Pdf | 230.21 Kb

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Pdf | 230.21 Kb IDP Bulletin IDP Bulletin Issue 1 October, 2002 Contents: Introductory Note Introductory note The Office for the Coordination of Global Overview of Internal Displacement Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Georgia Internal Displacement in Georgia would like to present the first issue of IDP Worldwide Programs for IDPs: Bulletin. ∗ Few Options for Madurese IDPs in West Kalimantan Considering the fact that at present most international organizations are downsizing their activities aimed at Programs for IDPs in Georgia: supporting internally displaced persons in Georgia, OCHA- ∗ New Approach to IDP Assistance Initiative; Georgia Georgia has decided to enhance its advocacy and analysis role Self-Reliance Fund (GSRF) related to IDP issues and assistance programming. ∗ IDP Rehabilitation Association “Dioscuria” The IDP Bulletin will include social, education, gender, ∗ Non-governmental organization “Ordu” legal, political updates pertaining to the displaced population in Georgia. The Bulletin will describe different programs and Legal Protection of the Vulnerable: the Case of Older IDPs projects targeting IDPs in Georgia as well as worldwide. The Brief Summary of Working Groups’ Meetings Bulletin will be issued quarterly. IDP Statistics We, as OCHA team responsible for the preparation of Useful Links the given publication, would appreciate to receive Your feedback, comments and suggestions to improve and refine the IDP Bulletin. Global Overview of Internal Displacement Internally displaced persons (IDPs) are persons “who have been forced or obliged to flee or leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized state border” (Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement) The global number of IDPs due solely to conflict is estimated to range between 20 and 25 million, dwarfing the estimated 14 million refugees in the world. While the rights of refugees and the obligations of states to assist them are clearly outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and related protocols, no such international agreements exist for the internally displaced. Nor is there a dedicated agency to respond to their needs for protection and humanitarian assistance as there is in the case of refugees. The result can often be the neglect of the needs of a huge population of suffering people by the international community. People who have been forced to leave their homes because of conflict are put in an extremely vulnerable situation. It is not 1 IDP Bulletin Global Overview of Internal Displacement possible to establish the exact figure, but available information shows that a large share of the world's IDPs do not find shelter in organized camps or protected areas. Many displaced are unable to leave the ongoing conflict areas and are constantly on the run. In 90 percent of the countries surveyed, IDPs were subject to direct physical attacks or threats, and that sexual assaults on women occurred in about half of the countries. IDPs in about one-third of the countries reportedly were subjected to forced labour. A study by the US General Accounting Office showed that the international response towards internal displacement is most often focused on the delivery of humanitarian assistance as a life saving measure during the initial stage of displacement, while longer-term displacement situations were given less attention. This is especially true in ‘protracted’ and ‘frozen’ conflicts. In 2001 the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), which consists of representatives of the major UN humanitarian actors and the international NGO community, created a "Senior Inter-Agency Network on Internal Displacement". The 'Senior Network' consists of focal points from the various agencies involved in internal displacement and is chaired by a 'Special Coordinator on Internal Displacement'. The Network was mandated to assess the humanitarian response at the local level, and provide recommendations for improvement. In 1992, the General Assembly addressed the problem of internal displacement and Dr. Francis M. Deng was appointed as the Representative of the Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons. The IASC designated the Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC), the Head of OCHA, as the "reference point" for the UN response towards IDPs in 1994. Three years later, the UN Secretary General assigned additional responsibility to the ERC to ensure that the "protection and assistance" needs of IDPs were properly addressed. The lack of a binding legal framework explicitly addressing the issue of IDP protection, similar to the 1951 Refugee Convention, has in the past often been cited as a reason for the inadequate response. In 1998, at the request of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly, Francis Deng in cooperation with legal experts developed and issued the "Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement". The Guiding Principles have not been signed or ratified by States