Cooperation for American Relief Everywhere (CARE) and NGOs Tbilisi Acción Contra el Hambre (ACF) 49b Chavchavadze Avenue, 3rd floor, 0162 Tbilisi Tel: (+99532) 29 13 78; 29 19 41; 29 15 31; Fax: (+99532) 29 43 07 Mtskheta Street 37, 3rd floor Director: Thomas Renolds : E mail: treynolds@care. Phone: +995 (32) 293924 org E mail: coordtech-sc@acf-e.org Counterpart Association for Protection of Landowners’ Tbilisi Rights (APLR) 15 Razmadze Street Tbilisi Phone: 48 29 43 27 Pekini Avenue, 5th Floor Marina Bilanishvili, PR Manager: bilani@counter- 0160 Georgia part.ge Tel: (995 32) 206 207 Fax: (995 32) 376 088 Danish Refugee Council (DRC) E-mail: office@aplr.org Regional Head Office www.aplr.org 88 Paliashvili Street, 3rd floor, flat 7 0162 Tbilisi Caritas Phone: +995 (32) 230659 Tbilisi Fax: +995 (32) 232437 3a Nutsubidze Plateau II South Caucasus Representative: Paul Mackintosh Tel/fax: (+995 32) 21 78 19, 25 01 93 E mail: pmac@drc.dk E-mail: Ettore Fusaro: (ettore.fusaro@caritas.ge) Liana Mkheidze (liana.mkheidze@caritas.ge) DVV International Website: www.caritas.ge Tbilisi Apt. 5, # 4 Napareuli Street CHF (formerly Canadian Hunger Foundation) 0179 Tbilisi Tbilisi Tel/Fax: (+995 32) 913475, 251752 3 Mtskheta Street Website: http://www.dvv-international.ge/ Tel: 22 69 02; 25 16 72/74 Director Georgia Project Office: Levan Kvatchadze (kvatchadze@dvv-international.ge) E-mail: info@chf.ge Eurasia Partnership Foundation Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs (CNFA) Tbilisi Tbilisi 3 Kavsadze Street 47 Kostava Street Phone: 25 27 78/82 Phone: 99 58 30 Zaal Anjaparidze, Program Manager: zanjaparidze@ Shalva Pipia, Program Manager: spipia@cnfageor- epfound.ge gia.org 43 Hilfswerk Austria Save the Children Brigitte Stoeppler: stoeppler@hwa.or.at Tbilisi 20 Gotua Street International Committee of the Red Cross Phone: 24 45 20/21/28 (ICRC) Fax: 37 79 63 Tbilisi Program Director: Natia Deisadze Kedia Street Phone: 35 55 10 Transparency International E-mail: tbilisi.tbi@icrc.org Tbilisi 26 Rustaveli Ave International Organization for Migration (IOM) Executive Director: Eka Gigauri Tbilisi E mail: ekag@transparency.ge 41 Gogebashvili Street Phone: 92 14 03 Phone: 25 22 16 Program Officer: Natia Kvitsiani (natia@iom.ge) United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Tbilisi International Orthodox Christian Charities 9 Eristavi Street (IOCC) Phone: 25 11 26 Tbilisi E mail: 90 Barnov Street, Apt. 1 Tel/Fax: 25 19 98 United Nations Development Programme Chrysanthe Loizos: cloizos@iocc.org (UNDP) Darejan Dzotsenidze: ddzotsenidze@iocc.org Tbilisi 9 Eristavi Street Mercy Corps Phone: 25 11 26 Tbilisi Giorgi Nanobashvili: giorgi.nanobashvili@undp.org 16 Radiani Street Nils Christensen: nils.christensen@undp.org Phone: 25 24 71 George Sadunishvili: gsadunishvili@mercycorps.ge United Nations Food and Agriculture Organiza- Irakli Kasrashvili: ikasrashvili@mercycorps.ge tion (FAO) Tbilisi Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) 5 Radiani Street Tbilisi 0179 Tbilisi 19a Tabukashvili Street Phone: +995 (32) 227705 Phone: 92 31 62 Emergency Coordinator: dragan.angelovski@fao. Fax: 99 97 89 org E-mail: nrc@nrc.ge United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Oxfam Great Britain Tbilisi Tbilisi 2 Kazbegi Ave 47a Paliashvili Street Phone: 38 62 02 Phone: 25 28 81/83 E mail: geotb@unhcr.org Keti Getiashvili (kgetiashvili@oxfam.org.uk) World Health Organization (WHO) People in Need (PIN) Tbilisi Tbilisi 9 Eristavi Street 12 Ingorokva Street Phone: 232872 Head of Mission: Pavel Pinkava (pavel.pinkava@ Fax: 998073 peopleinneed.cz) E mail: WHOGEO@euro.who.int Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 44 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned World Vision International (WVI) Georgian Association for Social Workers Tbilisi (GASW) 18/19 Imedashvili Street Tbilisi Phone: 43 35 50/51 44 Kazbegi Avenue E mail: ana_chkhaidze@wvi.org 0177 Tbilisi, Georgia