The Situation of Children and Young People at the Regional Level in

Prepared by Georgia Country Statistical Team Co-ordinator: Teimuraz Gogishvili State Department of Statistics,

MONEE Country Analytical Report November 2004

The project to monitor the impact of economic and social change on children in Eastern and Central Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (MONEE) was initiated at the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre in 1992. The project seeks to monitor, analyse and disseminate information on economic and social trends affecting children’s rights and wellbeing in countries in the . A key feature of the Project is a network of correspondents in the 27 National Statistical Offices (NSOs). On an annual basis these correspondents complete an extensive data template which in turn is used for calculating indicators, supporting research of the project and, in due course, being made publicly available as the TransMonee database and in tables and graphs of the Innocenti Social Monitor.

For a number of years, each participating NSO prepared a Country Analytical Report based on extensive outline from UNICEF IRC on a different theme on the situation of children every year. These analytical reports have provided valuable input into the research at UNICEF IRC and, as significantly, have also served as important national documents on monitoring aspects of child wellbeing in the countries. Some of these Country Analytical Reports have been issued by the NSOs (in the national language) as part of their publication programme.

UNICEF IRC attaches great value to these national assessments of the situation of children and is committed to promote the efforts, including through translating the reports into English (where the submitted report has been in Russian) and offering its website to make them accessible to a wider research audience. The Country Analytical Reports are owned and authored by the National Statistical Offices and are not the intellectual property of UNICEF (see below).

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or view of UNICEF. The text has not been edited for official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for errors. The designations in this publication do not imply an opinion on legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities, or the delimitation of frontiers.

2 DEPARTMENT FOR STATISTICS OF GEORGIA INNOCENTI RESEARCH CENTRE

“Public Policy and Social Conditions: Monitoring the Transition to the Market Economy in Central and Eastern Europe” (MONEE Project)

SITUATION OF CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL IN GEORGIA

Country Analytical Report

Tbilisi 2004

3 Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION, GENERAL OVERVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE – TERRITORIAL STRUCTURE OF GEORGIA 2. POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE 3. REGIONAL ECONOMIC STRUCTURE AND CHANGE 4. REGIONAL STANDARTS OF LIVING 5. EDUCATION 6. HEALTH CARE 7. GOVERNMENT FINANCE

1. INTRODUCTION, GENERAL OVERVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE – TERRITORIAL STRUCTURE OF GEORGIA In accordance with Chapter 2 of the Constitution of Georgia – adopted on 24 August 1995 - “3. The territorial state structure of Georgia shall be determined by a Constitutional Law on the basis of the principle of circumscription of authorisation after the complete restoration of the jurisdiction of Georgia over the whole territory of the country”. The above said actually means that the existing administrative-territorial structure is provisional and will be amended in accordance with the new realities as soon as the territorial integrity of the country disrupted in 1991-1993 after secessionist movements in the former South Ossettia autonomous region and Abkhaz Autonomous Republic is restored. Hence all boundaries among basic administrative units within the country – districts (rayons) or equal are preserved as determined by the old Soviet definition by the year 1991. All changes in administrative- territorial structure that took place afterwards respect these boundaries. Today Georgia is the unified state that nevertheless includes Ajara Autonomous Republic within the old Soviet boundaries. Constitution of Georgia also recognizes Abkhaz Autonomous Republic, but this is currently outside the central government control. The first level of administrative division includes besides Ajara autonomy ten – the structure introduced in 1995 by the president of Georgia, but never legalized by the parliament. These regions are managed by representatives of the president of Georgia, appointed and removed from their posts personally by the president and answerable only to him. There are no elected governance bodies or other means of popular participation and/or control on the regional level. These representatives have wide authority over regional affairs often compared with these of governors (these people are often referred to as governors even by government officials), although hardly formalized. Nevertheless in February 1997 the Parliament of Georgia factually recognized this regional structure by adopting law on creation of president’s representatives’ funds financed primarily by the central budget of Georgia. As a result this structure today is the basic one for managing territorial affairs within the country. Today virtually all central government bodies have established their regional branches, all financed through the central budget, although only in few cases (education for instance) existence of these branches is determined by the appropriate law. The capital of Georgia – Tbilisi – is also dealt with as a separate, eleventh region, although its formal status is regulated by the special law. It has the elected council, representative city government, but the appointed mayor.

4 Table 1.1 The Basic Administrative – Territorial Structure of Georgia 1

Autonomies/Regions Number of Districts Cities (Rayons) (Outside District Jurisdiction)

City of Tbilisi Ajara AR 4 1 3 11 1 8 Kvemo 6 1 -Mtianeti 5 - and Kvemo 4 Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti 8 1 Samtskhe- 6 42

The organic law on the local self-governance and governance adopted in 1997 regulates the rest of administrative-territorial structure of Georgia. According to this law districts (rayons) within the boundaries and with names inherited from the Soviet period, plus cities formally outside district jurisdiction, create the basic layer of the local governance in the country. Today the central government controls 59 such districts and 4 cities 3. Factual, if not formal, status of these districts and role they play in management of local affairs is gradually dwindling, this being taken over by regions. On the other hand, status of four leading cities of the country besides the capital, still gives them some deal of autonomy in dealing with local problems, regional administrations notwithstanding. The lowest – self-governance level includes more than four thousand villages, settlements, local communities and towns within district jurisdiction. This is the only type of local authorities specifically mentioned in the Constitution (Article 3.4). In spite of this that part of administrative-territorial division of Georgia is so far the weakest, underdeveloped and has a little influence on local affairs. There are just few exceptions, usually on towns’ level.

