DOCSLIB.ORG

Fourth Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fourth Annual Report FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT Award Period: October 31, 2014 – October 31, 2019 Reporting Period: October 1, 2017 – September 30, 2018 Submitted to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. AID-114-A-14-00008 by the East-West Management Institute, Inc. Tamuna Karosanidze, Chief of Party, Tbilisi: [email protected] Delina Fico, EWMI Director for Civil Society Programs, New York: [email protected] #5 Marjanishvili St., Third Floor • Tbilisi 0102 Georgia • Tel (995 0 32) 2202 444 • www.facebook.com/EWMI.ACCESS I. BACKGROUND The Advancing CSO Capacities and Engaging Society for Sustainability (ACCESS) Project works to enhance the effectiveness of civil society organizations (CSOs) in Georgia. ACCESS is a five-year $6.4 million project funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented by East West Management Institute, Inc., (EWMI) and its local partners: the Centre for Training and Consultancy (CTC) and the Civil Development Agency (CiDA). ACCESS builds on the successes of EWMI’s and USAID’s previous work with CSOs in Georgia under the Policy, Advocacy, and Civil Society Development in Georgia (G-PAC) Project. ACCESS works to achieve four objectives: 1) Citizens become more aware of and involved in CSO activities; 2) CSO leadership, organizational capacity, and sustainability are improved among organizations throughout Georgia; 3) CSOs are able to effectively monitor, analyze, and influence key government policies and processes; and 4) The Centers for Civic Engagement (CCEs) establish local ownership so that they continue to operate as politically neutral gathering spaces for public discourse. ACCESS pursues these four objectives through grants supporting policy research, watchdog, and civic engagement activities by CSOs; technical assistance programming to strengthen CCEs and CSO management and operations; and a wide range of events that deepen dialogue and partnerships between citizens, CSOs, government, businesses, and media. ACCESS prioritizes in particular the expanded inclusion of women, minorities, and youth in its initiatives to ensure that voices from these groups are more fully taken into account in CSO activities and governance processes. By increasing the use of science, technology, and innovation in CSO activities, ACCESS also assists civil society in becoming more effective and efficient in representing the needs of the public. ACCESS began on October 30, 2014, and is scheduled to end on October 31, 2019. Note: This report serves both as ACCESS quarterly report for July – September 2018 and the fourth annual report covering October 31, 2017 – September 30, 2018. The report integrates fourth quarter activities, achievements, and challenges in reporting on ACCESS Year 4 progress and activities. EWMI ACCESS Annual Report: Oct. 31, 2017 – Sep. 31, 2018 Page 2 of 37 II. APPROACH ACCESS’ mission is to enhance the effectiveness of CSOs in Georgia by enabling more constituent-connected, organizationally mature, and financially sustainable cadre of CSOs that progress toward managing direct USAID funding to them. To achieve this goal, ACCESS offers integrated support to a geographically diverse and demographically inclusive group of CSOs, with particular attention paid to regional organizations. The integrated support includes grants, peer mentoring, training, individual consultations, special initiatives, and networking opportunities. ACCESS puts special emphasis on assisting CSOs to engage constructively with government institutions at the central and local levels in fashioning responsive policy, generating and leading public debate over transparent and effective governance with all levels of decision-makers, fostering cooperation among CSOs, the private sector, and government institutions, as well as engaging citizens in CSO activities so that they view CSOs as legitimate representatives of their concerns. In Year 4, ACCESS pursued this mission by: implementing comprehensive grants and technical assistance programs targeting regional and Tbilisi-based watchdog organizations and think tanks; engaging CSOs in open discussions with local and national government, media, citizens, the private sector, and political parties on key local and national issues and the government’s initiatives to address these issues; encouraging CSOs to reach out to citizens and engage them in setting their agendas and designing their advocacy and public awareness activities, as well as in implementing these activities; supporting meaningful and effective cooperation between CSOs and the private sector, and assisting CSOs to exchange practical information and ideas on effective strategies to engage citizens and influence public policies. In Year 4, ACCESS-supported CCEs continued to offer