Tel: + 995 32 239 00 71 2. Local NGOs E-mail: gasw@gasw.org Atinati Website: http://www.gasw.org Zugdidi 94 Rustaveli Street International Executive Service Corps (IESC) Zugdidi, 2100 Georgia 1900 M Street NW Phone: 8 215 5 00 56 Suite 500 Fax: 8 215 5 00 54 Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: office@atinati.org Tel: (202) 589-2600 Fax: (202) 326-0289 Association of Young Economists of Georgia Irina Salukvadze: irina.salukvadze@iesc.ge (AYEG) Tbilisi 3. Donors Orbeliani Street #35 Tbilisi, 0105, Georgia European Commission (EC) Tel: (+995 32) 2922839; 2990443; 2936475; 38 Nino Chkheidze Street 2923122; 0102 Tbilisi Fax: (+995 32) 2922461 Phone: +995 (32) 943763 Website: http://www.economists.ge Fax: ++95 (32) 943768 E-mail: office@economists.ge Website: http://www.delgeo.ec.europa.eu/ Head of the Board: Ana Katamidze (ani@econo- mists.ge) German Organisation for Technical Cooperation (GIZ) Charity Humanitarian Centre Abkhazeti GIZ Office South Caucasus (CHCA) 4, Elene Akhvlediani Agmarti Tbilisi 0103 Tbilisi Tbilisi - 0171 Phone: +995 32 2201800 # 69/1 Balanchivadze Street Fax: +995 32 2201801 Tel: +995 32 233 23 79 E mail: giz-georgia@giz.de Fax: +995 32 233 23 79 E-mail: tbilisi@chca.org.ge Swedish International Development Cooperation (Sida) Civil Development Agency (CiDA) Tbilisi 9/1 Pirosmani Street 12 T. Tabidze Street Rustavi, 3700, Georgia Phone: +995 32 55 03 20, Fax: +995 32 25 12 26 Tel/Fax: +995 0341 25 88 22 E mail: ambassaden.tbilisi@gov.se E-mail: pr@cida.ge Website: www.cida.ge Every Child Andro Dadiani: androdadiani@everychild.ge 45 Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation 4. Government (SDC) Swiss Cooperation Office Tbilisi Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from Embassy of Switzerland the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and 9/12 Radiani Street Refugees (MRA) Tbilisi Tamarashvili Street N 15A Phone: +995 (32) 2237211 / 227863 Tbilisi, Georgia 0177 Website: http://www.swisscoop.ge/ Tel: (995 32) 31 15 77 Tamuna Tsivtsivadze: tamuna.tsivtsivadze@sdc.net Fax: (995 32) 31 15 96 E mail: Info@mra.gov.ge United States Agency for International Develop- ment (USAID) Municipal Development Fund (MDF) USAID/Caucasus Mission Tbilisi 11 George Balanchine Street 150 David Agmashenebeli Ave 0131 Tbilisi, Georgia Tbilisi, Georgia 0112 Tel: (995-32) 254-40-00 Tel: Fax: (995-32) 254-41-45 Website: www.mdf.ge E mail: mjaparidze@usaid.gov Ministry of Education and Sciences World Bank Dimitri Uznadze N 52 World Bank Country Office Tbilisi, Georgia 0102 5A, Nino Ramishvili Str. Tel: (995 32 2) 200 220 Tbilisi E-mail: pr@mes.gov.ge Georgia 0179 Phone: (995 32) 291 30 96, Fax: (995 32) 291 34 78 Ministry of Regional Development and Infra- E mail: ipaichadze@worldbank.org structure Tbilisi 12 Al.Kazbegi Avenue Tbilisi Tel: +995 32 2510591, +995 32 2510698 E mail: press@mrdi.gov.ge Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 46 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned Annex 4 Bibliography Web Resources—Organizations Human Rights Watch: Georgia. http://www.hrw.org/ europecentral-asia/georgia. Action Against Hunger. http://www.actionagainst- hunger.org/taxonomy/countries/asia/georgia. Institute for Governance and Policy Studies. http:// igps.victoria.ac.nz/. ActionAid. Real Aid: Ending Aid Dependency. http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/newfunct/pdf/lux- Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC). embourg_real_aid_3.pdf. http://www.internal-displacement.org/countries/ georgia. CARE International Georgia. http://www.care-cau- casus.org.ge/en/index.php. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). http://operations.ifad.org/web/ifad/op- Center for Training and Consultancy (CTC). http:// erations/country/home/tags/georgia. www.ctc.org.ge. International Organization for Migration: Georgia. Central Asia–Caucasus Analyst. http://www.caciana- http://www.iom.ge. lyst.org/. IOM Job Counseling and Placement Project in Charity Humanitarian Center “Abkhazeti� (CHCA). Georgia. http://www.jcp.ge/?lang=en. http://www.chca.org.ge. Mercy Corps: Georgia. http://www.mercycorps.org. Conciliation Resources. http://www.c-r.org. uk/georgia. Danish Refugee Council (DRC). http://drc.dk/relief- Norwegian Refugee Council. http://www.nrc. work/where-we-work/caucasus/georgia/. no/?did=9168164. Democracy & Freedom Watch. http://www.dfwatch. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). http://www. net. odi.org.uk. Department for International Development. http:// Psychology Today. http://www.psychologytoday. www.gov.uk/government/organisations/depart- com. ment-for-international-development. Refworld. http://www.refworld.org. DVV International Georgia. http://dvv-internatio nal.ge. Swiss Development Cooperation: Georgia. http:// www.sdc.admin.ch/en/Home/Countries/Com- Eurasianet.org. http://www.eurasianet.org. monwealth_of_Independent_States_CIS/South- ern_Caucasus_Georgia_Armenia_Azerbaijan. European Bank for Reconstruction and Develop- ment. http://www.ebrd.com/pages/country/geor- Transparency International: Georgia. http://www. gia.shtml. transparency.ge/en. Human Rights House: Georgia. http://humanright- UN Data: Georgia. http://data.un.org/CountryPro- shouse.org/Members/Georgia/index.html. file.aspx?crName=GEORGIA. 47 UN Food and Agriculture: Georgia. http://coin.fao. United Nations Development Programme: Georgia. org/cms/world/georgia/en/Home.html. http://www.undp.org.ge. UNHCR: Georgia. http://www.unhcr.org/ University of Texas–San Antonio. http://www.utsa. pages/49e48d2e6.html. edu. UNICEF: Georgia. http://www.unicef.org/georgia/. World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 48 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned Annex 5 References Article 5 of Law #335-IIS on Forcibly Displaced IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre). Persons—Persecuted from the Occupied Territo- 2012. “Georgia: Partial Progress Towards Du- ries of Georgia. rable Solutions for IDPs.� IDMC. http://www. internal-displacement.org/countries/georgia. Chambers, R., and Conway, G. 1992. “Sustain- able Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for IDMC. 2012. “Mental Health of IDPs.� IDMC. the 21st Century.� IDS Discussion Paper 296. http://www.internal-displacement.org/idmc/ Brighton, UK: IDS. website/countries.nsf/(httpEnvelopes)/9C67D5 9952A3E2A1C12579C7000A872B?OpenDocu Christensen, Asger, and Niels Harild. 2009. Forced ment. Displacement—the Development Challenge. Washington, DC: World Bank. IDMC. 2012. Property, Livelihoods, Education and Other Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Danish Refugee Council (DRC). 2010. Durable Geneva: IDMC. Solutions: A Way Forward for IDPs in Georgia. Annual report. Tbilisi, Georgia: DRC. IDMC and NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council). 2012. “Memorandum: Internal Displacement in FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the Georgia.� http://www.internal-displacement.org/ United Nations) and UNIFEM (United Nations 8025708F004CE90B/%28httpDocuments%29/6 Development Fund for Women). 2009. Needs 1AF7555689DA54FC1257AEC004BF787/$file/ Assessment: A Gender Approach to Conflict-Af- IDMC+Georgia+memo+FINAL+3+Dec.pdf. fected Populations in Rural Areas. Rome: FAO. IOM Job Counseling and Placement Project in Geor- FAO in Georgia and Ministry of Agriculture, Gov- gia. “Statistics by Region.� IOM. http://www. ernment of Georgia. 2012. Agriculture Sector jcp.ge/index.php?a=main&mid=20&lang=en. Bulletin 2012. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/ Marger, Martin. 2008. Social Inequality: Patterns templates/tc/tce/pdf/Georgia_Agriculture_Sec- and Processes, vol. 4. New York: McGraw-Hill. tor_Bulletin_-_2012.pdf. Ministry of Agriculture of Georgia. http://moa.gov. Gogia, Giorgi. 2011. “Georgians in Gali.