1 De facto situation, excludes territories currently outside control of Georgian authorities. 2 Plus 4 local communities – formally parts of districts currently under control of breakaway South Ossettia authorities. 3 Status of urban settlement in Georgia is specifically determined in each individual case. 5 2. POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE

During a period between two population censuses in 1989 and 2002 population of Georgia has reduced by about 1030 thousand or 19.1% of its 1989 amount. Very approximately from one third to half of this reduction may be attributed to results of secessionist conflicts of now breakaway provinces of and . But even taking into account only territories currently under control of the central government, the reduction constitutes at least 10% of population of year 1994 when it reached its peak – i.e. it took place in the time of peace. Table 2.1 Population Change in Georgia in 1989 – 2002

2002 as % of Urban % of Population 1989 2002 1989 thousand % thousand % 1989 2002 National total 5400841 100 4371535 100 80.9 55,4 52,3 City of Tbilisi 1246936 23.1 1081679 24.7 86.7 100 100 Abkhaz AR 525061 9.7 1956 4 2.7 0.4 47,8 ... Ajara AR 392432 7.3 376016 8.6 95.8 46,2 44,3 Guria 158053 2.9 143357 3.3 90.7 28,6 26,2 Imereti 766892 14.2 699666 16.0 91.2 53,4 46,3 Kakheti 441045 8.2 407182 9.3 92.3 22,7 20,8 608491 11.2 497530 11.4 81.8 44,5 37,5 Mtskheta-Mtianeti 133864 2.5 125443 2.9 93.7 28,4 25,6 Racha-Lechkhumi 1.1 85.3 and Kvemo Svaneti 59757 50969 1.2 21 18,8 Samegrelo-Zemo 7.9 109.7 Svaneti 424748 466100 10.1 40,2 39,3 Samtskhe- 4.3 88.1 Javakheti 235512 207598 4.7 36,6 31,6 Shida Kartli 408050 7.6 314039 7.2 77.0 42,3 36,2

All regions of Georgia, except for Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti have suffered from this process. Formally the central government retained control of about 3% of Abkhaz AR population of year 1989. Taking into account very approximate evaluation of amount of population living within formal boundaries of Abkhazia today at 180 thousand, reduction of population here is still around 2/3. Shida Kartli that formally includes South Ossetia has lost more than 1/5 of population. Taking into account approximate amount of population in its break away part – 50 thousand – this reduction is just a little bit more than 1/10. Among the other regions of Georgia not affected by the secessionist movement - 4 suffered more than 10% loss of population. Kvemo Kartli (about 18% loss) – accommodating the formerly largest industrial centre of the country – , which is now mainly defunct; Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti – mountainous region with long standing process of population dating back to 19-th century; the capital Tbilisi, probably because major part of emigration from Georgia originates here and Samtskhe-Javakheti, the region with predominance of non-Georgian population, who (especially Greeks) emigrated en mass.

4 This defines population of a small mountain community controlled by Georgian authorities within Abkhaz boundaries. 6 Ajara AR lost the least amount of population mainly because results of civil strife and the general instability during the beginning and mid 1990-s affected it the least. Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti was the only region that gained the population due only to mass influx of IDPs from neighboring Abkhazia – about 100 thousand. Without these migrants it would have lost about 16% of population. Share of urban population dropped noticeably on the country level from 55.4% in 1989 to 52.3% in 2002 as well as in every single region. Imereti, Kvemo Kartli, Samtskhe-Javakheti suffered the most. The two former again hosts to the largest industrial centers of Georgia, today suffering from a deep crisis. In case of Imereti its center – lost about 25% of population, while Rustavi – center of Shida Kartli had 26% loss. The only regional center where population increased by some 30% against of small decrease of urban population in the region, was – center Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti, which received the main part of IDPs from Abkhazia. On the other hand analysis of inter regional migrations during 2001-2002 shows that virtually all migrations within the country are directed towards the capital, almost all other regions loosing population due to out-migration Table 2.2 Inter-regional migrants within Georgia, 2000-2001 1 Origin

Racha- Lechkhumi- Samegrelo- City of Abkh az Ajara Kvemo Mtskheta- Kvemo Zemo Samtskhe- Shida Tbilisi AR AR Guria Imereti Kakheti Kartli Mtianeti i Svaneti Svaneti Javakheti Kartli Destination

City of Tbilisi x 1923 1200 2048 10208 5440 2081 1706 826 4694 804 2965 Abkhaz AR 8 x - - 3 - 2 - - 8 3 - Ajara AR 353 66 x 849 592 73 31 5 14 151 96 170 Guria 508 33 632 x 247 22 62 7 32 115 23 34 Imereti 1460 302 244 301 x 116 240 62 477 545 135 244 Kakheti 1769 46 147 48 181 x 515 93 23 71 62 133 Kvemo Kartli 2003 231 383 264 1135 1444 x 423 281 729 422 706 Mtskheta- Mtianeti 1028 37 48 60 307 161 170 x 30 112 36 259 Racha- Lechkhumi-& Kvemo Svaneti 428 10 8 7 269 5 79 2 x 18 1 16 Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti 1084 1459 134 293 595 44 97 20 21 x 22 57 Samtskhe- Javakheti 399 8 189 24 147 40 90 12 4 20 x 229 Shida Kartli 973 44 99 43 389 109 219 149 25 66 160 x

1 Excl. territories not controlled by the central government of Georgia.

Georgia is characterized by shrinking natural growth throughout the country. Birth rates have reduced drastically in all regions during 1990 – 2003, except for the capital, probably because many people outside it prefer to attend local maternities, which provide much better services than elsewhere in the country. In consequence new-borns are also registered in the capital. At the national level as well as in Ajara crude birth rate has reduced by about 40%, while in four regions it dropped by 50%, in two more regions by 60%. In two regions crude birth rate reduced by as much as 70%. In one of them Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti such outcome could be easily predicted, as a many decades of adverse demographic processes here, but the other one is Kvemo Kartli, with predominantly Muslim Azeri population and appropriate demographic behaviour, favoring high fertility. Such decline here may be partly explained again by local

7 population favoring adjacent Tbilisi as a birth place for their children, although basically this is a consequence of negative socio-economic processes that took place in Georgia since 1991. On the other hand crude death rate did not follow the suite of declining birth rate and grew less significantly, by about 10% on a country level. In two regions it even reduced slightly. Only in four regions it increased more than the country average, including the capital where this increase reached 30%. Still the combination of reducing births and growing death rate effectively nullified natural growth on the country level in 2003. Rate of natural increase dropped almost eight times during 13 years. If in 1990 only one region of Georgia was characterized by the negative natural growth, in 2003 there were already 6 such regions out of 11 under consideration. Table 2.3 Population Natural Growth Trends in 1990-2003