and are therefore not considered binding international law. However, they restate and reflect international conventions in the fields of Human Rights Law, Humanitarian Law and Refugee Law that are applicable or appropriate for IDP protection and assistance. Another preliminary outcome of the international debate on the UN responsibilities towards IDPs was the establishment in 2001 of a small Internal Displacement Unit within the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Geneva. The Unit is staffed with personnel seconded from the major humanitarian UN agencies and the NGO community and is tasked with providing expertise, training and guidance to humanitarian agencies working in IDP crises. Internal Displacement in Georgia The collapse of communism and the rise of ethnic strife plunged the southern fringes of the former Soviet Union into turmoil in the early 1990s, particularly in the Caucasus where some 1.5 million people were forced from their homes in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Although there was sporadic media coverage of the fighting, the world was largely unaware of the human suffering that followed for hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) in all three republics. However, the refugees and displaced peoples were not the only ones hurt by this turmoil. Infrastructure collapsed, and, in many areas of the Caucasus, fuel and power supplies were sporadic or non-existent. Trade and industry ground to a halt, leaving hundreds of thousands of families without jobs or income. Inflation skyrocketed and shortages were frequent. People were hungry, and the lines for government-subsidized bread grew longer by the day. At least 350,000 people were displaced by ethnic conflicts on two fronts in Georgia, a country of 2 IDP Bulletin Internal Displacement in Georgia 5.5 million people that was once one of the most prosperous of the Soviet republics. The first conflict began in November 1989 between the government and separatists in South Ossetia. The second - and largest - conflict erupted in August 1992 between the central government and separatists in Abkhazia. The displacements occurred in several successive waves. Up to 350,000 of Abkhazia's estimated population of 540,000 fled the region between August 1992 and October 19931. Most of them, about 270,000 people, went to other areas of Georgia, while the remainder fled to the Russian Federation, Armenia, Greece, Turkey and other countries. The majority of those fleeing were Georgians, who comprised 47 per cent of the population of Abkhazia before the fighting - the largest single ethnic group. Ethnic Abkhaz constituted only about 18 per cent of the pre-war population, but today control Abkhazia. Other sizeable ethnic groups included Armenians (18 per cent) and Russians (about 13 per cent) with smaller numbers of Greeks, Ukrainians and others. In South Ossetia, about 16,000 people fled to other parts of Georgia, while another 10,000 went to the neighbouring North Ossetia region of the Russian Federation. In addition, at least 20,000 people have been displaced within South Ossetia itself. The fighting also affected some 100,000 Ossetians living in Georgia proper. South Ossetian authorities estimate that as many as 60,000 Ossets fled Georgia, most of them to Russia. Of the more than 250,000 displaced people in Georgia, approximately 70 per cent lived with host families, many of whom found it increasingly difficult to support the IDPs. The rest were housed in schools, hotels, sanatoria, hospitals and other public buildings and remain there today. Even now, after more than 10 years of displacement, very few opportunities exist for the regular employment of IDPs: many of the displaced engage in petty trade or unskilled manual labor. Jobs are more difficult for those IDPs housed in collective centers located in more isolated areas. IDPs often lack access to land to cultivate. Many children do not attend school because of the lack of money in the families. The effect of this influx on local populations, already reeling from severe economic pressures resulting from the Soviet collapse, was dramatic. The state social security network, which formerly provided assistance to some 1.5 million people, virtually collapsed. It has yet to recover. IDPs are entitled to receive 14 GEL monthly (namely, IDPs residing in collective centers receive monthly allowance of 12 GEL, while those living in private accommodation receive 14 GEL). However, these payments are often several months in arrears causing frequent IDP discontent and protest. UNHCR, the Russian Federation, Georgia and Abkhaz authorities signed a Quadripartite Agreement on 4 April 1994 paving the way for the return of refugees and displaced people to their homes in Abkhazia. The parties agreed that the return should begin in Gali District of Abkhazia, where the overall level of damage was much less and the security situation better than in most other parts of the war- ravaged region. An estimated 80,000 people - most of them Georgians - had fled Gali District for other parts of Georgia.
