IDP Policy Formation and Implementation in Georgia:

Shelter for the 1990’s IDPs11 November 2009European Union-Georgia Civil Society Human Rights

Seminar on Media Freedom and Internationally Displaced Persons

Positive Developments

Political will for IDPs is strong, and not isolated to only one ministry

TEGs are getting the details right

Commitments to transparency

Commitments to Transparency

State Strategy (Feb 2007):

“In monitoring implementation of the strategy, much importance is given to the participation of IDPs themselves and of the civil society as well as to the transparency of the process.” (p. 13)

Presentation by Nika Gilauri (PM) to donors, Feb 2009:

Establishment of a Steering Committee “to ensure proper coordination and transparency”

May 2009 Action Plan:

“2.1.2. In order to achieve transparency of the overall process of rehabilitation and privatization of CCs, the MRA commits itself to prepare an overview of all CCs (that will be targeted in 2009) with clear indication of their future in terms of privatization and rehabilitation, two months following the adoption of the Action Plan. The latter will explain the criteria governing the CCs’ identification process.”

Shelter Timeline: Actions precede Planning

Feb 07: State Strategy on IDPs adopted

July 08: Action Plan to the State Strategy approved

Aug-Sep: conflict and post-conflict emergency period

Sep 08: JNA drafted (though not publicly released), $3.2 billion requested

Oct 08: Brussels Donors Conference, $4.55 billion pledged

Dec 08: Action Plan annulled, new AP due within 1 month

Feb 09: PM presentation to donors on progress achieved in reintegration of old IDPs

Self-privatization of CCs already underway in 301 CCs

Tenders for rehabilitation of 164 CCs (50 mln GEL) announced by MDF

May 09: New Action Plan adopted

Sep 09: Rehabilitation standards developed/approved

Sep 09: MDF, municipalities identify vacant land for building more IDP settlements

Problems, Gaps (1)

Action precedes planning, leads to distrust, inefficiencies

Communication with, and accountability to, beneficiaries:

Lack of awareness among IDPs on their choices

Unclear who should be accountable (MRA, MDF?)

MRA’s main communication tool with IDPs (hotline) is ineffective

Communication is a one-way street to IDPs when it does happen

Problems, Gaps (2)

Persistent problems with registration complicate self-privatization

Capacity constraints within the MRA

Regional Representatives

Difficulties in forward planning and securing financing

Coordination with NGOs working “off-budget” on IDP issues a huge, unfulfilled task

AP is a “living document” and already outdated

Problems, Gaps (3)

Shelter does not equal integration – is the ‘fix’ for the new IDPs the most appropriate solution for the old IDPs?

Recommendations - Government

Slow down, tailored approach is critical to success for IDPs (and politically)

Better vertical and horizontal information sharing within government:

Regional Representative offices of MRA

Other government bodies (MDF, MoHLSA, MoI, MoF, MoJ…)

Two-wayinfo sharing with general public and IDPs (builds trust!)

Why were decisions taken? What was the rationale?

Never forget: greater information builds trust with ALL stakeholders

Locus of decision making at the cabinet level makes IDP assistance unnecessarily political

Results of MDF monitoring of CC rehabilitation should be public; Involve IDPs in monitoring efforts by sharing budgets and contracts, setting up a call-in center

Registration issues of old IDPs must be solved before fair housing solutions can be offered

Recommendations - Donors

Make long-term commitments to financing the Action Plan

Funding must contribute towards increased local capacity – include strategic planning, TA, management systems assistance

Require the implementation of a comprehensive communications strategy, and fund it!

Make funding contingent upon benchmarks in communications and accountability to IDPs, transparency of process

Off-budget funding for IDP issues:

Must be communicated regularly (monthly) to MRA

Must meet same requirements for accountability to beneficiaries (hotlines, complaints mechanisms, etc.)

Donor transparency, fragmentation of information: Disclosure of financing information on websites – amount, mechanism, main program areas, contact info