Crude birth rate Crude death rate Rate of natural increase 1990 2003 1990 2003 1990 2003 National total 17,1 10,7 9,3 10,6 7,8 0,1

City of Tbilisi 15,8 15,7 9,1 11,8 6,7 3,9 Ajar AR 18,3 11,0 7,2 6,5 11,1 4,5 Guria 17,0 8,2 12,6 13,5 4,4 -5,3 Imereti 16,8 9,2 10,2 11,8 6,6 -2,6 Kakheti 17,5 6,9 11,6 11,5 5,9 -4,6

Kvemo Kartli 21,3 7,2 6,8 7,0 14,5 0,2 Mtskheta- Mtianeti 18,5 7,3 11,1 11,9 7,4 -4,6 Racha- Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti 12,3 4,0 17,4 15,8 -5,1 -11,8

Samegrelo- Zemo Svaneti 15,7 7,9 10,1 10,4 5,6 -2,5 Samtskhe- Javakheti 20,0 10,4 8,3 10,4 11,7 0,0

Shida Kartli 17,5 14,6 9,4 11,9 8,1 2,7

As a consequence the share of children in total population of Georgia has reduced from 26% in 1989 to 21% in 2002. All the regions of the country, without a single exception are following the same trend. In nine regions this share has reduced within the rather narrow margin – 22 -19% of its 1989 level (country total is 20%). There are just three regions today where share of children approaches a quarter of the total population - Ajara AR, Kvemo Kartli and Samtskhe- Javakheti, while back in 1989 only two regions had this share under 25% (Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti and Imereti). Of three regions with relatively high share of children two (Ajara AR, Kvemo Kartli) are still strongly influenced by Muslim family traditions, but here of all places reduction of share of children was higher, than the national average. In the third region - Samtskhe-Javakheti, predominantly Armenian population also tends to have large families.

8

Table 2.3 Share of Child Population (under 15) in Total Population of Regions in 1989 and 2002 (%)

2002 2002 as % of 1989 1989 National total 26 21 80 City of Tbilisi 25 19 79 Ajara AR 31 24 78 Guria 25 20 80 Imereti 24 19 80 Kakheti 26 21 81 Kvemo Kartli 31 24 77 Mtskheta-Mtianeti 26 21 80

Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti 20 16 83

Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti 26 20 78 Samtskhe-Javakheti 29 24 81 Shida Kartli 26 22 83

The average size of family in Georgia in 2002 was about 3.5 persons, while about half of these families have children under 18. On the regional level there are two exceptions noticeably deviating from the average. Ajara autonomy has the largest families – at 4.1 person per family, as well as the highest share of families with children– 62.5%. At the other end of the spectrum is Racha with about 2.8 persons per family and just 30.6% of families with children. Kvemo Kartli is also characterized with larger than average families (3.7 persons) and the higher number of families with children (57.4%). Samegrelo also retained traditions of relatively large than average families (3.7 persons), but the share of families with children here is lower than the country average. In all other cases these indices are mostly below the country average or roughly correspond to it. are by far the largest ethnic group in the country, composing about 84% of country’s population. There are just two regions where demographic behaviour of the local population may be to some extent corrected by traditions and preferences of the other ethnic groups.

9 Table 2.4 Share of Georgians in Population of Regions, 2002 (%)

National total 83,8

City of Tbilisi 84,2 Ajar AR 93,4 Guria 96,9 Imereti 98,5 Kakheti 83,9 44,7 Kvemo Kartli

Mtskheta-Mtianeti 92,9

99,2 Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti 98,6 Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti

Samtskhe-Javakheti 44,7

Shida Kartli 91,8

In Kvemo Kartli region the share of Azeri – 45,1% is a little bit higher than share of Georgians. This region, adjacent to Azerbaijan is a home to about 4/5 of all Azeri living in Georgia (about 15% of these people are living in neighbouring Kakheti, where about 10% of population are Azeri). Yet despite strong Muslim traditions of family life among Azeri, Kvemo Kartli, as was mentioned above, experienced the sharpest drop in birth rate among all Georgian regions. This means that negative consequences of the post-Soviet transformations in Georgia can overweight even such strong traditions, as may be observed among Azeri. In Samtskhe-Javakheti Georgians also form the second largest ethnic group after , who constitute 54.6% of the local population. This region accommodates about 46% of all Armenians, living in the country, the rest living in Tbilisi and in Kvemo Kartli. Armenians here also tend to give preference to larger families and used to have higher natural growth rate, than all other ethnic groups in the country, except Azeri and the other Muslims. As a result this region has higher than average size of families (3.6 persons) and much higher share of families with children (55.5%). On the other hand birth rate here almost halved during 1989-2002, share of children under 15 dropped by 1/5 and the total population reduced by 12%. This again pinpoints negative socio-economic factors as main motivators of demographic behaviour of population, rather than traditions determined by the ethnicity.

3. REGIONAL ECONOMIC STRUCTURE AND CHANGE

Growth of gross regional product looks rather impressive in a space of 5 years from 1998 to 2003 for which the appropriate data is available. It for instance grew almost by 4/5 in the capital – Tbilisi. Still in absolute numbers GRP is rather small, especially if considered per capita. In majority of cases it hardly exceeds $ 1000 (at official exchange course $1 app. 1.7Georgian Lari in 2003), or is below this number. The highest GRP per capita as well as the highest GRP growth (85.5%) is characterizing for Shida Kartli region – the only region where share of industry almost doubled during 1998-2003.