Recommended publications
  • Georgia/Abkhazia
    HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH ARMS PROJECT HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/HELSINKI March 1995 Vol. 7, No. 7 GEORGIA/ABKHAZIA: VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR AND RUSSIA'S ROLE IN THE CONFLICT CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................5 EVOLUTION OF THE WAR.......................................................................................................................................6 The Role of the Russian Federation in the Conflict.........................................................................................7 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................................................8 To the Government of the Republic of Georgia ..............................................................................................8 To the Commanders of the Abkhaz Forces .....................................................................................................8 To the Government of the Russian Federation................................................................................................8 To the Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus...........................................................................9 To the United Nations .....................................................................................................................................9 To the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe..........................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Russian Way of War Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia
    Analyzing the Russian Way of War Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia Lionel Beehner A Contemporary Battlefield Assessment Liam Collins by the Modern War Institute Steve Ferenzi Robert Person Aaron Brantly March 20, 2018 Analyzing the Russian Way of War: Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Chapter I – History of Bad Blood ................................................................................................................ 13 Rose-Colored Glasses .............................................................................................................................. 16 Chapter II – Russian Grand Strategy in Context of the 2008 Russia-Georgia War ................................... 21 Russia’s Ends ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Russia’s Means ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Russia’s Ways .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Abkhazia: Living with Insecurity
    5 Abkhazia: Living with insecurity Maxim Gvindzhiya Destroyed building in Sukhum(i) PHOTO: ANNA MATVEEVA Summary When conflict with Georgian forces broke out in August 1992, many Abkhaz were armed only with hunting rifles, though more advanced weapons were soon acquired from Russian troops, either by negotiation or unilateral seizure. The SALW used were mostly of Soviet/Russian origin. Since the conflict ended in 1993, SALW have remained widespread. The local population still feels insecure, and in such circumstances, people are reluctant to hand in their weapons. Tension is particularly high in the Gal(i) region, which lies on the de facto Abkhaz border that forms a ceasefire line with Georgia proper. The government of the unrecognised Republic of Abkhazia has had some success in regulating SALW proliferation. Legal arms sales are better controlled, and the MOI keeps a register of all individuals who possess arms. Legislation has been passed on the possession and trafficking of firearms. However, whenever tension escalates at the border, guns again become more visible in society. 2 THE CAUCASUS: ARMED AND DIVIDED · ABKHAZIA Traditional gun A close affinity with guns and pastoral gun possession, especially in the mountain culture areas, is rooted in the cultural traditions of the Abkhaz. In the past, an Abkhaz man typically provided his family with food by hunting, fishing or farming and these trad- itions remain strong. Today, coupled with the impact of the war, the Abkhaz attitude to weapons is still largely governed by tradition. Traditional Abkhaz culture stresses the importance of firearms in society, and these ideas are instilled in the Abkhaz from birth.
    [Show full text]
  • Abkhazia: Deepening Dependence