organizational and technical support to CSOs, citizens, political parties, donors, and other groups to organize town hall meetings, information campaigns, policy debates, and other civic events. In the lead up to the 2018 Presidential Elections, CCEs started operating as Election Media Centers to provide a neutral space where key electoral stakeholders could learn and distribute non-partisan election related information. EWMI ACCESS Annual Report: Oct. 31, 2017 – Sep. 31, 2018 Page 3 of 37 III. KEY ISSUES, ACCOMPLISHMENS, AND THE WAY FORWARD This section lays out ACCESS Year 4 key activities and accomplishments across the four project components accompanied by a discussion of ACCESS’ approach for each component. Objective One: Citizen Engagement at the Local Level Through its grant programs targeting regional CSOs and regional civic engagement activities, such as Regional Civic Engagement Weeks, bus tours, Best Pracitce and Innovation Events, and Right to Know campaigns, in Year 4, ACCESS supported a geographically and demographically diverse cadre of CSOs to develop their capacities and facilitate citizen engagement in a wide array of issues initiated by local groups and citizens. This included: facilitating citizen engagement in electoral processes; increasing youth participation in local decision-making; engaging communities in open discussions about Georgia’s European integration and anti-western disinformation; streamlining local government accountability procedures; identifying and voicing women voters’ key needs and priorities; raising citizens’ awareness about air pollution in Georgia’s cities and calling for action; supporting marginalized and under-represented groups, such as ethnic and religious minorities, persons with disabilities, and the communities affected by the mining-induced environmental pollution; establishing and strengthening Civic Advisory Councils to facilitate participatory budgeting and policy-making at the local level; countering violent extremism in the affected regions. ACCESS grants encouraged proven or innovative approaches to implementing civic initiatives through direct citizen participation. They focused on results, not in terms of achieving a specific advocacy outcome within the grant-supported project timeframe, but in terms of mobilizing citizen engagement with public issues, debates, and initiatives. During the reporting period, ACCESS grant projects and civic activities engaged over 5,100 citizens this way and addressed some of the most important problems facing Georgia’s regions. However, throughout the project’s lifetime, ACCESS issued only 25 of the planned 50 grants to regional CSOs and at least ¼ of the implemented initiatives were less effective. Notwithstanding the large numbers of applications received by ACCESS and its commitment to supporting regional CSOs, ACCESS has been encountering difficulties in awarding grants to regional CSOs due to the low quality of the presented problem analyses and/or proposed solutions. The problem has remained despite ACCESS’ intensive outreach campaigns and information meetings with regional CSOs, as well as its diverse efforts to inspire and enable innovative and experimental initiatives. Part of the problem is the dominance of constraining factors to effect policy changes at the local level, such as the limited competencies and resources of local authorities in Georgia. While governmental decision-making remains centralized, it remains difficult for regional CSOs achieve successes at the local level without engaging with the central government. EWMI ACCESS Annual Report: Oct. 31, 2017 – Sep. 31, 2018 Page 4 of 37 The other problem originates within the sector and it relates to its homogenous make-up. Georgian CSOs, and especially regional CSOs, have not been effective in recruiting new people, who would help them find new ways to meet contemporary needs and serve their communities better. Diversifying the leadership and staff to include new and different types of people have not been among the top priorities for regional CSOs. This problem is also linked to the problem of donor dependence and ‘formalized’ civil society. Complex grant management procedures and donors’ preference to work with formalized structures (to reduce risks) alienate those creative and capable civic-minded groups/individuals, who are willing to fight a cause, but are uninterested in engaging in formal processes. Such groups/individuals often treat formalized CSOs with distrust and disrespect. Some of the most interesting and creative people that ACCESS has come across and engaged with were the people who either refused to or reluctantly engaged in the grant-writing, - implementing, and –reporting activities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 14 July 2015 Assessment of Wood and Agricultural Residue Biomass