10 Table 3.1 Size and Structure of Gross Regional Product 1

Gross regional GRP Share of Share of GRP Share of product (GRP), per GRP in in GRP in GEL million capita industry, % agriculture,% services, % 1998 2003 2003 1998 2003 1998 2003 1998 2003 National total 4781,7 8042,4 1839,7 City of Tbilisi 1320,5 2357,4 2179,4 13,1 15,1 1,2 0,1 85,7 84,8 Ajara AR 400,0 685,0 1821,7 8,8 9,6 27,6 22,0 63,6 68,4 Guria 160,1 270,2 1885,0 15,3 7,7 48,0 41,6 36,6 50,7 Imereti 905,4 1504,7 2150,6 14,0 14,2 34,9 28,9 51,2 56,9 Kakheti 435,3 733,1 1800,5 10,3 18,4 46,5 34,6 43,3 47,0 Kvemo Kartli 548,4 788,4 1584,6 22,4 18,1 34,4 25,6 43,3 56,3 Mtskheta- Mtianeti Racha- Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti Samegrelo- Zemo Svaneti 409,0 611,3 1311,6 8,9 6,7 39,7 31,9 51,4 61,4 Samtskhe- Javakheti 176,6 300,7 1448,7 9,2 8,0 39,3 46,3 51,5 45,7 Shida Kartli 426,5 791,5 2520,3 9,8 17,7 41,5 22,6 48,6 59,8 1 There is no appropriate information for Mtskheta-Mtianeti and Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti regions.

There are considerable differences in amount of GRP per capita. Exactly one third of regions under consideration have GRP per capita noticeably higher, than the country average – the capital (118% of average), Imereti (117%) and Shida Kartli (137%). Three other regions have GRP much less than the country average – Samegrelo (71%), Samtskhe-Javakheti (79%) and Kvemo Kartli (86%). GRP of the best performing region – Shida Kartli exceeds GRP of least one - Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti 1.9 times, fact that bespeaks huge differences in levels of regional development in Georgia. Almost universally services play decisive role in formation of GRP, their share growing. This may be justified for the capital of the country. Also service play real role in Ajara AR and to the less extent in Guria – providers of seaside rest and recreation services. In all other cases predominance of services bespeaks rather the underdevelopment, than positive structural transformations. Economy is based on some local, inefficient service sector, since there are no preconditions for revival and development of industry and especially agriculture, which traditionally formed the basis for development of the majority of Georgian regions. The only region where the share of services dropped considerably (almost by 6%) during 1998-2003 was Samtskhe-Javakheti. Here it happened on expense of considerable growth of share of agriculture, but to what extent this was the true growth or this could be caused by exceptionally good weather conditions during agricultural season of 2003 is hard to say.

11 Table 3.2 Total Capital Investments, GEL Million, by Regions

2000 2003 National total 349,0 944,4 City of Tbilisi 231,8 801,6 Ajara AR 24,5 63,4 Guria 1,1 4,4 Imereti 14,4 17,2 Kakheti 23,1 1,0 Kvemo Kartli 29,9 14,8 Mtskheta-Mtianeti 4,3 1,3 Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti 0,9 0,2 Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti 15,4 31,0 Samtskhe-Javakheti 1,3 0,4

Data on the total capital investment in Georgia shows that it is over concentrated in the capital and its share is growing. If in year 2000 Tbilisi attracted about 66% of all investments, in 2003 its share reached 85%. On one hand this reflects the actual development trend – if anything is actually happening in Georgia, it’s happening in the capital. Although large part of this investments may be going to construction of a higher class (by the local standards) dwellings for the well to do. It also may reflect the objective reality when many companies are registering the investment in the capital city, while operating throughout the country. Still the predominance of Tbilisi is too large to underestimate it. In all other regions it’s difficult to speak about a definite development trends, may be with exception of Ajara where money was invested in development of tourist industry and to a some extent into development of road infrastructure. In all other cases we are factually dealing with one-time investments, which may take place in the region one year, but are not matched by another of this kind some other time. Attractiveness of Georgian regions both for local or foreign investors is very low, thus some kind of one time investment usually suffices. Still even among less attractive regions emerge definitely two that are probably the least attractive – Samtskhe- Javakheti and Racha-Lechkhumi.

4. REGIONAL STANDARTS OF LIVING

Analysis of average per capita monthly income of population shows huge disparities among the regions as well as important change in this structure during 1997 – 2003 when the appropriate data was available. On the country level there is an important growth of share of cash-income within the total per-capita income from 36.4% in 1997 to 60.5% in 2003, or almost 1.7 times. Within the cash income, share of income from wage employment has grown from 9.6% of total income in 1997 to 21.3% in 2003, or 2.2 times. On the other hand, share of remittances from abroad as well as private transfers has grown from just 1.5% in 1997 to 13.6% in 2003 or 9 times and exceeds for instance cash income from self-employment, or even sale of agricultural products, which is very important for many local families. Dependence on the government in form of pensions, scholarships, assistances has also dropped sharply, 1.5 times and plays now very insignificant role in incomes of the local population.

12 Table 3.1. A Structure of Average Per Capita Monthly Income, 1997 (%)

Kakheti Tbilisi Shida Kvemo Sam- Ajara Guria Same- Ime- Mtsk- Total grelo Kartli Kartli tskhe- AR reti heta- Javak- Mtia- heti neti Cash income 36,4 69,1 35,0 51,9 38,7 50,3 24,8 50,5 40,2 48,3 36,4 From wage employment 9,6 35,8 10,3 16,8 13,1 21,8 8,3 10,7 11,5 17,9 9,6 From self- employment 9,3 24,9 9,5 15,0 6,9 16,9 4,9 16,5 7,7 14,3 9,3 From selling agricultural production 11,8 0,1 10,8 12,2 13,8 8,2 4,8 16,7 13,4 9,5 11,8 Property income (leasing, interest on a deposit etc.) 0,0 0,3 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,1 0,0 Pensions, scholarships assistances 4,3 4,8 3,8 4,3 3,1 2,4 6,2 4,3 5,7 4,4 4,3 Remittances from abroad 1,0 0,9 0,3 1,2 1,3 0,4 0,1 1,3 0,7 0,8 1,0 Private transfers 0,5 2,4 0,3 2,2 0,6 0,6 0,5 1,0 1,1 1,2 0,5 Non-cash income 57,3 23,8 61,3 43,9 54,0 35,8 71,3 45,1 51,8 45,0 57,3 Income, total 93,7 93,0 96,3 95,9 92,7 86,1 96,1 95,6 92,0 93,3 93,7 Other cash inflows 6,3 7,0 3,7 4,1 7,3 13,9 3,9 4,4 8,0 6,7 6,3 Property disposal 2,9 4,3 0,9 2,2 0,9 4,9 0,6 2,4 2,8 2,8 2,9 Borrowing or dissaving 3,4 2,7 2,8 2,0 6,4 9,0 3,3 2,0 5,2 3,9 3,4 Cash inflows, total 42,7 76,2 38,7 56,1 46,0 64,2 28,7 54,9 48,2 55,0 42,7 Cash and non- cash inflows, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Share of property disposal also remained unchanged during the period under consideration, but today it equals the combined support provided by the government. Share of borrowing or dissaving has also jumped sharply from 3.4% of all inflows in 1997 to 11.8% in 2003 or almost 3.5 times.