    ABKHAZIA: DEEPENING DEPENDENCE Europe Report N°202 – 26 February 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. RECOGNITION’S TANGIBLE EFFECTS ................................................................... 2 A. RUSSIA’S POST-2008 WAR MILITARY BUILD-UP IN ABKHAZIA ...................................................3 B. ECONOMIC ASPECTS ....................................................................................................................5 1. Dependence on Russian financial aid and investment .................................................................5 2. Tourism potential.........................................................................................................................6 3. The 2014 Sochi Olympics............................................................................................................7 III. LIFE IN ABKHAZIA........................................................................................................ 8 A. POPULATION AND CITIZENS .........................................................................................................8 B. THE 2009 PRESIDENTIAL POLL ..................................................................................................10 C. EXTERNAL RELATIONS ..............................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Viacheslav A. Chirikba: Abkhaz
    Abkhaz is one of the three languages comprising the Abkhazo­ Adyghean, or West Caucasian branch of North Caucasian linguistic bkhaz family (the other branch being Nakh-Daghestanian, or East Caucasian). Abkhaz is spoken by approximately 100,000 people in the former Soviet Union (mainly in the Republic of Abkhazia, Caucasus), and by at least the same number of speakers in Turkey and some Middle east countries (small Abkhaz colonies can be found also In Western Europe and the USA). Abkhaz is notorious for ist huge consonantal inventory (up to 67 consonants in the Bzyp dialect) and by its minmal vocalic system: only 2 vowels. Though Abkhaz was studied by a number of scholars (e.g. P. Uslar in XIX century, or K. Lomtatidze Viacheslav A. Chirikba in Georgia and G Hewitt in Great Britain), many aspects of Abkhaz grammar (especially its syntax) still have to be adequately described. Abkhaz is the only West Caucasian language to possess the category of grammatical classes, manifested in personal pronouns, verb conjugation, numerals and in the category of number. Abkhaz is an ergative language, the ergative construction being represented not by case endings, as in related Circasslan and Ubykh (Abkhaz does not have a case system), but by the order of actant markers. The verbal root consists usually of one consonant, preceded by a string of prefixes (class-personal, directional, temporal, negational, causatival, etc.) and followed by few suffixes. Verbs can be stative or dynamic, finite or non-finite. The grammatical sketch of Abkhaz includes Information about its phonological system, morphology, and syntax. A short text Is provided with grammatical comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Diplopoda) from Caves in Crimea and the Caucasus
    Invertebrate Zoology, 2021, 18(2): 85–94 © INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY, 2021 New records of millipedes (Diplopoda) from caves in Crimea and the Caucasus Sergei I. Golovatch1, Ilya S. Turbanov2,3, Sergei A. Kapralov4, Polina V. Somchenko5, Anastasya A. Turbanova1,2 1 Institute for Problems of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky pr. 33, Moscow 119071 Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 2 I.D. Papanin Institute of the Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok, Yaroslavl Region, 152742 Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 3 Cherepovets State University, Cherepovets, Vologda Region, 162600 Russia. 4 K. Minin Nizhny Novgorod State Pedagogical University, Nizhny Novgorod, 603000 Russia. E- mail: [email protected] 5 Russian Geographical Society, Krasnodar regional branch, Krasnodar, 350033 Russia. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT. The results of a taxonomic treatment of Diplopoda collected recently in caves of Crimea and the Caucasus are presented. They concern at least 21 species from nine families and five orders. New faunistic information is provided, allowing for the distribution of a number of millipede species to be considerably refined. Problems of their ecological classification in relation to cavernicoly are discussed. How to site this article: Golovatch S.I., Turbanov I.S., Kapralov S.A., Somchenko P.V., Turbanova A.A. 2021. New records of millipedes (Diplopoda) from caves in Crimea and the Caucasus // Invert. Zool. Vol.18. No.2. P.85–94. doi: 10.15298/invertzool.18.2.03 KEY WORDS: Myriapoda, cave fauna, trogloxene, eutroglophiles, subtroglophiles, tro- globiont, Russia, Abkhazia. Новые находки двупарноногих многоножек (Diplopoda) в пещерах Крыма и Кавказа С.И.