� Hu- ge/?lang=en. man Rights Watch. http://www.hrw.org/ news/2011/02/18/georgians-gali. Minority Rights Group International. 2008. “State of the World’s Minorities 2008—Georgia/Abkha- Government of Georgia. 2007. Decree No. 47. zia and South Ossetia.� Refworld. http://www. On Approving the State Strategy for Inter- refworld.org/country,,,,GEO,,48a7eaec41,0. nally Displaced Persons—Persecuted. Tbilisi, html. Georgia. http://mra.gov.ge/index.php?lang_ id=ENG#index/1/ENG. Mollet, Matthias. 2011. Evaluation of FAO Agricul- tural Livelihoods Improvement for IDP Settle- Holtzman, Steven B., and Taies Tezam. 2004. Liv- ments Programme. Rome: FAO. ing in Limbo: Conflict-Induced Displacement in Europe and Central Asia. Washington, DC: Mooney, Erin D. 2009. “When ‘Temporary’ Lasts World Bank. Too Long.� Forced Migration Review 33. http:// 49 www.fmreview.org/en/FMRpdfs/FMR33/ Settlements for Georgia’s New IDPs: Account- FMR33.pdf. ability in Aid and Construction.� Transparency International Georgia. http://transparency.ge/en/ MRA (Ministry for Internally Displaced Persons post/report/cottage-settlements-georgias-new- from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation idps-accountability-aid-and-construction. and Refugees of Georgia). 2010. Overview of Activities Related to Socio-economic Integration UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for of IDPs. Tbilisi, Georgia: MRA. Refugees). 2009. Protection of IDPs in Georgia: A Gap Analysis. Geneva: UNHCR. http://www. Nadareishvili, Mamuka, and Vasil Tsakadze. 2008. unhcr.org/4ad827f59.pdf. Housing and Socio-economic Conditions of IDPs in Georgia. Tbilisi, Georgia: DRC. UNHCR. 2012. Returned but Still Reintegrating: Participatory Assessment of the Humanitarian National Statistical Office of Georgia (GeoStat). Situation and Progress Made in the Re-integra- http://www.geostat.ge. tion Process of IDPs Who Returned to the Shida Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) 2013. Privately Kartli Region, Georgia. Geneva: UNHCR. Accommodated IDPs in Georgia: A Needs As- UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for sessment. Tbilisi, Georgia Refugees). 2013. “2013 UNHCR Regional Selig, Meg. 2010, September 14. “Routines: Operations Profile—Eastern Europe.� UNHCR. Comforting or Confining?� Psychology To- http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e48d2e6.html. day. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ Willems, Daphne. 2012. “Settling After War: Ana- changepower/201009/routines-comforting-or- lyzing Economic Development of IDPs in Geor- confining. gia.� Master’s thesis, University of Amsterdam. Singh, Namrita, and Courtland Robinson. 2010. Wilson, Patricia A. 1997. “Building Social Capital: “Support Systems Among Urban IDPs in Geor- A Learning Agenda for the 21st Century.� Urban gia.� Forced Migration Review 34. http://www. Studies 34 (5–6): 745–760. fmreview.org/en/urban-displacement/FMR34. pdf. World Bank. 2011. Scoping Study on Internal Dis- placement. Washington, DC: World Bank. Sullivan, Laura. 2011. “Real Aid Can End Aid De- pendency.� ActionAid. http://www.actionaidusa. World Bank. 2013. Assessment of Livelihood Sup- org/eu/2011/05/real-aid-can-end-aid-dependen- port for Displaced Persons and IDPs. Washing- cy. ton, DC: World Bank. Sumbadze, N., & G. Tarkhan-Mouravi. 2003. World Bank. 2013. Skills Mismatch and Unemploy- Development Strategy for Akhalkalaki and ment: Labor Market Challenges in Georgia. Akhaltsikhe Districts of Samtskhe-Javakheti. Washington, DC: World Bank. Concept paper commissioned by the Open Society–Georgia Foundation, Tbilisi, Georgia. World Food Program (WFP) and MRA. 2012. Com- munity Profiling Studies of IDP Settlements in Transparency International Georgia. 2010. “Cottage Georgia. Rome: WFP. Supporting the Livelihoods of Internally Displaced Persons in Georgia 50 A Review of Current Practices and Lessons Learned THE WORLD BANK 1818 H, Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 www.worldbank.org