13 Table 3.1. B Structure of Average Per Capita Monthly Income, 2003 (%)

Kakheti Tbilisi Shida Kvemo Sam- Ajara Guria Same- Ime- Mtsk- Total grelo Kartli Kartli tskhe- AR reti heta- Javak- Mtia- heti neti Cash income 52,8 81,4 47,5 70,0 42,6 71,4 40,0 47,7 46,8 62,1 60,5 From wage employment 14,0 41,0 11,9 18,0 13,1 28,5 9,5 8,1 10,3 25,4 21,3 From self- employment 9,9 14,0 7,8 17,2 4,2 18,1 6,1 8,2 8,7 11,3 11,3 From selling agricultural production 19,3 0,2 16,9 20,6 15,5 10,1 11,2 13,2 12,6 11,5 10,8 Property income (leasing, interest on a deposit etc.) 0,0 1,3 0,2 0,3 0,1 1,8 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 Pensions, scholarships assistances 1,5 4,3 2,1 2,3 1,6 4,0 2,1 3,1 2,3 3,1 2,9 Remittances from abroad 1,6 9,4 2,6 9,9 5,5 5,0 1,9 9,0 5,7 4,8 6,5 Private transfers 6,4 11,2 6,1 1,8 2,7 3,9 9,1 6,2 6,9 5,5 7,1 Non-cash income 29,6 3,0 36,7 22,3 32,0 15,9 45,3 41,3 38,3 24,7 24,8 Income, total 82,3 84,4 84,2 92,3 74,6 87,3 85,3 89,1 85,1 86,8 85,3 Other cash inflows 17,7 15,6 15,8 7,7 25,4 12,7 14,7 10,9 14,9 13,2 14,7 Property disposal 2,9 2,4 0,3 0,9 5,3 4,6 0,9 0,5 5,5 2,8 2,9 Borrowing or dissaving 14,7 13,1 15,5 6,8 20,0 8,1 13,8 10,5 9,3 10,5 11,8 Cash inflows, total 70,4 97,0 63,3 77,7 68,0 84,1 54,7 58,7 61,7 75,3 75,2 Cash and non- cash inflows, total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

On the other hand, despite the noticeable growth of share of wage employment during 1997- 2003 it still remains very low. Only in the capital about 2/5 of population derives incomes from this kind of employment, in Ajara its share is about 29% and about 25% in Mtskheta-Mtianeti region. In two cases – Guria and Samegrelo this share is less than 10%, closely followed by Imereti at about 10%. In 6 regions of Georgia incomes derived from sale of agriculture produce play more important role in incomes of individuals than incomes provided by wage employment. Even more – in such regions of Western Georgia as already mentioned Guria, Samegrelo and Imereti incomes from remittances from abroad and private transfers exceed or equal incomes provided by sale of agricultural produce, to say nothing about wage incomes. In Samtskhe- Javakheti such incomes as derived from property disposal and especially borrowing and dissaving provide about a quarter of all individual income, while in most parts of Western Georgia again these kind of incomes exceed or approach sale of agricultural produce. In general all this means that the major part of individuals, especially outside the capital and to some extent Ajara are deriving their incomes mainly from either non-wage or non-productive incomes, these heavily depending on previous savings, or success of relatives who emigrated from Georgia. Consecutively this pinpoints high vulnerability of local population and absence of guarantees of

14 stable livelihood as a result of underdevelopment of the local economy and unfinished market reforms.

Table 3.2 Some Indicators of the Local Standards of Living, 1997 – 2003

Unemployment Per capita Average Poverty rate Share of rate % income, GEL wage, GEL % household per month per month expenditures on food % 1998 2003 1997 2003 1998 2003 1997 2003 1998 2003 National total 14,5 11,5 49,5 75,7 55,4 125,9 46,2 54,5 67,2 55,1 City of Tbilisi 31,1 26,1 42,3 82,4 72,0 174,4 44,4 44,9 63 46,5 Ajar AR 8,3 12,1 54,5 66,6 48,9 116,3 34,9 67,1 62 52,3 Guria 6,8 3,8 43 76,8 32,6 73,0 61,3 48,1 77,5 61,2 Imereti 15,1 7,8 45,2 91,8 41,0 94,7 61,1 42,8 72,7 61,5 Kakheti 6 5,8 51,2 72,7 33,3 74,8 48,9 66,9 72,2 55,7 Kvemo Kartli 9,1 6,9 48,8 57,5 55,7 131,2 44 72,4 63,4 61,5 Mtskheta- Mtianeti ... 14,8 ... 62,5 55,0 90,7 ... 61,1 ... 57 Racha- Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti 1 ...... 37,3 84,1 ...... Samegrelo- Zemo Svaneti 6,6 6,2 57,6 63,2 33,5 101,1 34,3 57,9 66,6 59,3 Samtskhe- Javakheti 5,3 4,2 63,4 73,1 37,3 83,4 40 58,1 65,3 53,7 Shida Kartli 9,7 9,3 59,5 82,4 33,4 85,0 39,4 55,5 73,2 57