    [Show full text]
  • GEORGIA Second Edition March 2010
    WHO DOES WHAT WHERE IN DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN GEORGIA Second edition March 2010 Georgian National Committee of Disaster Risk Reduction & Environment Sustainable Development FOREWORD Georgia is a highly disaster-prone country, which frequently experiences natural hazards (e.g. earthquakes, floods, landslides, mudflows, avalanches, and drought) as well as man-made emergencies (e.g. industrial accidents and traffic accidents). Compounding factors such as demographic change, unplanned urbanization, poorly maintained infrastructure, lax enforcement of safety standards, socio-economic inequities, epidemics, environmental degradation and climate variability amplify the frequency and intensity of disasters and call for a proactive and multi-hazard approach. Disaster risk reduction is a cross-cutting and complex development issue. It requires political and legal commitment, public understanding, scientific knowledge, careful development planning, responsible enforcement of policies and legislation, people-centred early warning systems, and effective disaster preparedness and response mechanisms. Close collaboration of policy-makers, scientists, urban planners, engineers, architects, development workers and civil society representatives is a precondition for adopting a comprehensive approach and inventing adequate solutions. Multi-stakeholder and inter-agency platforms can help provide and mobilize knowledge, skills and resources required for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction into development policies, for coordination of planning and programmes,
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of War Prospects for Peace
    Georgian Orthodox Church Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung CAUSES OF WAR PROS P E C TS FOR PEA C E Tbilisi, 2009 1 On December 2-3, 2008 the Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung held a scientific conference on the theme: Causes of War - Prospects for Peace. The main purpose of the conference was to show the essence of the existing conflicts in Georgia and to prepare objective scientific and information basis. This book is a collection of conference reports and discussion materials that on the request of the editorial board has been presented in article format. Publishers: Metropolitan Ananya Japaridze Katia Christina Plate Bidzina Lebanidze Nato Asatiani Editorial board: Archimandrite Adam (Akhaladze), Tamaz Beradze, Rozeta Gujejiani, Roland Topchishvili, Mariam Lordkipanidze, Lela Margiani, Tariel Putkaradze, Bezhan Khorava Reviewers: Zurab Tvalchrelidze Revaz Sherozia Giorgi Cheishvili Otar Janelidze Editorial board wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Irina Bibileishvili, Merab Gvazava, Nia Gogokhia, Ekaterine Dadiani, Zviad Kvilitaia, Giorgi Cheishvili, Kakhaber Tsulaia. ISBN 2345632456 Printed by CGS ltd 2 Preface by His Holiness and Beatitude Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia ILIA II; Opening Words to the Conference 5 Preface by Katja Christina Plate, Head of the Regional Office for Political Dialogue in the South Caucasus of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung; Opening Words to the Conference 8 Abkhazia: Historical-Political and Ethnic Processes Tamaz Beradze, Konstantine Topuria, Bezhan Khorava - A
    [Show full text]
  • The Problems and Challenges of Mother Tongue Education in Abkhazia
    E ISSN 1512-3146 (online) International Journal ISSN 1987-9601 (print) of Multilingual Education www.multilingualeducation.org Tabatadze Shalva CCIIR, Georgia The problems and Challenges of Mother Tongue Education in Abkhazia Abstract This research aims to describe and analyze the existing situation of mother tongue education in de facto republic of Abkhazia. Content and statistical data analyses research methods were utilized in the study. The content and statistical data analysis showed that mother tongue education is not guaranteed in Abkhazia for Abkhazians, Georgians and Armenians due to political, educational and economic factors. Author will argue that it will be difficult to depoliticize the educational system and control economic factors for launching mother tongue multilingual educational reform in Abkhazia; however, international organization focused on education and development together with Georgian and Abkhazian groups can implement several important pilot programs of multilingual education based on internationally acknowledged best practices. Key words: mother tongue education in Abkhazia, multilingual education. Introduction Georgia is located on the east coast of the Black Sea at the crossroads of Western Asia and Eastern Europe, and borders Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Turkey. Georgia has a population of approximately 3,700,000 and is a multiethnic country, in which ethnic minorities constitute 13.2 percent of the total population (Tabatadze and Gorgadze, 2017a; Tabatadze and Gorgadze 2017b; Gabunia, 2014; Tabatadze and Gorgadze, 2018; Tabatadze 2015a; Tabatadze, 2015 b). The two largest ethnic groups, the Armenians and Azerbaijanis, reside in two regions of Georgia, and together constitute 10.8 percent of the total population (Tabatadze, 2017). There are two regions in Georgia, Tskhinvali and Abkhazia, which have not been under the control of the Georgian government since the conflict in 1990th.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Cities and Towns in Georgia (Country)