    ASSESSMENT OF WOOD AND AGRICULTURAL RESIDUE BIOMASS ENERGY POTENTIAL IN GEORGIA Prepared for UNDP under Micro-Capital Grant Agreement for Non-Credit Related Activities of 26.06.14 WORLD EXPERIENCE FOR GEORGIA TBIILISI 2014 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Assessment of Agricultural Residue Availability from Perennial Crops in Georgia ...................................... 13 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Methodology for Perennial Crops ............................................................................................................ 15 Vineyards’ Pruning Residue ...................................................................................................................... 17 Fruit orchards’ Pruning Residue................................................................................................................ 23 Apple, pear, peach ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Environmental Performance Reviews Third Review
    UNECE Georgia Environmental Performance Reviews Third Review UNITED NATIONS ECE/CEP/177 UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS GEORGIA Third Review UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 2016 Environmental Performance Reviews Series No. 43 NOTE Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. In particular, the boundaries shown on the maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. The United Nations issued the second Environmental Performance Review of Georgia (Environmental Performance Reviews Series No. 30) in 2010. This volume is issued in English only. ECE/CEP/177 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales E.16.II.E.3 ISBN 978-92-1-117101-3 e-ISBN 978-92-1-057683-3 ISSN 1020-4563 iii Foreword It is essential to monitor progress towards environmental sustainability and to evaluate how countries reconcile environmental and economic targets and meet their international environmental commitments. Through regular monitoring and evaluation, countries may more effectively stay ahead of emerging environmental issues, improve their environmental performance and be accountable to their citizens. The ECE Environmental Performance Review Programme provides valuable assistance to member States by regularly assessing their environmental performance so that they can take steps to improve their environmental management, integrate environmental considerations into economic sectors, increase the availability of information to the public and promote information exchange with other countries on policies and experiences.
    [Show full text]
  • National Report on the State of the Environment of Georgia
    National Report on the State of the Environment of Georgia 2007 - 2009 FOREWORD This National Report on the State of Environment 2007-2009 has been developed in accordance with the Article 14 of the Law of Georgia on Environmental Protection and the Presidential Decree N 389 of 25 June 1999 on the Rules of Development of National Report on the State of Environment. According to the Georgian legislation, for the purpose of public information the National Report on the State of Environment shall be developed once every three years. 2007-2009 National Report was approved on 9 December 2011. National Report is a summarizing document of all existing information on the state of the environment of Georgia complexly analyzing the state of the environment of Georgia for 2007-2009. The document describes the main directions of environmental policy of the country, presents information on the qualita- tive state of the environment, also presents information on the outcomes of the environmental activities carried out within the frames of international relations, and gives the analysis of environmental impact of different economic sectors. National Report is comprised of 8 Parts and 21 chapters: • Qualitative state of environment (atmospheric air, water resources, land resources, natural disasters, biodiversity, wastes and chemicals, ionizing radiation), • Environmental impact of different economic sectors (agriculture, forestry, transport, industry and en- ergy sector), • Environmental protection management (environmental policy and planning, environmental regula- tion and monitoring, environmental education and awareness raising). In the development of the present State of Environment (SOE) the Ministry of Environment Protection was assisted by the EU funded Project Support to the Improvement of the Environmental Governance in Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental and Socio-Economic Implications of the Mining Sector
    ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE MINING SECTOR AND PROSPECTS OF RESPONSIBLE MINING IN GEORGIA The study was prepared within the framework of the project 'Promoting Environmental and Social Accountability in the Mining Sector in the Caucasus', which is being implemented with the financial support of the Bread for the World Protestant Development Service (BftW). The content of the publication is the responsibility of the implementing organisation alone. 2 CONTENT INTRODUCTION 5 1. Mineral reSourceS of GeorGia anD The hiSTory of Their MininG anD ProceSSing 7 1.1 Brief DeScriPTion of Mineral reSources 7 1.2 Brief hiSTory of MininG in GeorGia 7 1.3 DynaMicS of The DeveloPMenT of MininG inDuSTry in GeorGia 9 1.3.1 SoliD MineralS 9 1.3.2 oil anD Gas 10 2. GeorGian laWS anD inSTiTuTional SeT-uP relaTeD To MininG 13 2.1 naTional leGiSlaTion 13 2.1.1 conSTiTuTion of GeorGia 13 2.1.2 laW of GeorGia on enTrailS of The earTh 13 2.1.3 laW of GeorGia on licenceS anD PerMits 13 2.1.4 laW of GeorGia on environMenTal ProTecTion 14 2.1.5 laW of GeorGia on culTural heriTaGe 14 2.1.6 oTher reGulaTionS relaTeD To culTural heriTaGe 14 2.1.7 inTernaTional convenTionS relaTeD To culTural heriTaGe raTifieD By GeorGia 14 2.2 inSTiTuTional fraMeWork of The GeorGian MininG inDuSTry 15 2.2.1 STaTe inSTiTuTionS anD Their ManDaTes 15 2.2.2 inTeraGency cooPeraTion 17 3. inTernaTional DeveloPMenT orGanizaTionS acTive in GeorGia anD caTeGorieS of DeveloPMenT Projects 19 4. STa.TiSTicS of inveSTMenTS MaDe in The MininG SecTor of GeorGia (2009-2015) 23 4.1 aMounT of inveSTMents 23 4.2 inveSTMenT SourceS 24 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Article
    s z Available online at http://www.journalcra.com INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CURRENT RESEARCH International Journal of Current Research Vol. 9, Issue, 02, pp.47002-47008, February, 2017 ISSN: 0975-833X RESEARCH ARTICLE ARSENIC POLLUTION STUDY OF THE RIVERS AND SOILS IN SOME OF THE REGIONS OF GEORGIA 1Shavliashvili, L., 2Bakradze, E., *,2Arabidze, M. and 2Kuchava, G. 1Georgian Technical University, the Institute of Hydrometeorology, Tbilisi, Georgia 2Ministry of Environmental and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia, National Environmental Agency, Tbilisi, Georgia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT In Georgia there are many sources, whether natural or anthropogenic, which causes environmental Article History: pollution by arsenic compounds. Arsenic sulfide ore mining, processing and production of arsenic- Received 10th November, 2016 Received in revised form containing drugs was carried out for decades (Racha-Lechkhumi and lower Svaneti). In the Article is 04th December, 2016 presented studies of eco-chemical conditions for soils contaminated areas with arsenic industrial Accepted 15th January, 2017 wastes (in the village Uravi - Ambrolauri Municipality, village Tsana - Lentekhi Municipality) and Published online 28th February, 2017 surface water (River Tskhenistskali and Lukhuni) 2014-2016years. The sampling of the soil and water, conservation, labeling, storage and transportation were produced in the accordance with the Key words: International Standard Organization (ISO) standard methodology. The study was conducted in laboratory by the ISO standards and USEPA methods in soil samples arsenic will be determined by Soil, plasma–emission spectrometer. The survey results shows that the arsenic maximum content in 2014 River, were observed in the vicinity of Uravi white arsenic treatment plant, where the arsenic maximum Arsenic contamination, concentration was 61814.9 mg/kg and in the settling of the surrounding area - 36373.7 mg/kg; Environmental pollution, According to the 2015 data a high value was observed only in the samples from the 3rd site and Ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Report Envisaged by the Project On
    Geological Report envisaged by the Project on “Development of climate resilient flood and flash flood and geological disaster management practices for Rioni river basin”. prohibitio1 garemos erovnuli saagento Content 1. Topicality of the problem (E.M. Tsereteli, M. Gaprindashvili) 3 2. Overview of state of affairs in Georgia from the standpoint of geological disasters (E.M. Tsereteli, M. Gaprindashvili) 5 3. Key factors causing development of natural disasters and assessment methodology (E.M. Tsereteli, M. Gaprindashvili) 18 3.1 Impact of geological composition and properties of stratum on development-reactivation of geological processes (E.M. Tsereteli, M. Gaprindashvili) 20 3.2 The role of geomorphological factors in development of exogenic and geological processes and preparation of forecasts (E.M. Tsereteli, M. Gaprindashvili) 28 3.3 The role of climatic-meteorological factors in development of landslide-gravitational and mudslide processes (E.M. Tsereteli, M. Gaprindashvili) 32 4. Principles of development of mudslide and landslide risk assessment map for Rioni river basin (E.M. Tsereteli, M. Gaprindashvili) 44 5. Mudslide and landslide prevention measures (I. Chkeidze) 49 6. The risk of development of landslides and mudslides by municipalities 55 6.1 Oni Municipality (O. Abutidze, O. Kurtsikidze) 55 6.2 Ambrolauri Municipality (O. Abutidze, O. Kurtsikidze) 84 6.3 Forecasts on development of disastrous geological processes on the territories of Oni and Ambrolauri Municipalities (O. Abutidze, O. Kurtsikidze) 121 6.4 Lentekhi Municipality (Z. Dolidze, Z. Maisuradze) 122 6.5 Tsageri Municipality (Z. Dolidze, Z. Maisuradze) 147 6.6Forecasts on development of disastrous geological processes on the territories of Lentekhi and Tsageri Municipalities (Z.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional, Economic, and Poverty Aspects of Georgia's Road to Environmental Sustainability