1 Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti is usually considered as part of Imereti

Data referring to an unemployment rate changes during 1998-2003 defines trend of its reduction throughout the country with the exception of Ajara AR, where it jumped by almost ¼. On the other hand this data can hardly be reliable since it shows very high rate of unemployment in the capital, which is to some extent at least determined by the better registration, while it provides very low rates for the least developed for today regions of Western Georgia. As usual here we deal with a rather standard case of underemployment of countryside population. According to the local standards anyone who possesses a minimum plot of land allowed by the law (i.e. the vast majority of countryside and small town population) is automatically considered employed. Thus very low unemployment rates contradicting the actual situation. Per capita income both in 1997 as well as in 2003 was lagging behind the official minimum subsistence level. Although this difference has somehow reduced from 46.3% of 106.9 Lari in 1997 to 57.8% of 130.7 Lari in 2003 on the country level, it still remains large. Even in the capital where per capita incomes almost doubled during this period they still constitute less than

15 2/3 of the official subsistence level for Tbilisi. Regional differences in per capita incomes are also rather impressive. For instance Imereti with the highest registered income exceeds income of Kvemo Kartli 1.6 times. For the majority of regions this income is less than 2/3 of official subsistence level. Poverty level in Georgia has also grown considerably since 1997, probably mostly as a result of 1998 economic crisis and remains higher than half of the total at 54.5% of population being considered poor. Relatively low and stable level of poverty is observed in the capital at about 45%. In majority of other cases poverty level grew, sometimes in excess of 150% of 1997 level. This growth was especially high in Ajara at 186%. Poverty level in regions was usually much higher than the country average, with exception of already mentioned capital, and rather unexpectedly Imereti, where it dropped 1.4 times since 1997 and Guria with 1.3 times drop. On the other hand analysis of share of household expenditures on food shows some definite improvements in population way of life. This share dropped significantly on the country level as well as in every single region of Georgia, which is a definite progress, although it remains very high by standards of the more developed countries. If in 1997 population of 2/3 of all regions was spending more or about 2/3 of its income on food, in 2003 seven regions spent on food less than 60% of total household expenditure, while households in capital were spending less than half. Regional differences outside the capital of this index also reduced somehow. If in 1997 difference between the highest and the lowest share was 1.24, in 2003 this reduced to 1.18. Still all trends analyzed above are still rather inconsistent and to some extent may reflect presence of incidental factor (one time relatively large investment for instance), rather than a stable, established development trends. Formally almost all Georgian households have access to electricity supply, while in reality blackouts are the norm of daily life. Stable supply of electricity is not guaranteed even in the capital and outside it its absence is for many years acting as a main factor restricting local development end undermining any attempts to improve quality of life. Very low level of access

Table 3.3 Percent of Households with Amenities, 2002

Natural and liquefied Piped Bath or Electricity gas water Sewage shower National total 97,8 46,0 58,1 45,6 29,0 City of Tbilisi 96,4 68,1 94,3 91,8 64,8 Ajara AR 96,9 64,4 73,2 47,8 35,0 Guria 98,0 14,4 29,9 13,7 10,4 Imereti 98,7 32,2 55,7 41,7 21,1 Kakheti 97,5 32,8 30,1 12,6 8,6 Kvemo Kartli 98,6 57,1 56,1 41,8 20,2 Mtskheta-Mtianeti 98,5 22,4 32,5 22,8 12,4 Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti 99,4 6,7 27,8 11,0 10,4 Samegrelo-Zemo Svaneti 98,6 19,8 36,6 20,5 15,1 Samtskhe-Javakheti 98,9 69,5 47,5 28,7 15,0 Shida Kartli 97,3 40,9 37,8 27,7 13,1

Natural or liquefied gas supply coupled with deficit of electricity, besides negatively affecting population, leads to increasing pressure on the natural environment (deforestation). Access to drinking water is also posing serious problems. Although formally 46% of the local population has access to piped water, only 35% of total has access to safe water supply. This problem is farther exaggerated by fact that sewage systems are scarce and even existing are in a bad shape 16 and need rehabilitation, sewage water treatment is almost non-existent. Following the most elementary rules of a personal hygiene is therefore problematic for the majority of local populace. There are rather impressive regional differences in crime rates. For instance crime level in the capital in 50 per 10 000 population in 2003 exceeded the lowest in the country – in Kvemo Kartli 2.3 times. In Tbilisi it grew 1.4 times during 1990-2003, while in Kvemo Kartli on the contrary it reduced. Still there are problems with consistency of these data, since it deals with registered crime, which may in some describe something close to the actual trend, in others deviate far from it, depending, how it is treated locally. The same consideration may be applied to data describing regional differences of various cultural amenities especially such as theatres, libraries, museums. While in Tbilisi system providing services in cultural sphere has already undergone restructurisation, which in majority of cases led to reduction of number of amenities at hand, in other regions the remains of the old Soviet system still persist, even if formally. There are for instance almost 6 times more libraries formally registered in Imereti, than in Tbilisi, which does not mean that in reality they can perform their function properly, if at all.