    List of cities and towns in Georgia (country) The following list of Georgian cities is divided into three separate lists for Georgia itself, and the disputed territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Although not recognized by most countries, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are de facto independent since, respectively, 1992 and 1991 and occupied by Russia since 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Contents Cities and towns in Georgia Cities and towns in Georgia Cities and towns in Abkhazia Cities and towns in South Ossetia Future cities and towns See also References Notes Cities and towns in Georgia Cities and towns in Georgia by population size Largest municipalities in Georgia by population Panorama of Tbilisi, capital and largest city in Georgia Batumi, capital of Adjara and second largest city in Georgia Downtown Kutaisi, Georgia's third largest city Square in Rustavi, Georgia's City Hall of Gori, Georgia's fifth largest city fourth largest city This is a list of the cities and towns (Georgian: ქალაქი, k'alak'i) in Georgia, according to the 2014 census data of the Department of Statistics of Georgia.[1] The list does not include the smaller urban-type settlements categorized in Georgia as daba (დაბა). The list also does not include cities and towns in the disputed territories ofAbkhazia and South Ossetia. Population Population Population Administrative Rank Name Name in Georgian 1989 2002 2014 Region 1. Tbilisi თბილისი 1,243,200 1,073,300 1,108,717 Tbilisi (capital region) 2. Batumi ბათუმი 136,900 121,800 152,839 Adjara 3. Kutaisi ქუთაისი 232,500 186,000 147,635 Imereti 4.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical-Geographic Review of Modern Abkhazia
    A Historical-Geographic Review of Modern Abkhazia by T. Beradze, K. Topuria, B Khorava Abkhazia (Abkhazeti) – the farthest North-Western part of Georgia is situated between the rivers Psou and Inguri on the coast of the Black Sea. The formation of Abkhazia within the borders is the consequence of complicated ethno-political processes. Humans first settled on the territory of modern Abkhazia during the Paleolithic Era. Abkhazia is the place where Neolithic, Bronze and Early Iron Eras are represented at their best. The first Georgian state – the Kingdom of Egrisi (Kolkheti), formed in 15. to 14. century BC, existed till the 2.century BC. It used to include the entire South-Eastern and Eastern parts of the Black Sea littoral for ages. The territory of modern Abkhazia was also a part of the Egrisi Kingdom. Old Greek historical sources inform us that before the new millennium, the territory between the rivers Psou and Inguri was only populated with tribes of Georgian origin: the Kolkhs, Kols, Svan-Kolkhs, Geniokhs. The Kingdom of Old Egrisi fell at the end of the 2.century BC and was never restored till 2.century AD. Old Greeks, Byzantines and Romans called this state - Lazika, the same Lazeti, which was associated with the name of the ruling dynasty. In 3. and 4. centuries AD, entire Western Georgia, including the territory of present Abkhazia, was part of this state. Based on the data of Byzantine authors, the South-East coastline part of the territory – between rivers Kodori and Inguri - belonged to the Odishi Duchy. The source of the Kodori River was occupied by the Georgian tribe of Misimians that was directly subordinated to the King of Egrisi (Lazeti).
    [Show full text]
  • Abkhazia: Issues of Citizenship and Security
    REPORT Abkhazia Issues of citizenship and security April 2014 Abkhazia Issues of citizenship and security Liana Kvarchelia CENTRE FOR HUMANITARIAN PROGRAMMES APRIL 2014 Acknowledgements This report was written by Liana Kvarchelia and the Centre for Humanitarian Programmes (Sukhum). Consultative support in the preparation of this study was provided by the Institute for Democracy (Gal) and the INGO Saferworld (London). The report was written on the basis of focus group discussions and in-depth interviews carried out by the Centre for Humanitarian Programmes and the Institute for Democracy in various regions of Abkhazia during the period of January–March 2014. The authors and the organisations involved in the research are grateful to the Conflict Pool Fund of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office for financing the research within the framework of support for Saferworld’s regional programme in the Caucasus. The contents of this report are fully and entirely the responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the opinion of the government of the United Kingdom. © Centre for Humanitarian Programmes, April 2014. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without full attribution. The Centre for Humanitarian Programmes welcomes and encourages the utilisation and dissemination of the material included in this publication. Contents Executive summary and recommendations i Introduction 1 1.
    [Show full text]