    Public Disclosure Authorized GEORGIA COUNTRY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Institutional, Economic, and Poverty Aspects of Georgia’s Road to Environmental Sustainability Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized JUNE 2015 WORLD BANK GROUP REPORT NUMBER ACS13945 ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES GLOBAL PRACTICE COUNTRY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ENVIRONMENTAL COUNTRY PRACTICE GLOBAL RESOURCES AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES GLOBAL PRACTICE COUNTRY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS GEORGIA COUNTRY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Institutional, Economic, and Poverty Aspects of Georgia’s Road to Environmental Sustainability Georgia: Country Environmental Analysis—Institutional, Economic and Poverty Aspects of Georgia’s Road to Environmental Sustainability © 2015 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org Email: [email protected] All rights reserved. June 2014 This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. The fi ndings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily refl ect 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 maps 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 denoted boundaries. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS: 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.
    [Show full text]
  • World Bank Document
    SFG2732 Public Disclosure Authorized THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT OF THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM DEVELOPMENT STARTEGIES OF SAMTSKHE-JAVAKHETI AND MTSKETA-MTIANETI Public Disclosure Authorized Third Regional Development Project Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized December, 2016 Abbreviations GNTA Georgia National Tourism Administration EIA Environnemental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan RDS Regional Development Strategy RTDS Regional Tourism Development Strategy MDF Municipal Development Fund of Georgia MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoENRP Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia MoCMP Ministry of Culture and Monument Protection MESD Ministry of Economic and Sustaineble Developmnet NACHP National Agency for Cultural Heritage Protection PIU Project Implementation Unit RDP Regional Development Project SECHSA Strategic Environmental, Cultural Heritage and Social Assessment WB World Bank Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 12 1.1 THIRD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RDP III) ..................................................... 12 1.2 REGIONAL AND SECTORAL CONTEXT: RDS AND RTDS FOR SAMTSKHE- JAVAKHETI AND MTSKHETA-MTIANETI REGIONS ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Environmental Assessment(Sea)
    STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN OF GEORGIA REPORT JANUARY 2016 The SEA report draws upon the information contained in the National Waste Management Action Plan as of October 2015 The SEA report draws upon the information contained in the National Waste Management Action Plan as of October 2015. The report was prepared by the national SEA Pilot Project Team experts: Ms. Elena Bakradze, Ms. Tamar Kvantaliani, Ms. Nia Giuashvili, Mr. Goergi Gaphrindashvili, Mr. Georgi Natroshvili, and Mr. Irakli Kaviladze and the SEA Pilot Project Team Leader - Ms. Irma Melikishvili – under supervision of the UNECE international experts: Dr. Maia Gachechiladze-Bozhesku and Mr. Michal Musil. This report was produced with the technical assistance of the UNECE within the EaP GREEN Programme financed by the European Commission. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the UNECE and its Partner organizations or the European Union. Organization responsible for the report: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland Tel: +41 22 917 1723 Email: [email protected] 2 Contents 1. Background Information 5 1.1 Project Information ............................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 SEA Process ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Nature of this report 7 3. The content and the main objectives of the National Waste Management Action Plan and its link with other plans or programmes 9 4. The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment, including health 14 4.1 Surface and ground waters ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy of Georgia 2017-2020