5. EDUCATION

Whatever the deficiencies of the Soviet type educational system it at least was aimed at maximization of school and teachers’ number, equal coverage of territory with educational institutions and provision of easy access for all children to schools. Such system created in Georgia still persists, despite all negative processes that took place in the country since 1991. Pre-school education was never popular in Georgia, parents, even in the capital, usually giving preference to taking care of children at home. Although regional differences in pre-school enrolment were rather impressive even back in 1989. While average national enrolment level was at 38%, some predominantly Georgian regions like Kakheti, Racha or Samegrelo were sending more than a half of their children to kindergartens. On the other hand, in regions with predominantly non-Georgian population (Samtskhe-Javakheti, Kvemo Kartli ) or with strong Muslim family traditions, like Ajara, only about a quarter or less of children attended pre-school institutions. Pre-school attendance rate dropped sharply both on the national level (to 23%) as well as in every region. Only in three cases enrolment was close to 1/3 of total pre-school population, in 5 cases it was below 20%, while in Samtskhe-Javakheti less than 10 children per 100 attended kindergarten. Number of schools naturally reduced somehow, from 3663 in 1989 to 3305 in 2002. 5 Although this was less than reduction of number of students in these schools during the same period of time. There were 1 008 thousand students enrolled in schools in 1989, while by 2002 their number reduced to 686299, or almost by ½. Unfortunately there is no appropriate data to analyze this trend on the regional level, but one may presume that it was rather uniform across the country. Gross school enrolment rate have reduced significantly as compared with 1989 when it exceeded 72%, but still remains rather high at 63% countrywide. This relatively high reduction happened mainly due to even higher reduction of students’ enrollment into the higher secondary school level (grades 10-11), a trend which started well back in 1980-s. On the lower level, in grades 1-9 enrollment usually exceeds 85%, being close to 95% or more at the primary school level. Still reducing overall enrollment suggests that there should be a large amount of children not attending the school. The only number available to this respect suggests that there might be 44352 dropouts in 2002 in the country, but accuracy of this figure is quite doubtful.

5 Although there is formal difference between primary and secondary schools in Georgia, usually the former are incorporated into the later and only very small number of primary schools, mainly in very small villages exist as independent entities. 17 Table 4.1 Some Basic Characteristics of School Education by Regions, 2002

Pre- Gross Number Expenses school school of per insti- Gross enrolment child- student tutions pre- (%) 2 Teac- ren (Lari) school Students cher/ in enrolment per student institu (%) 1 school Schools Teachers ratio tions National total 1213 23 208 63 3305 73415 9,4 8155 119 City of Tbilisi 194 34 594 67 281 13941 12,0 2381 105 Ajar AR 44 12 164 63 412 7577 8,9 558 147 Guria 40 13 136 64 156 2650 8,0 308 143 Imereti 224 26 190 64 549 12027 8,7 1197 121 Kakheti 212 33 228 60 265 6859 8,8 779 99 Kvemo Kartli 107 17 231 58 356 7994 10,3 639 114 Mtskheta- Mtianeti 61 22 98 63 196 2607 7,4 581 150 Racha- Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti 34 32 53 63 115 1354 4,5 18 276 Samegrelo- Zemo Svaneti 147 18 153 57 418 7604 8,4 909 131 Samtskhe- Javakheti 34 9 143 64 254 4590 7,9 313 160 Shida Kartli 99 19 199 66 264 5509 9,5 490 83

1 Number of children attending pre-school institutions related to all children under age 6 2 Number of children attending schools related to all children of age 6-17

The only region that retained the school enrolment even a little bit higher than in 1989 is Tbilisi with enrolment at 67% in 2002. In all other regions enrollment dropped at least 1.2-1.3 times, in some regions very significantly. At least in 1989 there was no region (except the capital) with school enrollment rate less than 70%. Today the highest enrolment rate outside the capital is 66% in Shida Kartli. In Samegrelo this rate dropped from 80% to 57% in 2002 – from the highest to the lowest in the country, probably due to influx of IDPs. Enrolment rate also dropped from 76 to 58% in Kvemo Kartli mainly because less girls from Azeri families attend school and there are no working mechanisms (administrative or public) any more to reverse this trend. One of the most significant features of Georgian educational system is that it tends to have many small schools and very low student/teacher ratio. Only in the capital there are relatively large school with an average size of 594 students per school and 12 students per one teacher. Only in two regions (Kakheti and Kvemo Kartli) there are more than 200 students per school, with one more region (Shida Kartli) approaching this number. In predominantly mountainous regions both size of schools as well as student/teacher ratio are ridiculously low. In Mtskheta- Mtianeti these are 98 and 7.4 correspondingly, while in Racha-Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti just 53 and 4.5! In the absence of per student financial allocation standards this situation transpires itself into redistribution of funds earmarked for school system in a way that partly punishes the better organized regional subsystems, partly is simply incomprehensible. For instance Racha-

18 Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti region with the smallest schools and the lowest student/teacher ratio in the country had the highest per student financial allocations exceeding country average 2.3 times. On the other end of spectrum region of Shida Kartli received just 83 Lari per student, just 70% of country average and 3.3 less than in Racha. Almost the same consideration might be applied to Kakheti region too. The capital with obviously the best school system in the country receives the third smallest per student financial allocation. Number of children in institutions dropped from 17907 in 1990 to 8155 in 2003 countrywide, or 2.2 times. Although this does not necessarily mean that there are less children in need of institutional care today than before, but rather that contracting system can not take of as much children as before. Almost 30% of children are concentrated in Tbilisi, followed by Imereti and Samegrelo regions but this again reflects availability of institutions there rather than actual need in such institutions by regions.

6. HEALTH CARE

Unlike the education there is almost no data to characterize regional differences overall and children health, as well as other indices on health-care services. Also these data that are available to large extent reflects results of deregulation of the state health-care system, rather than the actual situation.

Table 6.1 Some Select Health-Care Indicators by Regions, 2003

Infant Number Doctors Number Pediatri- Number Hospital Number Pedi- mortality of per of tians per of beds per of pedi- atric rate doctors 100000 pediatri- 100000 hospital 100000 atric beds population tians children beds population beds per 100000 popul. National total 24,8 20988 480 1867 203 18183 416 3039 332 City of Tbilisi 37,7 11608 1073 752 360 8609 796 1455 691 Ajara AR 33,5 1345 358 136 150 1648 438 242 268 Guria 25,8 383 267 42 140 350 244 87 308 Imereti 24,3 2302 329 262 190 2336 334 425 313 Kakheti 10,8 1311 322 173 200 775 190 163 192 Kvemo Kartli 7,8 1198 241 148 120 1079 217 173 143 Mtskheta- Mtianeti 4,4 346 276 40 150 181 144 30 116 Racha- Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti 9,9 196 385 17 200 260 510 27 323 Samegrelo- Zemo Svaneti 11,0 752 161 89 96 1247 268 212 228 Samtskhe- Javakheti 19.6 406 196 46 94 663 320 85 173 Shida Kartli 9.5 806 257 121 177 985 310 140 204

Infant mortality rate has increased by almost 1/5 during 1990-2003 in line with declining level of life, rising poverty and general decline of the national health-care system. Still as in many

19 other cases distribution of infant mortality by regions may to a large extent reflect registration, rather than the actual trend. Maternal mortality rate per 100 000 live births also increased from 46.7 in 1990 to 52.2 in 2003. On the other hand number of deaths under age five almost halved from 2304 to 1275 as well as deaths of 5-19 year old males from accidents, poisoning and violence from 206 to 49 during 1990-2003. 6 Immunization against DTP increased from 41% in 1990 to 91% of children of appropriate age mainly thanks to activities of international donors, namely UNICEF. Despite sharp decline of population and prolonged economic and social hardships Georgia retained major part of doctors employed in the health-care system. As a result number of doctors per 100 000 population remains very high at 480in 2003 versus 497 in 1990. Naturally this number is the highest in Tbilisi with high concentration of leading specialized clinics in the country. On the other end of the spectrum is Samegrelo with 161 doctors per 100 000 population, or about one third of country average. This region also suffered the largest drop in amount of doctors from 1371 in 1990 to 752 in 2003 or by some 55%. The next largest drop was registered in Imereti – by 22%. Number of pediatricians per 100 000 children is much less, than the corresponding amount of doctors, but still rather high at 203 on a country level in 2003. Unlike the corresponding index for doctors it is more evenly distributed among regions outside the capital. Here too the least number of pediatricians comes to Samegrelo region 96 or just 47% of country average. Still in the post health-care reform Georgia these indices do not directly correspond to availability and especially less to quality of a health-care. They just indicate what amount of doctors managed to retain their formal positions during factual decommissioning of a state health-care system. The same consideration may be applied to number of general hospital or pediatric beds too. This part of health-care system suffered the most during the health-care reform and general decline of the system. Number of hospital beds dropped from 53 thousand in 1990 to just 18 thousand in 2003 or almost three times. Still per 100 000 population their number is rather high at 416 countrywide, while number of pediatric beds is 332. In both cases there are quite large regional differences, but as in the case of doctors, formal presence of beds does not mean that they are readily available in time of need or hospitals are able to provide the minimum level of comfort.

7. GOVERNMENT FINANCE

According to Georgian law, budgets of local governing and self-governing territorial units on the level of districts and lower are absolutely independent and no one save the appropriate locally elected councils can intervene into their development and execution processes and control them. Thus local budget data, especially consolidated on regional level is not readily available. In this report data of year 2001 are used.

6 For women this numbers are 52 and 19. 20

Table 7.1 Some Select Indices of Regional Finances, 2001

Incomes Transfers Expendi- Expendi- Education Transfer as Per capita Thousand as % tures tures on transfer % of local Lari income Thousand education as education budget Lari as % % of all expenditures expenditures total transfers Lari National 27.1 78.3 28.2 total 413764 9,6 409950 94 City of 155105 -- 154760 19.6 -- Tbilisi 143 Ajara AR 112085 1.5 111782 13.4 -- 297 Guria 6397 42.4 6317 54.4 86.9 68.6 44 Imereti 32572 24.7 31987 49.8 91.7 46.4 46 Kakheti 16646 23.9 16379 47.2 49.9 49.9 40 Kvemo 45.1 82.5 10.9 Kartli 25484 5,8 24849 50 Mtskheta- 40.0 88.3 42.0 Mtianeti 9266 18,5 9017 72 Racha- 52.2 74.4 82.0 Lechkhumi and Kvemo Svaneti 4072 56,5 3997 78 Samegrelo- 49.1 94.9 53.8 Zemo Svaneti 21389 27,4 21084 45 Shida 51.2 93.9 48.7 Kartli 10833 25,8 10636 51 Samtskhe- 59.0 97.3 63.5 Javakheti 10174 34,6 9971 32

Data available to us clearly shows that the total sum of local budgets of Georgia is mostly covered by the two largest local budgets – Tbilisi and Ajara AR accounting for 64.5% of local incomes and 65% of expenditures. All other budgets are much smaller and besides simply very insignificant in absolute numbers sometimes being just $ 2-3 million large. Thus per capita allocations available for these budgets are also tiny and can not provide efficient support for local government programs. With the absence of Tbilisi and Ajara all other local budgets were able to spend some $ 20-25 on average, in case of Samtskhe-Javakheti even less. Again only one region that year could muster independently sums necessary to run its own budget – the capital. All other regions needed central budget transfers to run their budgets, although in case of Ajara this support was rather insignificant.7 The country average share of the central budget transfers was at rather low 9.6%, but only one other local budget besides Tbilisi and Ajara managed to keep this share low – Kvemo Kartli at 5.8%. Factually the share of central budget transfers indicates the state of local economy – the less is transfer, the healthier is the economy. From this point of view Racha, Guria and Samtskhe-Javakheti were the worst performers. Another interesting feature of local budgets is that again save for Tbilisi and Ajara education is the single largest expenditure item. The lowest share of education in the local expenditures was in Mtskheta-Mtianeti at 2/5 of the total. In all other cases it was approaching or exceeding half of expenditures. Such importance given to education is definitely politically motivated

7 Ajara usually managed to run its own budget without central budget support, but for many years managed to withhold all payments it was formally due for the central budget. 21 (although such policy is not formalized and even less publicly acknowledged) – education (especially school education) is actually the last social system that performs its functions without serious disruptions and is still in a working condition. Its preservation is of an utmost importance, especially considering that school often is the last anchor that keeps population of many rural settlements from migrating. There is a direct correlation between functioning school and live village throughout Georgia. This thesis is strongly supported by the fact that almost all central budget transfers are earmarked for education, its share in majority of cases approaching or exceeding 90%. Still even despite this the actual education allocations are insignificant, usually some $ 50-70 per student per year (Table 4.1). Under such circumstances all other local social systems, including health- care, are simply starving and simply trying to survive, with all ensuing consequences for anyone who has to use their services.

22