    APPENDIX №1 National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy of Georgia 2017-2020 2017 Tbilisi, Georgia Content 1.Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 4 1.1. Goal of the Strategy................................................................................................................................ 4 2. Assessment of Current Situation ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Legislation on Disaster Management ......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1. The Law of Georgia on the “Structure, Authority and Rules of Operation of the Government of Georgia” ............................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1.2. The Law of Georgia on the “National Security Policy Planning and Coordination” ........................ 5 2.1.3. The Law of Georgia on “Public Safety” ............................................................................................. 6 2.1.4. The Law of Georgia on “State of Emergency” ...................................................................................... 6 2.2. The EU-Georgia Association Agreement ................................................................................................... 6 2.3. Disaster Risk Reduction Global Political Framework ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Special Report on Protection of the Child's Rights in Georgia's Highland Regions
    PUBLIC DEFENDER OF GEORGIA CHILD’S RIGHTS CENTRE SpECIAL REPORT ON PROTECTION OF THE CHILD’S RIGHTS IN GEORGIA’S HIGHLAND REGIONS. 2015 WWW.OMBUDSMAN.GE The publication was prepared with the financial assistance of UNICEF. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and can therefore in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of UNICEF. Table of Content Table of Content...............................................................................................................................................3 Protection of the Rights of the Child in Georgia’s Highland Regions..........................................................4 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................4 1. Legal Instruments Used in the Monitoring Process................................................................................5 Analysis of a legal framework........................................................................................................................5 2. The Methodology of Monitoring................................................................................................................5 2.1 Stages of Implementation.........................................................................................................................6 2.2 Processing the information/data obtained as a result of the monitoring mission and developing responses.....................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • General Conditions
    22nd OSCE Economic and Environmental Forum EEF.DEL/6/14 “Responding to environmental challenges with a view to promoting cooperation and security in the OSCE area” 28 January 2014 FIRST PREPARATORY MEETING Vienna, 27-28 January 2014 ENGLISH only Session IV cont. Georgia, Ms. Irma Gurguliani Tbilisi Earthquake -2002 Flooding - involving Arsenic containing waste- 2013 Irma Gurguliani Head Natural and Technological Hazards Management Service Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Protection of Georgia http://moe.gov.ge 28 January, 2013 Vienna, Austria- OSCE Generalconditions • TbilisiisthecapitalofGeorgiawasbuiltinfifthcentury. • ItissituatedonthebothsidesofKurariver,inintermountaindepression betweentheGreaterandLesserCaucasusandcoverstheareaof350 squarekilometers. • Population Ͳ1.4mln.(about¼ofpopulationofwholecountry) • annualgrowthrateofpopulationͲ 1.3%. 1 Tbilisi earthquake - 25.04.2002 at 22:41(local time) • earthquake with M=4.5-4.7. •Level I - 24% buildings; •Level II - 48 % buildings; •Level III - 27% buildings; •Level IV - in a single instance There were two foreshocks 14 December 2001 and 11 April 2002 before the main shock. Results • death–6people • Injured– about100people; • homeless– 673persons; • damageͲ 1735houses; • IncurlossesͲ 10.159families; • temporallyhousingͲ 379families • economicloss– 360mln.Lari (about180mln.USdollars) source: EmergencyManagementDepartment– MinistryofInternalAffairsofGeorgia 2 Whatwasdonesofar? Whatshouldbedone? • Highquality“builtenvironment”inventory mapwasdevelopedforsomepartofthecity •Specificationofseismicsources(active
    [Show full text]